Advertisement

Clinical Correlation of the Histoculture Drug Response Assay in Gastrointestinal Cancer

  • Robert M. Hoffman
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1760)

Abstract

The histoculture drug response assay (HDRA) with tumors histocultured on Gelfoam® was tested for clinical correlation for advanced gastric and colorectal cancer patients. In one study, 29 patients were treated with drugs shown to be ineffective in the HDRA, and all 29 cases showed clinical chemoresistance. In nine patients treated with drugs shown to be effective in the HDRA, six showed clinical chemoresponse and three showed arrest of disease progression. In a study of 32 patients with stage III and IV gastric cancer treated with mitomycin C and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), the survival rate of 10 patients whose tumors were sensitive to either mitomycin C and/or 5-fluorouracil in the HDRA was significantly better than that of 22 patients whose tumors were insensitive to both drugs in the HDRA. Twenty-nine patients with stage III and IV colorectal cancer without remaining measurable tumor lesions after surgery were treated with fluoropyrimidines adjuvantly. The recurrence-free survival rate of 7 patients whose tumors were sensitive to 5-fluorouracil in the HDRA was significantly better than that of 22 patients whose tumors were insensitive in the HDRA. In a companion study of 128 gastric cancer patients whose tumors were evaluated in the HDRA, the overall and disease-free survival rates of the HDRA-sensitive group were found to be significantly higher than those of the HDRA-resistant group, treated with the same drugs.

Key words

HDRA Histoculture Drug Response Assay Clinical correlation Gastrointestinal cancer 

References

  1. 1.
    Lawler EM, Miller FR, Heppner GH (1983) Significance of three-dimensional growth patterns of mammary tissues in collagen gel cultures. In Vitro 19:600–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miller BE, Miller FR, Heppner GH (1984) Assessing tumor drug sensitivity by a new in vitro assay which preserves tumor heterogeneity and subpopulation interactions. J Cell Physiol 3(Suppl):105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller BE, Miller FR, Heppner GH (1985) Factors affecting growth and drug sensitivity of mouse mammary tumor lines in collagen gel cultures. Cancer Res 45:4200–4205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Folkman J, Moscona A (1978) Role of cell shape in growth control. Nature 273(5661):345–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vescio RA, Connors KM, Kubota T, Hoffman RM (1991) Correlation of histology and drug response of human tumors grown in native-state three-dimensional histoculture and in nude mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88:5163–5166CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furukawa T, Kubota T, Hoffman RM (1995) Clinical applications of the histoculture drug response assay. Clin Cancer Res 1:305–311PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kubota T, Sasano N, Abe O, Nakao I, Kawamura E, Saito T, Endo M, Kimura K, Demura H, Sasano H, Nagura H, Ogawa N, Hoffman RM (1995) Potential of the histoculture drug response assay to contribute to cancer patient survival. Clin Cancer Res 1:1537–1543PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanino H, Oura S, Hoffman RM, Kubota T, Furukawa T, Arimoto J, Yoshimasu T, Hirai I, Bessho T, Suzuma T, Sakurai T, Naito Y (2001) Acquisition of multidrug resistance in recurrent breast cancer demonstrated by the histoculture drug response assay. Anticancer Res 21:4083–4086PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singh B, Li R, Xu L, Poluri A, Patel S, Shaha AR, Pfister D, Sherman E, Hoffman RM, Shah J (2002) Prediction of survival in patients with head and neck cancer using the histoculture drug response assay. Head Neck 24:437–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jung PS, Kim DY, Kim MB, Lee SW, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Hoffman RM, Nam JH (2013) Progression-free survival is accurately predicted in patients treated with chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer by the histoculture drug response assay in a prospective correlative clinical trial at a single institution. Anticancer Res 33:1029–1034PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freeman A, Hoffman RM (1986) In vivo-like growth of human tumors in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 83:2694–2698CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vescio RA, Redfern CH, Nelson TJ, Ugoretz S, Stern PH, Hoffman RM (1987) In vivo-like drug response of human tumors growing in three-dimensional, gel-supported, primary culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84:5029–5033CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leighton J (1951) A sponge matrix-method for tissue cultures. Formation of organized aggregates of cells in vitro. J Natl Cancer Inst 12:545–561PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sherwin RP, Richters A, Yellin AE, Donavan AJ (1980) Histoculture of human breast cancers. Surg Oncol 13:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoffman RM (1991) In vitro sensitivity assays in cancer: A review, analysis and prognosis. J Clin Lab Anal 5:133–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hoffman RM (1993) In vitro assays for chemotherapy sensitivity. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 15:99–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoffman RM (1991) Three-dimensional histoculture: origins and application in cancer research. Cancer Cells 3:86–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoffman RM (1993) To do tissue culture in two or three dimensions? That is the question. Stem Cells 11:105–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Furukawa T, Kubota T, Watanabe M, Takahara T, Yamaguchi H, Takeuchi T, Kodaira S, Ishibiki K, Kitajima M, Hoffman RM (1992) High in vito-in vitro correlation of drug response using sponge gel-supported three-dimensional histoculture and the MTT end point. Int J Cancer 51:489–498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furukawa T, Kubota T, Watanabe M, Kase S, Takahara T, Yamaguchi H, Takeuchi T, Teramoto T, Ishibiki K, Kitajima M, Hoffman RM (1992) Chemosensitivity testing of clinical gastrointestinal cancers using histoculture and the MiT end point. Anticancer Res 12:1377–1382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maehara Y, Watanabe A, Kakeji Y, Baba H, Kohnoe S, Sugimachi K (1990) Postgastrectomy prescription of mitomycin C and UFT for patients with stage IV gastric carcinoma. Am J Surg 160:242–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koyama Y, Koyama Y (1980) Phase I study of a new antitumor drug, I-hexylcarbamoyl-5-fluorouracil (HCFU) administered orally: an HCFU clinical study group report. Cancer Treat Rep 64:861–867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ji WB, Um JW, Ryu JS, Hong KD, Kim JS, Min BW, Joung SY, Lee JH, Kim YS (2017) Clinical significance of 5-fluorouracil chemosensitivity testing in patients with colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 37:2679–2682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yano S, Zhang Y, Miwa S, Tome Y, Hiroshima Y, Uehara F, Yamamoto M, Suetsugu A, Kishimoto H, Tazawa H, Zhao M, Bouvet M, Fujiwara T, Hoffman RM (2014) Spatial-temporal FUCCI imaging of each cell in a tumor demonstrates locational dependence of cell cycle dynamics and chemoresponsiveness. Cell Cycle 13:2110–2119Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Von Hoff DD (1990) Selection of cancer chemotherapy for a patient by an in vitro assay versus a clinician. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:110–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gazdar AF, Steinberg SM, Russell EK, Linnoila RI, Oie HK, Ghosh BC, Cotelingham JD, Johnson BE, Minna JD, Ihde DC (1990) Correlation of in vitro drug-sensitivity testing results with response to chemotherapy and survival in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer: a prospective clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 82:117–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leone LA, Meitner PA, Myers TJ, Grace WR, Gajewski WH, Fingert HJ, Rotman B (1991) Predictive value of the fluorescent cytoprint assay (FCA): a retrospective correlation study of in vitro chemosensitivity and individual responses to chemotherapy. Cancer Investig 9:491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AntiCancer Inc.San DiegoUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of CaliforniaSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations