Anticancer Drug Development

Unique Aspects of Pharmaceutical Development
  • Ajit S. Narang
  • Divyakant S. Desai

Around the world, tremendous resources are being invested in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in Europe and North America. Discovery and development of anticancer agents are the key focus of several pharmaceutical companies as well as non-profit government and non-government organizations, like the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the United States, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), and the British Cancer Research Campaign (CRC).


Anticancer Drug Anticancer Agent Dose Escalation Maximum Tolerate Dose Cancer Clinical Trial 
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.


  1. 1.
    Schwartsmann G, Winograd B, Pinedo HM. The main steps in the development of anticancer agents. Radiother Oncol 1988; 12: 301–313.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farber S et al. Temporary remissions in acute leukemia in children produced by folic acid antagonist, 4-aminopteroylglutamic acid (aminopterin). N Engl J Med 1948; 238: 787–793.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osborn MJ, Freeman M, Huennekens FM. Inhibition of dihydrofolic reductase by aminopterin and amethopterin. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1958; 97: 429–431.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osborn MJ, Huennekens FM. Enzymatic reduction of dihydrofolic acid. J Biol Chem 1958; 233: 969–974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goodman LS et al. Landmark article Sept. 21, 1946: Nitrogen mustard therapy. Use of methyl-bis(beta-chloroethyl)amine hydrochloride and tris(beta-chloroethyl)amine hydrochloride for Hodgkin's disease, lymphosarcoma, leukemia and certain allied and miscellaneous disorders. By Louis S. Goodman, Maxwell M. Wintrobe, William Dameshek, Morton J. Goodman, Alfred Gilman and Margaret T. McLennan. JAMA 1984; 251: 2255–2261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Institute, National Cancer. Targeted Cancer Therapies, 2008.
  7. 7.
    McKeage MJ. The potential of DMXAA (ASA404) in combination with docetaxel in advanced prostate cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2008; 17: 23–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoekstra R, Verweij J, Eskens FA. Clinical trial design for target specific anticancer agents. Invest New Drugs 2003; 21: 243–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chabner BA, Roberts TG Jr. Timeline: Chemotherapy and the war on cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2005; 5: 65–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saijo N, Tamura T, Nishio K. Strategy for the development of novel anticancer drugs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2003; 52 Suppl 1: S97–S101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Schaik RH. Cancer treatment and pharmacogenetics of cytochrome P450 enzymes. Invest New Drugs 2005; 23: 513–522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yong WP, Innocenti F, Ratain MJ. The role of pharmacogenetics in cancer therapeutics. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 35–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Claudino WM et al. Metabolomics: available results, current research projects in breast cancer, and future applications. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25: 2840–2846.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Serkova NJ, Spratlin JL, Eckhardt SG. NMR-based metabolomics: translational application and treatment of cancer. Curr Opin Mol Ther 2007; 9: 572–585.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim YS, Maruvada P. Frontiers in metabolomics for cancer research: Proceedings of a National Cancer Institute workshop. Metabolomics 2008; 4: 105–113.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chung YL et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopic pharmacodynamic markers of the heat shock protein 90 inhibitor 17-allylamino,17-demethoxygeldanamycin (17AAG) in human colon cancer models. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95: 1624–1633.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roberts TG Jr, Chabner BA. Beyond fast track for drug approvals. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 501–505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paez JG et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: Correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 2004; 304: 1497–1500.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berinstein NL. Enhancing cancer vaccines with immunomodulators. Vaccine 2007; 25 Suppl 2: B72–B88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Finke LH et al. Lessons from randomized phase III studies with active cancer immunotherapies – outcomes from the 2006 meeting of the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC). Vaccine 2007; 25 Suppl 2: B97–B109.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ji BS, He L, Liu GQ. Reversal of p-glycoprotein-mediated multidrug resistance by CJX1, an amlodipine derivative, in doxorubicin-resistant human myelogenous leukemia (K562/DOX) cells. Life Sci 2005; 77: 2221–2232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ross DD. Modulation of drug resistance transporters as a strategy for treating myelodysplastic syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol 2004; 17: 641–651.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Skinner R, Sharkey IM, Pearson AD, Craft AW. Ifosfamide, mesna, and nephrotoxicity in children. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11: 173–190.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kouvaris JR, Kouloulias VE, Vlahos LJ. Amifostine: the first selective-target and broad-spectrum radioprotector. Oncologist 2007; 12: 738–747.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wainwright M. Photodynamic therapy: the development of new photosensitisers. Anti-Cancer Agents Med Chem 2008; 8: 280–291.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lieschke GJ, Burgess AW. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. New Engl J Med 1992; 327: 28–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lieschke GJ, Burgess AW. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (2). New Engl J Med 1992; 327: 99–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Houston D. Supportive therapies for cancer chemotherapy patients and the role of the oncology nurse. Cancer Nurs 1997; 20: 409–413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wikipedia. History of Cancer Chemotherapy, 2008.
