Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25326230›Full record

ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2014

Systemic delivery of microencapsulated 3-bromopyruvate for the therapy of pancreatic cancer.

Julius Chapiro, Surojit Sur, Lynn Jeanette Savic, Shanmugasundaram Ganapathy-Kanniappan, Juvenal Reyes, Rafael Duran, Sivarajan Chettiar Thiruganasambandam, Cassandra Rae Moats, MingDe Lin, Weibo Luo and 6 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Targeting the Warburg Effect in Cancer: Where Do We Stand?International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Metabolomics in oncology.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Natural products targeting cancer cell dependency.The Journal of antibiotics · 2021
    Review
  12. Cancer cell metabolic plasticity in migration and metastasis.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2021
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Glucose Metabolism in Cancer: The Warburg Effect and Beyond.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Molecular Imaging of Extracellular Tumor pH to Reveal Effects of Locoregional Therapy on Liver Cancer Microenvironment.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2020
    Article
  20. The enhancement of glycolysis regulates pancreatic cancer metastasis.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2020
    Review
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

16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Julius ChapiroRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Surojit SurLudwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Lynn Jeanette SavicRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Shanmugasundaram Ganapathy-KanniappanRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Juvenal ReyesDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Rafael DuranRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sivarajan Chettiar ThiruganasambandamDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Cassandra Rae MoatsDepartment of Molecular and Comparative Pathobiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
MingDe LinRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Weibo LuoVascular Program, Institute for Cell Engineering and Department of Biological Chemistry, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Phuoc T TranDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Joseph M HermanDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Molecular Radiation Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Gregg L SemenzaVascular Program, Institute for Cell Engineering and Department of Biological Chemistry, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Andrew J EwaldDepartment of Cell Biology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bert VogelsteinLudwig Center and Howard Hughes Medical Institute at the Johns Hopkins Kimmel Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Jean-François GeschwindRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. jfg@jhmi.edu.
Johns Hopkins University · USHoward Hughes Medical Institute · US

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (UL1)UL1RR025005 · NCRR · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FORD, DANIEL ERNEST · 2007 to 2011
$75.8M
See, Reach, Treat Tumor-Optimized Transarterial Chemoembolization DrugDeliveryR01CA160771 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI GESCHWIND, JEAN-FRANCOIS H, LIN, MINGDE · 2011 to 2015
$2.6M
Structure-Functions Studies of Twist1-induced Radioresistance in Lung CancerR01CA166348 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI TRAN, PHUOC T. · 2013 to 2017
$1.7M
The role of JMJD2C in HIF-1 activation and breast cancer progressionR00CA168746 · NCI · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI LUO, WEIBO · 2015 to 2017
$747k
The role of JMJD2C in HIF-1 activation and breast cancer progressionK99CA168746 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI LUO, WEIBO · 2013 to 2014
$241k
NCI NIH HHS K99 CA168746NCI NIH HHS K99-CA168746NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NCI NIH HHS R00 CA168746NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160771NCI NIH HHS R01 CA166348NCI NIH HHS R01CA166348NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR 025005NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study characterized the therapeutic efficacy of a systemically administered formulation of 3-bromopyruvate (3-BrPA), microencapsulated in a complex with β-cyclodextrin (β-CD), using an orthotopic xenograft mouse model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). EXPERIMENTAL

designThe presence of the β-CD-3-BrPA complex was confirmed using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Monolayer as well as three-dimensional organotypic cell culture was used to determine the half-maximal inhibitory concentrations (IC50) of β-CD-3-BrPA, free 3-BrPA, β-CD (control), and gemcitabine in MiaPaCa-2 and Suit-2 cell lines, both in normoxia and hypoxia. Phase-contrast microscopy, bioluminescence imaging (BLI), as well as zymography and Matrigel assays were used to characterize the effects of the drug in vitro. An orthotopic lucMiaPaCa-2 xenograft tumor model was used to investigate the in vivo efficacy.

resultsβ-CD-3-BrPA and free 3-BrPA demonstrated an almost identical IC50 profile in both PDAC cell lines with higher sensitivity in hypoxia. Using the Matrigel invasion assay as well as zymography, 3-BrPA showed anti-invasive effects in sublethal drug concentrations. In vivo, animals treated with β-CD-3-BrPA demonstrated minimal or no tumor progression as evident by the BLI signal as opposed to animals treated with gemcitabine or the β-CD (60-fold and 140-fold signal increase, respectively). In contrast to animals treated with free 3-BrPA, no lethal toxicity was observed for β-CD-3-BrPA.

conclusionThe microencapsulation of 3-BrPA represents a promising step towards achieving the goal of systemically deliverable antiglycolytic tumor therapy. The strong anticancer effects of β-CD-3-BrPA combined with its favorable toxicity profile suggest that clinical trials, particularly in patients with PDAC, should be considered.

Indexed as

Drug CompoundingAnimalsAntineoplastic Agentsbeta-CyclodextrinsCell Line, TumorCell MovementCell SurvivalDisease Models, AnimalDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansMaleMicePancreatic NeoplasmsPyruvatesSpheroids, CellularTumor BurdenAntineoplastic Agentsbeta-CyclodextrinsbetadexbromopyruvatePyruvates

Identifiers

PMID25326230
PMCPMC4300523
OpenAlexW2129813368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.