Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22432918›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2012

Development and validation of a PCR-based assay for the selection of patients more likely to benefit from therapeutic treatment with alkylating drugs.

Dimitra T Stefanou, Hara Episkopou, Soterios A Kyrtopoulos, Aristotelis Bamias, Maria Gkotzamanidou, Christina Bamia, Christina Liakou, Margarita Bekyrou, Petros P Sfikakis, Meletios-Athanasios Dimopoulos and 1 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dimitra T StefanouInstitute of Biological Research and Biotechnology, National Hellenic Research Foundation Department of Clinical Therapeutics, Athens University Medical School, Athens, Greece.
Hara Episkopou
Soterios A Kyrtopoulos
Aristotelis Bamias
Maria Gkotzamanidou
Christina Bamia
Christina Liakou
Margarita Bekyrou
Petros P Sfikakis
Meletios-Athanasios Dimopoulos
Vassilis L Souliotis
Athens State University · USNational Hellenic Research Foundation · GRNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

what is already known about this subjectPrevious studies have indicated that the levels of DNA damage induced in peripheral blood mononuclear cells by the alkylating drugs melphalan, cisplatin and carboplatin can serve as useful biomarkers predictive of the therapeutic response of cancer patients to these drugs. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: In the present study we developed a quantitative PCR-based assay, for the measurement of DNA damage. The advantages of this methodology are based on: its far greater sensitivity (about 250 times) than the traditional Southern blot-based method (the detection limit is ~10-20 lesions/10(6) nucleotides from the equivalent DNA of ~8000 cells); its simplicity and speed (results obtained within ~8h); its excellent reproducibility, with a coefficient of variance of 10-15% for different DNA preparations from similarly treated cells; its requirement for only minute amounts of material, and; the avoidance of radioisotope labeling. Moreover, emphasis was given to translate basic research findings into clinical practice through the validation of this assay for prediction of clinical outcome in multiple myeloma patients.

aimIn order to develop and validate a simple, sensitive and rapid method for the quantitation of alkylating drug-induced DNA damage.

methodsHepG2 cells and blood samples were treated with alkylating drugs (melphalan, cisplatin, carboplatin). Gene-specific damage was examined using Southern blot and a multiplex long quantitative PCR (QPCR) carried out in a 7 kb fragment (part of the p53 gene) and a 0.5 kb fragment (part of the IFN-β1 sequence; internal standard).

resultsThe extent of PCR amplification of a p53 fragment was inversely proportional to the treatment concentrations of all anticancer drugs examined, indicating a dose-related inhibition by the DNA adducts formed. Parallel analysis of the same samples using both Southern blot and QPCR showed that the DNA adducts measured by QPCR corresponded to the interstrand cross-links in the case of melphalan, and to total drug-induced lesions in the case of the platinum drugs. The detection limit was ~10-20 lesions/10(6) nucleotides using DNA from ~8000 cells. The method is about 250 times more sensitive than the Southern blot-based method and the reproducibility is excellent, with an intraday coefficient of variance (CV) of 5-9% and an interday CV of 4-12%. Application of the QPCR assay to ex vivo melphalan-treated peripheral blood mononuclear cells from multiple myeloma patients, showed that the positive predictive value of this assay for clinical response to melphalan therapy was 92.9%.

conclusionThe PCR-based assay developed in this study can be used for the selection of cancer patients more likely to benefit from therapeutic treatment with alkylating drugs.

Indexed as

Patient SelectionAdultAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingBlotting, SouthernCarboplatinCisplatinDNA AdductsDNA DamageFemaleGenes, p53Hep G2 CellsHumansInterferon-betaLeukocytes, MononuclearLimit of DetectionMaleAntineoplastic Agents, AlkylatingCarboplatinCisplatinDNA AdductsInterferon-betaMelphalan

Identifiers

PMID22432918
PMCPMC3495149
OpenAlexW1777086088

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.