In Vitro Chemosensitivity Assay Based on the Concept of Total Tumor Cell Kill

  • L. M. Weisenthal
  • R. H. Shoemaker
  • J. A. Marsden
  • P. L. Dill
  • J. A. Baker
  • E. M. Moran
Chapter
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 94)

Abstract

Attempts to develop in vitro assays to predict in vivo response to antineoplastic therapy in patients date back more than 40 years for radiotherapy and more than 25 years for chemotherapy (Von Hoff and Weisenthal 1980; Weisenthal 1981; Weisenthal and Lippman, to be published). More than 2,500 individual clinical correlations between assay results and results of therapy have been published. The combined average of the accuracy of “true positive” results of these tests is 66%, while the “true negative” accuracy average is 90%. The published data do not indicate that any one type of approach to in vitro chemosensitivity testing has superior validity over all other approaches.

Keywords

Soft Agar Clonogenic Assay Nondividing Cell Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia Chemosensitivity Assay 
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. Bertoncello I, Bradley TR, Campbell JJ et al. (1982) Limitations of the clonal assay for the assessment of primary human ovarian tumor biopsies. Br J Cancer 45: 803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bosanquet AG, Bird MC, Price WJP, Gilbey ED (1983) An assessment of a short term tumour chemosensitivity assay in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. Br J Cancer 47: 781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callahan SK, Von Hoff DD (1982) Growth of oat cell carcinoma of the lung in the human tumor cloning assay. Stem Cells 1: 295Google Scholar
  4. Carney DN, Gazdar AF, Minna JD (1980) Positive correlation between histologic tumor involvement and generation of tumor cell colonies in agarose in specimens taken directly from patients with small cell carcinoma of the lung. Cancer Res 40: 1820PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carney DN, Gazdar AF, Bunn PA, Guccion JG (1981) Demonstration of the stem cell nature of clonogenic tumor cells from lung cancer patients. Stem Cells 1: 149Google Scholar
  6. Carney DN, Broder L, Edelstein M et al. (1983) Experimental studies of the biology of human small cell lung cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 67: 27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Drewinko B, Patchen M, Yang LY, Barlogie B (1981) Differential killing efficacy of twenty antitumor drugs on proliferating and non-proliferating human tumor cells. Cancer Res 41: 2328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Eksborg S, Nilsson SO, Edsmyr R (1980) Intravesical instillation of Adriamycin: a model for the standardization of chemotherapy. Eur Urol 6: 218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gavosto F (1973) An outline of the objectives of the study of leukemic cell kinetics. In: Dutcher RM, Chieco-Bianchi G (eds) Unifying concepts of leukemia. Bibl Haemat, no 39, Karger, Basel, pp 968–977Google Scholar
  10. Glücksmann A (1974) Histological features in the local radiocurability of carcinomas. In: Friedman M (ed) The biological and clinical basis of radiosensitivity. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamburger AW, Salmon SE (1977) Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science 197: 461PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kern DH, Campbell MA, Cochran AJ et al. (1982) Cloning of human solid tumors in soft agar. Int J Cancer 30: 725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Koontz WW, Prout GR, Smith W et al. (1981) The use of intravesical thiotepa in the management of non-invasive carcinoma of the bladder. J Urol 125: 307PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lieber MM, Kovach JS (1982) Soft agar colony formation assay for chemotherapy sensitivity testing of human solid tumors. Mayo Clin Proc 57: 527PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Livingston RB, Titus GA, Heilbrun LK (1980) In vitro effects on DNA synthesis as a predictor of biologic effect from chemotherapy. Cancer Res 40: 2209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Makuch RW (1982) Interpreting clonogenic assay results. Lancet 2: 438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Redwood DR, Borer JS, Epstein SE (1976) Wither the ST segment during exercise? Circulation 54: 703–706PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Roper PR, Drewinki B (1976) Comparison of in vitro methods to determine drug-induced cell lethality. Cancer Res 36: 2182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Roper PR, Drewinko B (1979) Cell survival following treatment with antitumor drugs. Cancer Res 39: 1428PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Salmon SE, Hamburger AW, Soehnlen BJ, Durie BGM et al. (1978) Quantitation of differential sensitivities of human tumor stem cells to anticancer drugs. N Engl J Med 298: 1321PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Selby P, Buick RN, Tannock I (1983) A critical appraisal of the human tumor stem cell assay. N Engl J Med 308: 129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shoemaker RH, Wolpert-DeFilippes MK, Makuch RW, Venditti JM (1983) Use of the human tumor clonogenic assay for new drug screening. Proch Am Assoc Cancer Res 24: 311Google Scholar
  23. Shrek R (1936) A method for counting the viable cells in normal and in malignant cell suspensions. Am J Cancer 28: 389Google Scholar
  24. Sky-Peck HH (1971) Effects of chemotherapy in the incorporation of 3H-thymidine into DNA of human neoplastic tissue. Nat Cancer Inst Monogr 34: 197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Steel GG (1977) Growth and survival of tumor stem cells. In: Steel GG (ed) Growth kinetics of tumors. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 217–267Google Scholar
  26. Trott KR (1980) Can tumor response be assessed from a biopsy? Br J Cancer (Suppl IV ) 41: 163Google Scholar
  27. Tveit KM, Endresen L, Rugstad HE et al. (1981) Comparison of two soft agar methods for assaying chemosensitivity of human tumors in vitro: malignant melanomas. Br J Cancer 44: 539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Von Hoff DD, Weisenthal LM (1980) In vitro methods to predict for patient response to chemotherapy. Adv Pharmacol Chemother 17: 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Von Hoff DD, Casper J, Bradley E et al. (1981) Association between human tumor colony-forming assay results and response of an individual patient’s tumor to chemotherapy. Am J Med 70: 1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weisenthal LM (1981) In vitro assays in preclinical antineoplastic drug screening. Semin Oncol 8: 362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Weisenthal LM, Lippman ME (to be published) Clonogenic and non-clonogenic in vitro chemosensitivity assaysGoogle Scholar
  32. Weisenthal LM, Marsden JA (to be published) Comparison of 3H-thymidine autoradiography and cloning in soft agar for determining cancer chemosensitivity in vitroGoogle Scholar
  33. Weisenthal LM, Dill PL, Marsden JA, Campbell CK (1982) Comparison of 3 in vitro chemosensitivity assays: dye exclusion, autoradiography, and agar cloning. (Abs.) Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 23: 184Google Scholar
  34. Weisenthal LM, Dill PL, Kurnick NB, Lippman ME (1983a) Comparison of dye exclusion assays with a clonogenic assay in the determination of drug-induced cytotoxicity. Cancer Res 43: 258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Weisenthal LM, Marsden JA, Dill PL, Macaluso CK (1983b) A novel dye exclusion method for testing in vitro chemosensitivity of human tumors. Cancer Res 43: 749PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Weisenthal LM, Lalude AO, Miller JB (1983c) In vitro chemosensitivity of human bladder cancer. Cancer 51: 1490PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. M. Weisenthal
    • 1
  • R. H. Shoemaker
    • 1
  • J. A. Marsden
    • 1
  • P. L. Dill
    • 1
  • J. A. Baker
    • 1
  • E. M. Moran
    • 1
  1. 1.Veterans Administration Medical CenterLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations