4.5 Article

Validation of an LC-MS/MS method for the determination of epirubicin in human serum of patients undergoing Drug Eluting Microsphere-Transarterial Chemoembolization (DEM-TACE)

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2009.08.054

关键词

Epirubicin; LC-MS/MS; Validation; Drug eluting microspheres; DC-Beads; Hepaspheres

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drug Eluting Microsphere-Transarterial Chemoembolization (DEM-TACE) is a new delivery system to administrate drugs in a controlled manner useful for application in the chemoembolization of colorectal cancer metastases to the liver. DEM-TACE is focused to obtain higher concentrations of the drug to the tumor with lower systemic concentrations than traditional cancer chemotherapy. Therefore a specific, precise and sensitive LC-ESI-MS/MS assay procedure was properly designed to detect and quantify epirubicin at the concentrations expected from a transarterial chemoembolization with microspheres. Serum samples were kept acidic (pH approximately of 3.5) and sample preparation consisted of a solid phase extraction (SPE) Procedure with HLB OASIS (R) cartridges using a methylene chloride/2-propanol/methanol mixture solution to recover epirubicin. The analyses consisted of reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (rp-HPLC) coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). Accuracy, precision and matrix effect of this procedure were carried Out by analyzing four quality control samples (QCs) oil five separate clays. The validation parameters were assessed by recovery Studies of spiked serum samples. Recoveries were found to vary between 92 and 98% at the QC levels (5, 40, 80 and 150 mu g/L) with relative standard deviation (RSD) always less than 3.7%. The limit of detection (LOD) was set at 1 mu g/L. The developed procedure has been also applied to investigate the different capability of two types of commercially available microspheres to release epirubicin into the human circulatory system. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据