MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333780672 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-lb-374

Abstract LB-374: The Hh inhibitor IPI-926 enhances tumor perfusion and nab-paclitaxel activity in a pancreatic xenograft model

2010· article· en· W2333780672 on OpenAlexaff
Veronica Travaglione, Igor V. Deyneko, Jennifer Proctor, Karen McGovern, Anna Trujillo, Martijn P. Lolkema, David A. Tuveson, John R. MacDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHedgehog Signaling Pathway Studies
Canadian institutionsFujiFilm VisualSonics (Canada)Illumisonics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaclitaxelGemcitabinePancreatic cancerCancer researchMedicineCancerStromaHedgehogPancreasInternal medicineChemistryImmunohistochemistrySignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Malignant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) pathway is associated with multiple tumor types. In certain cancers, such as pancreatic, a paracrine role for the Hh ligand has been described, wherein cancer cells produce Hh ligand that activates the Hh pathway in the surrounding stroma. Consistent with this model, IPI-926, a potent and selective Smoothened (Smo) inhibitor, blocks Hh signaling in the mouse stroma -but not in the cancer cells- of several pancreatic xenograft models. We recently published (Olive, Science 2009) that IPI-926 increases vascular perfusion and enhances gemcitabine drug delivery to tumors in a genetically engineered mouse model of pancreatic cancer (KPC) leading to an increase in overall survival. To determine if similar effects could be observed in xenograft models of human pancreatic cancer, experiments were designed to study the combination of IPI-926 with nab-paclitaxel, an agent that has recently demonstrated anti-tumor activity in pancreatic cancer (Van Hoff, ASCO 2009). While IPI-926 had no single agent activity in the L3.6pl human pancreatic xenograft model, it enhanced the activity of nab-paclitaxel from 61% tumor growth inhibition (nab-paclitaxel alone) to 83% tumor growth inhibition (nab-paclitaxel plus IPI-926, p=0.0048). Tumor IHC analysis of phosphohistone 3 showed a higher frequency of cells arrested at the late G2/M phase in the IPI-926 plus nab-paclitaxel group versus nab-paclitaxel alone (p=0.02). One possible explanation for the synergistic effect of a combination of IPI-926 and nab-paclitaxel is that IPI-926 affects the mouse stroma and increases tumor perfusion and nab-paclitaxel accessibility to the tumor. Tumor perfusion was directly measured in IPI-926 treated and untreated animals using contrast enhanced ultrasound. In tumor bearing animals treated with IPI-926 for 7 days, the ultrasound data showed greater tumor perfusion with IPI-926. On average, the peak time for contrast agent levels decreased from 11.0 seconds to 4.75 seconds in the vehicle versus IPI-926 treated animals, respectively, (p=0.0321). These data suggest that the mechanism of synergy between IPI-926 and nab-paclitaxel is likely enhanced drug delivery to the tumor through the effect of IPI-926 on the stroma. Studies are ongoing to measure nab-paclitaxel and paclitaxel levels in IPI-926 treated and untreated tumors, and to investigate these findings with the KPC in situ mouse model of pancreatic cancer. These preclinical data provide a strong rationale for evaluating the Hh inhibitor IPI-926 not only with the current standard of care, gemcitabine, but with emerging new potential therapies like nab-paclitaxel in pancreatic cancer. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-374.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicHedgehog Signaling Pathway StudiesFrench-language works237,207