  30. 30.
    Foundation, The Chemical Heritage. Magic Bullets: Chemistry Vs. Cancer, 2008.
  31. 31.
    Beaston G. On the treatment of inoperable cases of carcinoma of the mamma: Suggestions for a new method of treatment, with illustrative cases. Lancet 1896; 2: 104–107.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Huggins C, Clark PJ. Quantitative studies of prostatic secretions. II. The effect of castration and of estrogen injection on the normal and on the hyperplastic prostate glands of dogs. J Exp Med 1940; 72: 747–762.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosenberg B, Vancamp L, Krigas T. Inhibition of cell division in Escherichia Coli by electrolysis products from a platinum electrode. Nature 1965; 205: 698–699.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rosenberg B. Biological effects of platinum compounds. New agents for the control of tumors. Platinum Metals Rev 1971; 15: 42–51.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mans DRA, Jung FA, Schwartsmann G. Anticancer drug discovery and development. J Brazilian Assoc Advancement Sci 1994; 46: 70–81.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Suggitt M, Bibby MC. 50 years of preclinical anticancer drug screening: Empirical to target-driven approaches. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 971–981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Amundson SA et al. Integrating global gene expression and radiation survival parameters across the 60 cell lines of the National Cancer Institute Anticancer Drug Screen. Cancer Res 2008; 68: 415–424.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Covell DG, Huang R, Wallqvist A. Anticancer medicines in development: assessment of bioactivity profiles within the National Cancer Institute anticancer screening data. Mol Cancer Ther 2007; 6: 2261–2270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Takimoto CH. Anticancer drug development at the US National Cancer Institute. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2003; 52 Suppl 1: S29–S33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Frei E 3rd. The National Cancer Chemotherapy Program. Science 1982; 217: 600–606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Venditti JM. The National Cancer Institute antitumor drug discovery program, current and future perspectives: A commentary. Cancer Treat Rep 1983; 67: 767–772.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Venditti JM. Preclinical drug development: Rationale and methods. Semin Oncol 1981; 8: 349–361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zubrod CG. Origins and development of chemotherapy research at the National Cancer Institute. Cancer Treat Rep 1984; 68: 9–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shoemaker RH et al. Development of human tumor cell line panels for use in disease-oriented drug screening. Prog Clin Biol Res 1988; 276: 265–286.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    National Cancer Institute NIoH. Developmental Therapeutics Program, 2008.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Talmadge JE, Singh RK, Fidler IJ, Raz A. Murine models to evaluate novel and conventional therapeutic strategies for cancer. Am J Pathol 2007; 170: 793–804.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kohlhagen G et al. Protein-linked DNA strand breaks induced by NSC 314622, a novel noncamptothecin topoisomerase I poison. Mol Pharmacol 1998; 54: 50–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Shoemaker RH. The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nat Rev Cancer 2006; 6: 813–823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Decoster G, Stein G, Holdener EE. Responses and toxic deaths in phase I clinical trials. Ann Oncol 1990; 1: 175–181.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grunwald HW. Ethical and design issues of phase I clinical trials in cancer patients. Cancer Invest 2007; 25: 124–126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Grieshaber CK, Marsoni S. Relation of preclinical toxicology to findings in early clinical trials. Cancer Treat Rep 1986; 70: 65–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Newell DR. Phase I clinical studies with cytotoxic drugs: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic considerations. Br J Cancer 1990; 61: 189–191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Zaharko DS, Grieshaber CK, Plowman J, Cradock JC. Therapeutic and pharmacokinetic relationships of flavone acetic acid: an agent with activity against solid tumors. Cancer Treat Rep 1986; 70: 1415–1421.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Eisenhauer EA, O'Dwyer PJ, Christian M, Humphrey JS. Phase I clinical trial design in cancer drug development. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 684–692.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Omura GA. Modified Fibonacci search. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 3177.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Collins JM, Grieshaber CK, Chabner BA. Pharmacologically guided phase I clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 1321–1326.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fuse E et al. Application of pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation with respect to cell cycle phase specificity. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86: 989–996.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Chatelut E et al. Prediction of carboplatin clearance from standard morphological and biological patient characteristics. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87: 573–580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    O'Reilly S et al. Phase I and pharmacologic studies of topotecan in patients with impaired hepatic function. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88: 817–824.