| Literature DB >> 31826297 |
Motozumi Ando1,2, Masaki Hirabatake2, Hisateru Yasui3, Shoji Fukushima1, Nobuyuki Sugioka1, Tohru Hashida2.
Abstract
Mitotane is a key drug for the treatment of adrenal cortical carcinoma. Due to its narrow therapeutic window, 14-20 μg/mL, monitoring its concentration is crucially important. In this study, a simplified method for measuring mitotane in plasma using gas chromatography-electron ionization-mass spectrometry (GC-EI-MS) was developed. Through deproteination and liquid-liquid extraction, mitotane and an internal standard (IS) were extracted from plasma samples. GC-EI-MS yielded retention times of 8.2 and 8.7 min, for mitotane and the IS, respectively, with a total run time of 12 min. Selectivity and intra-/inter-batch accuracy and precision analyses provided a lower limit of quantification of 0.25 μg/mL, and a calibration curve between 0.25 and 40 μg/mL had good linearity (coefficient of determination = 0.992). The matrix effect factor and percent recovery of the method had good precision. Additionally, long-term sample stability was observed below 4°C. In a clinical setting, mitotane levels in plasma from an adrenal cortical carcinoma patient were within calibration range. Therefore, this simplified method can be applied to routine therapeutic drug monitoring of mitotane, which may contribute to improved treatment of adrenal cortical carcinoma.Entities:
Keywords: adrenal cortical carcinoma, electron ionization, gas chromatography, mitotane, therapeutic drug monitoring
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31826297 PMCID: PMC7064981 DOI: 10.1002/bmc.4776
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Chromatogr ISSN: 0269-3879 Impact factor: 1.902
Intra‐ and inter‐batch variability of mitotane at low, mid, and high concentration
| Intra‐batch variability ( | Inter‐batch variability ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration (μg/mL) | Mean accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Mean accuracy (%) | Precision (%) |
| 0.25 | 92.0 | 7.8 | 101.6 | 9.5 |
| 20 | 91.4 | 4.4 | 92.2 | 4.3 |
| 40 | 96.9 | 5.0 | 101.1 | 3.6 |
Figure 1Representative calibration curve generated using an internal standard method. Line‐fitting was achieved using the weighted least‐squares method