MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403511081 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae144.458

P26.10.B OPTIMIZING DELIVERY OF CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC AGENTS BY INTRA-ARTERIAL INFUSION IN GLIOBLASTOMA

2024· article· en· W4403511081 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Latulippe, Laurent-Olivier Roy, Fernand Gobeil, David Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNanoparticle-Based Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlioblastomaMedicinePharmacologyOncologyCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Being the most aggressive malignant primary brain tumor, glioblastoma (GBM) is a difficult disease to treat. The first line treatment consists in maximal resection followed by concomitant radiotherapy and temozolomide. However, most patients will relapse during the after treatment. The overall survival is only 14,6 months while the progression-free survival is 6,9 months. Even if the first-line treatment is well established, there is no consensus for the second line. At our institution, Dr. Fortin prioritize the intra-arterial (IA) administration of chemotherapeutic agents (CTA), which conveys a higher drug concentration to the tumor site. Carboplatin is the most used chemotherapeutic, but certain patients will not respond or will even develop chemoresistance to this treatment. Therefore, there is a strong need for bringing different CTAs into clinical care to offer more options. Topotecan, cytarabine and paclitaxel are molecules evaluated in this study since they are all already used intravenously (IV) in the treatment of GBMs. MATERIAL AND METHODS Since these agents have never been used for IA, we need to determine their maximal tolerable dose (MTD) to avoid any adverse effects. As such, healthy rats were given the CTA by retrograde infusion in the external carotid. They were euthanized five days following that surgery. After determining the right dosages, the survival study was initiated. Indeed, every CTAs were administered IA but also IV to compare both administrations. We used the Fischer-F98 glioma rat model. For the efficacy study, we implanted 10 000 F98 cells into the brain of the Fischer rats. At day 10, they received the treatment associated to their group. The animals were followed every day following the surgeries and were euthanized when their condition was too deteriorated. The IV doses used (found in the literature) were topotecan: 4 mg/kg, cytarabine: 40 mg/kg and paclitaxel: 10 mg/kg. RESULTS The doses found in the MTD study for topotecan and cytarabine were 4 mg/kg and 8,75 mg/kg respectively. However, paclitaxel was toxic when administered via IA, probably because of its lipidic vehicle. As for the efficacy study, the IA group of topotecan showed a promising outcome with a higher survival rate (29 days) compared to IV (23,5 days). As for cytarabine groups, IA was detrimental, with a 22 days median survival, compared to 26,5 days for the IV group. CONCLUSION While topotecan and cytarabine could be given intra-arterially, only topotecan showed conclusive results with a higher survival rate. More animals will be added to this group to validate this outcome. Cytarabine does not appear to be a good option since the MTD IA dose yielded a worse survival rate than the dose administered via IV. As for paclitaxel, considering it cannot be used intra-arterially, intra-tumoral infusion will be tested to see if we can get positive results.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 venueNeuro-OncologySame topicNanoparticle-Based Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207