Chemosensitivity testing of ovarian cancer using the histoculture drug response assay: Sensitivity to cisplatin and clinical response

International Journal of Gynecological Cancer

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 445-452

  Nakada, S ^a   Aoki, Daisuke ^a   Ohie, S ^b   Horiuchi, M ^a   Suzuki, N ^a   Kanasugi, M ^a   Susumu, N ^a   Udagawa, Y ^c   Nozawa, S ^a  

^a KEIO UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b TAIHO PHARMACEUTICAL CO LTD   (Japan)

^c FUJITA HEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

Apoptosis; Chemosensitivity test; Cisplatin; Histoculture drug response assay; Ovarian cancer

Indexed keywords

3 (4,5 DIMETHYL 2 THIAZOLYL) 2,5 DIPHENYLTETRAZOLIUM BROMIDE; CISPLATIN; COLLAGEN GEL;

ADULT; AGED; APOPTOSIS; ARTICLE; CANCER SURVIVAL; CELL SURVIVAL; CHEMOSENSITIVITY; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DRUG RESPONSE; DRUG SENSITIVITY; FEMALE; HISTOCULTURE DRUG RESPONSE ASSAY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOASSAY; IN VITRO STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT; MINIMUM INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION; OVARY CANCER; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR CELL CULTURE;

ADULT; AGED; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; APOPTOSIS; CELL SURVIVAL; CISPLATIN; DRUG RESISTANCE, NEOPLASM; DRUG SCREENING ASSAYS, ANTITUMOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OVARIAN NEOPLASMS; PROGNOSIS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TUMOR CELLS, CULTURED;

EID: 18944400161     PISSN: 1048891X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15307.x     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Kohne S, Emi Y, Sakaguchi Y, Maehara Y, Kusumoto T, Sugimachi K. The microtiter SDI test is more advantageous than the SDI test for assessing the chemosensitivity of human tumor cells. Anticancer Drugs 1991;2:145-52.
2. Hamburger AW, Salmon SE. Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science 1977;197:461-3.
3. Salmon SE, Hamburger AW, Soehnlen B, Durie BG, Alberts DS, Moon TE. Quantitation of differential sensitivity of human tumor stem cells to anticancer drugs. N Engl J Med 1978;298:1321-7.
4. Alberts DS, Samon SE, Chen HS et al. In vitro clonogenic assay for predicting response of ovarian cancer to chemotherapy. Lancet 1980;2:340-2.
5. Hoffman RM. Three-dimensional histoculture: origins and applications in cancer research. Cancer Cells 1991;3:86-92.
6. Hoffman RM. In vitro sensitivity assays in cancer: a review, analysis, and prognosis. J Clin Lab Anal 1991;5:133-13.
7. Furukawa T, Kubota T, Watanabe M et al. High in vitro-in vivo correlation of drug response using sponge-gel-supported three-dimensional histoculture and the MTT end point. Int J Cancer 1992;51:489-98.
8. Furukawa T, Kubota T, Watanabe M et al. Chemosensitivity testing of clinical gastrointestinal cancers using histoculture and the MTT end-point. Anticancer Res 1992;12:1377-82.
9. Furukawa T, Kubota T, Hoffman RM. Clinical applications of the histoculture drug response assay. Clin Cancer Res 1995;1:305-11.
10. Ohie S, Udagawa Y, Kozu A et al. Cisplatin sensitivity of ovarian cancer in the histoculture drug response assay correlates to clinical response to combination chemotherapy with cisplatin, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide. Anticancer Res 2000;20:2049-54.
11. Shimosato Y, Oboshi S, Baba K. Histological evaluation of effects of radiotherapy and chemotherapy for carcinomas. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1971;1:19-35.
12. Sorenson CM, Barry MA, Eastman A. Analysis of events associated with cell cycle arrest at G2 phase and cell death induced by cisplatin. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:749-55.
13. FIGO news. Annual report on the results of treatment in gynecological cancer. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1989;28:189-90.
14. Tobias JS, Griffiths CT. Management of ovarian carcinoma. Current concepts and future prospects (first of two parts). N Engl J Med 1976;294:818-22.
15. Tobinai K, Kohno A, Shimada Y et al. Toxicity grading criteria of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. The Clinical Trial Review. Committee of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1993;23:250-7.
16. Gavrieli Y, Sherman Y, Ben-Sasson SA. Identification of programmed cell death in situ via specific labeling of nuclear DNA fragmentation. J Cell Biol 1992;119:493-501.
17. Hirano Y, Ushiyama T, Suzuki K, Fujita K. Clinical application of an in vitro chemosensitivity test, the histoculture drug response assay, to urological cancers: wide distribution of the inhibition rate for bladder cancer and renal cell cancer. Urol Res 1999;27:483-8.
18. Singh B, Li XP, Poluri A et al. Prediction of survival in patients with head and neck cancer using the histoculture drug response assay. Head Neck 2002;24:437-42.
19. Morioka H, Yabe H, Morii T et al. In vitro chemosensitivity of human soft tissue sarcoma. Anticancer Res 2001;21:4147-51.
20. Wyllie AH, Kerr JF, Currie AR. Cell death: the significance of apoptosis. Int Rev Cytol 1980;68:251-306.
21. Hashimoto S, Koji T, Niu J, Kanematsu T, Nakane PK. Differential staining of DNA strand breaks in dying cells by non-radioactive in situ nick translation. Arch Histol Cytol 1995;58:161-70.
22. Hashimoto S, Koji T, Kohara N, Kanematsu T, Nakane PK. Frequency of apoptosis relates inversely to invasiveness and metastatic activity in human colorectal cancer. Virchows Arch 1997;431:241-8.
23. Sekiguchi I, Suzuki M, Tamada T, Shinomiya N, Tsuru S, Murata M. Effects of cisplatin on cell cycle kinetics, morphological change, and cleavage pattern of DNA in two human ovarian carcinoma cell lines. Oncology 1996;53:19-26.
24. Gonzalez VM, Fuertes MA, Alonso C, Perez JM. Is cisplatin-induced cell death always produced by apoptosis? Mol Pharmacol 2001;59:657-63.