Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Norton–Simon hypothesis: designing more effective and less toxic chemotherapeutic regimens

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:

From Nature Clinical Practice Oncology

View current issue Sign up to alerts

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Norton L and Simon R (1976) Tumor size, sensitivity to therapy and the design of treatment protocols. Cancer Treat Rep 61: 1307–1317

    Google Scholar 

  2. Norton L and Simon R (1977) The growth curve of an experimental solid tumor following radiotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 58: 1735–1741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Norton L and Simon R (1986) The Norton-Simon hypothesis revisited. Cancer Treat Rep 70: 163–169

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Skipper HE (1986) Laboratory models: some historical perspectives. Cancer Treat Rep 70: 3–7

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Norton L et al. (1976) Predicting the course of Gompertzian growth. Nature 264: 542–545

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bonadonna G et al. (1995) Sequential or alternating doxorubicin and CMF regimens in breast cancer with more than three positive nodes. Ten-year results. JAMA 273: 542–547

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bonadonna G et al. (2004) Clinical relevance of different sequencing of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil in operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22: 1614–1620

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Goldie JH and Coldman AJ (1979) A mathematical model for relating the drug sensitivity of tumors to their spontaneous mutation rate. Cancer Treat Rep 63: 1727–1733

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Citron ML et al. (2003) Randomized trial of dose-dense versus conventionally scheduled and sequential versus concurrent combination chemotherapy as postoperative adjuvant treatment of node-positive primary breast cancer: first report of Intergroup trial C9741/Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9741. J Clin Oncol 21: 1431–1439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Venturini M et al. (2005) Dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer patients: Results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 97: 1724–1733

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Norton L (2005) Conceptual and practical implications of breast tissue geometry: toward a more effective, less toxic therapy. Oncologist 10: 370–381

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Norton L et al. (2005) Optimizing chemotherapeutic dose-schedule by Norton-Simon modeling: capecitabine. In 96th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research: 2005 April 16–20; Anaheim, abstract #5007

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chief of the Biometric Research Branch at the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Richard Simon

  2. Memorial Hospital,

    Larry Norton

  3. Evelyn H. Lauder Breast Center, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

    Larry Norton

Authors
  1. Richard Simon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Simon.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simon, R., Norton, L. The Norton–Simon hypothesis: designing more effective and less toxic chemotherapeutic regimens. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 3, 406–407 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0560

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0560

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Search

Navigation