1
|
Hall P, Howell S, Venkitaraman R, Thomson A, Raja F, King J, Michie C, Khan S, Brunt A, Gahir D, McAdam K, Cooner J, Kane N. P084 Socioeconomic Outcomes With Ribociclib in Patients With HR+, HER2– Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC) in UK Real-world Settings. Breast 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/s0960-9776(23)00201-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/18/2023] Open
|
2
|
McAdam K, Waters G, Moldoveanu S, Margham J, Cunningham A, Vas C, Porter A, Digard H. Diacetyl and Other Ketones in e-Cigarette Aerosols: Some Important Sources and Contributing Factors. Front Chem 2021; 9:742538. [PMID: 34631664 PMCID: PMC8495241 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.742538] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/16/2021] [Accepted: 09/03/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Concerns over the presence of the diketones 2,4 butanedione (DA) and 2,3 pentanedione (AP) in e-cigarettes arise from their potential to cause respiratory diseases. Their presence in e-liquids is a primary source, but they may potentially be generated by glycerol (VG) and propylene glycol (PG) when heated to produce aerosols. Factors leading to the presence of AP, DA and acetoin (AC) in e-cigarette aerosols were investigated. We quantified direct transfer from e-liquids, examined thermal degradation of major e-liquid constituents VG, PG and 1,3 propanediol (1,3 PD) and the potential for AC, AP and DA production from sugars and flavor additives when heated in e-cigarettes. Method: Transfers of AC, AP and DA from e-liquids to e-cigarette aerosols were quantified by comparing aerosol concentrations to e-liquid concentrations. Thermal generation from VG, PG or 1,3 PD e-liquids was investigated by measuring AC, AP and DA emissions as a function of temperature in an e-cigarette. Thermal generation of AC, AP and DA from sugars was examined by aerosolising e-liquids containing sucrose, fructose or glucose in an e-cigarette. Pyrolytic formation of AP and DA from a range of common flavors was assessed using flash pyrolysis techniques. Results: AC transfer efficiency was >90%, while AP and DA were transferred less efficiently (65%) indicating losses during aerosolisation. Quantifiable levels of DA were generated from VG and PG, and to a lesser extent 1,3 PD at coil temperatures >300°C. Above 350°C AP was generated from VG and 1,3 PD but not PG. AC was not generated from major constituents, although low levels were generated by thermal reduction of DA. Aerosols from e-liquids containing sucrose contained quantifiable (>6 ng/puff) levels of DA at all sucrose concentrations tested, with DA emissions increasing with increasing device power and concentration. 1% glucose, fructose or sucrose e-liquids gave comparable DA emissions. Furanose ring compounds also generate DA and AP when heated to 250°C. Conclusions: In addition to less than quantitative direct transfer from the e-liquid, DA and AP can be present in the e-cigarette aerosol due to thermal decomposition reactions of glycols, sugars and furanonse ring flavors under e-cigarette operating conditions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin McAdam
- McAdam Scientific Ltd., Eastleigh, United Kingdom
| | - Gareth Waters
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | | | - Jennifer Margham
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Anthony Cunningham
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Carl Vas
- Longwell Green, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | | | - Helena Digard
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Margham J, McAdam K, Cunningham A, Porter A, Fiebelkorn S, Mariner D, Digard H, Proctor C. The Chemical Complexity of e-Cigarette Aerosols Compared With the Smoke From a Tobacco Burning Cigarette. Front Chem 2021; 9:743060. [PMID: 34660535 PMCID: PMC8514950 DOI: 10.3389/fchem.2021.743060] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/17/2021] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: As e-cigarette popularity has increased, there is growing evidence to suggest that while they are highly likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes, their use is not free of risk to the user. There is therefore an ongoing need to characterise the chemical composition of e-cigarette aerosols, as a starting point in characterising risks associated with their use. This study examined the chemical complexity of aerosols generated by an e-cigarette containing one unflavored and three flavored e-liquids. A combination of targeted and untargeted chemical analysis approaches was used to examine the number of compounds comprising the aerosol. Contributions of e-liquid flavors to aerosol complexity were investigated, and the sources of other aerosol constituents sought. Emissions of 98 aerosol toxicants were quantified and compared to those in smoke from a reference tobacco cigarette generated under two different smoking regimes. Results: Combined untargeted and targeted aerosol analyses identified between 94 and 139 compounds in the flavored aerosols, compared with an estimated 72-79 in the unflavored aerosol. This is significantly less complex (by 1-2 orders of magnitude) than the reported composition of cigarette smoke. Combining both types of analysis identified 5-12 compounds over and above those found by untargeted analysis alone. Gravimetrically, 89-99% of the e-cigarette aerosol composition was composed of glycerol, propylene glycol, water and nicotine, and around 3% comprised other, more minor, constituents. Comparable data for the Ky3R4F reference tobacco cigarette pointed to 58-76% of cigarette smoke "tar" being composed of minor constituents. Levels of the targeted toxicants in the e-cigarette aerosols were significantly lower than those in cigarette smoke, with 68.5->99% reductions under ISO 3308 puffing conditions and 88.4->99% reductions under ISO 20778 (intense) conditions; reductions against the WHO TobReg 9 priority list were around 99%. Conclusion: These analyses showed that the e-cigarette aerosols contain fewer compounds and at significantly lower concentrations than cigarette smoke. The chemical diversity of an e-cigarette aerosol is strongly impacted by the choice of e-liquid ingredients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. Margham
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - K. McAdam
- McAdam Scientific Ltd., Eastleigh, United Kingdom
| | - A. Cunningham
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - A. Porter
- Independent Researcher, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - S. Fiebelkorn
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - D. Mariner
- Mariner Science Ltd., Salisbury, United Kingdom
| | - H. Digard
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - C. Proctor
- DoctorProctorScience Ltd., Ascot, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Favara DM, McAdam K, Cooke A, Bordessa-Kelly A, Budriunaite I, Bossingham S, Houghton S, Doffinger R, Ainsworth N, Corrie PG. SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Antibody Seroprevalence among UK Healthcare Professionals Working with Cancer Patients during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:667-675. [PMID: 33941453 PMCID: PMC8064872 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.04.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/05/2021] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 04/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Aims The proportion of UK oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroprevalence rates among HCPs. Materials and methods Patient-facing oncology HCPs working at three large UK hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody testing [Luminex and point-of-care (POC) tests] on two occasions 28 days apart (June–July 2020). Results In total, 434 HCPs were recruited: nurses (58.3%), doctors (21.2%), radiographers (10.4%), administrators (10.1%); 26.3% reported prior symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2. All participants were PCR negative during the study, but 18.4% were Luminex seropositive on day 1, of whom 42.5% were POC seropositive. Nurses had the highest seropositive prevalence trend (21.3%, P = 0.2). Thirty-eight per cent of seropositive HCPs reported previous SARS-CoV-2 symptoms: 1.9 times higher odds than seronegative HCPs (P = 0.01). Of 400 participants retested on day 28, 13.3% were Luminex seropositive (92.5% previously, 7.5% newly). Thirty-two per cent of initially seropositive HCPs were seronegative on day 28. Conclusion In this large cohort of PCR-negative patient-facing oncology HCPs, almost one in five were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive at the start of the pandemic's first wave. Our findings that one in three seropositive HCPs retested 28 days later became seronegative support regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing until widespread immunity is achieved by effective vaccination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D M Favara
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Department of Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, Kings Lynn, UK; Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - K McAdam
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Department of Oncology, Peterborough City Hospital, North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, UK
| | - A Cooke
- Cambridge Clinical Laboratories, Cambridge, UK
| | - A Bordessa-Kelly
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - I Budriunaite
- Tissue Typing Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - S Bossingham
- Tissue Typing Laboratory, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - S Houghton
- Department of Immunology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - R Doffinger
- Department of Immunology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - N Ainsworth
- Department of Oncology, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, Kings Lynn, UK
| | - P G Corrie
- Department of Oncology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn J, Macpherson I, Rea D, Hughes-Davies L, McAdam K, Hall P, Mansi J, Wheatley D, Abraham JE, Caldas C, Gasson S, O'Riordan E, Wilcox M, Miles D, Cameron DA, Wardley A. Optimising the Duration of Adjuvant Trastuzumab in Early Breast Cancer in the UK. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2021; 33:15-19. [PMID: 32723485 PMCID: PMC7382576 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/05/2020] [Revised: 06/04/2020] [Accepted: 07/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- H M Earl
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK.
| | - L Hiller
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - J Dunn
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - I Macpherson
- University of Glasgow, Institute of Cancer Sciences, Glasgow, UK
| | - D Rea
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - L Hughes-Davies
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - K McAdam
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; Department of Oncology, Peterborough City Hospital, North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, UK
| | - P Hall
- Edinburgh University Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - J Mansi
- Department of Medical Oncology, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College Medical School, London, UK
| | - D Wheatley
- Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK
| | - J E Abraham
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | - C Caldas
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK; Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK
| | - S Gasson
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - E O'Riordan
- Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, London, UK
| | - M Wilcox
- Independent Cancer Patients' Voice, London, UK
| | - D Miles
- Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK
| | - D A Cameron
- Edinburgh University Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - A Wardley
- The NIHR Manchester Clinical Research Facility at The Christie, Manchester, UK; University of Manchester, Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cunningham A, McAdam K, Thissen J, Digard H. The Evolving E-cigarette: Comparative Chemical Analyses of E-cigarette Vapor and Cigarette Smoke. Front Toxicol 2020; 2:586674. [PMID: 35296117 PMCID: PMC8915913 DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2020.586674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2020] [Accepted: 11/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: E-cigarette designs, materials, and ingredients are continually evolving, with cotton wicks and diverse coil materials emerging as the popular components of atomisers. Another recent development is the use of nicotine salts in e-liquids to replicate the form of nicotine found in cigarette smoke, which may help cigarette smokers to transition to e-cigarettes. However, scientific understanding of the impact of such innovations on e-cigarette aerosol chemistry is limited. Methods: To address these knowledge gaps, we have conducted a comparative study analyzing relevant toxicant emissions from five e-cigarettes varying in wick, atomiser coil, and benzoic acid content and two tobacco cigarettes, quantifying 97 aerosol constituents and 84 smoke compounds, respectively. Our focus was the potential for benzoic acid in e-liquids and cotton wicks to form aerosol toxicants through thermal degradation reactions, and the potential for nickel–iron alloy coils to catalyze degradation of aerosol formers. In addition, we analyzed e-cigarette emissions for 19 flavor compounds, thermal decomposition products, and e-liquid contaminants that the FDA has recently proposed adding to the established list of Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents (HPHCs) in tobacco products. Results: Analyses for benzene and phenol showed no evidence of the thermal decomposition of benzoic acid in the e-cigarettes tested. Measurements of cotton decomposition products, such as carbonyls, hydrocarbons, aromatics, and PAHs, further indicated that cotton wicks can be used without thermal degradation in suitable e-cigarette designs. No evidence was found for enhanced thermal decomposition of propylene glycol or glycerol by the nickel–iron coil. Sixteen of the 19 FDA-proposed compounds were not detected in the e-cigarettes. Comparing toxicant emissions from e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes showed that levels of the nine WHO TobReg priority cigarette smoke toxicants were more than 99% lower in the aerosols from each of five e-cigarettes as compared with the commercial and reference cigarettes. Conclusions: Despite continuing evolution in design, components and ingredients, e-cigarettes continue to offer significantly lower toxicant exposure alternatives to cigarette smoking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anthony Cunningham
- British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Kevin McAdam
- McAdam Scientific Ltd., Eastleigh, United Kingdom
- *Correspondence: Kevin McAdam
| | - Jesse Thissen
- British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, United Kingdom
| | - Helena Digard
- British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Borkar N, Provenzano E, Garreffa E, Benson J, Forouhi P, Hugh-Davies L, Wilson C, McAdam K, Russell S, Agrawal A. Does Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy response in the primary breast tumour correlate with axillary response in proven node positive ER positive HER2 negative disease? Eur J Cancer 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/s0959-8049(20)30696-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
8
|
Jones R, Casbard A, Carucci M, Smith J, Ingarfield K, Gee J, Hudson Z, Alchami F, Hayward L, Hickish T, Hwang D, McAdam K, Spensley S, Waters S, Wheatley D, Beresford M. LBA20 Vandetanib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant after relapse or progression on an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic ER positive breast cancer (FURVA): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial. Ann Oncol 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.08.2248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022] Open
|
9
|
Corrie PG, Qian W, Basu B, Valle JW, Falk S, Lwuji C, Wasan H, Palmer D, Scott-Brown M, Wadsley J, Arif S, Bridgewater J, Propper D, Gillmore R, Gopinathan A, Skells R, Bundi P, Brais R, Dalchau K, Bax L, Chhabra A, Machin A, Dayim A, McAdam K, Cummins S, Wall L, Ellis R, Anthoney A, Evans J, Ma YT, Isherwood C, Neesse A, Tuveson D, Jodrell DI. Scheduling nab-paclitaxel combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Br J Cancer 2020; 122:1760-1768. [PMID: 32350413 PMCID: PMC7283477 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-0846-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2019] [Revised: 03/19/2020] [Accepted: 04/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nabP+gemcitabine) offers modest survival gains for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Sequential scheduling of nabP+gemcitabine in a PDAC mouse model improved efficacy; this hypothesis was tested in a clinical trial. METHODS Patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC were randomised to receive nabP+gemcitabine administered either concomitantly on the same day, or sequentially, with gemcitabine administered 24 h after nabP. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL) and predictive biomarkers. RESULTS In total, 71 patients received sequential (SEQ) and 75 concomitant (CON) treatment. Six-month PFS was 46% with SEQ and 32% with CON scheduling. Median PFS (5.6 versus 4.0 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.47-0.95, p = 0.022) and ORR (52% versus 31%, p = 0.023) favoured the SEQ arm; median OS was 10.2 versus 8.2 months (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33, p = 0.70). CTCAE Grade ≥3 neutropaenia incidence doubled with SEQ therapy but was not detrimental to QoL. Strongly positive tumour epithelial cytidine deaminase (CDA) expression favoured benefit from SEQ therapy (PFS HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.70). CONCLUSIONS SEQ delivery of nabP+gemcitabine improved PFS and ORR, with manageable toxicity, but did not significantly improve OS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN71070888; ClinialTrials.gov (NCT03529175).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P G Corrie
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK.
