ABSTRACT
The compounds were isolated and purified by HP20 macroporous adsorption resin, ODS, silica gel, and Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography, as well as semi-preparative HPLC chromatography from the 80% ethanol extract of the root of Angelica decursiva, and their structures were identified based on their physiochemical properties and spectroscopic data. Twelve compounds were structures were identified as (9R,10R)-9-acetoxy-8,8-dimethyl-9,10-dihydro-2H,8H-benzo[1,2-bï¼3,4-b']dipyran-2-one-10-yl ester (1), bakuchicin (2), (3', S,4'S)-disenecioyloxy-3',4'-dihydroseselin (3), (3'R,4'R)-3'-angeloyloxy-4'-senecioyloxy-3',4'-dihydroseselincalipteryxin (4), (+)-8,9-dihydro-8-(2-hydroxypropan-2-yl)-2-oxo-2H-furo[2,3h]chromen-9-yl-3-methylbut-2-enoate (5), libanoridin (6), selinidin (7), suberosin (8), crocatone (9), peujaponisinol B (10), peujaponisinol A (11), and ostenol (12), respectively. Compounds 1-5 were isolated from the plants of Angelica genus for the first time. Compounds 7-12 were isolated from A. decursiva for the first time.
Subject(s)
Angelica/chemistry , Phytochemicals/analysis , Plant Roots/chemistry , Chromatography, High Pressure LiquidABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Our aim is to test the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Chinese version of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Bone Metastases 22 (EORTC QLQ-BM22) module to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with bone metastases in China. METHODS: Patients with histological confirmation of malignancy and bone metastases from Tianjin Cancer Institution and Hospital from June 2013 to April 2014 were enrolled in this study. All patients self-administered the EORTC QLQ-BM22 and the EORTC QLQ-C30. The Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) was performed to evaluate scores. The reliability and validity tests of the questionnaires were based on Cronbach's α coefficients, Pearson correlation test, and Wilcoxon rank sum nonparametric test. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliabilities of all the four scales were acceptable. Scales measuring similar HRQOL aspects were found to correlate with one another between EORTC QLQ-BM22 and EORTC QLQ-C30, but differences still existed. Significant differences were demonstrated in the scores of all four subscales of the QLQ-BM22 between the two KPS subgroups (KPS ≤ 80; KPS > 80). Meanwhile, the compliance for item completion of the QLQ-BM22 was satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of EORTC QLQ-BM22 is a reliable and valid instrument, which is appropriate for measuring the HRQOL of patients with bone metastases in China.
