Shipping to United States We Offer Worldwide Shipping
Login Wishlist

Dacarbazine

$58

  • Brand : BIOFRON

  • Catalogue Number : BD-P0674

  • Specification : 98.0%(HPLC)

  • CAS number : 4342-03-4

  • Formula : C6H10N6O

  • Molecular Weight : 182.18

  • PUBCHEM ID : 5353562

  • Volume : 25mg

Available on backorder

Quantity
Checkout Bulk Order?

Catalogue Number

BD-P0674

Analysis Method

Specification

98.0%(HPLC)

Storage

-20℃

Molecular Weight

182.18

Appearance

Powder

Botanical Source

Structure Type

Category

SMILES

CN(C)N=NC1=C(NC=N1)C(=O)N

Synonyms

dtic-aome/1H-Imidazole-4-carboxamide, 5-[(1E)-3,3-dimethyl-1-triazen-1-yl]-/5-(3,3-Dimethyltriazeno)imidazole-4-carboxamide/Dtic-Dome/DTIC/DTIE/5-(3,3-Dimethyltriaz-1-en-1-yl)-1H-imidazole-4-carboxamide/5-(3,3-Dimethyl-1-triazenyl)imidazole-4-carboxamide,DTIC/1H-imidazole-5-carboxamide, 4-[(1E)-3,3-dimethyl-1-triazenyl]-/5-[(1E)-3,3-Dimethyltriaz-1-en-1-yl]-1H-imidazole-4-carboxamide/Dacarbazine/5-(3,3-Dimethyl-1-triazenyl)imidazole-4-carboxamide DTIC/5-(3,3-dimethyl-l-triazenyl)imidazole-4-carboxamide/1H-Imidazole-4-carboxamide, 5- (3,3-dimethyl-1-triazenyl)-/5-(3,3-dimethyltriazen-1-yl)-imidazole-4-carboxamide/DTIC Dome/DICARBAZINE/5-(3,3-dimethyl-1-triazenyl)-1H-imidazole-4-carboxamide/5-(3,3-dimethyl-1-triazenyl)imidazole-4-carboxamide/deticene/4-[(1E)-3,3-Dimethyl-1-triazen-1-yl]-1H-imidazole-5-carboxamide/DIC

IUPAC Name

Applications

Density

1.5±0.1 g/cm3

Solubility

Flash Point

229.7±31.5 °C

Boiling Point

456.3±55.0 °C at 760 mmHg

Melting Point

199-205°C

InChl

InChl Key

OMJKFYKNWZZKTK-UXBLZVDNSA-N

WGK Germany

RID/ADR

HS Code Reference

Personal Projective Equipment

Correct Usage

For Reference Standard and R&D, Not for Human Use Directly.

Meta Tag

provides coniferyl ferulate(CAS#:4342-03-4) MSDS, density, melting point, boiling point, structure, formula, molecular weight etc. Articles of coniferyl ferulate are included as well.>> amp version: coniferyl ferulate

No Technical Documents Available For This Product.

PMID

31897678

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the prognostic value of the percentage change of maximum standardized uptake value (ΔSUVmax) assessed by PET/CT scan after 2 cycles of chemotherapy (iPET2) in patients with classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (CHL). ΔSUVmax was calculated as follows: the ratio of (SUVmax at baseline-SUVmax at iPET2)/SUVmax at baseline which was determined before initiation of ABVD chemotherapy. The median ΔSUVmax of 46 patients at iPET2 was 87.9% (range – 6.1-100.0%). The optimal ΔSUVmax cutoff value for progression-free survival (PFS) was 83.0% with the receiver operating characteristic curve. The area under the curve for PFS was 0.886 (95% CI 0.788-0.984, p < 0.001). The median PFS of 29 (63.0%) patients who achieved a SUVmax reduction of more than 83.0% was 34 months. The median PFS of 17 (37.0%) patients with ΔSUVmax < 83.0% was 9 months. This difference was significant (p < 0.001). Cohen's kappa coefficient of Deauville Score (DS)- and ΔSUVmax-judged positivity was 0.752 (95% CI 0.592-0.992, p < 0.001), suggesting a strong consistency. Multivariate analysis showed that ΔSUVmax at iPET2 less than 83.0% of SUVmax at diagnosis was an independent factor predicting PFS [HR = 11.339, 95% CI 2.485-51.742, p = 0.002]. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of ΔSUVmax<83.0% was 84.6%, 81.8%, 67.7%, 93.1%, and 82.6%, which was similar to that of DS as 61.5%, 87.9%, 66.7%, 85.3%, and 80.4%, respectively. ΔSUVmax<83.0% of iPET2 effectively predicts prognosis of patients with CHL treated with ABVD.

