Objective:To study the determination method of scutellarin in BREVISCAPINE INJECTION using HPLC.Methods:The waters ODS C 18 column (5?m,3.9?150mm) was used. The methanol water glacial acetic acid (40∶60∶1) was used as a mobile phase. The detection wavelength of scutellarin was set at 335nm and internal standard baicalin at 280nm. The resolution of scutellarin's and baicalin peaks was at least 5. Number of theoretical plates of column is no less than 1000 to scutellarin. Results:The recovery of additive sample is 99.8%. RSD is no more 2.0%.Conclusion: It is generally in agreement with external standard method.

OBJECTIVETo isolate the bibenzyl derivatives from the tuber of Arundina graminifolia and evaluate the anti-tumor activity of these compounds in vitro.

METHODThe constituents have been extracted by 95% alcohol and then isolated by column chromatography on silica gel and Sephedax LH-20. The structures were determined by UV, IR, NMR and MS spectral analysis.

RESULTSix constituents have been isolated, and their structures have been established as 2,7-dihydroxy-1-(p-hydroxylbenzyl)-4-methoxy-9, 10-dihydrophenanthrene (1), 4,7-dihydroxy-1- (p-hydroxylbenzyl)-2-methoxy-9,10-dihydrophenanthrene (2), 3, 3'-dihydroxy-5-methoxybibenzyl (3), (2E) -2- propenoic acid-3-(4-hydroxy-3-methoxyphenyl) -tetracosyl ester (4), (2E) -2-propenoic acid-3- (4-hydroxy-3- methoxyphenyl) -pentacosyl ester (5) and pentadecyl acid (6), respectively.

CONCLUSIONAll compounds except for 3 were isolated from the tuber of A. graminifolia for the first time. Compound 3 with bibenzyl ring opening exhibits stronger anti-tumor activity than that of compounds 1 and 2 with bibenzyl ring closing.

Antineoplastic Agents ; chemistry ; isolation & purification ; pharmacology ; Bibenzyls ; chemistry ; immunology ; isolation & purification ; Cell Line, Tumor ; Drugs, Chinese Herbal ; chemistry ; isolation & purification ; pharmacology ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy ; Orchidaceae ; chemistry

Purpose: Molecular residual disease (MRD) is a promising biomarker in colorectal cancer (CRC) for prognosis and guiding treatment, while the whole-exome sequencing (WES) based tumor-informed assay is standard for evaluating MRD based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). In this study, we assessed the feasibility of a fixed-panel for evaluating MRD in CRC. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five patients with resectable stage I-III CRC were enrolled. Tumor tissues obtained by surgery, and preoperative and postoperative day 7 blood samples were collected. The ctDNA was evaluated using the tumor-agnostic and tumor-informed fixed assays, as well as the WES-based and panel-based personalized assays in randomly selected patients. Results: The tumor-informed fixed assay had a higher preoperative positive rate than the tumor-agnostic assay (73.3% vs. 57.3%). The preoperative ctDNA status failed to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in either of the fixed assays, while the tumor-informed fixed assay-determined postoperative ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 20.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.19 to 59.83; p < 0.001), which was an independent predictor by multivariable analysis (HR, 28.57; 95% CI, 7.10 to 114.9; p < 0.001). Sub-cohort analysis indicated the WES-based personalized assay had the highest preoperative positive rate (95.1%). The two personalized assays and the tumor-informed fixed assay demonstrated same results in postoperative landmark (HR, 26.34; 95% CI, 6.01 to 115.57; p < 0.001), outperforming the tumor-agnostic fixed panel (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 9.89; p=0.052). Conclusion Our study confirmed the prognostic value of the ctDNA positivity at postoperative day 7 by the tumor-informed fixed panel. The tumor-informed fixed panel may be a cost-effective method to evaluate MRD, which warrants further studies in future.