| | - W Qian
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - B Basu
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
- Cancer Research UK-Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - J W Valle
- University of Manchester and The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - S Falk
- Bristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, Bristol, UK
| | - C Lwuji
- Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK
| | - H Wasan
- Hammersmith Hospital, Imperial College, London, UK
| | - D Palmer
- Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, Liverpool, UK
| | - M Scott-Brown
- University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, UK
| | | | - S Arif
- Velindre Cancer Centre, Cardiff, UK
| | | | | | | | - A Gopinathan
- Cancer Research UK-Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - R Skells
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - P Bundi
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - R Brais
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - K Dalchau
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - L Bax
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - A Chhabra
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - A Machin
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - A Dayim
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
| | - K McAdam
- Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, UK
| | - S Cummins
- Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK
| | - L Wall
- Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - R Ellis
- Royal Cornwall Hospitals, Truro, UK
| | - A Anthoney
- St. James's University Hospitals, Leeds, UK
| | - J Evans
- Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Y T Ma
- Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - C Isherwood
- Cancer Research UK-Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - A Neesse
- Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Cancer Clinic, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
| | - D Tuveson
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, USA
| | - D I Jodrell
- Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Addenbrooke's Hospital), Cambridge, UK
- Cancer Research UK-Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Vas CA, Porter A, McAdam K. Acetoin is a precursor to diacetyl in e-cigarette liquids. Food Chem Toxicol 2019; 133:110727. [DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.110727] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2019] [Revised: 06/27/2019] [Accepted: 07/26/2019] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
|
11
|
Eldridge A, Betson T, Gama MV, Errington G, McAdam K. Investigation of number of replicate measurements required to meet cigarette smoke chemistry regulatory requirements measured under Canadian intense smoking conditions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2019; 107:104402. [PMID: 31199996 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2018] [Revised: 06/02/2019] [Accepted: 06/03/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
There has been increased interest in recent years in regulatory reporting of cigarette smoke toxicants. There is a great deal of diversity in current regulatory standards around the world in terms of the identities of regulated toxicants, and the number of replicate analyses stipulated for their measurement. Furthermore, analytical methods developed collaboratively by several organisations and intended for regulatory analysis generally differ in their recommended replicate numbers to those stipulated by regulators. In view of these inconsistencies, we undertook an exercise to examine the most appropriate numbers of replicates required for regulatory analysis of cigarette smoke toxicants. A one-point-in-time sampling exercise was undertaken of the German cigarette market, with 161 brands sampled and analysed in a single laboratory using Canadian Intense smoking conditions. Seven replicate measurements were made for each analyte and product, other than nicotine, CO and nicotine-free dry particulate matter for which eight replicate measurements were made. After confirming the absence of order of analysis effects, a variety of statistical tests (such as group assessment, paired comparisons, linear regression models and ratio analysis) were conducted examining mean values, SDs and CVs to identify the role of numbers of analytical replicates on data quality. The statistical analysis showed no difference in mean values for any of the 18 toxicants irrespective of replicate numbers (between 3 and 7 or 8). The large majority of analytes showed no difference in data variability with replicate number; but some very small differences (much lower than within product variability) were observed for a minority of compounds. Similarly, paired analysis showed no significant differences between mean values obtained using different replicate numbers in most cases, apart from very low differences (<5%) for a small number. Linear regression analysis showed correlations around 96 to 98% (other than crotonaldehyde at 91%) between values obtained with 3 vs 7 replicates. Similarly, per product mean value ratio analysis showed 95% consistency between values obtained with 3 and 7 replicates. We therefore conclude that three replicates is sufficient for precise determination of cigarette mainstream smoke toxicant emissions, and that use of 7 replicates as stipulated in some regulator jurisdictions does not offer any greater accuracy or precision.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alison Eldridge
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Milbrook, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK.
| | - Tatiana Betson
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Milbrook, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Marcos Vinicius Gama
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Milbrook, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Graham Errington
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Milbrook, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Kevin McAdam
- McAdam Scientific Ltd., 50 Leigh Road, Eastleigh, SO50 9DT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
McAdam K, Warrington A, Hughes A, Adams D, Margham J, Vas C, Davis P, Costigan S, Proctor C. Use of social media to establish vapers puffing behaviour: Findings and implications for laboratory evaluation of e-cigarette emissions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2019; 107:104423. [PMID: 31310846 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.104423] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2018] [Revised: 06/12/2019] [Accepted: 07/12/2019] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
The recent growth in e-cigarette use has presented many challenges to Public Health research, including understanding the potential for e-cigarettes to generate toxic aerosol constituents during use. Recent research has established that the way e-cigarettes are puffed influences the magnitude of emissions from these devices, with puff duration the dominant driving force. Standardised puffing machine methods are being developed to harmonise testing approaches across laboratories, but critical to their success is the degree with which they accurately reflect vapers real-world puffing behaviours (topography). Relatively limited data is available examining the way vapers puff, with significant inconsistencies between studies. Here we report the creation and analysis of a large database of public-domain vaping videos to establish e-cigarettes puffing behaviour in near natural settings. Over 300 videos containing 1200 puffing events from 252 vapers were obtained from social media sources, divided approximately equally amongst cigalike, Ego and Advanced Personal Vapouriser ("APV", also referred to as "boxmod") types of e-cigarettes. Analysis showed that similar mean puff durations were found for all three categories of vaping devices. This includes direct-to-lung as well as mouth-to-lung puffing behaviours. A 3 s puff duration, as used in the recently published ISO puffing standard ISO 20,768:2018, appears appropriate for average behaviours. However, the wide diversity of puffing durations observed amongst vapers means it may be challenging to identify a simple yet comprehensively representative single machine-puffing regimen for laboratory studies. A puff duration of around 5.6 s appears to represent 95th percentile puffing behaviours amongst vapers and may be an appropriate choice for scientists and regulators seeking an additional more intense puffing regime. A range of new behavioural patterns have been identified whose impact on aerosol exposure need to be considered. Public-domain video records of vapers provides valuable and accessible insights into real-world use behaviours. It is freely available, and constantly updated with new material, and therefore provides a valuable resource for scientists seeking to understand real-world vaping behaviours.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin McAdam
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK.
| | - Anna Warrington
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Alice Hughes
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - David Adams
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Jennifer Margham
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Carl Vas
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Pete Davis
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Sandra Costigan
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Christopher Proctor
- Research & Development Centre, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abraham JE, Vallier AL, Qian W, Machin A, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Weiss M, Harvey C, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roberts A, Provenzano E, Pinilla K, Roylance R, Copson E, Armstrong A, McMurtry E, Tischkowitz M, Earl HM. Abstract OT3-01-02: PARTNERING / PARTNER : Phase II sub-study to establish if the addition of combinations of new agents (olaparib, cell cycle and immune checkpoint inhibitors) can improve the rate of pathological complete response (pCR) and minimal residual disease (MRD) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and / or germline BRCA mutated (gBRCAm) patients with evidence of residual disease after PARTNER therapy. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-ot3-01-02] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background:
In patients with TNBC, following standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease (RD) is correlated with poor prognosis and 50% relapse within 5 years [1]. PARTNER is a neoadjuvant clinical trial which randomises TNBC and gBRCAm patients to carboplatin and paclitaxel +/- olaparib followed by anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Patients with RD after neoadjuvant treatment in this trial also face poorer survival outcomes, due to the paucity of treatment options. PARTNERING, develops a new strategy using novel agent combinations as an alternative pathway for patients with RD within the PARTNER trial.
Methods: PARTNERING is a phase II open label, sub-study with a two-stage Simon design with biomarker guided treatment cohorts open only to patients in the PARTNER trial. A maximum of 15 patients will be included in each cohort. Patients with RD > 10% tumour cellularity (TC) on biopsy after neoadjuvant therapy will be eligible. Patients who have no tumour cells or < 10% TC, and those with progressive disease will be excluded. Allocation of patients into the cohorts will be based on tumour infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) expression either on diagnostic or post treatment biopsy. Patients with tumours with TILs score ≤20% are considered “non-immunogenic” They will be stratified according to HRD status and allocated to receive a cell cycle checkpoint inhibitor + olaparib. Patients with a TILs score >20% are considered “immunogenic” and will be allocated to receive an immune checkpoint inhibitor with olaparib or a cell cycle checkpoint inhibitor.
Primary outcome measure is pCR / MRD rate at surgery after the administration of 2 cycles / 8 weeks of a combination of new agents. The rate of conversion to pCR/MRD will be correlated with TC, TILs, BRCA and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, Ki67% and previous olaparib treatment.
Progress: The PARTNERING pathway in the PARTNER trial will be open late 2018.
