Comparing statistical methods for quantifying drug sensitivity based on in vitro dose-response assays

Assay and Drug Development Technologies

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 88-96

  Huang, Shuguang ^a   Pang, Lei ^b  

^a Precision Therapeutics Inc   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOPHOSPHAMIDE; DOXORUBICIN; FLUOROURACIL; PACLITAXEL;

AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; CHEMOSENSITIVITY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG DETERMINATION; DRUG SENSITIVITY; IC 50; IN VITRO STUDY; METRIC SYSTEM; PARAMETRIC TEST; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; AREA UNDER CURVE; CELL LINE, TUMOR; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 84863257521     PISSN: 1540658X     EISSN: 15578127     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/adt.2011.0388     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Findlay JW, Dillard RF: Appropriate calibration curve fitting in ligand binding assays. AAPS J 2007;9:E260-E267.
2. DeLean A, Munson PJ, Rodbard D: Simultaneous analysis of families of sigmoidal curves: Application to bioassay, radioligand assay, and physiological dose-response curves. Am J Physiol 1978;235:E97-E102. (Pubitemid 9159876)
3. Volund A: Application of the four-parameter logistic model to bioassay: Comparison with slope ratio and parallel line models. Biometrics 1978;34: 357-365. (Pubitemid 9016007)
4. Gottschalk PG, Dunn JR: The five-parameter logistic: A characterization and comparison with the four-parameter logistic. Anal Biochem 2005;343:54-65. (Pubitemid 40978609)
5. Dudley RA, Edwards P, Ekins RP, Finney DJ, McKenzle IGM, Raab GM, Rodbard D, Rodgers RPC: Guidelines for immunoassay data processing. Clin Chem 1985; 31:1264-1271. (Pubitemid 16041912)
6. Singh N, Prasad S, Singer DR, MacAllister RJ: Ageing is associated with impairment of nitric oxide and prostanoid dilator pathways in the human forearm. Clin Sci 2002;102:595-600. (Pubitemid 34494202)
7. Gentile DA, Skoner DP: The relationship between airway hyperreactivity (AHR) and sodium, potassium adenosine triphosphatase (Na+ ,K+ ATPase) enzyme inhibition. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997;99:367-373. (Pubitemid 27123917)
8. Kayano Y, Horiuchi I, Mori YI, et al.: A simulation study to evaluate limited sampling strategies to estimate area under the curve of drug concentration versus time following repetitive oral dosing: Limited sampling model versus naive trapezoidal method. Biol Pharm Bull 2009;32:1486-1490.
9. Saint-Marcoux F, Royer B, Debord J, et al.: Pharmacokinetic modelling and development of Bayesian estimators for therapeutic drug monitoring of mycophenolate mofetil in reduced-intensity haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Pharmacokinet 2009;48:667-675.
10. Margolis DJ, Bilker W, Boston R, Localio R, Berlin JA: Statistical characteristics of area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for a simple prognostic model using traditional and bootstrapped approaches. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55:518-524. (Pubitemid 34462248)
11. Koo JS, Jung W, Shin E, et al.: Impact of grade, hormone receptor, and HER-2 status in women with breast cancer on response to specific chemotherapeutic agents by in vitro adenosine triphosphate-based chemotherapy response assay. J Korean Med Sci 2009;24:1150-1157.
12. d'Amato TA, Landreneau RJ, McKenna RJ, Santos RS, Parker RJ: Prevalence of in vitro extreme chemotherapy resistance in resected nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:440-446; discussion 446-447.
13. Hioe CE, Wrin T, Seaman MS, et al.: Anti-V3 monoclonal antibodies display broad neutralizing activities against multiple HIV-1 subtypes. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10254.
14. MacDougall J: Analysis of Dose-Response Studies-Emax Model. Springer, New York, 2006.
15. Smith WC, Sittampalam GS: Conceptual and statistical issues in the validation of analytic dilution assays for pharmaceutical applications. J Biopharm Stat 1998;8:509-532. (Pubitemid 28546130)
16. Glossary of Quantitative Biology Terms. www.ncgc.nih.gov/guidance/ glossary.html (Last accessed on October 14, 2010).
17. Kang MH, Smith MA, Morton CL, Keshelava N, Houghton PJ, Reynolds CP: National cancer institute pediatric preclinical testing program: Model description for in vitro cytotoxicity testing. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2011;56: 239-249.
18. The R Project for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org (Last accessed on October 14, 2010).
19. Neve RM, Chin K, Fridlyand J, et al.: A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 2006;10: 515-527. (Pubitemid 44854747)
20. Hess KR: Statistical issues in clinical trial design. Curr Oncol Rep 2007;9:55-59. (Pubitemid 46075634)
21. Brower SL, Fensterer JE, Bush JE: The ChemoFx assay: An ex vivo chemosensitivity and resistance assay for predicting patient response to cancer chemotherapy. Methods Mol Biol2008;414:57-78.
22. Mor G, Alvero AB: Apoptosis and Cancer: Methods and Protocols. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 2008.
23. Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer, Summary Information. December 21, 2010. www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/translation/add-info.shtml (Last accessed on June 7, 2011).
24. Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer. January 5, 2011. www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/ CGP/translation/compound-sens-data.shtml (Last accessed on June 7, 2011).
25. Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer, Screening Methodologies. December 21, 2010. www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/translation/screening-meth.shtml-curve- fit (Last accessed on June 7, 2011).
26. Hand DJ: Measuring classifier performance: A coherent alternative to the area under the ROC curve. Mach Learn 2009;77:103-123.
27. Toutain PL: Verterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 9th ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, IA, 2009.
28. Hanczar B, Hua J, Sima C, Weinstein J, Bittner M, Dougherty ER: Small-sample precision of ROC-related estimates. Bioinformatics 2010;26:822-830.