PubMed · 8753620
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Yamada. 1995. [Methotrexate (MTX)].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8753620/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
A reversed-phase HPLC assay has been developed to determine the concentration of the anti-metabolite 2',2'-difluorodeoxycytidine (gemcitabine, dFdC) in human plasma over the concentration range of 0.5-150 microM (0.13-39.44 microg/ml), and 2',2'-difluorodeoxyuridine (dFdU), the deaminated, inactive metabolite, over the range of 1.0-227 microM (0.26-60 microg/ml). After the addition of 20 nmol 2'-fluorodeoxycytidine (FdC) as an internal standard, 0.5-ml samples of plasma were subjected to acetonitrile precipitation, followed by analysis using a gradient reversed-phase HPLC assay with UV detection. A Phenomenex Columbus C(18) column, 5 microm, 150 x 4.6 mm, and a Waters C(18), 4 microm, Nova-Pak Sentry guard column were used to achieve separation. FdC, dFdC and dFdU were monitored at 282, 269 and 258 nm, respectively, on a Waters 996 photodiode array detector. The mobile phase, run at a total flow-rate of 1.5 ml/min, was composed of two solvents: 50 mM ammonium acetate pH 5.0 in either 2% (solvent A) or 10% methanol (solvent B, v/v); 100% solvent A was run for 17 min, followed by a linear gradient to 100% solvent B over 14 min. FdC, dFdC and dFdU were resolved from endogenous compounds and had retention times of 13.6+/-0.5, 18.1+/-1.1 and 29.0+/-0.6 min, respectively. The assay was useful in measuring the plasma levels of both analytes in samples obtained from adult cancer patients participating in a Phase I trial of gemcitabine given as either a 1- or 2-h infusion weekly for 3 of 4 weeks.
Bisphosphonates are effective against increased bone resorption because they inhibit osteoclast activity. The use of these drugs is well established for the treatment of metastatic breast and other cancers; they reduce skeletal complications, hypercalcemia, bone pain, and metastatic progression and they can improve the overall survival and quality of life. Preclinical observations and early clinical data indicate that early bisphosphonate treatment reduces the incidence and the extent of newly developed metastases in breast cancer. There is considerable interest in determining whether bisphosphonate treatment is to prevent the incidence of bone metastases and associated complications. To date three randomized, controlled clinical trials have examined the effect of long-term use of clodronate (1600 mg/d po.) on the incidence of bone metastases, other metastases, the survival of patients, and the side effects of the study drug as well. All the trials have observed significant reduction of the occurrence of bone metastases, although this reduction was significant only during the medication period. One of the trials mentioned have shown an unexpected reduction in non-osseous metastases, and two of them have revealed significant improvements in the death rates. These promising results need further evaluation by large clinical trials with longer treatment periods to establish the clinical role of adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment of primary breast cancer.
The recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki and the existence of many new therapies that affect survival or serious morbidity, and that therefore cannot be denied patients, have generated increased interest in active-control trials, particularly those intended to show equivalence or non-inferiority to the active-control. A non-inferiority hypothesis has historically been formulated in terms of a fixed margin. This margin was historically designed to exclude a 'clinically meaningful difference', but has become recognized that the margin must also be no larger than the assured effect of the control in the new study. Depending on how this 'assured effect' is determined or estimated, the selected margin may be very small, leading to very large sample sizes, especially when there is an added requirement that a loss of some specified fraction of the assured effect must be ruled out. In cases where it is appropriate, this paper proposes non-inferiority analyses that do not involve a fixed margin, but can be described as a two confidence interval procedure that compares the 95 per cent two-sided CI for the difference between the treatment and the control to a confidence interval for the control effect (based on a meta-analysis of historical data comparing the control to placebo) that is chosen to preserve a study-wide type I error rate of about 0.025 (similar to the usual standard for a superiority trial) for testing for retention of a prespecified fraction of the control effect. The approach assumes that the estimate of the historical active-control effect size is applicable in the current study. If there is reason to believe that this effect size is diminished (for example, improved concomitant therapies) the estimate of this historical effect could be reduced appropriately. The statistical methodology for testing this non-inferiority hypothesis is developed for a hazard ratio (rather than an absolute difference between treatments, because a hazard ratio seems likely to be less population dependent than the absolute difference). In the case of oncology, the hazard ratio is the usual way of comparing treatments with respect to time to event (time to progression or survival) endpoints. The proportional hazards assumption is regarded as reasonable (approximately holding). The testing procedures proposed are conditionally equivalent to two confidence interval procedures that relax the conservatism of two 95 per cent confidence interval testing procedures and preserve the type I error rate at a one-sided 0.025 level. An application of this methodology to Xeloda, a recently approved drug for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancers, is illustrated. Other methodologies are also described and assessed - including a point estimate procedure, a Bayesian procedure and two delta-method confidence interval procedures. Published in 2003 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.