Citation Format: Abraham JE, Vallier A-L, Qian W, Machin A, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Weiss M, Harvey C, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roberts A, Provenzano E, Pinilla K, Roylance R, Copson E, Armstrong A, McMurtry E, Tischkowitz M, Earl HM. PARTNERING / PARTNER : Phase II sub-study to establish if the addition of combinations of new agents (olaparib, cell cycle and immune checkpoint inhibitors) can improve the rate of pathological complete response (pCR) and minimal residual disease (MRD) in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and / or germline BRCA mutated (gBRCAm) patients with evidence of residual disease after PARTNER therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-01-02.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JE Abraham
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A-L Vallier
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - W Qian
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A Machin
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - L Grybowicz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - S Thomas
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - M Weiss
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - C Harvey
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - K McAdam
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - L Hughes-Davies
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A Roberts
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - E Provenzano
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - K Pinilla
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - R Roylance
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - E Copson
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A Armstrong
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - E McMurtry
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - M Tischkowitz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - HM Earl
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abraham J, Vallier AL, Qian W, Machin A, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Weiss M, Harvey C, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roberts A, Roylance R, Copson E, Pinilla K, Armstrong A, Provenzano E, Tischkowitz M, McMurty E, Earl H. Abstract OT3-03-03: PARTNER: Randomised, phase II/III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of olaparib to platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative and/or germline BRCA mutated breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2019. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs18-ot3-03-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: No specific targeted therapies are available for Triple Negative Breast Cancers (TNBC), an aggressive and diverse subgroup. The basal TNBC sub-group share some phenotypic and molecular similarities with germline BRCA (gBRCA) tumours. In gBRCA patients, and potentially other homologous recombination deficiencies, these already compromised pathways may allow drugs called PARP inhibitors (Olaparib) to work more effectively. Aims: To establish if the addition of olaparib to neoadjuvant platinum based chemotherapy for basal TNBC and/or gBRCA breast cancer is safe and improves efficacy (pathological complete response (pCR)).
Methods: Trial design: 3-stage open label randomised phase II/III trial of neoadjuvant paclitaxel and carboplatin +/- olaparib, followed by clinicians' choice of anthracycline regimen. Stage 1 and 2: Randomisation (1:1:1) to either control (3 weekly carboplatin AUC5/weekly paclitaxel 80mg/m2 for 4 cycles) or one of two research arms with the same chemotherapy regimen but with two different schedules of olaparib 150mg BD for 12 days. Stage 3: Patients are randomised (1:1) to either control arm or to the research arm selected in stage 2. End-points: Stage 1: Safety; Stage 2: Schedule selection using pCR rate and completion rate of olaparib using a “pick-the-winner” design. Stage 3: pCR rate. Enrichment design is applied with an overall significance level 0.05(α) and 80% power. A total of 527 patients will be included to detect an absolute improvement of 15% (all patients) and 20% (gBRCA patients) by adding olaparib to platinum based chemotherapy.
Trial Progress: PARTNER has been recruiting in UK since 27th May 2016. IDSMC recommended to continue the trial without change after reviewing the Stage 1 safety data. The recruitment of stage 2 was completed in April 2018 and results to be reviewed by the IDSMC in early 2019. The trial is open and enrolling patients to national and international sites.
Citation Format: Abraham J, Vallier A-L, Qian W, Machin A, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Weiss M, Harvey C, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roberts A, Roylance R, Copson E, Pinilla K, Armstrong A, Provenzano E, Tischkowitz M, McMurty E, Earl H. PARTNER: Randomised, phase II/III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of olaparib to platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative and/or germline BRCA mutated breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-03-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Abraham
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A-L Vallier
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - W Qian
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A Machin
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - L Grybowicz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - S Thomas
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - M Weiss
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - C Harvey
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - K McAdam
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - L Hughes-Davies
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A Roberts
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - R Roylance
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - E Copson
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - K Pinilla
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - A Armstrong
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - E Provenzano
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - M Tischkowitz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - E McMurty
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - H Earl
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Astra Zenecca, Macclesfield, United Kingdom; NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
McAdam K, Davis P, Ashmore L, Eaton D, Jakaj B, Eldridge A, Liu C. Influence of machine-based puffing parameters on aerosol and smoke emissions from next generation nicotine inhalation products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2019; 101:156-165. [DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2018] [Revised: 11/04/2018] [Accepted: 11/12/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
16
|
McAdam K, Enos T, Goss C, Kimpton H, Faizi A, Edwards S, Wright C, Porter A, Rodu B. Analysis of coumarin and angelica lactones in smokeless tobacco products. Chem Cent J 2018; 12:142. [PMID: 30569337 PMCID: PMC6768314 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-018-0506-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2018] [Accepted: 11/28/2018] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Differences in health risks between different styles of smokeless tobacco products (STPs) have prompted interest in their relative levels of toxic chemicals. We report here the development of methods for the analysis of STPs for coumarin and for α-angelica lactone (α-AL), both of which have been included in various published lists of tobacco toxicants. We have also determined the concentrations of these lactones in commercial STPs from the US and Sweden, representing 80–90% of the 2010 market share for all the major STP categories in these two countries: 65 products (plus two reference products) for coumarin and 66 commercial products for α-AL. For coumarin, methanol extracts of the STPs were analysed by HPLC/MS/MS. The lower limit of quantification (LOQ) and limit of detection (LOD) were, respectively, 100 and 30 ng coumarin/g of STP on a wet weight basis (WWB). Alpha-AL was determined via direct headspace GC/MS. The LOQ and LOD were 65 and 30 ng/g WWB respectively. Coumarin was detected In 3/33 Swedish snus, 5/13 US chewing tobaccos, 16/16 moist snuffs and 5/6 dry snuffs. Concentrations in those samples with quantifiable coumarin contents ranged from 186 to 1656 ng/g WWB. Concentrations of coumarin measured in this study were consistent with levels naturally found in tobacco. None of the STPs analysed would significantly contribute to coumarin exposure in consumers compared with dietary sources, and estimated exposure levels were 1000× lower than the European Food Safety Authority Tolerable Daily Intake. Hence the relevance of coumarin to the toxicity of STPs and its inclusion in the FDA’s list of harmful and potentially harmful compounds list is questionable. Measurements of α-AL in these STPs found that the majority did not have quantifiable contents, however, for three STPs concentrations of α-AL were above the LOQ (116–140 ng/g WWB) and for four other STPs concentrations of α-AL could be estimated between the LOD and LOQ. Beta-angelica lactone was tentatively identified in three of the STPs but the levels could not be reliably quantified. The levels of α-AL in tobacco products are reported here for the first time, but the relevance of α-AL to the toxicity of STPs is also highly questionable given that it has GRAS status as a permitted food additive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin McAdam
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK.
| | - Trevor Enos
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Carol Goss
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Harriet Kimpton
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Arif Faizi
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Steve Edwards
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Christopher Wright
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK
| | | | - Brad Rodu
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Room 208, 505 South Hancock Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Crooks I, Neilson L, Scott K, Reynolds L, Oke T, Forster M, Meredith C, McAdam K, Proctor C. Evaluation of flavourings potentially used in a heated tobacco product: Chemical analysis, in vitro mutagenicity, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity and in vitro tumour promoting activity. Food Chem Toxicol 2018; 118:940-952. [PMID: 29879435 DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2018.05.058] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2017] [Revised: 05/22/2018] [Accepted: 05/25/2018] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
Abstract
We designed a novel tobacco-heating product (THP) that heats tobacco to release nicotine and aerosolised components, such as glycerol and tobacco volatiles from a tobacco rod (Neostik). Heating tobacco significantly reduces levels of combustion-derived toxicants in the aerosol compared to cigarette smoke. This study was conducted to determine whether the inclusion of potential flavourings in the THP would add to the levels of toxicants in the emissions or alter in vitro responses. Levels of measured toxicants were similar in the flavoured and unflavoured Neostik emissions and significantly less than emissions from the reference cigarette, 3R4F. No mutagenicity was observed with the Neostiks in the Ames test or in the mouse lymphoma assay. There was evidence of a weak genotoxic response in the in vitro micronucleus test using V79 cells from both Neostiks and these responses were less than 3R4F. They did not show tumour-promoting potential in the Bhas 42 cell transformation assay and were not cytotoxic in the Neutral Red uptake assay. 3R4F elicited toxic responses in all assays at significantly lower concentrations. The addition of flavourings to the Neostik tested did not alter the chemical profile of THP emissions or change in vitro responses relative to the unflavoured Neostik.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian Crooks
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK.
| | - Louise Neilson
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Ken Scott
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Lorna Reynolds
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Tobi Oke
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Mark Forster
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Clive Meredith
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Chris Proctor
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd., Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO15 8TL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
McAdam K, Vas C, Kimpton H, Faizi A, Liu C, Porter A, Synnerdahl T, Karlsson P, Rodu B. Ethyl carbamate in Swedish and American smokeless tobacco products and some factors affecting its concentration. Chem Cent J 2018; 12:86. [PMID: 30043180 PMCID: PMC6057859 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-018-0454-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/02/2018] [Accepted: 07/16/2018] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We are interested in comparing the levels of harmful or potentially harmful constituents in Swedish and American smokeless tobacco products (STPs). We report here the concentrations of the IARC Group 2 A (probable human) carcinogen ethyl carbamate (EC) in seventy commercial STPs from the US and Sweden, representing 80-90% of the market share of the major STP categories in these countries. We also examine the effects of various additives, processing and storage conditions on EC concentrations in experimental snus samples. RESULTS EC was determined from aqueous extracts of the STPs using ultra performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC/MS/MS). EC was undetectable (< 20 ng/g wet weight basis WWB) in 60% of the commercial STPs, including all the chewing tobacco (CT), dry snuff (DS), hard pellet (HP), soft pellet (SP), and plug products. Measurable levels of EC were found in 11/16 (69%) of the moist snuff (MS) samples (average 154 ng/g in those samples containing EC) and 19/32 (59%) of the Swedish snus samples (average 35 ng/g). For the experimental snus samples, EC was only observed in ethanol treated samples. EC concentrations increased significantly with ethanol concentrations (0-4%) and with storage time (up to 24 weeks) and temperature (8 °C vs 20 °C). EC concentrations were lower at lower pHs but were unaffected by adding nitrogenous precursors identified from food studies (citrulline and urea), increasing water content or by pasteurisation. Added EC was stable in the STP matrix, but evaporative losses were significant when samples were stored for several weeks in open containers at 8 °C. CONCLUSIONS EC was found in measurable amounts only in some moist STPs i.e. pasteurised Swedish snus and unpasteurised US MS; it is not a ubiquitous contaminant of STPs. The presence of ethanol contributed significantly to the presence of EC in experimental snus samples, more significantly at higher pH levels. Sample age also was a key determinant of EC content. In contrast, pasteurisation and fermentation do not appear to directly influence EC levels. Using published consumption rates and mouth level exposures, on average STP consumers are exposed to lower EC levels from STP use than from food consumption.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K. McAdam
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - C. Vas
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - H. Kimpton
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - A. Faizi
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - C. Liu
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - A. Porter
- 3810 St. Antoine W, Montreal, QC H4C 1B4 Canada
| | - T. Synnerdahl
- Eurofins Food & Feed Testing Sweden AB, Sjöhagsgatan 3, 531 40 Lidköping, Sweden
| | - P. Karlsson
- Eurofins Food & Feed Testing Sweden AB, Sjöhagsgatan 3, 531 40 Lidköping, Sweden
| | - B. Rodu
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Room 208, 505 South Hancock Street, Louisville, KY 40202 USA
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
McAdam K, Murphy J, Eldridge A, Meredith C, Proctor C. Integrating chemical, toxicological and clinical research to assess the potential of reducing health risks associated with cigarette smoking through reducing toxicant emissions. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2018; 95:102-114. [PMID: 29526814 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.03.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2016] [Revised: 02/05/2018] [Accepted: 03/08/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
The concept of a risk continuum for tobacco and nicotine products has been proposed, which differentiates products according to their propensity to reduce toxicant exposure and risk. Cigarettes are deemed the most risky and medicinal nicotine the least. We assessed whether a Reduced-Toxicant Prototype (RTP) cigarette could sufficiently reduce exposure to toxicants versus conventional cigarettes to be considered a distinct category in the risk continuum. We present findings from both pre-clinical and clinical studies in order to examine the potential for reduced smoke toxicant emissions to lower health risks associated with cigarette smoking. We conclude that current toxicant reducing technologies are unable to reduce toxicant emissions sufficiently to manifest beneficial disease-relevant changes in smokers. These findings point to a minimum toxicant exposure standard that future potentially reduced risk products would need to meet to be considered for full biological assessment. The RTP met WHO TobReg proposed limits on cigarette toxicant emissions, however the absence of beneficial disease relevant changes in smokers after six months reduced toxicant cigarette use, does not provide evidence that these regulatory proposals will positively impact risks of smoking related diseases. Greater toxicant reductions, such as those that can be achieved in next generation products e.g. tobacco heating products and electronic cigarettes are likely to be necessary to clearly reduce risks compared with conventional cigarettes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin McAdam
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, UK.
