4.5 Article

Simultaneous analysis of anticancer agents bortezomib, imatinib, nilotinib, dasatinib, erlotinib, lapatinib, sorafenib, sunitinib and vandetanib in human plasma using LC/MS/MS

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2013.01.037

关键词

LC-MS/MS; Anticancer targeted therapy; Tyrosine kinase inhibitor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method, performed by electrospray ionization in positive mode using a triple quadrupole mass spectrometry, has been developed and validated for the simultaneous determination of bortezomib (BORT), dasatinib (DASA), imatinib (IMAT), nilotinib (NILO), erlotinib (ERLO), lapatinib (LAPA), sorafenib (SORA), sunitinib (SUNI) and vandetanib (VAND) in human plasma. Separation is achieved on an Hypersil Gold (R) PFP column using a gradient elution of 10 mM ammonium formate containing 0.1% formic acid (A) and acetonitrile containing 0.1% formic acid (B) at a flow rate of 0.3 mL/min. After addition of the internal standard and protein precipitation, the supernatant is diluted 2-fold in a mixture A and B (50/50, v/v). Two selected reaction monitoring transitions are used for each analyte: one is used for quantitation, the second one is used for confirmation. The standard curves are ranged from 2 ng/mL to 250 ng/mL for BORT, DASA and SUNI and from 50 ng/mL to 3500 ng/mL for the others and were fitted to a 1/x weighted linear regression model. The lowest limits of quantification were 2 ng/mL for BORT, DASA and SUNI and 50 ng/mL for the other TKIs. The method also showed satisfactory results in terms of sensitivity, specificity, precision (intra- and inter-day RSD from 3.7% to 13.8%), accuracy (from 86.8% to 113.5%), recovery as well as stability of the analytes under various conditions. The method also may contribute to better understand the relationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of TKIs in hematological malignancies and solid tumors. (C) 2013 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