RESULTS: The structures of synthesized bis-pyrimidine molecules were confirmed by physicochemical and spectral means. The synthesized compounds were further evaluated for their in vitro biological potentials i.e. antimicrobial activity using tube dilution method and anticancer activity against human colorectal carcinoma (HCT116) cancer cell line by Sulforhodamine B assay.
CONCLUSIONS: The biological study demonstrated that compounds s7, s8, s11, s14, s16, s17 and s18 have shown more promising antimicrobial activity with best MIC values than the cefadroxil (antibacterial) and fluconazole (antifungal) and compound s3 found to have better anticancer activity against human colorectal carcinoma (HCT116) cancer cell line.
METHODS: The synthesized pyrimidine scaffolds were screened for their antimicrobial activity by tube dilution method as well for antiproliferative activity (human colorectal (HCT116) cancer cell line) by SRB assay.
RESULTS: The antimicrobial screening results demonstrated that compounds, k6, k12, k14 and k20 were found to be the most potent ones against selected microbial species. The anticancer screening results indicated that compounds, k8 and k14 displayed potent anticancer activity against cancer cell line (HCT116).
CONCLUSION: Further, the molecular docking study carried to find out the interaction between active pyrimidine compounds with CDK-8 protein indicated that compound k14 showed best dock score with better potency within the ATP binding pocket and may be used as a lead for rational drug designing of the anticancer molecule.
METHODS: An open web server PharmMapper was used to identify the possible target of the developed compounds through reverse pharmacophore mapping. The results were analyzed and validated through docking with Schrodinger v9.6 using 10 protein GTPase HRas selected as possible target. The docking studies with Schrödinger validated the binding behavior of bis-pyrimidine compounds within GTP binding pocket. MTT and sulforhodamine assay were used as antiproliferative activity.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The protein was found one of the top scored targets of the compound 18, hence, the GTPase HRas protein was found crucial to be targeted for competing cancer. Toxicity study demonstrated the significant selectivity of most active compounds, 12, 16 and 18 showed negligible cell toxicity at their IC50 concentration.
CONCLUSION: From the results, we may conclude that GTPase HRas as a possible target of studied bis-pyrimidine derivatives where the retrieved information may be quite useful for rational drug designing.
CONCLUSION: Anticancer screening of the synthesized compounds using Sulforhodamine B (SRB) assay demonstrated that compounds 2y (IC50 = 0.01 µmol/mL) and 4y (IC50= 0.02 µmol/mL) have high antiproliferative potential against human colorectal carcinoma cancer cell line than the reference drug (5- fluorouracil) and these compounds also showed best dock score with better potency within the ATP binding pocket and may also be used lead for rational drug designing.
METHODS: PARACHUTE is a phase IV, prospective, non-interventional, observational study. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients remaining progression free at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were ORR, PFS, safety and tolerability, and relative dose intensity (RDI).
RESULTS: Overall, 190 patients with a median age of 61 years (range: 22.0-96.0) were included. Most patients were Asian (70%), clear-cell type RCC was the most common (81%), with a favourable (9%), intermediate (47%), poor (10%), and unknown (34%) MSKCC risk score. At the end of the observational period, 78 patients completed the observational period and 112 discontinued the study; 60% of patients had the starting dose at 800 mg. Median RDI was 82%, with 52% of patients receiving 10%) TEAEs related to pazopanib included diarrhoea (30%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (15%), and hypertension (14%).
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the PARACHUTE study support the use of pazopanib in patients with advanced or mRCC who are naive to VEGF-TKI therapy. The safety profile is consistent with that previously reported by pivotal and real-world evidence studies.
METHODS: Patients from FLAURA who received first-line osimertinib and from the AURA program (AURA, AURA2, AURA3) who received ≥ second-line osimertinib were included. Patients received osimertinib 80 mg once daily. Safety data were analyzed in patients who remained on treatment for ≥ 36 months. The post-study global safety database captured investigator-reported serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients who continued osimertinib beyond final data cut-off (DCO) of the studies. Best response data were analyzed in patients on treatment for ≥ 54 months (FLAURA) or ≥ 36 months (AURA program).
RESULTS: In FLAURA, 76 (28 %) and 36 (13 %) of 267 patients received first-line osimertinib for ≥ 36 and ≥ 54 months, respectively; median exposure: 52.5 and 64.5 months, respectively. Across the AURA program,124 (16 %) of 799 patients received ≥ second-line osimertinib for ≥ 36 months; median exposure: 44.7 months. Investigators reported on-study SAEs in 17 % (FLAURA) and 35 % (AURA program) of patients who continued treatment for ≥ 36 months. Post-study incidences of SAEs were 11 % (FLAURA) and 21 % (AURA program). On-study, adverse events (AEs) of cardiac effects (indicative of cardiac failure; grouped term) occurred in 7 % (FLAURA) and 5 % (AURA program) of patients; AEs of interstitial lung disease (ILD; grouped term) occurred in 0 (FLAURA) and 1 (AURA program) patient. No post-study SAEs were reported for the grouped terms cardiac effects and ILD. Most patients treated for ≥ 54 months (FLAURA) and ≥ 36 months (AURA program) had a best on-study response of partial response.
CONCLUSION: This analysis demonstrated that long-term treatment with osimertinib of ≥ 36 months was well tolerated in patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.