MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333559932 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2011-2506

Abstract 2506: Preclinical evaluation of sorafenib in combination with ionizing radiation in metastatic breast cancer model

2011· article· en· W2333559932 on OpenAlexaff
Mitra Heravi, Thierry Muanza, Nada Tomic, Liheng Liang, Joseph Holmes, F DeBlois, Danuta Radzioch

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGlutathione Transferases and Polymorphisms
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorafenibClonogenic assayMedicineCancer researchBreast cancerCancerVascular endothelial growth factorPlatelet-derived growth factor receptorRadiation therapyInternal medicineOncologyGrowth factorHepatocellular carcinomaCellReceptorBiologyVEGF receptors

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sorafenib tosylate (Bay 54-9085) is an oral, small molecule multikinase inhibitor of several targets including RAF/MEK/ERK signaling, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2), VEGFR-3, and platelet derived growth factor receptor-beta (PDGFR-b). Sorafenib has shown clinical efficacy in solid tumors such as renal cell and hepatocellular carcinomas. Retrospective analysis of breast cancer patients has shown an unfavorable prognosis in patients with high expression level of VEGF, indicating that VEGF could be associated with efficacy of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. It has also been shown that radiation resistance is partially due to tumor cell production of angiogenic cytokines, particularly VEGF that protects endothelial cells through survival pathways. The aim of this study is to investigate if radiation response is enhanced through inhibition of p-VEGFR2/PDGFR-b by Sorafenib and if the combination of Sorafenib and radiation will increase the treatment response in a metastatic breast cancer model. Mouse metastatic mammary cancer cells, 4T1 were used in this study. Clonogenic assay was performed to assess the radiomodulating effect of Sorafenib. In addition, cell cycle analysis and annexin-V binding assay were performed 24 and 48 hrs post treatment respectively. To confirm our in vitro data, a tumor growth delay assay was completed in a syngeneic mouse model. Western blot analysis showed strong dose dependent inhibition of ERK1/2 phosphorylation by sorafenib. Our clonogenic assay showed a supra-additive effect of Sorafenib (7.5 μM) and radiation (4 Gy) with a dose enhancement factor (DEF) of 1.81. Sorafenib in combination with radiation demonstrated a significant G2/M cell cycle arrest (p<0.0001). Moreover, annexin-V staining assay showed a significant increase in the level of apoptosis in cells treated with both sorafenib and radiation (p<0.0004). Our in vivo results strongly suggest that radiation prolongs the anti tumor activity of sorafenib. In addition, tumor growth was delayed when radiation was combined with sorafenib concurrently (tumor growth delay was increased from 10.5 days in irradiated group to 18 days in combined treatment group). Our results demonstrate that sorafenib increases both the level of apoptosis and the sensitivity of 4T1 cancer cells to radiation. The higher potency of sorafenib combined with radiation can be partially due to the strong cell cycle arrest at G2/M phase. Moreover, our in vivo results show that sorafenib in combination with radiation exhibit a superior tumor growth control. Overall, our findings suggest that greater treatment response may be achieved when sorafenib is combined with radiation. More studies are being conducted to investigate the optimal schedule for this combination. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 2506. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-2506

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGlutathione Transferases and PolymorphismsFrench-language works237,207