These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison of radiosensitization by etanidazole and pimonidazole in mouse tumors.
    Author: Stone HB, Hirst VK, Cribbs R, Luu YH, Brown JM.
    Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 1991 May; 20(5):987-95. PubMed ID: 1827089.
    Abstract:
    Radiosensitization by pimonidazole (Ro 03-8799) was tested in three murine tumors, EMT6/SF using the excision assay, SCC-VII/SF using the excision and growth delay assays, and MDAH-MCa-4 using TCD50 assays with both single doses and 6 fractions of radiation with a 24-hr interfraction interval. Results were compared with those using etanidazole (SR-2508), both at equitoxic doses and at doses giving tumor concentrations similar to those achievable in the clinic. In excision assays with EMT6/SF and SCC-VII/SF tumors, pimonidazole and etanidazole gave similar radiosensitization at similar concentrations in the tumors. Pimonidazole, however, did not demonstrate radiosensitization in SCC-VII/SF tumors in the growth delay assay, despite tumor concentrations that gave maximum sensitization in the excision assay. Furthermore, pimonidazole gave less than expected sensitization in single dose and 6-fraction TCD50 assays with MDAH-MCa-4 tumors, and less sensitization than comparable levels of etanidazole in this tumor line. When the concentration of pimonidazole in the tumors was approximately 0.36 mumoles/g the dose modification factor (DMF = dose without sensitizer/dose with sensitizer to give an isoeffect) was 1.56 (1.40-1.74, 95% c.l.) in single dose TCD50 assays. Etanidazole, however, gave a DMF of 1.92 (1.59-2.32) with a tumor concentration of approximately 0.32 mumoles/g and 1.69 (1.46-1.96) with a tumor concentration of approximately 0.21 mumoles/g. Thus, etanidazole gave more consistent sensitization for different tumors and different endpoints than did pimonidazole. The results appear to confirm the disappointing performance of pimonidazole in the clinic.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]