Problems Posed for Cancer Treatment by Tumor Cell Heterogeneity

  • Gloria H. Heppner
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 40)

Abstract

The editors have not done me a favor by assigning such a dismal title to this article, one which focuses on the problems inherent in intra-tumor variability, although I suppose it would have been worse to be asked to discuss “Solutions Offered for Cancer Treatment by Tumor Cell Heterogeneity.” Indeed, the presence of multiple tumor cell subpopulations within single cancers poses major problems to those who wish to understand and to treat neoplastic diseases. It can be argued that tumor cell heterogeneity, and the consequent “progression,” over time, of the characteristics of any given cancer are major reasons for the treatment failure and ultimate recurrence so commonly experienced in the clinic. The purposes of this article are to outline the basic facts of tumor cell heterogeneity, to show how these facts impact on treatment selection and strategy, and to indicate various approaches to overcome the problems that result.

Keywords

Drug Sensitivity Tumor Heterogeneity Tumor Cell Heterogeneity Tumor Subpopulation Clonal Subpopulation 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Heppner GH: Tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Res. 44: 2259–2275, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Valeriote F, van Putten L: Proliferation-dependent cytotoxicity of anticancer agents: A review. Cancer Res. 35: 2619–2630, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harris JF, Chambers AF, Hill RP, Ling V: Metastatic variants are generated spontaneously at a high rate in mouse KHT tumor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79: 5547–5551, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosslet K, Schirrmacher V: High frequency generation of new immunoresistant tumor variants during metastasis of a cloned murine tumor line (ES6). Int. J. Cancer 29: 195–202, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neri A, Nicolson GL: Phenotypic drift of metastatic and cellsurface properties of mammary adenocarcinoma cell clones during growth in vitro Int. J. Cancer 28: 731–738, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hager J, Fligiel S, Stanley W, Richardson AM, Heppner GH: Characterization of a variant producing tumor cell line from a heterogeneous strain BALB/cfC3H mouse mammary tumor. Cancer Res. 41: 1293–1300, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller FR, Miller BE, Heppner GH: Characterization of metastatic heterogeneity among subpopulations of a single mouse mammary tumor: Heterogeneity in phenotypic stability. Invasion Metastasis 3: 22–31, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Law LW: Origin of the resistance of leukaemic cells to folic acid antagonists. Nature (London) 169: 628–629, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heppner GH, Miller BE: Tumor heterogeneity: Biological implications and therapeutic consequences. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2: 5–23, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heppner GH, Dexter DL, DeNucci T, Miller FR, Calabresi P: Heterogeneity in drug sensitivity among tumor cell subpopulations of a single mammary tumor. Cancer Res. 38: 3758–3763, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsuruo T, Fidler IJ: Differences in drug sensitivity among tumor cells from parental tumors, selected variants, and spontaneous metastases. Cancer Res. 41: 3058–3064, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dexter DL, Kowalski HM, Blazer BA, Fligiel Z, Vogel R, Heppner GH: Heterogeneity of tumor cells from a single mouse mammary tumor. Cancer Res. 38: 3174–3181, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prehn RT: Analysis of antigenic heterogeneity within individual 3-methylcholanthrene-induced mouse sarcomas. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 45: 1039–1045, 1970.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fidler IJ, Hart IR: Biological and experimental consequences of the zonal composition of solid tumors. Cancer Res. 41: 3266–3267, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hakansson L, Trope C: On the presence within tumors of clones that differ in sensitivity to cytostatic drugs. Acta Pathol. Microbiol. Scand. Suppl. (Sect. A) 82: 35–40, 1974.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miller BE, Miller FR, Heppner GH: Development of a drugsensitivity assay for heterogeneous tumors based on growth in 3-dimensional collagen gels. IN: Chabner BA (ed.) Rational Basis for Chemotherapy.Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 107–118, 1983.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poste G, Doll J, Fidler IJ: Interactions among clonal subpopulations affect stability of the metastatic phenotype in polyclonal populations of B16 melanoma cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 6226–6230, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldie JH, Coldman AJ, Bruchovsky N: A quantitative model for drug resistance in cancer chemotherapy. IN: Chabner BA (ed.) Rational Basis for Chemotherapy.Alan R. Liss, New York, pp. 23–39, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Foulds L: Neoplastic Development. Vol. 1 and 2, Academic Press, New York, 1969, 1975.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miller BE, Miller FR, Leith J, Heppner GH: Growth interaction in vivobetween tumor subpopulations dervied from a single mouse mammary tumor. Cancer Res. 40: 3977–3981, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miller FR, Heppner GB: Immunologic interactions. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 21: 201, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miller FR: Tumor subpopulation interactions in metastasis. Invasion Metastasis 3: 234–242, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller BE, Miller FR, Heppner GH: Interactions between tumor subpopulations affecting their sensitivity to the antineoplastic agents cyclophosphamide and methotrexate. Cancer Res. 41: 4378–4381, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Heppner GH: Tumor subpopulation interactions. IN: Owens AH, Jr., Coffey DS, Baylin SB (eds.) Tumor Cell Heterogeneity Origins and Implications.Academic Press, New York, pp. 225–236, 1982.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller BE, Miller FR, Heppner GH: Assessing tumor drug sensitivity by a new in vitro assay which preserves tumor heterogeneity and subpopulation interactions. J. Cell. Physiol. (In press).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fidler IJ, Hart IR: Biological diversity in metastatic neoplasms: Origins and implications. Science 217: 998–1003, 1982.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miner KM, Nicolson GL: Differences in the sensitivities of murine metastatic melanoma/lymphosarcoma variants to macrophage-mediated cytolysis and/or cytostasis. Cancer Res. 43: 2063–2067, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tsuruo T, Lida H, Naganuma K, Tsukagoshi S, Sakurai Y: Promotion by verapamil of vincristine responsiveness in tumor cell lines inherently resistant to the drug. Cancer Res. 43: 808–813, 1983.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leith JT, Gaskins LA, Dexter DL, Calabresi P, Glicksman AS: Alteration of the survival response of two human colon carcinoma subpopulations to x-irradiation by N,N-dimethylformamide. Cancer Res. 42: 30–34, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baylin SB, Weisburger WR, Eggleston JC, Mendelsohn G, Heaven MA, Abeloff MD, Ettinger DS: Variable content of histaminase, L-DOPA decarboxylase and calcitonin in small-cell carcinoma of the lung. N. Engl. J. Med. 299: 105–110, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miller BE, Jackson RC, Heppner GH: Comparison of the effect of PD111815, a substituted anthra [1,9-cd] pyrazole-6(2H)-one on mouse mammary tumor subpopulations differentially sensitive to doxorubicin. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. 25: 301, 1984.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gloria H. Heppner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations