MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886413162 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-10

Abstract 10: Evaluation of metronomic chemotherapy regimens in preclinical orthotopically implanted colon cancer models, and in patient-derived xenografts

2018· article· en· W2886413162 on OpenAlexaff
José J. López, Paloma Valenzuela, Valerie Gallegos, Karla Parra, Valeria Rolih, Diana Gonzalez Garcia, Joel L. Martinez, Urban Emmenegger, Guido Bocci, Robert S. Kerbel, Giulio Francia

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGemcitabineBevacizumabColorectal cancerInternal medicineCapecitabineRegimenOncologyCancerEtoposideChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent advances for the treatment of late stage colon cancer include a metronomic capecitabine plus bevacizumab maintenance regimen as reported for the CAIRO3 phase 3 clinical trial (Simkens et al, Lancet: 2015; 385: 1843-52) . We previously reported a phase 2 trial evaluating metronomic cyclophosphamide (CTX) plus UFT (a 5-fluorouracil prodrug) and celecoxib in gastrointestinal cancer patients (Allegrini et al, Angiogenesis: 2012; 15, 275-286). We also reported the preclinical evaluation of metronomic oral topotecan in mouse models of colon cancer (Hackl et al, Gut: 2013; 62, 259-71). Here we report our studies using orthotopic (intracecal) implantation of human HT29/luc/hCG colon cancer cells in SCID mice. Disease progression was noninvasively assessed using the transfected human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), whose levels in the mouse urine correlate with tumor burden - and this was coupled with luciferase (luc) bioimaging of the mice. These implanted tumor models were used together with patient derived xenografts (PDX), to evaluate metronomic regimens of etoposide (80mg/kg/day, p.o.), gemcitabine (given i.p.; at either 120mg/kg every 3 days, or at the much lower 1mg/kg/day), or CTX given as a monotherapy (20mg/kg/day given via the drinking water) or combined with neutralizing antibodies against VEGF or EGFR. Our results indicate; 1) effective anti-tumor activity of daily etoposide, and of 2) daily gemcitabine (as well as when the gemcitabine was given every 3 days), and that 3) orthotopic HT29/luc/hCG colon tumors are weakly responsive to CTX or CTX plus targeted agents compared to the same tumors implanted subcutaneously or intraperitoneally. The effectiveness of metronomic etoposide was confirmed in a colon PDX model in NSG mice (n=5 mice/group; p<.05) - obtained from Jackson labs. Notably ovarian cancer and breast cancer PDX models did not respond to etoposide therapy (n=5/group), indicating the response may be tumor specific. Collectively, these results highlight the importance of advanced disease models to confirm sometime overly optimistic experimental therapeutic results from subcutaneously or intraperitoneally implanted tumor models. They also demonstrate the promising anti-tumor activity of metronomic etoposide and gemcitabine regimens for colon cancer, and they lead us to advocate the concerted use of both implanted xenografts and PDX for the testing of new therapeutic strategies for the treatment of colon cancer. Citation Format: Jose Lopez, Paloma Valenzuela, Valerie Gallegos, Karla Parra, Valeria Rolih, Diana Gonzalez Garcia, Joel Martinez, Urban Emmenegger, Guido Bocci, Robert S. Kerbel, Giulio Francia. Evaluation of metronomic chemotherapy regimens in preclinical orthotopically implanted colon cancer models, and in patient-derived xenografts [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 10.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207