Animal Models for Cancer Chemotherapy

  • Abraham Goldin
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 7)

Abstract

A primary purpose for the employment of animal models in cancer chemotherapy is to identify compounds, either synthetic or derived from natural products, which will be active in the clinic. The features of a comprehensive preclinical chemotherapy program designed to introduce compounds into the clinic may be summarized as follows [1–8]:
  1. a)

    Procurement, preparation and synthesis of chemical agents, fermentation and plant products, animal products and other types of materials of diverse origin. The materials for screening may be chosen on a wholly random basis or they may have as their basis some rational approach, including structure–activity analyses for classes of compounds with demonstrated antitumor properties.

     
  2. b)

    Screening and evaluation of these agents in experimental systems for anticancer activity and recommendation of new agents for clinical trial.

     
  3. c)

    Study of the toxicological and pharmacological effects of new agents in animals to permit their introduction and evaluation in man with the greatest degree of safety and effectiveness.

     
  4. d)

    Development and application of new and improved laboratory methods for evaluating antitumor agents.

     
  5. e)

    Study of the mechanism of action of drugs with clinical potential.

     
  6. f)

    Fundamental studies to develop new approaches that may be applied to improve chemotherapy in man.

     
  7. g)

    Evaluation of new agents in the clinic with recommendations concerning optimal application and modalities of therapy.

     