KEYWORDS

Classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma; Percentage change of maximum standardized uptake value; Positron emission tomography

Title

The prognostic significance of ΔSUVmax assessed by PET/CT scan after 2 cycles of chemotherapy in patients with classic Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Author

Yang S1, Qiu L2, Huang X1, Wang Q3, Lu J4.

Publish date

2020 Feb

PMID

31874516

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of patients with Hodgkin’s lymphoma(HL). Methods: The clinical data of HL patients who were newly treated in Guizhou Cancer Hospital from August 2007 to March 2019 was retrospectively collected, and the efficacy and prognostic factors were analyzed. Results: The clinical data of a total of 222 patients were analyzed in this study. The 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)rate of them were 82.8% and 81.3%, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate and OS rate of early (stage Ⅰ-Ⅱ) HL were 87.3% and 86.1%, respectively, and the 5-year PFS rate and OS rate of progressive (stage Ⅲ-Ⅳ) HL were 77.9% and 76.3%, respectively. Among the 118 patients with early Hodgkin’s lymphoma, the complete remission(CR) rate of chemotherapy alone was 55.6%(15/27), and chemotherapy plus radiotherapy was 86.8% (79/91), the difference between which was statistically significant (P<0.05). Compared with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in early stage patients, 5-year PFS (93.0%) and 5-year OS (92.0%) rate in patients with chemotherapy plus radiotherapy were better than those with chemotherapy alone which were 63.7% and 62.1%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that age, LDH, ABVD cycle number and chemoradiotherapy were independent prognostic factors for 5-year OS and PFS rate in HL patients. The adverse reactions were increased level Ⅰ-Ⅱ aminotransferase with an incidence of 47.7% (106/222), decreased level Ⅰ-Ⅱ neutrophils with an absolute value of 54.1% (120/222), and decreased level Ⅲ-Ⅳ neutrophils with an absolute value of 45.9% (102/222). No adverse cardiac and pulmonary reactions or secondary tumors associated with chemotherapy was found in all patients. Conclusions: HL is a type of malignant tumor with good prognosis, and the short-term and long-term efficacy of chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy in early patients is better than that of chemotherapy alone. Age, LDH, ABVD cycle number and chemoradiotherapy are associated with prognosis in patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. Adverse reactions can be tolerated.

KEYWORDS

Lymphoma; Prognosis; Treatment outcome

Title

[Clinical characteristics and analysis of prognostic factors of 222 patients diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma].

Author

Hu YF1, Huang YH1, Luo W1, Chen MX1, Zhang J1, Gou F1.

Publish date

2019 Dec 24

PMID

31872362

Abstract

The International Prognostic Score (IPS) is the most commonly used risk stratification tool for patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). It incorporates seven clinical parameters independently associated with a poorer outcome: male sex, age, stage IV, hemoglobin level, white blood cell and lymphocyte counts, and albumin level. Since the development of the IPS, there have been significant advances in therapy and supportive care. Recent studies suggest that the IPS is less discriminating due to improved outcomes with ABVD therapy. The aim of the present study was to asses if classic prognostic factors maintain their prognostic meaning at the time of response-adapted treatment based on interim PET scans. We evaluated the prognostic significance of IPS in the 520 advanced stage HL patients enrolled in the PET-guided, HD0801 trial in which PET2-positive patients underwent a more intense treatment with an early stem-cell transplantation after 2 cycles of ABVD. We observed that in these patients, the IPS completely loses its prognostic value together with all the single parameters that contribute to the IPS. Furthermore, neutrophils, monocytes, lymphocytes, and the ratio among them also no longer had any predictive value. We believe that the substantial improvement in survival outcomes in PET2-positive patients treated with early autologous transplantation could explain the complete disappearance of the residual prognostic significance of the IPS.

KEYWORDS

Absolute monocyte count; Hodgkin lymphoma; International Prognostic Score; Neutrophil lymphocyte ratio; PET

Title

The classic prognostic factors in advanced Hodgkin's lymphoma patients are losing their meaning at the time of Pet-guided treatments.

Author

Bari A1, Marcheselli R2, Sacchi S3, Re A4, Pagani C4, Tucci A4, Botto B5, Vitolo U5, Molinari AL6, Puccini B7, Pulsoni A8, Santoro A9, Tani M10, Nassi L11, Meli E12, Pavone V13, Bonfichi M14, Evangelista A15, Gioia D2, Levis A2, Zinzani P16; Fondazione Italiana Linfomi (Onlus).

Publish date

2020 Feb