Purpose: Molecular residual disease (MRD) is a promising biomarker in colorectal cancer (CRC) for prognosis and guiding treatment, while the whole-exome sequencing (WES) based tumor-informed assay is standard for evaluating MRD based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). In this study, we assessed the feasibility of a fixed-panel for evaluating MRD in CRC. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five patients with resectable stage I-III CRC were enrolled. Tumor tissues obtained by surgery, and preoperative and postoperative day 7 blood samples were collected. The ctDNA was evaluated using the tumor-agnostic and tumor-informed fixed assays, as well as the WES-based and panel-based personalized assays in randomly selected patients. Results: The tumor-informed fixed assay had a higher preoperative positive rate than the tumor-agnostic assay (73.3% vs. 57.3%). The preoperative ctDNA status failed to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in either of the fixed assays, while the tumor-informed fixed assay-determined postoperative ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 20.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.19 to 59.83; p < 0.001), which was an independent predictor by multivariable analysis (HR, 28.57; 95% CI, 7.10 to 114.9; p < 0.001). Sub-cohort analysis indicated the WES-based personalized assay had the highest preoperative positive rate (95.1%). The two personalized assays and the tumor-informed fixed assay demonstrated same results in postoperative landmark (HR, 26.34; 95% CI, 6.01 to 115.57; p < 0.001), outperforming the tumor-agnostic fixed panel (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 9.89; p=0.052). Conclusion Our study confirmed the prognostic value of the ctDNA positivity at postoperative day 7 by the tumor-informed fixed panel. The tumor-informed fixed panel may be a cost-effective method to evaluate MRD, which warrants further studies in future.

Purpose: Molecular residual disease (MRD) is a promising biomarker in colorectal cancer (CRC) for prognosis and guiding treatment, while the whole-exome sequencing (WES) based tumor-informed assay is standard for evaluating MRD based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). In this study, we assessed the feasibility of a fixed-panel for evaluating MRD in CRC. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five patients with resectable stage I-III CRC were enrolled. Tumor tissues obtained by surgery, and preoperative and postoperative day 7 blood samples were collected. The ctDNA was evaluated using the tumor-agnostic and tumor-informed fixed assays, as well as the WES-based and panel-based personalized assays in randomly selected patients. Results: The tumor-informed fixed assay had a higher preoperative positive rate than the tumor-agnostic assay (73.3% vs. 57.3%). The preoperative ctDNA status failed to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in either of the fixed assays, while the tumor-informed fixed assay-determined postoperative ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 20.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.19 to 59.83; p < 0.001), which was an independent predictor by multivariable analysis (HR, 28.57; 95% CI, 7.10 to 114.9; p < 0.001). Sub-cohort analysis indicated the WES-based personalized assay had the highest preoperative positive rate (95.1%). The two personalized assays and the tumor-informed fixed assay demonstrated same results in postoperative landmark (HR, 26.34; 95% CI, 6.01 to 115.57; p < 0.001), outperforming the tumor-agnostic fixed panel (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 9.89; p=0.052). Conclusion Our study confirmed the prognostic value of the ctDNA positivity at postoperative day 7 by the tumor-informed fixed panel. The tumor-informed fixed panel may be a cost-effective method to evaluate MRD, which warrants further studies in future.

Purpose: Molecular residual disease (MRD) is a promising biomarker in colorectal cancer (CRC) for prognosis and guiding treatment, while the whole-exome sequencing (WES) based tumor-informed assay is standard for evaluating MRD based on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). In this study, we assessed the feasibility of a fixed-panel for evaluating MRD in CRC. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five patients with resectable stage I-III CRC were enrolled. Tumor tissues obtained by surgery, and preoperative and postoperative day 7 blood samples were collected. The ctDNA was evaluated using the tumor-agnostic and tumor-informed fixed assays, as well as the WES-based and panel-based personalized assays in randomly selected patients. Results: The tumor-informed fixed assay had a higher preoperative positive rate than the tumor-agnostic assay (73.3% vs. 57.3%). The preoperative ctDNA status failed to predict disease-free survival (DFS) in either of the fixed assays, while the tumor-informed fixed assay-determined postoperative ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 20.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.19 to 59.83; p < 0.001), which was an independent predictor by multivariable analysis (HR, 28.57; 95% CI, 7.10 to 114.9; p < 0.001). Sub-cohort analysis indicated the WES-based personalized assay had the highest preoperative positive rate (95.1%). The two personalized assays and the tumor-informed fixed assay demonstrated same results in postoperative landmark (HR, 26.34; 95% CI, 6.01 to 115.57; p < 0.001), outperforming the tumor-agnostic fixed panel (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 0.94 to 9.89; p=0.052). Conclusion Our study confirmed the prognostic value of the ctDNA positivity at postoperative day 7 by the tumor-informed fixed panel. The tumor-informed fixed panel may be a cost-effective method to evaluate MRD, which warrants further studies in future.