Catalogue Number
BN-B0567
Analysis Method
HPLC,NMR,MS
Specification
98%(HPLC)
Storage
2-8°C
Molecular Weight
386.4
Appearance
Powder
Botanical Source
Structure Type
Coumarins
Category
Standards;Natural Pytochemical;API
SMILES
CC(=CC(=O)OC1C(C2=C(C=CC3=C2OC(=O)C=C3)OC1(C)C)OC(=O)C)C
Synonyms
10-Acetoxy-8,8-dimethyl-2-oxo-9,10-dihydro-2H,8H-pyrano[2,3-f]chromen-9-yl 3-methyl-2-butenoate/21-Cyanosaframycin D/2-Butenoic acid, 3-methyl-, 10-(acetyloxy)-9,10-dihydro-8,8-dimethyl-2-oxo-2H,8H-benzo[1,2-b:3,4-b']dipyran-9-yl ester
IUPAC Name
[(9R,10R)-10-acetyloxy-8,8-dimethyl-2-oxo-9,10-dihydropyrano[2,3-f]chromen-9-yl] 3-methylbut-2-enoate
Density
1.3±0.1 g/cm3
Solubility
Soluble in Chloroform,Dichloromethane,Ethyl Acetate,DMSO,Acetone,etc.
Flash Point
211.5±28.8 °C
Boiling Point
486.8±45.0 °C at 760 mmHg
Melting Point
InChl
InChI=1S/C20H24O10/c1-20(2,30-19-17(26)16(25)15(24)12(7-21)29-19)18-14(23)9-5-8-3-4-13(22)27-10(8)6-11(9)28-18/h3-6,12,14-19,21,23-26H,7H2,1-2H3/t12-,14-,15-,16+,17-,18-,19+/m1/s1
InChl Key
FNVCLGWRMXTDSM-WOJBJXKFSA-N
WGK Germany
RID/ADR
HS Code Reference
2932990000
Personal Projective Equipment
Correct Usage
For Reference Standard and R&D, Not for Human Use Directly.
Meta Tag
provides coniferyl ferulate(CAS#:477-33-8) 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.
29489911
Purpose
Controversy continues on the tailored therapy for patients with larger renal cell carcinoma (RCC). We investigated whether partial nephrectomy (PN) can improve patient prognosis compared to radical nephrectomy (RN) and the indications for each approach in patients with T1b-2N0M0 RCC.
Materials and methods
A total of 9907 patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2004 to 2012. Propensity scores were used to balance the selection bias of undergoing PN. Overall (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) of patients undergoing PN and RN were compared. Cases were subdivided to investigate the advantages of each procedure.
Results
Overall, 1418 (14.3%) patients underwent PN. Before matching, PN led to better OS and CSS than RN in both Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression (each p<0.01). For 1412 matched cohorts, PN was no longer associated with significantly better OS (HR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.98-1.44), but still with a better CSS (HR: 1.66, 95% CI: 1.18-2.27) compared with RN. Further subgroup analysis indicated that patients, who were male, single living, old than 65 years, with T1b stage or clear-cell histologic type, may obtained more oncologic benefit from PN compared to RN.
Conclusions
When tumor localization and technical feasibility have been taken into account, similar long-term survival was achieved in overall among two nephrectomy modalities, but patients, who were male, old than 65 years, with T1b stage or clear-cell histologic type, got a better survival after receiving PN compared to RN.
Partial versus radical nephrectomy for T1b-2N0M0 renal tumors: A propensity score matching study based on the SEER database
Mengping Zhang, Zhijian Zhao, Xiaolu Duan, Tuo Deng, Chao Cai, Wenqi Wu, Guohua Zeng
2018;
