Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 245–251 | Cite as

Chemosensitivity of human neoplasms with in vitro clone formation

Experience at the University of Southern California — Los Angeles County Medical Center
  • John R. Daniels
  • Anna Marie Daniels
  • Edward E. Luck
  • Beverly Whitman
  • John T. Casagrande
  • Donald G. Skinner
Articles Clinical Experience

Summary

We analyze experience with 600 specimens for in vitro chemosensitivity assessment of human neoplasms utilizing a soft agar colony-forming technique. Good test reproducibility is demonstrated. Disaggregation with collagenase enhances yield and does not alter chemosensitivity profiles. Therapeutic exposure to chemotherapy prior to biopsy reduces in vitro sensitivity to the specific agents used in vitro. The cyclophosphamide derivatives 4-hydroperoxycyclophosphamide (4-HC) and phosphoramide mustard are active in vitro, and produce comparable rank order sensitivities among tested tumors. There is marked reduction of in vitro 4-HC sensitivity in patients with prior therapeutic cyclophosphamide exposure, supporting the use of this derivative in test systems. Rank order of test results among specimens is compared at 0.1 μg and 10 μg drug/ml. Substantial differences in rank order at these two dose levels are demonstrated, indicating that the in vitro test dose selected is an important variable.

Keywords

Cyclophosphamide Dose Level Human Neoplasm Collagenase Rank Order 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Alberts DS, Chen HG, Salmon SE et al. (1980) In vitro clonogenic assay for predicting response of ovarian cancer to chemotherapy. Lancet 1: 340–342Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley TR, Metcalf D (1966) The growth of mouse bone marrow cells in vitro. Aust J Exp Biol Med Sci 44: 287Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colvin M, Padgett CA, Fenselau C (1973) A biologically active metabolite of cyclophosphamide. Cancer Res 33: 915–918Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hamburger AW, Salmon SE (1977) Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science 197: 461Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Puck TT, Marcus PI, Ciecura SJ (1955) Clonal growth of mammalian cells in vitro. J Exp Med 103: 273Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salmon SE, Hamburger AW et al. (1978) Quantitation of differential sensitivity of human tumor stem cells to anticancer drugs. N Engl J Med 294: 1321Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Takaniejawa A, Matsumoto S, Iwata T, Katagiri K, Tochino Y, Yamaguchi K (1973) Studies on cyclophosphamide metabolites and their related compounds. II. Preparation of an active species of cyclophosphamide and some related compounds. J Am Chem Soc 95: 985–986Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van der Steen J, Timmer EC, Westrau JG, Benckhuysen C (1973) 4-Hydroperoxidation in the Fenton oxcidation of the antitumor agent cyclophosphamide. J Am Chem Soc 95: 7535–7536Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Volm M, Mattern J, Wayss K (1977) Detection of induced tumour-resistance to cyclophosphamide by the in vitro short-term test. Arch Gynaekol 223: 249–257Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • John R. Daniels
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anna Marie Daniels
    • 4
  • Edward E. Luck
    • 4
  • Beverly Whitman
    • 4
  • John T. Casagrande
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Donald G. Skinner
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Medicine, USC-LAC County Medical CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, USC-LAC County Medical CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Community and Family Medicine, USC-LAC County Medical CenterUniversity of Southern CaliforniaUSA
  4. 4.CYTOSCAN, Inc.Santa MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations