Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Safety of targeted osmotic lysis treatment in Beagle dogs
By Hunter, Robert P et al.·Published in American journal of veterinary research·2025·One Medicine Consulting·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Safety evaluation of targeted osmotic lysis therapy in Beagles.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 12 Beagle dogs underwent a new treatment called targeted osmotic lysis (TOL) to evaluate its safety for advanced cancer. The dogs received digoxin, a heart medication, along with pulsed electric field stimulation over three treatment cycles. After the treatment, the dogs showed no harmful effects or signs of injury, suggesting that TOL could be a safe option for treating cancer in dogs. This treatment might be considered alone or alongside other therapies like surgery or chemotherapy.
People also search for: Beagle cancer treatment · targeted osmotic lysis for dogs · safety of digoxin in dogs · pulsed electric field therapy for cancer in dogs
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to satisfy the US FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health regarding the safety of targeted osmotic lysis (TOL), a novel treatment for advanced carcinomas, in Beagle dogs. METHODS: 12 intact Beagle dogs, 6 males and 6 females, were divided into 2 treatment groups of 6, each receiving 3 TOL cycles. For each 6-day cycle, digoxin was administered orally at 0.007 mg/kg q 12 h X 6 days to achieve steady-state plasma concentrations. On days 5 and 6 of each cycle, the animals were exposed to pulsed electric field (PEF) stimulation at a field strength of either 18 or 40 V/min for 2 hours. Following the completion of cycles 1 and 2, animals were observed for 7 days. On the day following the end of cycle 3, the animals were euthanized. A complete macroscopic examination was performed, and tissues were collected for microscopic examination. RESULTS: As there were no concurrent untreated control animals, only qualitative comparisons were performed to assess potential differences between group 1, which received the digoxin plus 18 V/min PEF, and group 2, which received digoxin plus 40 V/min PEF. No adverse events related to TOL exposure were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Neither group demonstrated gross or microscopic lesions following 3 rounds of exposure to TOL. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Due to the lack of toxicity noted in the treated animals, TOL warrants consideration as either a standalone treatment option or as an adjunct to surgery or chemotherapy for managing malignant cancer.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39681070/