| | - James Murphy
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, UK.
| | - Alison Eldridge
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, UK.
| | - Clive Meredith
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, UK.
| | - Christopher Proctor
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Earl HM, Hiller L, Dunn JA, Blenkinsop C, Grybowicz L, Vallier AL, Gounaris I, Abraham JE, Hughes-Davies L, McAdam K, Chan S, Ahmad R, Hickish T, Rea D, Caldas C, Bartlett JMS, Cameron DA, Provenzano E, Thomas J, Hayward RL. Disease-free and overall survival at 3.5 years for neoadjuvant bevacizumab added to docetaxel followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, for women with HER2 negative early breast cancer: ARTemis Trial. Ann Oncol 2018; 28:1817-1824. [PMID: 28459938 PMCID: PMC5834079 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The ARTemis trial previously reported that addition of neoadjuvant bevacizumab (Bev) to docetaxel (D) followed by fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (D-FEC) in HER2 negative breast cancer improved the pathological complete response (pCR) rate. We present disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) with central pathology review. Patients and methods Patients were randomized to 3 cycles of D followed by 3 cycles of FEC (D-FEC), ±4 cycles of Bev (Bev + D-FEC). DFS and OS were analyzed by treatment and by central pathology reviewed pCR and Residual Cancer Burden (RCB) class. Results A total of 800 patients were randomized [median follow-up 3.5 years (IQR 3.2–4.4)]. DFS and OS were similar across treatment arms [DFS hazard ratio (HR)=1.18 (95% CI 0.89–1.57), P = 0.25; OS HR = 1.26 (95% CI 0.90–1.76), P = 0.19). Both local pathology report review and central histopathology review confirmed a significant improvement in DFS and OS for patients who achieved a pCR [DFS HR = 0.38 (95% CI 0.23–0.63), P < 0.001; OS HR = 0.43 (95% CI 0.24–0.75), P = 0.003]. However, significant heterogeneity was observed (P = 0.02); larger improvements in DFS were obtained with a pCR achieved with D-FEC than a pCR achieved with Bev + D-FEC. As RCB class increased, significantly worse DFS and OS was observed (P for trend <0.0001), which effect was most marked in the ER negative group. Conclusions The addition of short course neoadjuvant Bev to standard chemotherapy did not demonstrate a DFS or OS benefit. Achieving a pCR with D-FEC is associated with improved DFS and OS but not when pCR is achieved with Bev + D-FEC. At the present time therefore, Bev is not recommended in early breast cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01093235.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- H M Earl
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.,NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge.,Cambridge Breast Cancer Research Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge
| | - L Hiller
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry
| | - J A Dunn
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry
| | - C Blenkinsop
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry
| | - L Grybowicz
- Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit - Cancer Theme, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge
| | - A-L Vallier
- Cambridge Clinical Trials Unit - Cancer Theme, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge
| | - I Gounaris
- Department of Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust, King's Lynn.,Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
| | - J E Abraham
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.,NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge.,Cambridge Breast Cancer Research Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge
| | - L Hughes-Davies
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.,Department of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge
| | - K McAdam
- Department of Oncology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge.,Department of Oncology, Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough
| | - S Chan
- Department of Oncology, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham
| | - R Ahmad
- Department of Oncology, West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth
| | - T Hickish
- Department of Oncology, Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust/Bournemouth University, Poole
| | - D Rea
- Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK
| | - C Caldas
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.,NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge.,Cambridge Breast Cancer Research Unit, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge.,Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge
| | - J M S Bartlett
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, MaRS Centre, Toronto, Canada.,Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, IGMM, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh
| | - D A Cameron
- Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, IGMM, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh
| | - E Provenzano
- NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge.,Department of Histopathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge
| | - J Thomas
- Department of Pathology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
| | - R L Hayward
- Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, IGMM, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abraham J, Vallier AL, Qian W, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Machin A, Harvey C, Chiu E, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roylance R, Copson E, Armstrong A, Provenzano E, Tischkowitz M, McMurtry E, Earl H. Abstract OT3-04-03: PARTNER randomised, phase II/III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of olaparib to platinum based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative and/or germline BRCA mutated breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2018. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs17-ot3-04-03] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: No specific targeted therapies are available for Triple Negative Breast Cancers (TNBC), an aggressive and diverse subgroup. The basal TNBC subgroup show some phenotypic and molecular similarities with germline BRCA (gBRCA). In gBRCA patients, and potentially other homologous recombination deficiencies, these already compromised pathways may allow drugs called PARP inhibitors (olaparib) to work more effectively.
Aims: To establish if the addition of olaparib to neoadjuvant platinum based chemotherapy for basal TNBC and/or gBRCA breast cancer is safe and improves efficacy (pathological complete response (pCR)).
Trial design: 3 stage open label randomised phase II/III trial of neoadjuvant paclitaxel and carboplatin +/olaparib, followed by clinicians' choice of anthracycline regimen.
Stage 1 and 2: Patients are randomised (1:1:1) to either control (3 weekly carboplatin AUC5/weekly paclitaxel 80mg/m2 for 4 cycles) or one of two research arms with the same chemotherapy regimen but with two different schedules of olaparib 150mg BD for 12 days.
Stage 3: Patients are randomised (1:1) to either control arm or to the research arm selected in stage 2.
Methods:
Stage 1 Safety: both research arms combined.
Stage 2 Schedule selection criteria: pCR rate and completion rate of olaparib protocol treatment. It is a “pickthewinner” design with 53 patients in each research arm. This allows a 90% power, 5% onesided significance level to test null hypothesis of pCR ≤35% versus an alternative hypothesis of pCR ≥55% in each of the research arms.
Stage 3 Efficacy:anticipated pCR ˜55-60% for all trial patients and ˜60-65% for gBRCA patients. The trial is powered to detect an absolute improvement of 15% (all patients) and 20% (gBRCA patients) by adding olaparib to chemotherapy (enriched design). TNBC patient recruitment will be capped, to ensure required gBRCA patients are enrolled. Enrichment design is applied with overall significance level 0.05(α) = 0.025(αall)+ 0.025(αgBRCA) and 80% power.
Target accrual: 527 [gBRCA 220] Current accrual: 56 Sites activated: 15 [expected number of sites 30-50].
Citation Format: Abraham J, Vallier A-L, Qian W, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Machin A, Harvey C, Chiu E, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roylance R, Copson E, Armstrong A, Provenzano E, Tischkowitz M, McMurtry E, Earl H. PARTNER randomised, phase II/III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of olaparib to platinum based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative and/or germline BRCA mutated breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-04-03.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Abraham
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - A-L Vallier
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - W Qian
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - L Grybowicz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - S Thomas
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - A Machin
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - C Harvey
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - E Chiu
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - K McAdam
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - L Hughes-Davies
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - R Roylance
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - E Copson
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - A Armstrong
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - E Provenzano
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - M Tischkowitz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - E McMurtry
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| | - H Earl
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, Cheshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
McAdam K, Kimpton H, Porter A, Liu C, Faizi A, Mola M, McAughey J, Rodu B. Comprehensive survey of radionuclides in contemporary smokeless tobacco products. Chem Cent J 2017; 11:131. [PMID: 29256072 PMCID: PMC5735045 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-017-0359-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2017] [Accepted: 09/21/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
There is considerable interest in the chemical composition of smokeless tobacco products (STPs), owing to health concerns associated with their use. Previous studies have documented levels of 210Po, 210Pb and uranium in STP samples. Here, the levels of 13 α-particle and 15 β-radiation emitting radionuclides have been measured in a broad and representative range of contemporary STPs commercially available in the United States and Sweden. For each radionuclide, the level of radioactivity and calculated mass per gram of STP are reported. The results indicate that, among 34 Swedish snus and 44 US STPs, a more complex radionuclide content exists than previously reported for these products. Of the 28 radionuclides examined, 13 were detected and quantified in one or more STPs. The most frequently identified radionuclides in these STPs were 40K, 14C, 210Po and 226Ra. Over half the STPs also contained 228Th, and an additional 8 radionuclides were identified in a small number of STPs. The presence of 14C, 3H and 230Th are reported in tobacco for the first time. The activity of β-emitters was much greater than those of α-emitters, and the β-emitter 40K was present in the STPs with both the greatest radioactivity and mass concentrations. Since the three radionuclides included in the FDA's HPHC list were either not detected (235U), identified in only three of 78 samples (238U), and/or had activity levels over fifty times lower than that of 40K (210Po, 238U), there may be a rationale for reconsidering the radionuclides currently included in the FDA HPHC list, particularly with respect to 40K. Using a model of the physical and biological compartments which must be considered to estimate the exposure of STP users to radionuclides, we conclude that exposure from α-emitters may be minimal to STP users, but 40K in particular may expose the oral cavities of STP users to β-radiation. Although a more comprehensive picture of the radioisotope content of STPs has emerged from this study, epidemiological evidence suggests that the levels of radionuclides measured in this study appear unlikely to present significant risks to STP users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K. McAdam
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - H. Kimpton
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - A. Porter
- 3810 St. Antoine W, Montreal, QC H4C 1B4 Canada
| | - C. Liu
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - A. Faizi
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - M. Mola
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - J. McAughey
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - B. Rodu
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, 505 South Hancock Street, Louisville, KY 40202 USA
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Murphy J, Gaca M, Lowe F, Minet E, Breheny D, Prasad K, Camacho O, Fearon IM, Liu C, Wright C, McAdam K, Proctor C. Assessing modified risk tobacco and nicotine products: Description of the scientific framework and assessment of a closed modular electronic cigarette. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2017; 90:342-357. [PMID: 28954704 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2017] [Revised: 07/05/2017] [Accepted: 09/05/2017] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Cigarette smoking causes many human diseases including cardiovascular disease, lung disease and cancer. Novel tobacco products with reduced yields of toxicants compared to cigarettes, such as tobacco-heating products, snus and electronic cigarettes, hold great potential for reducing the harms associated with tobacco use. In the UK several public health agencies have advocated a potential role for novel products in tobacco harm reduction. Public Health England has stated that "The current best estimate is that e-cigarettes are around 95% less harmful than smoking" and the Royal College of Physicians has urged public health to "Promote e-cigarettes widely as substitute for smoking". Health related claims on novel products such as 'reduced exposure' and 'reduced risk' should be substantiated using a weight of evidence approach based on a comprehensive scientific assessment. The US FDA, has provided draft guidance outlining a framework to assess novel products as Modified Risk Tobacco Products (MRTP). Based on this, we now propose a framework comprising pre-clinical, clinical, and population studies to assess the risk profile of novel tobacco products. Additionally, the utility of this framework is assessed through the pre-clinical and part of the clinical comparison of a commercial e-cigarette (Vype ePen) with a scientific reference cigarette (3R4F) and the results of these studies suggest that ePen has the potential to be a reduced risk product.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James Murphy
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom.
