(C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“This study was performed to determine the dose limiting toxicity (DLT), the recommended phase II dose and the pharmacokinetic profile see more for SR271425, given over 1 h every 3 weeks. The initial starting dose of SR271425 was 17 mg/m(2). Patient selection was based on common

phase I criteria as well as additional cardiac criteria. Thirty-eight patients were accrued to 16 dose levels from 17 to 1,320 mg/m(2). Patient characteristics included 24 males and 14 females ages 35-78 with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (ten patients), 1 (27) and 2 (1). Tumor types were typical for a phase I study. The maximum administered dose was 1,320 mg/m(2) with two DLTs, both QTc grade 3 prolongation. No drug related hematological toxicity was noted. Grade 1 toxicities included rash, flushing, pruritus, weight loss, diarrhea, hypertension and fatigue. Grade 2 toxicities selleck compound included yellow discoloration of the skin, nausea and vomiting. QTc prolongation and hyperbilirubinemia were the only grade 3 toxicities noted. No confirmed tumor response

was observed; however, two patients had prolonged stable disease. Both C(end) and area under the plasma concentration time curve increased in a dose related manner. Plasma drug concentrations declined in a biphasic manner with a mean terminal elimination half-life (t(1/2)) of 7.1 h (+/- 1.3). There was no change in clearance or volume selleck inhibitor of distribution over the dose range studied. Due to cardiac toxicity occurring with both the parent compound, SR233377, as well as this analog, this series of agents was abandoned from further clinical development.”
“Tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) play an important role in extracellular matrix homeostasis by regulating MMP activity. Although they were initially considered inhibitors of tumor growth and metastasis, recently their role

in cancer progression has been controversial. The aim of our study was to compare the immunohistochemical expression of TIMP1 and TIMP2 between an uncontrollably invasive phenomenon (cancer) and an “in situ” process (trophoblast invasion) in an effort to assess any differential role of these molecules between these two distinct phenomena and therefore to understand better their contribution in cancer invasion and migration. We performed an immunohistochemical analysis of 50 carcinomas (colorectal, gastric, breast, pulmonary, and renal) and 40 first trimester gestations. The marker expression was evaluated semiquantitatively, separately in cancer parenchymal and trophoblastic cells as well as in malignant stromal and decidual cells, according to a percentage scale (0, <10, 10-50, and >50%) and according to staining intensity (0, +, ++, and +++).