MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978500253 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noz126.185

P11.39 Chloroquine as an anti-glioblastoma therapeutic: repurposing of an old drug

2019· article· en· W2978500253 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent-Olivier Roy, M. Poirier, David Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDrugPharmacologyCerebrospinal fluidBlood–brain barrierBrain tumorInternal medicinePathologyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and aggressive type of primary brain tumour in adults. These tumours depict anarchic proliferation and brain infiltration as well as radio- and chemoresistant profiles. The complete surgical resection is unachievable and responses to standard therapy are transitory. Recurrence is thus inevitable and patient prognosis is generally less than 15 months. Transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) holds a substantial role in supporting the GBM phenotype. We showed that TGF-β 1 expression levels correlate with overall and progression-free survival in newly diagnosed GBM patient. We also observed that chloroquine (CQ) can reduce the production of TGF-β together with proliferation, invasion, radioresistance and radio-induced invasion in vitro. Unfortunately, little is known regarding the ability of CQ to penetrate the blood-brain barrier (BBB). Therefore, our objective is to determine whether intravenous (IV) or intra-arterial (IA) infusions of CQ and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a pharmacological analog of CQ, can yield therapeutic brain concentrations. MATERIAL AND METHODS To assess BBB penetration, the brain, plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of CQ/HCQ were measured by LCMS/MS at different timepoints post-IV or post-IA infusions with 20 mg/kg of CQ/HCQ in tumour-free Wistar rat. For the survival studies, We implanted 10’000 F98 murin glioblastoma cells in the right putamen of Fischer rats. Ten days post-implantation, IA and IV infusion were accomplished through cannulations of the external right carotid and tail vein respectively. RESULTS With IV injections, CQ/HCQ brain concentrations 15 minutes post-injection reached 15.76 mg/g (0.18 µM) and 1.67 mg/g (0.078 µM) respectively. However, following IA infusions, we observed a 1.74 and 20.9 fold increase (20 mg/kg HCQ) as well as 7.1 and 84.7-fold-increase (20 mg/kg CQ) in contra- and ipsilateral brain concentrations respectively. Although brain concentrations gradually decreased over time post-IA infusions, the ipsilateral hemisphere CQ concentration was still 82.81 mg/g (34.52 µM) after 6 hours. Whereas plasma concentrations were very similar following IV and IA infusions, both molecules barely accumulated in the CSF and only when using IA infusions. The median survival of the control group (IA phosphate-buffered saline) and the group treated with 20 mg/kg CQ IV were 23.5 days and 24.5 days respectively. However, rats injected with 20 mg/kg CQ IA had a median survival of 28.5 days. CONCLUSION These results suggest that IA CQ could be used to abrogate the GBM phenotype. As TGF-β is associated with resistance to both radio- and chemotherapy, we plan to characterize the combination of IA infusions of CQ in combination with radiation or chemotherapy (carboplatin).

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207