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lennard L. The clinical pharmacology of 6-mercaptopurine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 43: 329–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Canal P, Chatelut E, Guichard S. Practical treatment guide for dose individualisation in cancer chemotherapy. Drugs 1998; 56: 1019–1038.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hempel G, Boos J. Flat-fixed dosing versus body surface area based dosing of anticancer drugs: there is a difference. Oncologist 2007; 12: 924–926.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Pinkel D. The use of body surface area as a criterion of drug dosage in cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res 1958; 18: 853–856.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Freireich EJ et al. Quantitative comparison of toxicity of anticancer agents in mouse, rat, hamster, dog, monkey, and man. Cancer Chemother Rep 1966; 50: 219–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Baker SD et al. Role of body surface area in dosing of investigational anticancer agents in adults, 1991–2001. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1883–1888.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Grochow LB, Baraldi C, Noe D. Is dose normalization to weight or body surface area useful in adults? J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 323–325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gurney H. Dose calculation of anticancer drugs: A review of the current practice and introduction of an alternative. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 2590–2611.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Gurney HP, Ackland S, Gebski V, Farrell G. Factors affecting epirubicin pharmacokinetics and toxicity: evidence against using body-surface area for dose calculation. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 2299–2304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Reilly JJ, Workman P. Normalisation of anti-cancer drug dosage using body weight and surface area: is it worthwhile? A review of theoretical and practical considerations. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1993; 32: 411–418.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Dooley MJ, Poole SG. Poor correlation between body surface area and glomerular filtration rate. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2000; 46: 523–526.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Miller AA. Body surface area in dosing anticancer agents: Scratch the surface! J Natl Cancer Inst 2002; 94: 1822–1823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Marsoni S et al. Tolerance to antineoplastic agents in children and adults. Cancer Treat Rep 1985; 69: 1263–1269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Gelman RS et al. Actual versus ideal weight in the calculation of surface area: Effects on dose of 11 chemotherapy agents. Cancer Treat Rep 1987; 71: 907–911.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Smorenburg CH et al. Randomized cross-over evaluation of body-surface area-based dosing versus flat-fixed dosing of paclitaxel. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21: 197–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    McLean MA et al. Accelerating drug development: Methodology to support first-in-man pharmacokinetic studies by the use of drug candidate microdosing. Drug Dev Res 2007; 68: 14–22.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Garner RC. Less is more: the human microdosing concept. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10: 449–451.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Administration, US Food and Drug. Radioactive Drugs for Certain Research, 2007.
  78. 78.
    Administration, US Food and Drug. Guidance for Industry, Investigators, and Reviewers. Exploratory IND Studies including Human Microdose Studies, 2006.
  79. 79.
    Agency EM. Position Paper on Non-clinical Safety Studies to Support Clinical Trials with a Single Microdose, 2004.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Bertino JS Jr, Greenberg HE, Reed MD. American College of Clinical Pharmacology position statement on the use of microdosing in the drug development process. J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 47: 418–422.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Leather H, George TJ. Hematology/Oncology Handbook. The University of Florida Shands Cancer Center, 2007.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Goldin A. Combined chemotherapy. Oncology 1980; 37 Suppl 1: 3–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Mori T et al. Prediction of cell kill kinetics of anticancer agents using the collagen gel droplet embedded-culture drug sensitivity test. Oncol Reports 2002; 9: 301–305.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Rang HP, Dale MM, Ritter JM. Cancer Chemotherapy. In: Rang HP, Dale MM, Ritter JM (eds) Pharmacology. Churchill Livingstone: New York, 1995, pp. 696–700.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Canellos GP, Lister TA, Skarin AT. Chemotherapy of the non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. Cancer 1978; 42: 932–940.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Klement G et al. Continuous low-dose therapy with vinblastine and VEGF receptor-2 antibody induces sustained tumor regression without overt toxicity. J Clin Invest 2000; 105: R15–R24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Stempak D, Seely D, Baruchel S. Metronomic dosing of chemotherapy: Applications in pediatric oncology. Cancer Invest 2006; 24: 432–443.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Sarin J, DeRossi SS, Akintoye SO. Updates on bisphosphonates and potential pathobiology of bisphosphonate-induced jaw osteonecrosis. Oral Dis 2008; 14: 277–285.