Cancer and Metastasis Reviews

, Volume 20, Issue 1–2, pp 123–132 | Cite as

Tumor Physiology and Drug Resistance

  • Ian F. Tannock


Clinical resistance is usually assumed to be due to the initial presence or selection of drug-resistant cells in tumors. While important, it is suggested in this review that genetically-determined causes of cellular resistance represent but one cause (and possibly not the major cause) of effective clinical resistance of solid tumors. Factors that depend on tumor physiology, and on the microenvironment and three-dimensional structure of solid tumors, may have a profound influence on their sensitivity to anti-cancer drugs. Particular emphasis is placed on the limited penetration of some drugs from tumor blood vessels and on the repopulation of tumor cells between courses of chemotherapy as causes of clinical resistance. Both of these mechanisms are amenable to modulation to improve therapeutic index. Failure to recognize that clinical drug resistance cannot be explained entirely by mechanisms operative at the level of the single cell may lead to disappointing results in clinical trials such as, for example, clinical failure of the strategy of reversal of multidrug resistance.

microenvironment drug resistance tissue penetration repopulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cara S,Tannock IF: Retreatment of patients with the same chemotherapy: implications for clinical mechanisms of drug resistance. Ann Oncol 12: 23–27, 2001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plumb JA,Strathdee G,Sludden J,Kaye SB,Brown R: Reversal of drug resistance in human tumor xenografts by 2_-deoxy-azacytidine-induced demethylation of the hMLH1 promoter. Cancer Res 60: 6039–6044, 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tannock IF: The relation between cell proliferation and the vascular system in a transplanted mouse mammary tumour. Br J Cancer 22: 258–273, 1968Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tannock IF: Population kinetics of carcinoma cells, capillary endothelial cells, and fibroblasts in a transplanted mouse mammary tumor. Cancer Res 30: 2470–2476, 1970Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hirst DG,Denekamp J: Tumour cell proliferation in relation to the vasculature. Cell Tissue Kinet 12: 31–42, 1979Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tannock IF,Guttman P: Response of Chinese Hamster ovary cells to anti-cancer drugs under aerobic and hypoxic conditions. Br J Cancer 43: 245–248, 1981Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta V,Costanzi JJ: Role of hypoxia in anticancer druginduced cytotoxicity for Ehrlich ascites cells. Cancer Res 47: 2407–2412, 1987Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tannock IF,Rotin D: Acid pH in tumors and its potential for therapeutic exploitation. Cancer Res 49: 4373–4384, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vukovic V,Tannock IF: Influence of low pH on cytotoxicity of paclitaxel, mitoxantrone and topotecan. Br J Cancer 75: 1167–1172, 1997Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cowan DS,Tannock IF: Factors that influence the penetration of methotrexate through solid tissue. Int J Cancer 91: 120–125, 2001Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helmlinger G,Yuan F,Dellian M,Jain RK: Interstitial pH and pO2 gradients in solid tumors in vivo: high-resolution measurements reveal a lack of correlation. Nature Med 3: 177–182, 1997Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teicher BA,Herman TS,Holden SA,Wang YY,Pfeffer MR,Crawford JW,Frei E: Tumor resistance to alkylating agents conferred by mechanisms operative only in vivo. Science 247: 1457–1461, 1990Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kerbel RS,Rak J,Kobayashi H,Man MS,St Croix B,Granham CH: Multicellular resistance: a new paradigm to expla in aspects of acquired drug resistance of solid tumors. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 59: 661–672, 1994Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tunggal JK,Ballinger JR,Tannock IF: Influence of cell concentration in limiting the therapeutic benefit of P-glycoprotein reversal agents. Int J Cancer 81: 741–747, 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Milroy R: A randomised clinical study of verapamil in addition to combination chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer. West of Scotland Lung Cancer Research Group and the Aberdeen Oncology Group. Br J Cancer 67: 1031–1035, 1993Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wishart GC,Bissett D,Paul J,Jodrell D,Harnett A,Habeshaw T,Kerr DJ,Macham MA,Soukop M,Leonard RCF,Knepil J,Kaye SB: Quinidine as a resistance modulator of Epirubic in in advanced breast cancer: mature results of a placebo-controlled randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 12: 1771–1777, 1994Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dalton WS,Crowley JJ,Salmon SS,Grogan TM,Laufman LR,Weiss GR,Bonnet D: A phase III randomized study of oral verapamil as a chemosensitizer to reverse drug resistance in patients with refractory myeloma: a Southwest Oncology Study Group Study. Cancer 75: 815–820, 1995Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tannock IF: Population kinetics of carcinoma cells, capillary endothelial cells, and fibroblasts in a transplanted mouse mammary tumor. Cancer Res 30: 2470–2476, 1970Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Denekamp J,Hobson B: Endothelial cell proliferation in experimental tumours. Br J Cancer 46: 711–720, 1982Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Browder T,Butterfield CE,Kraling BM,Shi B,Marshall B,O'Reilly MS,Folkman J: Antiangiogenic scheduling of chemotherapy improves efficacy against experimental drugresistant cancer. Cancer Res 60: 1876–1886, 2000Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klement G,Baruchel S,Rak J,Man S,Clark K,Hicklin DJ,Bohlen P,Kerbel RS: Continuous low-dose therapy with vinblastine and VEGF receptor-2 antibody induces sustained tumor regression without overt toxicity. J Clin Invest 105: 1045–1047, 2000Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vaupel P,Kallinowski F,Okunieff P: Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res 49: 6449–6465, 1989Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jain RK: Vascular and interstitial barriers to delivery of therapeutic agents in tumors. Cancer Metastasis Rev 9: 253–266, 1990Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sutherland RM,Eddy HA,Bareham B,Reich K,Vanantwerp D: Resistance to Adriamycin in multicellular spheroids. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 5: 1225–1230, 1979Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    West GW,Weichselbaum R,Little JB: Limited penetration of methotrexate into human osteosarcoma spheroids as a proposed model for solid tumor resistance to adjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Res 40: 3665–3668, 1980Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nederman T,Carlsson J: Penetration and binding of vinblastine and 5-fluorouracil in cellular spheroids. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 13: 131–135, 1984Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wartenberg M,Heschler J,Acker H,Diedershagen H,Sauer H: Doxorubic in distribution in multicellular prostate cancer spheroids evaluated by confocal laser scanning microscopy and the ‘optical probe technique’. Cytometry 31: 137–145, 1998Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lankelma J,Dekker H,Luque FR,Luykx S,Hoekman K,van der Valk P,van Dienst PJ,Pinedo HM: Doxorubicin gradients in human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 5: 1703–1707, 1999Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chaplin DJ,Durand RE,Olive PL: Cell selection from a murine tumour using the fluorescent probe Hoechst 33342. Br J Cancer 51: 569–572, 1985Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Durand RE: Chemosensitivity testing inV79spheroids: drug delivery and cellular micro-environment. J Natl Cancer Inst 77: 247–252, 1986Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Durand RE: Distribution and activity of antineoplastic drugs in a tumor model. J Natl Cancer Inst 81: 146–152, 1989Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Durand RE: Slow penetration of anthracyclines into spheroids and tumors: a therapeutic advantage? Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 26: 198–204, 1990Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cowan DSM,Hicks KO,Wilson WR: Multicellular membranes as an in vitro model for extravascular diffusion in tumours. Br J Cancer 74(Suppl xxvii): 528–531, 1996Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hicks KO,Ohms SJ,van Zijl PL,Denny WA,Hunter PJ,Wilson WR: An experimental and mathematical model for the extravascular transport of aDNAintercalator in tumours. Br J Cancer 76: 894–903, 1997Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Phillips RM,Loadman PM,Cronin BP: Evaluation of a novel in vitro assay for assessing drug penetration into avascular regions of tumours. Br J Cancer 77: 2112–2119, 1998Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tunggal JK,Cowan DSM,Shaikh H,Tannock IF: Penetration of anticancer drugs through solid tissue: a factor that limits the effectiveness of chemotherapy for solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 5: 1583–1586, 1999Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kyle AH,Minchinton AI: Measurement of delivery and metabolism of tiripazamine to tumor tissue using the multilayered cell culture model. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 43: 213–220, 1999Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tunggal JK,Melo T,Ballinger JR,Tannock IF: The influence of expression of P-glycoprotein on the penetration of anticancer drugs through multicellular layers. Int J Cancer 86: 101–107, 2000Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Altan N,Chen Y,Schindler M,Simon SM: Defective acidification in human breast tumor cells and implications for chemotherapy. J Exp Med 187: 1583–1598, 1998Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Withers HR,Taylor JM,Maciejewski B: The hazard of accelerated tumor clonogen repopulation during radiotherapy. Acta Oncol 27: 131–146, 1988Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Begg AC,Hofland I,Kummemehr J: Tumour cell repopulation during fractionated radiotherapy: correlation between flow cytometric and radiobiological data in three murine tumours. Eur J Cancer 27: 537–543, 1991Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bentzen SM,Thames HD: Clinical evidence for tumor clonogen regeneration: interpretations of the data. Radiother Oncol 22: 161–166, 1991Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Maciejewski B,Preuss-Bayer G,Trott KR: The influence of the number of fractions and of overall treatment time on local control and late complication rate in squamous cell carcinoma of the larynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 9: 321–328, 1983Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fyles A,Keane TJ,Barton M,Simm J: The effect of treatment duration in the local control of cervix cancer. Radiother Oncol 25: 273–279, 1992Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Saunders MI,Dische S,Rojas A: CHART (continuous, hyperfractionated, accelerated radiotherapy): a tale of two disciplines. Br J Cancer 80(Suppl 1): 110–115, 1999Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Davis AJ,Tannock IF: Repopulation of tumour cells between cycles of chemotherapy: a neglected factor. Lancet Oncol 1: 86–93, 2000Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rosenblum ML,Knebel KD,Vasquez DA,Wilson CB: In vivo clonogenioc tumor cell kinetics following 1,3-bis(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea brain tumor therapy. Cancer Res 36: 3718–3725, 1976Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Stephens TC,Peacock JH: Tumour volume response, initial cell kill and cellular repopulation in B16 melanoma treated with cyclophosphamide and 1-(2-chloroethyl)-3 cyclohexyl-1-nitrosourea. Br J Cancer 36: 313–321, 1977Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Milas L,Nakayama T,Hunter N,Jones S,Lin TM,Yamada S,Thames H,Peters L: Dynamics of tumor clonogen repopulation in a murine sarcoma treated with cyclophosphamide. Radiother Oncol 30: 247–253, 1994Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Durand RE,Vanderbyl SL: Tumor resistance to therapy: a genetic or kinetic problem? Cancer Commun 1: 277–283, 1989Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bourhis J,Wilson G,Wibault P,Janot F,Bosq J,Armand JP,Luboinski B,Malaise EP,Eschwege F: Rapid tumor cell proliferation after induction chemotherapy in oropharngeal cancer. Laryngoscope 104: 468–472, 1994Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Norton L,Simon R: Tumor size, sensitivity to therapy, and design of treatment schedules. Cancer Treat Rep 61: 1307–1317, 1977Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian F. Tannock
    • 1
  1. 1.Princess Margaret Hospital and University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations