4.6 Article

Quantification of irinotecan, SN38, and SN38G in human and porcine plasma by ultra high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and its application to hepatic chemoembolization

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2012.01.008

关键词

Irinotecan; SN38; Camptothecin; Mass spectrometry; Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [HHSN261200800001E]
  2. Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An analytical method was developed and validated for the quantitative determination of irinotecan, its active metabolite SN38, and glucuronidated SN38 (SN38-G) in both porcine and human plasma. Calibration curves were linear within the concentration range of 0.5-100 ng/mL for SN38 and SN38-G, and 5-1000 ng/mL for irinotecan. Sample pretreatment involved solid-phase extraction of 0.1 mL aliquots of plasma. Irinotecan, SN38, SN38-G, and the internal standards, irinotecan-d10, tolbutamide, and camptothecin, respectively, were separated on a Waters ACQUITY UPLC (TM) BEH RP18 column (2.1 mm x 50 mm, 1.7 mu m), using a mobile phase composed of methanol and 0.1% formic acid. Accuracy of quality control samples in human plasma ranged from 98.5 to 110.3%, 99.5 to 101.7% and 96.2 to 98.9% for irinotecan, SN38, and SN38-G, respectively. Precision of the three analytes in the same order ranged from 0.8 to 2.8%, 2.4 to 5.7%, and 2.4 to 2.8%. All three analytes proved stable in plasma through four freeze/thaw cycles, as well as through 6 h in whole blood at room temperature. The method was likewise validated in porcine plasma with comparable accuracies and precisions also within the generally acceptable range. The validated method was applied to both preclinical and clinical trials involving hepatic chemoembolization of irinotecan drug-eluting beads to study the pharmacokinetics of the three analytes. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.6
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