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Sabino MAC et al. Simultaneous reduction in cancer pain, bone destruction, and tumor growth by selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2. Cancer Res 2002; 62: 7343–7349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Verso M et al. Risk factors for upper limb deep vein thrombosis associated with the use of central vein catheter in cancer patients. Intern Emerg Med 2008; 3: 117–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Falanga A, Zacharski L. Deep vein thrombosis in cancer: the scale of the problem and approaches to management. Ann Oncol 2005; 16: 696–701.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Siau C, Xiao W, Bennett GJ. Paclitaxel- and vincristine-evoked painful peripheral neuropathies: loss of epidermal innervation and activation of Langerhans cells. Exp Neurol 2006; 201: 507–514.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Sereno M et al. Cardiac toxicity: Old and new issues in anti-cancer drugs. Clin Transl Oncol 2008; 10: 35–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Schimmel KJ, Richel DJ, van den Brink RB, Guchelaar HJ. Cardiotoxicity of cytotoxic drugs. Cancer Treat Rev 2004; 30: 181–191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Schachter AD, Ramoni MF. Paediatric drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007; 6: 429–430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Schreiner MS. Pediatric clinical trials: Redressing the imbalance. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003; 2: 949–961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Smith M et al. Conduct of phase I trials in children with cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 966–978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Lee DP, Skolnik JM, Adamson PC. Pediatric phase I trials in oncology: An analysis of study conduct efficiency. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8431–8441.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Dagher RN, Pazdur R. The Phase III Clinical Cancer Trial. In: Teicher BA, Andrews PA (eds) Cancer Drug Discovery and Development: Anticancer Drug Development Guide: Preclinical Screening, Clinical Trials, and Approval. Humana Press, Inc., Totowa, NJ, 2004.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Cancer and Leukemia Group B. 2008.
  101. 101.
    Children’s Oncology Group. 2008.
  102. 102.
    Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. 2008.
  103. 103.
    Karrison TG, Maitland ML, Stadler WM, Ratain MJ. Design of phase II cancer trials using a continuous endpoint of change in tumor size: application to a study of sorafenib and erlotinib in non small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 1455–1461.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Ratain MJ, Eckhardt SG. Phase II studies of modern drugs directed against new targets: If you are fazed, too, then resist RECIST. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 4442–4445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Therasse P et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000; 92: 205–216.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Pazdur R. Endpoints for assessing drug activity in clinical trials. The oncologist 2008; 13 Suppl 2: 19–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Ferrans CE. Differences in what quality-of-life instruments measure. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2007: 22–26.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Adjei AA et al. A Phase I trial of the farnesyl transferase inhibitor SCH66336: Evidence for biological and clinical activity. Cancer Res 2000; 60: 1871–1877.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Bocci G et al. Increased plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as a surrogate marker for optimal therapeutic dosing of VEGF receptor-2 monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 6616–6625.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Administration, U. S. Food and Drug. Approval Statistics of Oncology Drugs, 2008.
  111. 111.
    Vries JDJ, Flora KP, Bult A, Beijnen JH. Pharmaceutical Development of (Investigational) Anticancer Agents for Parenteral Use – A Review. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1996; 22: 475–494.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Kris MG et al. Phase I trial of taxol given as a 3-hour infusion every 21 days. Cancer Treatment Reports 1986; 70: 605–607.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Brown T et al. A phase I trial of taxol given by a 6-hour intravenous infusion. J clin Oncol 1991; 9: 1261–1267.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Canetta RM, Eisenhauer E, Rozencsweig M. Methods for administration of taxol for cancer treatment with reduced toxicity. (Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., USA). Application: AU, 1994, 38 pp.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Cuschler G, Carius W, Bauer KH. Single-step Granulation: Development of a Vacuum-based IR Drying Method (pilot scale results). Drug Dev Ind Pharm 1997; 23: 119–126.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Giry K et al. Multiphase versus Single Pot Granulation Process: Influence of Process and Granulation Parameters on Granule Properties. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2006; 32: 509–530.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Bleyer WA, Danielson MG. Oral cancer chemotherapy in paediatric patients: Obstacles and potential for development and utilisation. Drugs 1999; 58 Suppl 3: 133–140.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    DeGeorge JJ et al. Regulatory considerations for preclinical development of anticancer drugs. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1998; 41: 173–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Peck CC et al. Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxico kinetics in rational drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 51: 465–473.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Dougherty TJ. Photodynamic therapy. Photochem Photobiol 1993; 58: 895–900.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co.New BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations