Quantifying synergism/antagonism using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling: A simulation study

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1040-1061

  Boik, John C ^a   Newman, Robert A ^b   Boik, Robert J ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^c MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer; Combination index; Loewe additivity; Mixtures; Synergism

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CAMPTOTHECIN; NERIUM OLEANDER EXTRACT; TOPOTECAN; VINCRISTINE;

ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CANCER RESEARCH; CONCENTRATION RESPONSE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG ANTAGONISM; DRUG MIXTURE; DRUG POTENTIATION; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; NONLINEAR SYSTEM; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS;

ANTINEOPLASTIC COMBINED CHEMOTHERAPY PROTOCOLS; CELL LINE, TUMOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DRUG ANTAGONISM; DRUG SYNERGISM; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; LINEAR MODELS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; NONLINEAR DYNAMICS; TOPOTECAN; VINCRISTINE;

EID: 40849102650     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.3005     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Berenbaum MC. What is synergy? Pharmacological Reviews 1989; 41(2):93-141.
2. Greco WR, Bravo G, Parsons JC. The search for synergy: a critical review from a response surface perspective. Pharmacological Reviews 1995; 47(2):331-385.
3. Merlin JL. Concepts of synergism and antagonism. Anticancer Research 1994; 14(6A):2315-2319.
4. Tallarida RJ. Drug synergism: its detection and applications. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 2001; 298(3):865-872.
5. Greco WR, Unkelbach HD, Poch G, Suhnel J, Kundi M. Consensus on concepts and terminology for combined action assessment: The Saariselka Agreement. ACES 1992; 4(3):65-69.
6. Poch G, Reiffenstein RJ, Unkelbach HD. Application of the isobologram technique for the analysis of combined effects with respect to additivity as well as independence. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology 1990; 68(6):682-688.
7. Chou TC, Talalay P. Quantitative analysis of dose-effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Advances in Enzyme Regulation 1984; 22:27-55.
8. Martinez-Irujo JJ, Villahermosa ML, Alberdi E, Santiago E. A checkerboard method to evaluate interactions between drugs. Biochemical Pharmacology 1996; 51(5):635-644.
9. White D, Faessel H, Slocum H. Nonlinear response surface and mixture experiment methodologies applied to the study of synergism. Biometrical Journal 2004; 46:56-71.
10. White DB, Slocum HK, Brun Y, Wrzosek C, Greco WR. A new nonlinear mixture response surface paradigm for the study of synergism: a three drug example. Current Drug Metabolism 2003; 4(5):399-409.
11. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Short TG, Gregg KM, Gentilini A, Shafer SI. Response surface model for anesthetic drug interactions. Anesthesiology 2000; 92(6):1603-1616.
12. Fidler M, Kern SE. Flexible interaction model for complex interactions of multiple anesthetics. Anesthesiology 2006; 105(2):286-296.
13. Radujkovic A, Topaly J, Fruehauf S, Zeller WJ. Combination treatment of imatinib-sensitive and -resistant BCR-ABL-positive CML cells with imatinib and farnesyltransferase inhibitors. Anticancer Research 2006; 26(3A): 2169-2177.
14. Shimmura H, Tanabe K, Habiro K, Abe R, Toma H. Combination effect of mycophenolate mofetil with mizoribine on cell proliferation assays and in a mouse heart transplantation model. Transplantation 2006; 82(2):175-179.
15. Xie X, Eberding A, Madera C, Fazli L, Jia W, Goldenberg L, Gleave M, Guns ES. Rh2 synergistically enhances paclitaxel or mitoxantrone in prostate cancer models. Journal of Urology 2006; 175(5):1926-1931.
16. Faessel HM, Levasseur LM, Slocum HK, Greco WR. Parabolic growth patterns in 96-well plate cell growth experiments. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology-Animal 1999; 35(5):270-278.
17. Hassan SB, Jonsson E, Larsson R, Karlsson MO. Model for time dependency of cytotoxic effect of CHS 828 in vitro suggests two different mechanisms of action. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 2001; 299(3):1140-1147.
18. Levasseur LM, Faessel H, Slocum HK, Greco WR. Implications for clinical pharmacodynamic studies of the statistical characterization of an in vitro antiproliferation assay. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 1998; 26(6):717-733.
19. Levasseur LM, Slocum HK, Rustum YM, Greco WR. Modeling of the time-dependency of in vitro drug cytotoxicity and resistance. Cancer Research 1998; 58(24):5749-5761.
20. Gardner SN. A mechanistic, predictive model of dose-response curves for cell cycle phase-specific and -nonspecific drugs. Cancer Research 2000; 60(5): 1417-1425.
21. Ette EI, Williams PJ. Population pharmacokinetics II: estimation methods. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2004; 38(11):1907-1915.
22. Chou TC. Theoretical basis, experimental design, and computerized simulation of synergism and antagonism in drug combination studies. Pharmacological Reviews 2006; 58(3):621-681.
23. Nelson D, Cox M. Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry (3rd edn). Worth Publishers: New York, 2000.
24. Yeung TK, Germond C, Chen X, Wang Z. The mode of action of taxol: apoptosis at low concentration and necrosis at high concentration. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 1999; 263(2):398-404.
25. MATLAB v7.0.1. 2004. MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, 2004.
26. CalcuSyn v1.2. 2004. Biosoft: Ferguson, MO, U.S.A., 2004.
27. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, v2.01. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2004.
28. Greco W, Tung Y. D-optimal experimental designs for quantifying synergy. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, American Statistical Association 1991; 244-249.
29. Vonesh EF, Chinchilli VM, Pu K. Goodness-of-fit in generalized nonlinear mixed-effects models. Biometrics 1996; 52(2):572-587.
30. Kaufmann SH, Peereboom D, Buckwalter CA, Svingen PA, Grochow LB, Donehower RC, Rowinsky EK. Cytotoxic effects of topotecan combined with various anticancer agents in human cancer cell lines. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1996; 88(11):734-741.
31. Poch G, Vychodil-Kahr S, Petru E. Sigmoid model versus median-effect analysis for obtaining dose-response curves for in vitro chemosensitivity testing. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1999; 37(4): 189-192.
32. Syracuse KC, Greco WR. Comparison between the method of Chou and Talalay and a new method for the assessment of the combined effects of drugs. Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, American Statistical Association 1986; 127-132.