Talk:Ifosfamide

message: == Amide vs. amine ==
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) 00:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

message: The systematic name of ifosfamide is given as:
N-3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-amide-2-oxide
Aside from the question of whether this should be considered an amide or an amine, shouldn't this be:
N,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1,3,2-oxazaphosphinan-2-amide-2-oxide
That is, shouldn't there be a COMMA between the initial "N" and the "3" rather than a hyphen? Thomas.Hedden (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on systematic name 

message: A Google search of this term yields only mirrors of this article. Can anyone elaborate about this? -- megA (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwell was the researcher who wrote quite extensively in the 1980s about ifosfamide in various diseases; some of his papers discuss neurotoxicity (e.g. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(90)90054-9 and doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(85)91432-1). I can't currently find the paper where his toxicity criteria are outlined, but I'm pretty sure that this is the reason why the criteria bear his name. JFW | T@lk 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! -- megA (talk) 11:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "meanwell criteria"? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ifosfamide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060602101647/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CDG/content/CDG_ifosfamide.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CDG/content/CDG_ifosfamide.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020217134834/http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic2/ifosfamide.htm to http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic2/ifosfamide.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: ifosfamide MoA is not support by reference #2 primarily; i.e., ref #2 cited 160+ references, one of which may support the MoA described. Further, the mechanism described is quite vague. 
Thus, since ifosfamide is a prodrug for/of cyclophosphamide, I suggest merging with the cyclophosphamide wikpedia entry or linking to it and using the references cited in the cyclophosphamide entry to support additions to the ifosfamide entry's MoA subsection: Cyclophosphamide, and I suggest, as well, pulling refs from the wiki entry for the drug class itself. Riviello.michael (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ifosfamide MoA is not (directly) supported by reference #2