In vitro sensitivity of human ovarian tumours to chemotherapeutic agents

Cancer of the ovary is a major clinical problem and the most common cause of death from gynaecological malignancy in the United Kingdom. A particular feature is late presentation and the majority of patients present with advanced disease. Selection of effective first-line chemotherapy is therefore central to effective management.The development of in vitro assays for the growth of clonogenic tumour cells in soft agar (Hamburger & Salmon, 1977;Hamburger et al., 1978) suggested a system which might be of benefit, not only in selecting chemotherapeutic regimes following surgical ablation of tumour, but also in identifying those drugs to which a patient might be sensitive after extensive pretreatment. Success in using such a system has been claimed by Alberts et al. (1980a) who predicted clinical response based on in vitro tests in 62% of patients with ovarian cancer and had an accuracy of 99% in the prediction of resistance.Following a pilot study with a small number of ovarian tumours (Simmonds et al., 1981) this investigation was undertaken with the aims of (i) culturing ovarian tumour material using the stem cell or clonogenic assay, (ii)

Section: Linearity Of Colony Formationmentioning

confidence: 69%

Ovarian carcinoma cells in culture: Assessment of drug sensitivity by clonogenic assay

Simmonds¹,

McDonald²

1984

“…A major problem in cancer chemotherapy is the wide range of responsiveness even for tumours of identical histopathological types (Salmon et al, 1978;Wilson & Neal, 1981). Methods for individually-guided therapy based on in vitro sensitivity testing of the tumours would therefore be of great importance, and the development of a predictive test for chemosensitivity has a high priority in cancer research (Hamburger, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A short-term in vitro test for tumour sensitivity to adriamycin based on flow cytometric DNA analysis

Engelholm¹,

Spang‐Thomsen²,

Vindeløv³

1983

(Hamburger, 1981). A currently-used test is based on measuring the druginduced inhibition of the colony-forming ability of tumour cells grown in soft agar (Hamburger & Salmon, 1977 (Vindelov et al., 1982(Vindelov et al., , 1983 (Dan0, 1971;1972a;1972b;Skovsgaard, 1977a;1977b;1979) were kindly supplied by Dr. T. Skovsgaard, Dept. Internal Medicine, Finsen Institute, Copenhagen. One of the tumours ("wild-type") was sensitive to adriamycin (as well as to other anthracyclines) and was previously found to be hypotetraploid. The other two tumours were adriamycin-resistant and were previously characterized as hypotetraploid and hyperdiploid, respectively. Tumour cells used in the experiments were harvested 6-8 days after i.p.

“…Cut-off points for the other drugs have not been defined and therefore for the purpose of this study 65% has been arbitrarily selected for CYT, FU, BLM and CIS. For M a cut-off point of < 50% of control was used to define sensitivity at 1 and 10 gml-P (Wilson & Neal, 1981). For C, areas under the curve were originally used to define sensitivity (Salmon et al, 1978) but other groups using the same method have used <30% of control (Ozolls et al, 1980), and for comparison between assays the latter has been chosen, again at 1 and 10 igml-1.…”

Section: Cell Linesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Volm et al, 1979; Group for Sensitivity Testing (KSST), 1981; Sanfilippo et al, 1981) (ii) assays using cell monolayers (e.g. Mitchell et al, 1972;Holmes & Little, 1974;Berry et al, 1975;Shrivastav et al, 1980;Kornblith et al, 1981;Wilson & Neal, 1981) (iii) assays which measure clonogenic cell survival (e.g. Hamburger et Salmon et al, 1978;Rosenblum et al, 1978;Sarosdy et al, 1982).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No recent studies have been carried out in which different methodologies which are presently in use for chemosensitivity testing of human tumours have been evaluated for comparability of assays in terms of their ability to predict the same chemosensitivity pattern for the same tumour. We have therefore chosen to compare three assays which are in current use: these are a short-term biochemical assay (B) used extensively in W. Germany (Volm et al, 1974;KSST, 1981), a monolayer assay using microtitration plates (M) (Freshney et al, 1975;Wilson & Neal, 1981) and a clonogenic assay (C), which is basically as described by Hamburger (Hamburger et al, 1978). Assay characteristics are compared in Table I.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparison of three assays used for the in vitro chemosensitivity testing of human tumours

Wilson¹,

Ford²,

Newman³

et al. 1984

Self Cite

Summary In this study cell lines have been used to determine the level of correlation between three assays which are in use for in vitro prediction of human tumour chemosensitivity. The methods which were compared included a clonogenic assay, a monolayer assay and a short-term biochemical assay. The results indicated that the monolayer and clonogenic assays were either directly comparable or could be made comparable by reducing the drug exposure time in the monolayer assay. The biochemical assay also gave comparable results for 3 of the 5 drugs tested. It was concluded that although the 3 assays did not produce identical dose-response curves, the assays were equally valid when used for predictive testing because selection of cut-off points which were based on retrospective correlations between in vitro sensitivity data and response data, as established by other authors, compensated for differences in sensitivity between the assays.