| | - Marianna Gaca
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Frazer Lowe
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Emmanuel Minet
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Damien Breheny
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Krishna Prasad
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Oscar Camacho
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Ian M Fearon
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Chuan Liu
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Christopher Wright
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Kevin McAdam
- British American Tobacco, R&D Centre, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Eaton D, Jakaj B, Forster M, Nicol J, Mavropoulou E, Scott K, Liu C, McAdam K, Murphy J, Proctor CJ. Assessment of tobacco heating product THP1.0. Part 2: Product design, operation and thermophysical characterisation. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2017; 93:4-13. [PMID: 29080851 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.09.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2017] [Revised: 08/14/2017] [Accepted: 09/10/2017] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
A novel tobacco heating product, THP1.0, that heats tobacco below 245 °C is described. It was designed to eliminate tobacco combustion, while heating tobacco to release nicotine, tobacco volatiles and glycerol to form its aerosol. The stewardship assessment approach behind the THP 1.0 design was based on established toxicological principles. Thermophysical studies were conducted to examine the extent of tobacco thermal conversion during operation. Thermogravimetric analysis of the tobacco material revealed the major thermal behaviour in air and nitrogen up to 900 °C. This, combined with the heating temperature profiling of the heater and tobacco rod, verified that the tobacco was not subject to combustion. The levels of tobacco combustion markers (CO, CO2, NO and NOx) in the aerosol of THP1.0 were significantly lower than the levels if there were any significant pyrolysis or combustion. Quantification of other tobacco thermal decomposition and evaporative transfer markers showed that these levels were, on average, reduced by more than 90% in THP1.0 aerosol as compared with cigarette smoke. The physical integrity of the tobacco consumable rod showed no ashing. Taken together, these data establish that the aerosol generated by THP1.0 is produced mainly by evaporation and distillation, and not by combustion or pyrolysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dan Eaton
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Blerta Jakaj
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Mark Forster
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - James Nicol
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Eleni Mavropoulou
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Kenneth Scott
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Chuan Liu
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK.
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - James Murphy
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Christopher J Proctor
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Proctor C, Gaca M, Lowe F, Minet E, Fiebelkorn S, Prasad K, Camacho O, Fearon I, Liu C, Wright C, McAdam K, Murphy J. Non-clinical and clinical assessment of an e-cigarette product. Toxicol Lett 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.07.146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
26
|
Reynolds L, Crooks I, Scott K, Neilson L, Princivalle M, Meredith C, Forster M, Oke T, McAdam K, Proctor C. The effect of tobacco ingredients on the in vitro mutagenicity, cytotoxicity and cell transformation potential of a novel heated tobacco product. Toxicol Lett 2017. [DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2017.07.272] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
|
27
|
Poynton S, Sutton J, Goodall S, Margham J, Forster M, Scott K, Liu C, McAdam K, Murphy J, Proctor C. A novel hybrid tobacco product that delivers a tobacco flavour note with vapour aerosol (Part 1): Product operation and preliminary aerosol chemistry assessment. Food Chem Toxicol 2017; 106:522-532. [PMID: 28576286 DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.05.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2016] [Revised: 04/02/2017] [Accepted: 05/11/2017] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
Vapour products have demonstrated potential to be a lower-risk alternative to cigarettes. The present study describes a novel hybrid tobacco product that combines a warm aerosol stream generated by an electronic vaporisation mechanism with tobacco top flavour from cut tobacco. During operation, the aerosol stream released from the vapour cartomiser is passed through a bed of blended cut tobacco by the puffing flow, elevating the tobacco temperature and eluting volatile tobacco flavour components. A preliminary but comprehensive analysis of the aerosol composition of the hybrid tobacco product found that emissions were dominated by the control vapour formulation. In non-targeted chemical screening, no detectable difference in GC scans was observed between the hybrid tobacco product and the control vapour product. However, a sensorially elevated tobacco flavour was confirmed by a consumer sensory panel (P < 0.05). In a targeted analysis of 113 compounds, either identified by regulatory bodies as potential toxicants in cigarette smoke or formed from electronic vapour products, only 26 were quantified. The novel action of tobacco heating and liquid aerosolisation produced classes and levels of toxicants that were similar to those of the control vapour product, but much lower than those of a Kentucky 3R4F reference cigarette. For nine toxicants mandated by the WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation for reduction in cigarette emissions, the levels were 91%-99% lower per puff in the hybrid tobacco product aerosol than in 3R4F smoke. Overall, the novel hybrid tobacco product provides a sensorially enhanced tobacco flavour, but maintains a toxicant profile similar to its parent vapour product with relatively low levels of known cigarette smoke toxicants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Poynton
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Joseph Sutton
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Sharon Goodall
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Jennifer Margham
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Mark Forster
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Ken Scott
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Chuan Liu
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK.
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - James Murphy
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Christopher Proctor
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd, Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Abraham JE, Vallier AL, Qian W, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Mahmud S, Harvey C, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roylance R, Copson E, Brown J, Provenzano E, Tischkowitz M, Earl HM. Abstract OT2-01-15: PARTNER - Randomised, phase II/III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of olaparib to platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative and/or germline BRCA mutated breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 2017. [DOI: 10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs16-ot2-01-15] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Triple Negative Breast Cancers (TNBC) are a biologically diverse and aggressive sub-group. Early effective treatment can lead to cure. Current standard treatment is systemic chemotherapy either pre-/post-definitive surgery. No specific targeted therapies are available for TNBC. There are phenotypic and molecular similarities between germline BRCA (gBRCA) breast cancer and TNBC. In TNBC 10%-20% harbour gBRCA mutations. In gBRCA patients, and potentially other homologous recombination deficiencies, these already compromised pathways allow drugs called PARP inhibitors (olaparib) to work particularly effectively.
Aims: To establish if the addition of olaparib to neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy for TNBC and/or gBRCA breast cancer is safe and improves efficacy.
Trial design: 3-stage open label randomised phase II/III trial of neoadjuvant olaparib +/- platinum containing chemotherapy followed by clinicians' choice of anthracycline regimen. Stage 1 and 2, patients are randomised (1:1:1) to either control (3 weekly carboplatin AUC5/weekly paclitaxel 80mg/m2 chemotherapy - 4 cycles) or one of two research arms which uses the same chemotherapy regimen but with two different schedules of olaparib 150mg BD). Stage 3: patients are randomised (1:1) to either control arm or to the research arm selected in stage 2.
Primary outcome measures:
Stage 1: safety of the addition of olaparib to chemotherapy. Prophylactic G-CSF is mandatory.
Stage 2: pathological complete response (pCR) in each of the two research arms. At the end of stage 2, one of the research arms will be dropped.
Stage 3: pCR at surgery after neoadjuvant treatment. pCR - defined as no residual invasive carcinoma within the breast (ductal carcinoma in situ permitted) AND no evidence of metastatic disease within the lymph nodes.
Eligibility:
•Aged 16 to 70.
•Written informed consent.
•Histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer.
•Clinical stage T1-4 N0-2 (tumour or metastatic node diameter>10mm)
•Confirmed ER-negative and HER2-negative or gBRCA mutation positive, irrespective of hormone status.
•Performance Status 0-1
Statistical Methods: Stage 1, Safety: both research arms combined. Stage 2, Schedule selection criteria: pCR rate and completion rate of olaparib protocol treatment. It is a “pick-the winner” design with 53 patients in each research arm. This allows a 90% power, 5% one-sided significance level to test null hypothesis of pCR ≤35% versus an alternative hypothesis of pCR ≥55% in each of the research arms.
Stage 3, Efficacy: anticipated pCR ∼45-55% for all trial patients and ∼50-60% for gBRCA patients. The trial is powered to detect an absolute improvement of 15% (all patients) and 20% (gBRCA patients) by adding olaparib to chemotherapy (enriched design). TNBC patient recruitment will be capped, to ensure the required number of gBRCA patients are enrolled. Enrichment design is applied with the overall significance level 0.05(α)=0.025(αall)+ 0.025(αgBRCA) and 80% power.
Present accrual: 1 [Trial opened: 23rd May 2016]
Target accrual: 527 (TNBC 307; gBRCA 220)
Contact information: Dr. Jean Abraham; Email: ja344@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Citation Format: Abraham JE, Vallier A-L, Qian W, Grybowicz L, Thomas S, Mahmud S, Harvey C, McAdam K, Hughes-Davies L, Roylance R, Copson E, Brown J, Provenzano E, Tischkowitz M, Earl HM. PARTNER - Randomised, phase II/III trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the addition of olaparib to platinum-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple negative and/or germline BRCA mutated breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT2-01-15.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- JE Abraham
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - A-L Vallier
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - W Qian
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - L Grybowicz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - S Thomas
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - S Mahmud
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - C Harvey
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - K McAdam
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - L Hughes-Davies
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - R Roylance
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - E Copson
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - J Brown
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - E Provenzano
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - M Tischkowitz
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - HM Earl
- University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom; University College London, London, United Kingdom; University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom; Royal Marsden Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Fearon IM, Eldridge A, Gale N, Shepperd CJ, McEwan M, Camacho OM, Nides M, McAdam K, Proctor CJ. E-cigarette Nicotine Delivery: Data and Learnings from Pharmacokinetic Studies. Am J Health Behav 2017; 41:16-32. [PMID: 27935787 DOI: 10.5993/ajhb.41.1.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES E-cigarettes could potentially play a major role in tobacco harm reduction by delivering nicotine in a vapor containing significantly fewer toxicants than cigarette smoke and may aid smoking behavior changes such as reduction or cessation. METHODS We examined blood nicotine levels in smokers who were non-accustomed to e-cigarette use (Study 1) and accustomed e-cigarette users (Study 2). We compared nicotine levels when participants used a closed modular system e-cigarette to those when participants smoked a cigarette. RESULTS In Study 1, Cmax (geometric mean (CV)) during a 5-minute puffing period (10 puffs, 30 seconds apart) was 13.4 (51.4) ng/ ml for a regular cigarette. The e-cigarette Cmax was significantly lower (p .05) at 2.5 (67.8) ng/ml. In Study 2, during a 5-minute ad libitum puffing period, cigarette Cmax was 7.2 (130.8) ng/mL, and it was 7.8 (108.2) ng/mL for the e-cigarette. CONCLUSIONS Our data demonstrate heterogeneity of nicotine deliveries both between products and also with the same products used by different cohorts, eg, accustomed users versus smokers. Such differences must be taken into account when determining the likely behavioral impact, on smoking reduction and cessation, of nicotine delivery data and when planning e-cigarette nicotine pharmacokinetic studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian M Fearon
- Principal Scientist and Head of Clinical Research, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, United Kingdom (UK)
| | - Alison Eldridge
- Scientist II Clinical Research, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| | - Nathan Gale
- Scientist II Clinical Research, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| | - Christopher J Shepperd
- Senior Scientist Clinical Research, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| | - Mike McEwan
- Senior Scientist Clinical Research, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| | - Oscar M Camacho
- Senior Statistician, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| | - Mitch Nides
- President, Los Angeles Clinical Trials, Burbank, CA
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Head of NGP Safety Assessment, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| | - Christopher J Proctor
- Chief Scientific Officer, British American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, Research and Development, Southampton, UK;,
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Margham J, McAdam K, Forster M, Liu C, Wright C, Mariner D, Proctor C. Chemical Composition of Aerosol from an E-Cigarette: A Quantitative Comparison with Cigarette Smoke. Chem Res Toxicol 2016; 29:1662-1678. [PMID: 27641760 DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 276] [Impact Index Per Article: 34.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
