Talk:Cyclophosphamide

message: I was hoping to write about the history of this drug, but I have no access yet to this article:
:Brock N. The history of the oxazaphosphorine cytostatics. Cancer 1996;78:542-7. .
When I do, there will be a history section. JFW | T@lk 14:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: source

message: I thought that it was hydroxylated to 4-hydroxycyclophosphamide? Axl 07:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, cyclophosphamide's metabolism is more complicated than I thought. I'll expand the entry. Axl 07:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you mean "you win"? :-/ I don't have access to that particular journal, but I'll have a go at the history. Axl 16:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prodrug 

message: Shouldn't the formula in the table read Cl2 ("Cl" with a 2 subscript), rather than Cl2 ("C" with a "12" subscript)? It already has C (carbon) listed as 7, and the diagram clearly shows two Cl (chlorine) atoms. 7 sounds right for the count of carbon atoms; three in the benzine ring (three of the usual 6 are replaced with P, N, and NH), and two each in the short chains terminating in the chlorine atoms. I can't see how you could end up with 12 or 19 carbon atoms. --Mike Van Emmerik 12:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mike, you are correct. Looking carefully, I can tell that it is the letter 'l', not the number '1'. I have changed it. Axl 15:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Formula 

message: I think it would be nice to add a few common trade names against this drug it would assist they average lay person researching a drug they may be taking .
         Cytotoxan(R)
         Cycloblastin (R)
--Benjicharlton 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trade Names 

message: There are (at least) three Wikipedia articles about related substances:
ifosfamide
trofosfamide
cyclophosphamide
The systematic names given in the articles are as follows:
ifosfamide = N-3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-AMIDE-2-oxide
trofosfamide = N,N,3-tris(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-AMIDE 2-oxide
cyclophosphamide = N,N-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-AMINE 2-oxide
(capitalization added for emphasis). The question here is why ifosfamide and trofosfamide are considered "amides" while cyclophosphamide is considered an "amine". None of these substances has the characteristic CONH2 group. Either they are all amines or they are all amides. Which one is correct? Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that besides for the usage of 'amide' to mean 'a compound that contains a C(O)NR2 group' (which might be technically more correct), it is also acceptable to call a deprotonated amine and 'amide'. Perhaps that is what's going on here... 69.115.85.189 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amide vs. amine 

message: Are we sure that the enzyme that is responsible for converting the aldophosphamide to the carboxyphosphamide (thus inactivating it) is ALDH (aldehyde dehydrogenase)? I was pretty sure that it was actually aldehyde oxidase that is responsible for this. These are two different enzymes. Anyone have any more knowledge about this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.34.82 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALDH? Should it be Aldehyde Oxidase?? 

message: Cyclophosphamide is a racemate with a stereo center at the P atom. The 3D structure shows one of the two enantiomers, which may suggest cyclophosphamide is a pure stereoisomer. But this is wrong. Best regards, --Jü (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racemate 

message: User:Magnoffiq in your edits:
* diff at 02:51, 1 December 2018 
* diff at 22:09, 2 December 2018
the source you added, PMID 645736, is a) what we call a "primary source" (see the WP:MEDDEF section of WP:MEDRS) and b) from 1978, which is way too old per the WP:MEDDATE section of MEDRS.  
If there is a recent literature review in a good journal, or perhaps the drug label, or a statement by some other major medical or scientific body, that would be an appropriate source for nephrotoxicity.   If you don't understand why MEDRS is important here in Wikipedia, you might find WP:Why MEDRS? helpful. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jytdog for explaining why the OP negated my edit. Although I might beg to differ, the rationale you expose is a sufficient basis for disinclusion. Magnoffiq (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, in the future please ask, per WP:BRD, instead of edit warring and demanding an explanation. (please do read WP:BRD - that's the process by which you can learn, gracefully.) Thanks Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: You seem to site the same source after every sentence in a paragraph. Perhaps just have that source at the end? Justanotherstudenthere (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations