MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394447216 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12383498

Data and metadata supporting the published article: Immunostimulatory and anti-tumor metronomic cyclophosphamide regimens assessed in primary orthotopic and metastatic murine breast cancer

2020· dataset· en· W4394447216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kabir A. Khan, Jose Ponce De Leon, Madeleine Benguigui, Ping Xu, Annabelle Chow, William Cruz, Shan Man, Yuval Shaked, Robert S. Kerbel

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclophosphamideMedicineOncologyMetadataMetastatic breast cancerBreast cancerBreast tumorInternal medicineCancerChemotherapyWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary goal of this study was to comparatively evaluate three different cyclophosphamide (CTX) protocols for anti-tumor efficacy in three highly translatable murine breast cancer models with particular emphasis on an every 6 day metronomic-like regimen using a dose of 140 mg/kg (CTX1401q6d).<br><b>Data access</b>: All the datasets supporting figures 1-6 in the published article, are publicly available in the figshare repository as part of this figshare data record (<b>https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12383498</b>). Datasets supporting the supplementary figures in the published article, are available on reasonable request from the corresponding authors Dr. Kabir Khan, email address: <b>kkhan@sri.utoronto.ca, </b>and Dr Robert Kerbel, email address <b>robert.kerbel@sri.utoronto.ca.</b><br><b>Study approval</b>: Animal experiments were carried out with the approval of the institutional Animal Care Committee in accordance to Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) guidelines.<br><b>Study aims and methodology</b>: The purpose of this study was to address three related questions. First, what is the comparative effectiveness of three different CTX regimens, one being a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) protocol, a second being low dose daily/continuous oral metronomic CTX, and the third being the CTX140 1q6d regimen. Second, what is the evidence for immunological mechanisms mediating anti-tumor efficacy of the CTX140 1q6d regimen? Third, would concomitant use of the immune system boosting CTX140 1q6d regimen improve outcomes of PD-L1 antibody therapy?<br>For <i>in vitro</i> experiments, the following cell lines were used: EMT6/P (EMT6-parental), EMT6-CDDP (EMT6-cisplatin resistant) and SP1-AC2M2.For the animal experiments, female BALB/c, CBA/J, and SCID CB-17 mice were purchased from Jackson Laboratories. Female SCID Beige (CB17.Cg- rkdcscidLystbg-J/Crl) mice were purchased from Charles River Laboratories.The following techniques are described in more detail in the published article: <i>in vivo</i> therapies, postsurgical metastasis studies, 4H-CTX <i>in vitro</i> studies, flow cytometry, CyTOF acquisition and analysis, immunohistochemistry, and statistical analysis.<b><br></b><b>Dataset descriptions:</b>The datasets generated during this study are <b>Figure_1.xlsx, Figure_2.xlsx, Figure_3.xlsx, Figure_4.xlsx, Figure_5.xlsx </b>and <b>Figure_6.xlsx</b> are in <b>.xlsx</b> file format, and support figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 respectively.This data record also includes the following datasets in <b>.fcs </b>file format: <b>YS20170831_Control.fcs, YS20170831_CTX1401q6d.fcs, YS20170831_LDM_CTX.fcs </b>and<b> YS20170831_MTD_CTX.fcs</b>. The .fcs file include the CyTOF data, and support figure 3C.The rar zip file <b>Khan_et_al_2020_NPJBC_supplementarydata.rar </b>supports supplementary figures 1-8 in the published article. These files will be made available on request as described in the Data access section above.<br><br><b>Figure_1.xlsx</b>: a Raw tumor volumes of mice bearing EMT6/P treated with either saline control, MTD CTX, LDM CTX continuous daily or CTX140 1q6d. b Endpoint data from Figure 1a for survival analyses. C Raw tumor volumes of SCID Beige mice bearing EMT6/P treated with either saline control, MTD CTX, LDM CTX continuous daily or CTX140 1q6d. d Endpoint data from Figure 1c. e Tumor volume comparison at 32 days post implantation in BALB/c wild type, SCID and SCID Beige mice all treated with CTX140 1q6d. Percentage change of mouse weights from 1a also included.<b>Figure_2.xlsx</b>: a Raw tumor volume data of CBA/J mice bearing SP1-AC2M2 tumors treated with either saline control, MTD CTX, LDM CTX continuous or CTX140 1q6d. b Survival data from Figure 2a when mice reached tumor endpoint as a surrogate for survival. c Raw tumor volume data of mice displaying complete responses that were re-challenged with SP1-AC2M2 in the opposite mammary fat pad to the original implantation. d Raw tumor volumes of SP1-AC2M2 primary tumors were treated with CTX140 1q6d (blue arrows), a break was initiated after 5 doses. Percentage change of mouse weights from 2a also included.<b>Figure_3.xlsx</b>: a Raw tumor volumes of mice bearing EMT6-CDDP treated with either saline control, MTD CTX, LDM CTX continuous daily or CTX140 1q6d. b Endpoint survival data from Figure 3a. Percentage change of mouse weights from 3a also included.<b>Figure_4.xlsx</b>: b Endpoint survival data from EMT6-CDDP adjuvant treatment experiment. c Percentage values of lung metastasis visualised by immunohistochemical staining using Ki67 as a marker for proliferation. Percentage change of mouse weights from 4b also included.<b>Figure_5.xlsx</b>: b Adjusted mean values of fluorescence of EMT6-CDDP, c EMT6/P, or d SP1-AC2M2 cells treated with 20 µM 4-HCTX or 1 µM of PTX, values represent mean fluorescence intensity of PD-L1 analysed by flow cytometry with subtraction of mean fluorescence intensity of isotype IgG.<b>Figure_6.xlsx</b>: a Raw tumor volumes of EMT6-CDDP treated concomitantly with either IgG isotype control or PD-L1 (6E11) blockade in combination with each regimen of CTX or saline control. b Endpoint survival data from Figure 6a. c Raw tumor volumes from induction therapy with CTX140 1q6d then followed up with either IgG isotype or anti PD-L1 in EMT6-CDDP model. Percentage change of mouse weights from 6a also included.<br><b>Software needed to access data</b>: The flow cytometry files in .fcs file format can be accessed and analysed using a software such as FloJo. The files are fully annotated for which channels refer to which cell markers were used.<br>

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.271 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207