There is interest in the relative toxicities of emissions from electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes. Lists of cigarette smoke priority toxicants have been developed to focus regulatory initiatives. However, a comprehensive assessment of e-cigarette chemical emissions including all tobacco smoke Harmful and Potentially Harmful Constituents, and additional toxic species reportedly present in e-cigarette emissions, is lacking. We examined 150 chemical emissions from an e-cigarette (Vype ePen), a reference tobacco cigarette (Ky3R4F), and laboratory air/method blanks. All measurements were conducted by a contract research laboratory using ISO 17025 accredited methods. The data show that it is essential to conduct laboratory air/method measurements when measuring e-cigarette emissions, owing to the combination of low emissions and the associated impact of laboratory background that can lead to false-positive results and overestimates. Of the 150 measurands examined in the e-cigarette aerosol, 104 were not detected and 21 were present due to laboratory background. Of the 25 detected aerosol constituents, 9 were present at levels too low to be quantified and 16 were generated in whole or in part by the e-cigarette. These comprised major e-liquid constituents (nicotine, propylene glycol, and glycerol), recognized impurities in Pharmacopoeia-quality nicotine, and eight thermal decomposition products of propylene glycol or glycerol. By contrast, approximately 100 measurands were detected in mainstream cigarette smoke. Depending on the regulatory list considered and the puffing regime used, the emissions of toxicants identified for regulation were from 82 to >99% lower on a per-puff basis from the e-cigarette compared with those from Ky3R4F. Thus, the aerosol from the e-cigarette is compositionally less complex than cigarette smoke and contains significantly lower levels of toxicants. These data demonstrate that e-cigarettes can be developed that offer the potential for substantially reduced exposure to cigarette toxicants. Further studies are required to establish whether the potential lower consumer exposure to these toxicants will result in tangible public health benefits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Margham
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. , Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, U.K
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. , Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, U.K
| | - Mark Forster
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. , Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, U.K
| | - Chuan Liu
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. , Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, U.K
| | - Christopher Wright
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. , Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, U.K
| | - Derek Mariner
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. , Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, U.K
| | - Christopher Proctor
- Research and Development, British American Tobacco Investments Ltd. , Regents Park Road, Southampton, Hampshire SO15 8TL, U.K
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is considerable interest from a regulatory and public health perspective in harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products, including smokeless tobacco products (STPs). A wide range of commercial STPs from the US and Sweden, representing 80-90 % of the 2010 market share for all the major STP categories in these two countries, were analysed for the IARC Group 2A carcinogen acrylamide. These STPs comprised the following styles: Swedish loose and portion snus, US snus, chewing tobacco, moist snuff, dry snuff, soft pellet, hard pellet and plug. RESULTS Acrylamide was detected in all the products tested and quantified in all but one product. Concentrations ranged from 62 to 666 ng/g wet weight basis (WWB). The average levels of acrylamide (WWB) by type of STP were not significantly different (p > 0.05) except for US snus which had, on average, greater levels but with a very wide range of individual levels according to the manufacturer. Acrylamide levels in STPs were significantly and positively correlated with pH, but not with levels of either reducing sugars or ammonia nitrogen. Levels of acrylamide increased by sixfold or more (on a dry weight basis) during manufacture of a snus sample and then decreased during subsequent storage for up to 22 weeks. Acrylamide generation in tobacco generally appears to occur at lower temperatures, but longer time scales than found with food production. CONCLUSIONS Acrylamide is a common contaminant of STPs, formed through heat treatment of tobacco. Our data show that exposure to acrylamide from consumption of STPs is small compared with exposure from food consumption or cigarette smoking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin McAdam
- />Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - Harriet Kimpton
- />Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - Carl Vas
- />Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - David Rushforth
- />Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | | | - Brad Rodu
- />Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Louisville, 505 South Hancock Street, Louisville, KY 40202 USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Camacho OM, Eldridge A, Proctor CJ, McAdam K. Empirical characterisation of ranges of mainstream smoke toxicant yields from contemporary cigarette products using quantile regression methodology. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2015; 72:458-72. [PMID: 26021184 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.05.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/19/2014] [Revised: 05/19/2015] [Accepted: 05/20/2015] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Approximately 100 toxicants have been identified in cigarette smoke, to which exposure has been linked to a range of serious diseases in smokers. Smoking machines have been used to quantify toxicant emissions from cigarettes for regulatory reporting. The World Health Organization Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation has proposed a regulatory scenario to identify median values for toxicants found in commercially available products, which could be used to set mandated limits on smoke emissions. We present an alternative approach, which used quantile regression to estimate reference percentiles to help contextualise the toxicant yields of commercially available products with respect to a reference analyte, such as tar or nicotine. To illustrate this approach we examined four toxicants (acetone, N'-nitrosoanatabine, phenol and pyridine) with respect to tar, and explored International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and Health Canada Intense (HCI) regimes. We compared this approach with other methods for assessing toxicants in cigarette smoke, such as ratios to nicotine or tar, and linear regression. We concluded that the quantile regression approach effectively represented data distributions across toxicants for both ISO and HCI regimes. This method provides robust, transparent and intuitive percentile estimates in relation to any desired reference value within the data space.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oscar M Camacho
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, UK.
| | - Alison Eldridge
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, UK.
| | - Christopher J Proctor
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, UK.
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd, Southampton, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Eldridge A, Betson TR, Gama MV, McAdam K. Variation in tobacco and mainstream smoke toxicant yields from selected commercial cigarette products. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2015; 71:409-27. [PMID: 25620723 DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/01/2014] [Revised: 01/08/2015] [Accepted: 01/09/2015] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
There is a drive toward the mandated lowering and reporting of selected toxicants in tobacco smoke. Several studies have quantified the mainstream cigarette emissions of toxicants, providing benchmark levels. Few, however, have examined how measured toxicant levels within a single product vary over time due to natural variation in the tobacco, manufacturing and measurement. In a single centre analysis, key toxicants were measured in the tobacco blend and smoke of 3R4F reference cigarette and three commercial products, each sampled monthly for 10 months. For most analytes, monthly variation was low (coefficient of variation <15%); but higher (⩾ 20%) for some compounds present at low (ppb) levels. Reporting toxicant emissions as a ratio to nicotine increased the monthly variation of the 9 analytes proposed for mandated lowering, by 1-2 percentage points. Variation in toxicant levels was generally 1.5-1.7-fold higher in commercial cigarettes compared with 3R4F over the 10-month period, but increased up to 3.5-fold for analytes measured at ppb level. The potential error (2CV) associated with single-point-in-time sampling averaged ∼ 20%. Together, these data demonstrate that measurement of emissions from commercial cigarettes is associated with considerable variation for low-level toxicants. This variation would increase if the analyses were conducted in more than one laboratory.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Eldridge
- British American Tobacco, Group Research and Development, Southampton, UK.
| | - T R Betson
- British American Tobacco, Group Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| | - M Vinicius Gama
- Souza Cruz S.A/British American Tobacco, PC-Americas, Cachoeirinha, Brazil
| | - K McAdam
- British American Tobacco, Group Research and Development, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
McAdam K, Kimpton H, Essen S, Davis P, Vas C, Wright C, Porter A, Rodu B. Analysis of hydrazine in smokeless tobacco products by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Chem Cent J 2015; 9:13. [PMID: 25780382 PMCID: PMC4361194 DOI: 10.1186/s13065-015-0089-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2014] [Accepted: 02/09/2015] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Due to the lower health risks associated with the use of certain categories of smokeless tobacco products (STPs) such as Swedish snus, there is interest in the comparative levels of toxic chemical constituents in different types of STPs. A method has been developed and validated for the analysis of hydrazine in STPs. Seventy four commercial STPs from the US and Sweden, representing 80-90% of the 2010 market share for all the major STP categories in these two countries, as well as three reference STPs, were analysed for hydrazine. Results Aqueous extracts of the STPs were treated with excess pentafluorobenzaldehyde (PFB), which reacted with hydrazine in solution to form decafluorobenzaldehyde azine (DFBA). DFBA was partitioned into hexane and then quantified by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). The method was validated using five different types of STP, was linear in the range 8–170 ng/mL, and had limits of quantification (LOQ) from 26–53 ng of hydrazine per g of STP (as sold). The method was applied to the analysis of 74 contemporary STPs commercially available in the United States and Sweden, none of which were found to contain hydrazine above the LOQ or LOD. Trace levels of compounds showing chromatographic and mass spectral features consistent with hydrazine were identified at very low levels (sub-limit of detection, <10 ng/g) in the chromatograms of less than half of the 74 STPs examined; in contrast, for 40 of the STPs no evidence for the presence of hydrazine was observed. Where present, the levels of compounds consistent with hydrazine were estimated to be at least an order of magnitude lower than the only previous study to have quantified hydrazine in tobacco. Conclusions Our results show that hydrazine is not a prevalent constituent of STPs, and when present is not quantifiable using currently available analytical methodology.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kevin McAdam
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - Harriet Kimpton
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - Sofia Essen
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - Peter Davis
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - Carl Vas
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | - Christopher Wright
- Group Research & Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL UK
| | | | - Brad Rodu
- Room 208, 505 South Hancock Street, Louisville, KY 40202 USA
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Hertz-Schünemann R, Ehlert S, Streibel T, Liu C, McAdam K, Baker RR, Zimmermann R. High-resolution time and spatial imaging of tobacco and its pyrolysis products during a cigarette puff by microprobe sampling photoionisation mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 2015; 407:2293-9. [PMID: 25627787 DOI: 10.1007/s00216-014-8447-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2014] [Revised: 12/21/2014] [Accepted: 12/22/2014] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
The time- and space-resolved chemical signatures of gases and vapours formed in solid-state combustion processes are difficult to examine using recent analytical techniques. A machine-smoked cigarette represents a very reproducible model system for dynamic solid-state combustion. By using a special sampling system (microprobe unit) that extracts the formed gases from inside of the burning cigarette, which is coupled to a photoionisation mass spectrometer, it was possible to study the evolution of organic gases during a 2-s cigarette puff. The concentrations of various pyrolysis and combustion products such as 1,3-butadiene, toluene, acetaldehyde and phenol were monitored on-line at different sampling points within cigarettes. A near-microscopic-scale spatial resolution and a 200-ms time resolution were achieved. Finally, the recorded information was combined to generate time-resolved concentration maps, showing the formation and destruction zones of the investigated compounds in the burning cigarette. The combustion zone at the tip of cigarette, where e.g. 1,3-butadiene is predominately formed, was clearly separable from the pyrolysis zones. Depending on the stability of the precursor (e.g. lignin or cellulose), the position of pyrolytic formation varies. In conclusion, it was demonstrated that soft photoionisation mass spectrometry in conjunction with a microprobe sampling device can be used for time- and space-resolved analysis of combustion and pyrolysis reactions. In addition to studies on the model cigarette, further model systems may be studied with this approach. This may include further studies on the combustion of biomass or coal chunks, on heterogeneously catalysed reactions or on spray, dust and gas combustion processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Hertz-Schünemann
- Joint Mass Spectrometry Centre, University of Rostock and Helmholtz Zentrum München, 18059, Rostock, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
36
|
Zimmermann R, Hertz-Schünemann R, Ehlert S, Liu C, McAdam K, Baker R, Streibel T. Highly time-resolved imaging of combustion and pyrolysis product concentrations in solid fuel combustion: NO formation in a burning cigarette. Anal Chem 2015; 87:1711-7. [PMID: 25582882 DOI: 10.1021/ac503512a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
