Impact of CTLA-4 blockade in conjunction with metronomic chemotherapy on preclinical breast cancer growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are reports that metronomic cyclophosphamide (CTX) can be immune stimulating, the impact of its combination with anti-CTLA-4 immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer remains to be evaluated. Murine EMT-6/P breast cancer, or its cisplatin or CTX-resistant variants, or CT-26 colon, were implanted into Balb/c mice. Established tumours were monitored for relative growth following treatment with anti-CTLA-4 antibody alone or in combination with; (a) metronomic CTX (ldCTX; 20 mg kg −1 day −1 ), b) bolus (150 mg kg −1 ) plus ldCTX, or (c) sequential treatment with gemcitabine (160 mg kg −1 every 3 days). EMT-6/P tumours responded to anti-CTLA-4 therapy, but this response was less effective when combined with bolus plus ldCTX. Anti-CTLA-4 could be effectively combined with either ldCTX (without a bolus), or with regimens of either sequential or concomitant gemcitabine, including in orthotopic EMT-6 tumours, and independently of the schedule of drug administration. Tumour responses were confirmed with CT-26 tumours but were less pronounced in drug-resistant EMT-6/CTX or EMT-6/DDP tumour models than in the parent tumour. A number of tumour bearing mice developed spontaneous metastases under continuous therapy. The majority of cured mice rejected tumour re-challenges. Metronomic CTX can be combined with anti-CTLA-4 therapy, but this therapy is impaired by concomitant bolus CTX. Sequential therapy of anti-CTLA-4 followed by gemcitabine is effective in chemotherapy-naive tumours, although tumour relapses can occur, in some cases accompanied by the development of spontaneous metastases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".