PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 6428738

Predictive testing with the subrenal capsule assay.

Abstract

Measurement of drug activity as an oncolytic effect, use of the control only to monitor the quality of tissue implanted, and the rapid clearance of necrotic tissue from the subcapsular site, as significant factors incorporated into the design of the assay, have permitted use of a simple tumor size parameter for evaluating drug activity. The simplicity and economy of such a parameter, the predictability and reproducibility of the 6-day assay observed thus far, and evidence that the assay does measure a biological property of the tumor apart from host response, have warranted the continued use of the 6-day time frame and the normal immunocompetent CDF1 mouse as xenograft host. These studies have demonstrated the feasibility of using human tumor explants obtained from a variety of solid human malignancies in a straightforward, short term, in vivo predictive assay system. Preliminary correlations between in vivo (assay) tumor sensitivity and clinical response have given reasonable concurrence. This crucial point will require further study, with larger numbers of patients, under more rigid conditions. Final validation of this, and other, predictive assays will require a prospective, randomized study in large numbers of patients. Our present prospective study is being continued, therefore, with expansion to a multi-institutional design over a broader geographic area.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A E Bogden, W Griffin, S D Reich, M E Costanza, W R Cobb. 1984. Predictive testing with the subrenal capsule assay.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-7372(84)90050-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Recurrent ovarian cancer: how important is it to treat to disease progression?

Ovarian cancer is increasingly recognized as a chronic disease whose treatment is often characterized by administration of multiple, sequential active agents, each of which may or may not be accompanied by a tumor response. Despite the large proportion of patients who relapse and undergo longer-term treatment, the question of optimal treatment duration has not been fully addressed to date. For patients who progress on therapy, the answer is straightforward: they are switched to another active agent, presumably having a different mechanism of action from previous therapies with, ideally, limited overlapping toxicities. However, for patients who remain in partial response or who have stable disease, the answer is less apparent and less clear. The majority of oncologists believe that treatment beyond 6 cycles of a given therapy does not provide any additional benefit to patients. There are some data to support that treatment strategy. However, with the advent of new, less toxic agents, treatment to progression should be further explored. Agents that are potentially well suited for extended treatment intervals may include such properties as absence of cumulative toxicity, non-cross-resistance, positive benefit on quality of life, and convenient schedule. A number of active agents in ovarian cancer (platinum, paclitaxel, topotecan, liposomal doxorubicin, docetaxel, gemcitabine, and etoposide) will be reviewed in the context of what is known about cumulative toxicity, potential adverse effects on patients' quality of life, and evidence addressing the potential benefits of longer-term treatment.

Altretamine↗