The highly dynamic, heterogeneous combustion process within a burning cigarette was investigated by a miniaturized extractive sampling probe (microprobe) coupled to photoionization mass spectrometry using soft laser single photon ionization (SPI) for online real-time detection of molecular ions of combustion and pyrolysis products. Research cigarettes smoked by a smoking machine are used as a reproducible model system for solid-state biomass combustion, which up to now is not addressable by current combustion-diagnostic tools. By combining repetitively recorded online measurement sequences from different sampling locations in an imaging approach, highly time- and space-resolved quantitative distribution maps of, e.g., nitrogen monoxide, benzene, and oxygen concentrations were obtained at a near microscopic level. The obtained quantitative distribution maps represent a time-resolved, movie-like imaging of the respective compound's formation and destruction zones in the various combustion and pyrolysis regions of a cigarette during puffing. Furthermore, spatially resolved kinetic data were ascertainable. The here demonstrated methodology can also be applied to various heterogenic combustion/pyrolysis or reaction model systems, such as fossil- or biomass-fuel pellet combustion or to a positional resolved analysis of heterogenic catalytic reactions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ralf Zimmermann
- Joint Mass Spectrometry Centre, Institute of Chemistry, Chair of Analytical Chemistry, University of Rostock , Rostock, D-18057, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
37
|
Brokl M, Bishop L, Wright CG, Liu C, McAdam K, Focant JF. Multivariate analysis of mainstream tobacco smoke particulate phase by headspace solid-phase micro extraction coupled with comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 2014; 1370:216-29. [PMID: 25454146 DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.10.057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2014] [Revised: 10/16/2014] [Accepted: 10/18/2014] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
A method involving headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC×GC) coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS) was developed and applied to evaluate profiles of volatile compounds present in mainstream tobacco smoke particulate matter trapped on glass fiber filters. Six SPME fibers were tested for the extraction capacities toward selected compounds, showing the best results for the polyacrylate fiber. The optimization of the extraction conditions was carried out using multivariate response surface methodology. Two cigarette types differing in a filter design were analyzed using optimized conditions. A template was built in order to generate comprehensive chemical information, which conceded obtaining consistent information across 24 chromatograms. Principal component analysis (PCA) allowed a clear differentiation of the studied cigarette types. Fisher ratio analysis allowed identification of compounds responsible for the chemical differences between the cigarette samples. Of the selected 143 most important ones, 134 analytes were reduced by the active carbon filter, while for nine, classical cellulose acetate filter was more efficient.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michał Brokl
- CART - Chemistry Department, Organic & Biological Analytical Chemistry, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | - Louise Bishop
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Christopher G Wright
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Chuan Liu
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Group Research and Development, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, UK
| | - Jean-François Focant
- CART - Chemistry Department, Organic & Biological Analytical Chemistry, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Awada A, Spector N, El-Hariry I, Rodriguez AA, Erban JK, Cortes J, Gomez H, Kong A, Hickish T, Fein L, Vahdat L, MacPherson I, Canon JL, Mansoor S, Giovanne A, McAdam K, Vukovic VM, Yalcin I, Bradley R, Proia D, Mano MS, Perez EA, Cameron DA. Abstract P2-16-23: The ENCHANT-1 trial (NCT01677455): An open label multicenter phase 2 proof of concept study evaluating first line ganetespib monotherapy in women with metastatic HER2 positive or triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cancer Res 2013. [DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs13-p2-16-23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Background: Hsp90 is a molecular chaperone protein required for the stabilization and activation of many proteins, referred to as Hsp90 ‘clients’, such as HER2, HIF1-a, EGFR, ER, PI3K, AKT, P53 and VEGFR. The drug candidate, ganetespib is a novel triazolone inhibitor of Hsp90, with over 700 patients treated to date. Ganetespib has shown activity in preclinical models of HER2+, ER+/PR+ and TNBC. Early clinical trials documented ganetespib single agent activity in heavily pretreated HER2+ and TNBC patients. Ganetespib has been well tolerated in clinical trials with a favorable safety profile. This efficacy-screening study is designed to provide further evidence of ganetespib activity and identify potentially predictive biomarkers in metastatic breast cancer (BC).
Methods: The ENCHANT-1 Trial is an international, first-line 2-cohort Phase 2 study in BC patients: Cohort A, HER2 amplified (n = 35), and Cohort B, TNBC (n = 35). Patients who present with previously untreated metastatic disease are eligible for treatment with ganetespib at 150 mg/m2 twice weekly on 3 out of 4 wks, for a total of up to 12 wks. Primary endpoint: ORR assessed using RECIST1.1 criteria. Key secondary endpoints include metabolic response as assessed by PET/CT at wk 3 utilizing modified EORTC criteria. Disease progression (PD) at wk 3 by PET imaging indicates discontinuation of study therapy, and is performed to quickly offer patients with metabolic PD a standard of care treatment.
The study is designed as Simon 2-stage requiring at least one OR in 15 patients for the respective cohort to expand to 35 patients. A Steering Committee is established to oversee the overall study and review the interim results.
Results: The study was initiated in 23 centers globally. At the time of submission, a total of 17 patients had been enrolled; TNBC (n = 15) and HER2 (n = 2). Here we report the interim analysis in the TNBC cohort. The median age was 54 years (range 30 -77) with ECOG PS 0 (n = 7/15). Most patients (n = 9) presented with de novo metastatic disease. 5 patients were not evaluable for PET assessment (3 had not yet reached wk 3 and 2 withdrawn before wk 3 for clinical progression), and 9 patients were not evaluable for objective response at wk 6 (3 withdrawn before or at wk 3 for clinical progression and 6 had not yet reached wk 6 evaluation). In the 10 patients with evaluable PET imaging, 9 patients achieved metabolic (m) response (2 mPR, 4 mSD with dominant tumor shrinkage and 3 SD) and one patient with mPD. In the 6 patients evaluable for OR at wk 6, one patient achieved PR, 2 SD and 3 PD. Treatment with ganetespib was well tolerated; the most common AEs were mild or moderate diarrhea (8/15, 53%), fatigue (5/15, 33%), decreased appetite (4/15, 27%), insomnia (4/15, 27%), and nausea (4/15, 27%).
Conclusion: Ganetespib single agent was generally well tolerated and showed anti-tumor activity TNBC patients as early as 3 weeks following treatment. PET seems to be a good tool to screen antitumor activity of new agents in early settings rather that in heavily pretreated patients. The TNBC cohort has met the protocol criteria for proceeding to stage 2.
Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P2-16-23.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Awada
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - N Spector
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - I El-Hariry
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - AA Rodriguez
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - JK Erban
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - J Cortes
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - H Gomez
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - A Kong
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - T Hickish
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - L Fein
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - L Vahdat
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - I MacPherson
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - J-L Canon
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - S Mansoor
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - A Giovanne
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - K McAdam
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - VM Vukovic
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - I Yalcin
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - R Bradley
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - D Proia
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - MS Mano
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - EA Perez
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| | - DA Cameron
- Jules Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium; Duke University Medical Center, Durham; Synta Pharmaceuticals Inc, Lexington; The Methodist Hospital Research Institute, Houston; Tufts Medical Center, Boston; Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona; Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru; Churchill Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; The Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, Dorset, United Kingdom; Centro Oncológico de Rosario, Rosario Santa Fe, Argentina; Weill Cornell Medical College, New York; The Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, Glasgow, United Kingdom; Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Charleroi, Belgium; Georgia Cancer Specialists, Atlanta; Hospital Central de la Fuerza Aérea del Perú, Lima, Peru; Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough, United Kingdom; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville; Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Digard H, Gale N, Errington G, Peters N, McAdam K. Multi-analyte approach for determining the extraction of tobacco constituents from pouched snus by consumers during use. Chem Cent J 2013; 7:55. [PMID: 23548061 PMCID: PMC3618139 DOI: 10.1186/1752-153x-7-55] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/18/2013] [Accepted: 03/13/2013] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Snus is a smokeless oral tobacco product with a significant history of use in Sweden, where it is regulated under food legislation. Users place a small porous sachet or a pinch of loose snus between the upper jaw and cheek for approximately one hour, leading to partial intake of tobacco constituents. To understand user exposure to tobacco, a multi-analyte approach based on the extraction of pouches by methanol, ethanol and water was validated and applied to the measurement of various constituents, including nicotine, four tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), propylene glycol, water, ammonium, nitrate, sodium, chloride, linalool, citronellol, linalyl acetate and geraniol, extracted from snus pouches during use by human consumers. RESULTS After validation against established single-analyte methods, the multi-analyte approach was used to determine constituent levels in snus pouches before and after one hour of use. Although the concentrations in the snus pouches varied from nanogram (e.g. TSNAs) to milligram (e.g. nicotine, sodium and propylene glycol) quantities (25.1 ng to 35.3 mg per 1 g pouch), the mean percentage extracted varied only from 19.2% for linalyl acetate to 37.8% for the TSNA 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) among all constituents analyzed. The TSNAs, some of which are known carcinogens, showed the highest percentage extraction (range 34.6%-37.8%). Measurement variability was low for all analytes, ranging from 2.4% (total TSNAs, NAT) to 9.5% (geraniol). By contrast, inter-subject variability ranged from 6.7% (NAB) to 52.2% (linalyl acetate), and was greater than 20% for eight of the constituents analyzed. Intra-subject variability ranged from 3.4% (citronellol) to 29.7% (geraniol). CONCLUSIONS Generally, less than a third of each constituent tested was extracted during one hour of snus use, independent of constituent concentration. The variable nature of in-use extraction was shown to be driven by inter-subject variability. The results provide insight into possible mechanisms controlling constituent extraction in the mouth during snus use, and provide reference data for the development of in-vitro laboratory systems for estimating extraction of tobacco constituents from snus.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helena Digard
- Group R&D, British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd,, Southampton, SO15 8TL, United Kingdom.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
40
|
Clayton PM, Vas CA, Bui TTT, Drake AF, McAdam K. Spectroscopic studies on nicotine and nornicotine in the UV region. Chirality 2013; 25:288-93. [PMID: 23494810 PMCID: PMC3654167 DOI: 10.1002/chir.22141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2012] [Accepted: 11/12/2012] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
The UV absorption and electronic circular dichroism (ECD) spectra of (R)- and (S)-nicotine and (S)-nornicotine in aqueous solution were measured to a significantly lower wavelength range than previously reported, allowing the identification of four previously unobserved electronic transitions. The ECD spectra of the two enantiomers of nicotine were equal in magnitude and opposite in sign, while the UV absorption spectra were coincidental. In line with previous observations, (S)-nicotine exhibited a negative cotton effect centered on 263 nm with vibronic structure (π–π1* transition) and a broad, positive ECD signal at around 240 nm associated with the n–π1* transition. As expected this band disappeared when the pyridyl aromatic moiety was protonated. Four further electronic transitions are reported between 215 and 180 nm; it is proposed the negative maxima around 206 nm is either an n–σ* transition or a charge transfer band resulting from the movement of charge from the pyrrolidyl N lone pair to the pyridyl π* orbital. The pyridyl π–π2* transition may be contained within the negative ECD signal envelope at around 200 nm. Another negative maximum at 188 nm is thought to be the pyridyl π–π3* transition, while the lowest wavelength end-absorption and positive ECD may be associated with the π–π4* transition. The UV absorption spectra of (S)-nornicotine was similar to that of (S)-nicotine in the range 280–220 nm and acidification of the aqueous solution enhanced the absorption. The ECD signals of (S)-nornicotine were considerably less intense compared to (S)-nicotine and declined further on acidification; in the far UV region the ECD spectra diverge considerably. Chirality 25:288–293, 2013. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter M Clayton
- British American Tobacco, Group R&D, Regents Park Road, Southampton, SO15 8TL, UK.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Brokl M, Bishop L, Wright CG, Liu C, McAdam K, Focant JF. Analysis of mainstream tobacco smoke particulate phase using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry. J Sep Sci 2013; 36:1037-44. [PMID: 23427113 DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201200812] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/27/2012] [Revised: 12/14/2012] [Accepted: 12/19/2012] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Abstract
