MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract A066: The cytotoxic effects of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil against low-grade serous ovarian cancer cells

2024· article· en· W4392377811 on OpenAlexaff
Rewati Prakash, Alicia A. Goyeneche, Benjamin N. Forgie, Carlos Telleria

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOxaliplatinFluorouracilSerous fluidOvarian cancerCytotoxic T cellMedicineOncologyInternal medicineCancer researchColorectal cancerCancerBiologyIn vitroGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Low-grade serous ovarian cancer (LGSOC) is considered a rare histopathological subtype of epithelial ovarian cancer, representing 10% of all cases. Although rare, LGSOC is known to have a poor response to standard chemotherapeutic drugs like the platinum (Pt) agents’ cisplatin (CDDP) and carboplatin (CP). Oxaliplatin (OXP) is a 3rd generation Pt-drug approved for gastrointestinal cancers such as colorectal cancer; however, off-label use of OXP for treating other subtypes of ovarian cancer have shown positive results. Therefore, alongside OXP’s better side effect profile and demonstrable lack of co-resistance risk with CDDP and CP, there is a strong potential to use OXP for treating LGSOC. As a screening method, cell lines for LGSOC (VOA7681 & VOA6406) as well as high-grade serous (HGSOC) (PEO1 & PEO4), clear cell (CCC) (TOV21G & XVOA295), and endometrioid (EC) (TOV112D & VOA4395) ovarian cancer were exposed to multiple doses of CDDP and OXP for a 3-hour period, before incubating in fresh media for 72-hours. These cells were then subjected to a clonogenic survival assay to assess the long-term toxicity of the drugs. The data was then compared to the drugs’ respective clinically derived maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) to produce a “normalized clonogenic survival %”. Whereas CDDP had a stronger effect on HGSOC, CCC, and EC cell lines, the LGSOC cell lines responded more favorably to OXP. Thus, based on these long-term clonogenic results, LGSOC cell lines were chosen as the focus of further research with OXP. To assess the impact of OXP following the 72-h treatment, the total cell proliferation as well as the progression of the cell cycle of LGSOC cells was assessed. LGSOC cells showed a substantial reduction in cell growth in the presence of OXP. Furthermore, OXP significantly reduced the proportion of cells present within the G1 phase of the cell cycle, with lower doses causing an increase in cells transiting the S and G2/M phases; interestingly, higher doses of OXP increased the cloud of cells carrying hypodiploid DNA content, consistent with cell death. In gastrointestinal cancers, OXP is often given alongside 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Therefore, we repeated the experiments with OXP but included 100 µM 5-FU. The result was a further decrease in total cell proliferation with the addition of 5-FU to OXP-treated cells. Interestingly, the addition of 5-FU created two populations when assessing cell cycle progression. Low-dose OXP with 5-FU pushed cells towards the S and G2/M phases of the cell cycle, which then subsequently died, while higher doses of OXP and 5-FU killed cells transiting the G1 phase of the cell cycle. In summary, OXP shows better potential in reducing the growth of LGSOC cells when compared to the other ovarian cancer subtypes. Furthermore, 5-FU potentiates the cytotoxic effect of OXP in LGSOC cells. Citation Format: Rewati Prakash, Alicia A. Goyeneche, Benjamin N. Forgie, Carlos M. Telleria. The cytotoxic effects of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil against low-grade serous ovarian cancer cells [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Ovarian Cancer; 2023 Oct 5-7; Boston, Massachusetts. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(5 Suppl_2):Abstract nr A066.

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 score0.007

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.367 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology→French-language works237,207→