MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sequence dependence of MEK inhibitor AZD6244 combined with gemcitabine for treatment of biliary cancer.

2013· article· en· W2589168267 on OpenAlexaff
Junyao Xu, Jennifer J. Knox, Emin Ibrahimov, Eric Xueyu Chen, Stefano Serra, Ming‐Sound Tsao, Pinjiang Cao, Douglass Vines, David E. Green, Mairéad G. McNamara, David W. Hedley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGemcitabineClonogenic assayIn vivoFlow cytometryCancer researchCell cycleMedicineCancerOncologyPharmacologyInternal medicineBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

196 Background: MEK inhibition has clinical activity against biliary tract cancers, and might therefore be successfully combined with gemcitabine; one of the most active chemotherapy agents for these cancers. As gemcitabine is active in S-phase, and the ERK pathway has a major role driving cell cycle progression, concurrent use of a MEK inhibitor could potentially antagonize the effect of gemcitabine. We therefore tested the sequence dependence of the combination of gemcitabine and the MEK inhibitor AZD6244 in vitro and in vivo. Methods: Two biliary tract cancer cell lines and 4 xenografts established from patients were used in this study. In vitro, cell cycle effects of AZD6244 and their impact on gemcitabine sensitivity were detected by Flow cytometry, EdU uptake assay, MTS assay and Clonogenic survival assay. In vivo, tumor-bearing SCID mice were treated for 48hr with AZD6244 and then monitored for 48hr off treatment. Plasma and tumor drug levels were assessed by LC-MS. The time course for recovery of ERK signaling, cell cycle distribution and cell proliferation were measured by Immunofluorescence staining, Flow cytometry, EdU uptake assay and 18F-FLT PET imaging. Based on these results, two different treatment schedules combining AZD6244 with gemcitabine were tested in four different biliary tract cancer models. Results: DNA synthesis was suppressed during treatment with AZD6244, and re-entry into S-phase was delayed by 15hr in vitro and 48hr post-treatment in vivo. Concurrent treatment showed antagonistic effect (IC50=2.02±0.91uM) compared to gemcitabine alone (IC50=0.09±0.04uM) whereas when gemcitabine treatment was delayed for 24 hr after AZD6244 removal, enhanced cytotoxic effect was observed (IC50=0.051± 0.012uM). Consistantly, strong schedule dependence was seen in all four biliary cancer models tested: combined treatment with AZD6244 plus gemcitabine exerts enhanced antitumor effect when gemcitabine is given following a 48hr interruption in AZD6244 dosing, rather than concurrently. Conclusions: The combination of AZD6244 plus gemcitabine is highly schedule dependent, and predicted to be more effective in the clinic using sequential rather than simultaneous dosing protocols.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207