Comprehensive 2D GC coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry was applied for the characterization of the particulate phase of mainstream tobacco smoke particulate. Five 3R4F research cigarettes were smoked on a rotary smoking machine under standardized conditions, total particular matter was collected on Cambridge filter pads and extracted using methanol-based liquid extraction and dynamic headspace (DHS) approaches. Automated peak finding and mass spectral deconvolution combined with scripting and manual revision of library hits were used to evaluate the library search results. The revised peak table contained nearly 1800 individual compounds for the DHS sample and over 900 for the solvent extracted sample. These methods of extraction were shown to be complementary, leading to only 11% of repeated analytes, and their combination gave rise to a list of almost 2500 individual compounds.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michał Brokl
- CART-Chemistry Department, Organic & Biological Analytical Chemistry, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
42
|
Combes R, Scott K, Dillon D, Meredith C, McAdam K, Proctor C. The effect of a novel tobacco process on the in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of cigarette smoke particulate matter. Toxicol In Vitro 2012; 26:1022-9. [PMID: 22542757 DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2012.04.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2011] [Revised: 03/13/2012] [Accepted: 04/10/2012] [Indexed: 10/28/2022]
Abstract
Some of the toxic effects of smoking have been attributed to the combustion of nitrogenous protein in tobacco. The effects of a treatment which reduces tobacco's protein nitrogen level, on the in vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of cigarette smoke particulate matter (PM), were measured. PMs were tested in the Neutral Red Uptake (NRU) test; the Salmonella mutagenicity assay (SAL); the mouse lymphoma mammalian cell mutation assay (MLA) and the in vitro micronucleus test (IVMNT). PMs from all of the cigarettes were cytotoxic and genotoxic. PM obtained from smoking treated tobacco, showed a small, consistent and statistically significant reduced mutagenicity (revertants/μg) in TA98 with post-mitochondrial supernatant (S9). No consistent quantitative or qualitative differences were detected in the other tests. The data are discussed in relation to published information on smoke chemistry obtained from cigarettes made of tobacco treated using this technique. The observations confirm that the method did not give rise to any new qualitative or quantitative cytotoxic or genotoxic effects, and may have reduced PM's bacterial mutagenicity in TA98 with S9. Further toxicity testing is warranted, to investigate the effects of the tobacco treatment in more detail and add to the data already obtained.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- R Combes
- British American Tobacco, Group Research and Development, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Corrie PG, Bulusu R, Wilson CB, Armstrong G, Bond S, Hardy R, Lao-Sirieix S, Parashar D, Ahmad A, Daniel F, Hill M, Wilson G, Blesing C, Moody AM, McAdam K, Osborne M. A randomised study evaluating the use of pyridoxine to avoid capecitabine dose modifications. Br J Cancer 2012; 107:585-7. [PMID: 22814578 PMCID: PMC3419962 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pyridoxine is frequently used to treat capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome (HFS), although the evidence of benefit is lacking. We performed a randomised placebo-controlled trial to determine whether pyridoxine could avoid the need for capecitabine dose modifications and improve outcomes. METHODS A total of 106 patients planned for palliative single-agent capecitabine (53 in each arm, 65%/35% colorectal/breast cancer) were randomised to receive either concomitant pyridoxine (50 mg po) or matching placebo three times daily. RESULTS Compared with placebo, pyridoxine use was associated with an increased rate of avoiding capecitabine dose modifications (37% vs 23%, relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.20, P=0.15) and fewer grade 3/4 HFS-related adverse events (9% vs 17%, odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.15-1.6, P=0.26). Use of pyridoxine did not improve response rate or progression-free survival. CONCLUSION Pyridoxine may reduce the need for capecitabine dose modifications and the incidence of severe HFS, but does not impact on antitumour effect.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P G Corrie
- Oncology Division, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
44
|
Neema S, Atuyambe LM, Otolok-Tanga E, Twijukye C, Kambugu A, Thayer L, McAdam K. Using a clinic based creativity initiative to reduce HIV related stigma at the Infectious Diseases Institute, Mulago National Referral Hospital, Uganda. Afr Health Sci 2012; 12:231-9. [PMID: 23056033 DOI: 10.4314/ahs.v12i2.24] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stigma has been associated with chronic health conditions such as HIV/AIDS, leprosy, tuberculosis, Mental illness and Epilepsy. Different forms of stigma have been identified: enacted stigma, perceived stigma, and self stigma. Stigma is increasingly regarded as a key driver of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and has a major impact on public health interventions. OBJECTIVES The initiative was to provide activities in the clinic while patients waited to be seen by healthcare professionals. It was envisaged this would contribute to reduction of clinic based stigma felt by clients. METHODS This was a repeated cross-sectional survey (October-November 2005 and March-April 2007) that was conducted at the Infectious Diseases Institute clinic (IDC) at Mulago, the national referral hospital in Uganda. We utilized quantitative (survey) and qualitative (key informants, focus group discussions) methods to collect the data. Data were collected on stigma before the creativity initiative intervention was implemented, and a second phase survey was conducted to assess effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS Clients who attended the IDC before the creativity intervention were about twice as likely to fear catching an infection as those who came after the intervention. The proportion that had fears to be seen by a friend or relative at the clinic decreased. Thus during the implementation of the Creativity intervention, HIV related stigma was reduced in this clinic setting. CONCLUSIONS The creativity intervention helped to build self esteem and improved communication among those attending the clinic; there was observed ambiance at the clinic and clients became empowered, with creative, communication and networking skills. Improved knowledge and communication are key in addressing self stigma among HIV positive individuals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Neema
- Makerere University, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Kampala, Uganda.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
45
|
Hertz R, Streibel T, Liu C, McAdam K, Zimmermann R. Microprobe sampling--photo ionization-time-of-flight mass spectrometry for in situ chemical analysis of pyrolysis and combustion gases: examination of the thermo-chemical processes within a burning cigarette. Anal Chim Acta 2012; 714:104-13. [PMID: 22244143 DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2011.11.059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2011] [Revised: 11/25/2011] [Accepted: 11/26/2011] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
Abstract
A microprobe sampling device (μ-probe) has been developed for in situ on-line photo ionization mass spectrometric analysis of volatile chemical species formed within objects consisting of organic matter during thermal processing. With this approach the chemical signature occurring during heating, pyrolysis, combustion, roasting and charring of organic material within burning objects such as burning fuel particles (e.g., biomass or coal pieces), lit cigarettes or thermally processed food products (e.g., roasting of coffee beans) can be investigated. Due to its dynamic changes between combustion and pyrolysis phases the cigarette smoking process is particularly interesting and has been chosen as first application. For this investigation the tip of the μ-probe is inserted directly into the tobacco rod and volatile organic compounds from inside the burning cigarette are extracted and real-time analyzed as the glowing front (or coal) approaches and passes the μ-probe sampling position. The combination of micro-sampling with photo ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (PI-TOFMS) allows on-line intrapuff-resolved analysis of species formation inside a burning cigarette. Monitoring volatile smoke compounds during cigarette puffing and smoldering cycles in this way provides unparalleled insights into formation mechanisms and their time-dependent change. Using this technique the changes from pyrolysis conditions to combustion conditions inside the coal of a cigarette could be observed directly. A comparative analysis of species formation within a burning Kentucky 2R4F reference cigarette with μ-probe analysis reveals different patterns and behaviors for nicotine, and a range of semi-volatile aromatic and aliphatic species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Romy Hertz
- Joint Mass Spectrometry Centre, Chair of Analytical Chemistry, Institute of Chemistry, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
46
|
Liu C, McAdam K. Editorial [Hot Topic: Recent Advances in Understanding of Cigarette Smoke Free Radicals and Their Relationship to Smoking Related Diseases (Guest Editors: Chuan Liu and Kevin McAdam)]. MINI-REV ORG CHEM 2011. [DOI: 10.2174/157019311797440254] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
|
47
|
Liu C, DeGrandpré Y, Porter A, Griffiths A, McAdam K, Voisine R, Côté F, Proctor C. The use of a novel tobacco treatment process to reduce toxicant yields in cigarette smoke. Food Chem Toxicol 2011; 49:1904-17. [PMID: 21414707 DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.02.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2010] [Revised: 01/22/2011] [Accepted: 02/18/2011] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
The US Institute of Medicine has encouraged the pursuit and development of potential reduced-exposure products (PREPs) - tobacco products that substantially reduce exposure to one or more tobacco toxicants and can reasonably be expected to reduce the risk of one or more specific diseases or other adverse health effects. One potential approach is to reduce levels of some smoke toxicant precursors, such as proteins and polyphenols, in tobacco. We describe a treatment process involving aqueous tobacco extraction and treatment with protease; filtration of the extract to remove peptides, amino acids and polyphenols, and recombination of extract and treated tobacco. The process reduced levels of protein nitrogen (59%), polyphenols (33-78%) and nicotine (12%) while sugars increased 16%. ISO mainstream smoke yields of 43 toxicants were measured from cigarettes containing treated tobaccos; lower yields of tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide (16-20%), acrylonitrile, ammonia, aromatic amines, pyridine, quinolene and hydrogen cyanide (33-51%), tobacco specific nitrosamines (25-32%); phenolics (24-56%), benzene (16%), toluene (25%) and cadmium (34%) were obtained. There were significantly increased yields of formaldehyde (49%) and isoprene (17%). Reductions in sidestream yields of nitrogenous smoke toxicants and increases in sidestream yields of several carbonyls, benzo(a)pyrene and isoprene were also observed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chuan Liu
- British American Tobacco, Group Research and Development Centre, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, United Kingdom.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Várhegyi G, Czégény Z, Liu C, McAdam K. Thermogravimetric Analysis of Tobacco Combustion Assuming DAEM Devolatilization and Empirical Char-Burnoff Kinetics. Ind Eng Chem Res 2009. [DOI: 10.1021/ie901180d] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Gábor Várhegyi
- Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Chemical Research Center, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 17, Budapest 1525, Hungary, and GR&D, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Zsuzsanna Czégény
- Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Chemical Research Center, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 17, Budapest 1525, Hungary, and GR&D, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Chuan Liu
- Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Chemical Research Center, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 17, Budapest 1525, Hungary, and GR&D, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| | - Kevin McAdam
- Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Chemical Research Center, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 17, Budapest 1525, Hungary, and GR&D, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO15 8TL, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Abstract
Introduction: Snus is an oral snuff consisting of moist finely ground tobacco which is available in a loose form or with portions of the tobacco sealed in small sachets termed “pouches.” The product has a long history of use in Sweden. Currently, there is very little published information on levels of consumption and usage behaviors for snus in Sweden. The objective of this study was to obtain data on the frequency and duration of loose and pouched snus consumption in Sweden and investigate usage behaviors. Methods: Telephone surveys of snus users randomly selected from telephone directories in all regions of Sweden were conducted in 2007 and 2008. In total, 2,914 respondents answered questions on snus usage, including the types of products used and the quantity and frequency of use. Results: The majority of respondents (96%) used either pouched or loose snus alone. A minority (12.6%) reported dual use of smokeless and combustible tobacco products. Average daily consumption was 11–12 g for pouched snus and 29–32 g for loose snus. The typical duration of use of each pouch/portion was 60–70 min. Discussion: This survey has provided new insights into contemporary snus use in Sweden, such as the marked differences in daily consumption between loose and pouched snus, length of time that snus users typically keep pouches in the mouth, differential patterns of use in males and females, and the simultaneous use of multiple pouches in a small proportion of users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helena Digard
- Group R&D, British American Tobacco, Regents Park Road, Southampton SO158TL, UK
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Windsor P, Potter J, McAdam K, McCowan C. Evaluation of a Fatigue Initiative: Information on Exercise for Patients Receiving Cancer Treatment. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2009; 21:473-82. [DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2009.01.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2007] [Revised: 01/02/2009] [Accepted: 01/22/2009] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|