Keywords

Sarcoma Osteogenic Sarcoma Vincristine Mitomycin Vinblastine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gellhorn A, Hirschberg E (eds): Investigation of diverse systems for cancer chemotherapy screening. Cancer Res 3:1–125, 1955.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leiter J, Schneiderman MA: Screening data from the Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center screening laboratories. Cancer Res 19: 31–193, 1959.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leiter J, Abbott BJ, Schepartz SA: Screening data from the Cancer Chemotherapy National Service Center screening laboratories XXVIII. Cancer Res 9 (25,2): 1626–1769, 1965.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldin A, Serpick AA, Mantel N: A commentary. Experimental screening procedures and clinical predictability value. Cancer Chemother Rep 50: 173–218, 1966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skipper HE, Schmidt LH: A manual on quantitative drug evaluation in experimental tumor systems. Part I. Background, description of criteria and presentation of quantitative therapeutic data on various classes of drugs obtained in diverse experimental tumor systems. Cancer Chemother Rep 17: 1–143, 1962.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldin A, Carter SK, Mantel N: Evaluation of antineoplastic activity: Requirements of test systems. In: Antineoplastic and immunosuppressive agents, Sartorelli AC, Johns DG (eds), Vol. 1. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1974, pp 12–32.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goldin A, Schepartz SA, Venditti JM et al.: Historical development and current strategy of the National Cancer Institute drug development program. In: Methods in cancer research, DeVita VT, Jr, Busch H (eds)., Vol. XVI New York: Academic Press, 1979, pp 165– 245.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM: Retrospective and prospective approaches to screening and to comparative evaluation of analogs in the U.S.A. In: Advances in cancer chemotherapy, Umezawa H et al. (eds). Tokyo: Japan Sci Soc Press, Baltimore, Md.: Univ Park Press, 1978, pp 179–200.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marshall EK, Jr: The dosage schedule of chemotherapeutic agents. Pharmacol Rev 4:- 85–105, 1952.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldin A: Preclinical methodology for the selection of anticancer agents. In: Methods in cancer research, Busch H (ed), Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1968, pp 193–254.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goldin A: Host-tumor-drug interrelationships in the tumorous murine model. In: Advances in enzyme regulation, Weber G (ed), Vol 18. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980, pp 323–334.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Mantel N: Preclinical screening and evaluation of agents for the chemotherapy of cancer. Cancer Res 21: 1334–1351, 1961.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venditti JM, Abbott BJ: Studies on oncolytic agents from natural sources. Correlations of activity against animal tumors and clinical effectiveness. Lloydia 30: 332–348, 1967.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandberg J, Goldin A: Use of first generation transplants of a slow growing solid tumor for the evaluation of new cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Cancer Chemother Rep 55: 233–238, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldberg AL, Glynn JP, Kende M et al.: A two-stage therapeutic design in the spontaneous AKR lymphoma system. Cancer Res 32:1321–1328, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Detre SI, Davies AJS, Connors TA: New models for cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Rep 5 (1,2): 133–145, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Macdonald JS et al: Current results of the screening program at the Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute. Eur J Cancer 17: 129–142, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Muggia FM et al.: New animal models in cancer chemotherapy. In: Advances in medical oncology, Research and Education Vol 5, Basis for cancer chemotherapy I, Fox BW (ed). Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979, pp 113–122.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM: Progress report on the screening program at the Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute. Cancer Treat Rev 7: 167–176, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DeVita VT, Jr, Oliverio VT, Muggia FM et al: The drug development and clinical trials programs of the Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute. Cancer Clin Trials 2: 195–216, 1979.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM: The new NCI screen and its implications for clinical evaluation. In: Recent results in cancer research, Vol. 70, Carter S, Sakurai Y (eds). Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1980, pp 5–20.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goldin A, Wolpert-De Filippes MK: Nude mouse models as predictors of chemotherapy in man: thymidine and pyrimidines. Bull Cancer (Paris) 66: 61–66, 1979.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldin A, Johnson RK, Venditti JM: Preclinical characterization of candidate antitumor drugs. Cancer Chem Rep 5 (1,2): 21–81, 1975.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Humphreys SR et al: A quantitative comparison of the antileukemic effectiveness of two folic acid antagonists. J Natl Cancer Inst 15: 1657–1664, 1955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Venditti JM, Humphreys SR, Mantel N et al: Evaluation of antileukemic agents employing advanced leukemia LI210 in mice III. Congeners of folic acid. Cancer Res 20, Cancer Chemotherapy Screening data VIII: 698–733, 1960.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mead JAR, Wood HB, Jr, Goldin A: Relationship of structure to antitumor activity in compounds related to folic acid. Cancer Chemother Rep 1 (2): 273–361, 1968.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goldin A, Humphreys SR, Venditti JM et al: Prolongation of the life span of mice with advanced leukemia (LI210) by treatment with halogenated derivatives of amethopterin. J Nalt Cancer Inst 22: 811–823, 1959.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sandberg JS, Howsden FL, DiMarco A et al: Comparison of the antileukemic effect in mice of adriamycin (NSC–123127) with daunomycin (NSC-82151). Cancer Chemother Rep 54: 1–7, 1970.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Goldin A, Wood HB, Jr: Preclinical investigation of alkylating agents in cancer chemotherapy. Ann NY Acad Sci 163: 954–1005, 1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldin A: The employment of methods of inhibition analysis in the normal and tumor-bearing mammalian organism. In: Advances in cancer research IV, New York: Academic Press, 1956, pp 113–148.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Humphreys SR et al: Modification of treatment schedules in the management of advanced mouse leukemia with amethopterin. J Natl Cancer Inst 17: 203–212, 1956.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Selawry OS, Hananian J, Wolman IJ et al: New treatment schedule with improved survival in childhood leukemia. JAMA 194: 75–81, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Venditti JM, Humphreys SR, Mantel N et al: Influence of the duration of treatment with amethopterin on the survival time of mice with advanced leukemia (LI210). Cancer Res 17: 917–922, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Venditti JM: Treatment schedule dependency of experimentally active antileukemic (L1210) drugs. Cancer Chemother Rep 2 (3): 35–59, 1971.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Humphreys SR et al: Influence of the concentration of leukemic inoculum on the effectiveness of treatment. Science 123: 840, 1956.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Skipper HE: Nucleotide metabolism and cancer chemotherapy. In: The leukemias: Etiology, pathophysiology and treatment. Rebuck, Bethell, Moto (eds). Henry Ford Hospital Symposium. New York: Academic Press, 1957, pp 541–550.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Skipper HE, Schabel FM, Jr, Bell M et al: On the curability of experimental neoplasms I. Amethopterin and mouse leukemia. Cancer Res 17: 717–726, 1957.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Geran RI, Congleton GF, Dudeck LE et al: A mouse ependymobastoma as an experimental model for screening potential antineoplastic drugs. Cancer Chemother Rep 4 (4,2): 53–87, 1974.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Narurkar MV, Mead JAR, Greenberg N et al: Dihydrofolate reductase as a measure of leukemia growth in the brain during therapy. Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res 4: 47, 1963.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Venditti JM, Schrecker AW, Mead JAR et al: Influence of the route of administration on the relative effectivenss of 3′5′–dichloroamethopterin and amethopterin against advanced leukemia (L1210) in mice. Cancer Res 20: 1451–1456, 1960.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mihich E, Grindey GB: Multiple basis of combination chemotherapy. Cancer 40: 534–543, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Mantel N: Combination chemotherapy: Basic considerations. In: Antineoplastic and immunosuppressive agents I., Sartorelli AC, Johns DG (eds). Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1974, pp 411–448.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Goldin A: The biological basis of combination chemotherapy. In: Chemotherapy, Vol. 7. Hellmann K, Connors T (eds). New York: Plenum 1976, pp 243–248.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Goldin A, Johnson RK: Experimental grounds for combination chemotherapy. In: Proceedings XI International Cancer Congress, Florence, Italy. Excerpta Medica Amsterdam Inter–national Congress Series No. 353, Vol. 5: 308–313, 1975.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Venditti JM, Kline I, Tyrer DD et al., l,3-bis-(2-chloroethyl)-l-nitrosourea (NSC-409962) and methotrexate (NSC–740) as combination chemotherapy for advanced mouse leukemia L1210. Cancer Chemother Rep 48: 35–39, 1965.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kline I, Venditti JM, Mead JAR et al: The antileukemic effectiveness of 5-fluororacil and methotrexate in the combination chemotherapy of advanced leukemia L1210 in mice. Cancer Res 26: 848–852, 1966.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Potter VR: Sequential blocking of metabolic pathways in vivo. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 76: 41–46, 1951.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Schabel FM, Jr, Laster WR, Jr, Trader MW: Specific DNA inhibitors vs leukemia LI210. Development of resistance to Ara-c and ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors. Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res 12: 67, 1971.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Goldin A, Mantel N, Greenhouse SW et al: Effect of delayed administration of citrovorum factor on the antileukemic effectiveness of aminopterin in mice. Cancer Res 14: 43–48, 1954.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Woodman RJ, Kline I, Venditti JM: Protection by (1,2-bis) (3,5-dioxopiperazin-l-yl)-pro- pane (ICRF-159) against daunomycin (DAU) toxicity and enhanced antileukemic (LI210) efficacy of the combination. Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res 13: 31, 1972.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goldin A: Rationale of combination chemotherapy based on preclinical experiments. Cancer Chemother Rep 4 (2,3): 189–198, 1973.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schmidt LH, Montgomery JA, Laster WR, Jr et al: Combination chemotherapy with arabinosylcytosine and thioguanine. Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res 11: 70, 1970.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kline I, Gang M, Venditti JM: Protection with N-acetyl-cysteine against isophosphamide (Isoph (NSC-109724) host toxicity and enhancement of therapy in early murine leukemia LI210. Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res 13: 29, 1972.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goldin A, Humphreys SR, Venditti JM et al: Factors influencing antitumor synergism: relation to screening methodology. Ann NY Acad Sci 76: 932–938, 1958.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Skipper HE, Hutchison DJ, Schabel FM, Jr et al: A quick reference chart on cross-resistance between antitumor agents. Cancer Chemother Rep 56: 493–498, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Mayo JG, Laster WR, Jr, Andrews CM et al: Success and failure in the treatment of solid tumors III. Cure of metastatic Lewis lung carcinoma with methyl–CCNU (NSC–95441) and surgery–chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Rep 56: 183–195, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vadlamudi S, Goldin A: Influence of mitotic cycle inhibitors on the antileukemic activity of cytosine arabinoside (NSC–63878) in mice bearing leukemia LI210. Cancer Chemother Rep 55: 547–555, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Goldin A, Sandberg JS, Henderson ES et al: The chemotherapy of human and animal acute leukemia. Cancer Chemother Rep 55 (4,1): 309–507, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hoshino A, Kato T, Amo H et al: Antitumor activity of adriamycin on Yoshida rat sarcoma and LI210 mouse leukemia-Cross-resistance and combination chemotherapy. In: International Symposium on Adriamycin, Carter SK, DiMarco A, Ghione M, Krakoff IH, Mathe G (eds). Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1972, pp 75–89.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Goldin A, Venditti JM, Mantel N et al: Evaluation of combination chemotherapy with three drugs. Cancer Res 28: 950–960, 1968.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bonadonna G, Brussamolino E, Valagussa P et al: Combination chemotherapy as an adjuvant treatment in operable breast cancer. N Engl J Med 294: 405–410, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Goldin A, Johnson RK: Resistance to antitumor agents. In: Recent advances in cancer treatment. Tagnon HJ, Staquet MJ (eds). New York: Raven Press, 1977, pp 155–169.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Martin DS: An appraisal of chemotherapy as an adjunct to surgery for cancer. Am J Surg 97: 685–686, 1959.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Martin DS, Fugmann RA: Clinical implications of the interrelationship of tumour size and chemotherapeutic response. Ann Surg 151: 97–100, 1960.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Martin DS: Experimental design for chemotherapeutic cure of spontaneous mammary mouse carcinoma. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 3: 248, 1961.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chirigos MA, Colsky J, Humphreys SR et al: Evaluation of surgery and chemotherapy in the treatment of mouse mammary adenocarcinoma 755. Cancer Chem Rep 22: 49–53, 1962.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Skipper HE: Combination therapy: Some concepts and results. Cancer Chem Rep 4 (1,2): 137–145, 1974.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Karrer K, Humphreys SR, Goldin A: An experimental model for studying factors which influence metastasis of malignant tumors. Int J Cancer 2: 213–223, 1967.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Fugmann RA, Stolfi RL, Hayworth PE et al: Immunologic and chemotherapeutic parameters in a model breast tumor system. Cancer Chemother Rep 4 (2): 25–32, 1974.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Johnson RE: An experimental approach to L1210 leukemia in mice: combined chemotherapy and central nervous system irradiation. J Natl Cancer Inst 32: 1333–1341, 1964.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Wodinsky I, Swiniarski J, Kensler CJ et al: Combination radiotherapy and chemotherapy for P388 lymphocytic leukemia in vivo. Cancer Chemother Rep 4 (1,2): 73–97, 1974.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Goldin A, Wodinsky I, Merker PC et al: Search for new radiation potentiators. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 4, Pergamon Press, USA, 1978, pp 25–35.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Laster WR, Jr, Mayo JG, Johnson KM et al: Clinical regression of moderately advanced Ridgway osteogenic sarcoma in AKR mice with 5-fluorouracil therapy. In: Proc 11th Int Cancer Congress, Florence, Italy, Vol. 3, 1974, p 431.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Laster WR, Jr: Ridgway osteogenic sarcoma–A promising model for special therapeutic trials against an advanced-staged, drug-sensitive animal tumor system. Cancer Chemother Rep 5 (1,2): 151–168, 1975.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Pearson JW, Pearson GR, Gibson WT et al: Combined immunostimulation therapy against murine leukemia. Cancer Res 32: 904–907, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Chirigos MA, Amery WK: Combined levamisole therapy: An overview of its protective effects. In: Immunotherapy of human cancer. The University of Texas System Cancer Center, M.D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute. New York: Raven Press, 1978, pp 181–195.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fefer A: Immunotherapy and chemotherapy of Moloney sarcoma virus-induced tumors in mice. Cancer Res 29: 2177–2183, 1969.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Fefer A: Adoptive chemoimmunotherapy of a Moloney lymphoma. Int J Cancer 8: 364–375, 1971.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Glynn JP, Halpern BL, Fefer A: An immunochemotherapeutic system for the tratment of a transplanted Moloney virus–induced lymphoma in mice. Cancer Res 29: 515–520, 1969.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Goldin A, Nicolin A, Bonmassar E: Chemotherapy immunogenicity. In: Recent results in cancer research, Vol. 75, Mathe G, Muggia FM (eds). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 1980, pp 185–194.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Vadlamudi S, Padarathsingh M, Bonmassar E et al: Effect of combination treatment with cyclophosphamide and isogeneic spleen and bone marrow cells in leukemic (LI210) mice. Int J Cancer 7: 160–166, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Karrer K, Rella W, Goldin A: Surgery plus corynebacterium parvum immunotherapy for Lewis lung carcinoma in mice. Eur J Cancer 15: 867–873, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schabel FM, Jr, Griswold DP, Jr, Corbett TH et al.: Recent studies with surgical adjuvant chemotherapy or immunotherapy of metastatic solid tumors in mice. In: Adjuvant therapy of cancer II, Jones SE, Salmon SE (eds). New York: Grune and Stratton, 1979, pp 3–17.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Simmons RL, Rios A: Imunotherapy of cancer: immunospecific rejection of tumors in recipients of neuraminidase-treated tumor cells plus BCG. Science 174: 591–593, 1971.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Bonmassar E, Bonmassar A, Vadlamudi S et al.: Immunological alteration of leukemic cells in vivo after treatment with an antitumor drug. Proc Natl Acad Sci 66: 1089–1095, 1970.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Hutchison DJ: Cross resistance and collateral sensitivity studies in cancer chemotherapy. Adv Cancer Res 7: 235–350, 1963.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Mihich E: Modification of tumor regression by immunologic means. Cancer Res 29:2345– 2350, 1969.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nicolin A, Vadlamudi S, Goldin A: Antigenicity of LI210 leukemic sublines induced by drugs. Cancer Res 32: 653–657, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Osieka R, Houchens DP, Goldin A et al.: Chemotherapy of human colon cancer xenografts in athymic nude mice. Cancer 40: 2640–2650, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Giuliani FC, Kaplan NO: New doxorubicin analogs active against doxorubicin resistant colon tumor xenografts in the nude mouse. Cancer Res 40: 4682–4687, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abraham Goldin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations