The Therapeutic Response of a Variety of Human Tumour Xenografts
This paper reviews a research programme on human tumour xenografts that has been under way since around 1975. Its objectives have been to establish xenografts that are representative of a number of tumour types, to investigate their biological characteristics and to evaluate their therapeutic response. We have been interested in the evaluation of response both to chemotherapy and radiotherapy. During the period 1975–1983 our major effort was on response to cytotoxic drugs. At that time it was recognised that chemotherapeutic agents are more selective than radiation in killing tumour cells, for instance, the range of sensitivities observed for different tumour cell types treated with a particular drug is much wider than for radiation (26). We reasoned that since human tumours no doubt change their biological characteristics to some degree during transplantation from man to mouse, it was more likely that the ranking of chemotherapeutic response would be maintained than that response to radiation would do so, especially since in vivo radiation response is so dependent on conditions of local oxygenation.
KeywordsOncol Melphalan Cyclophosphamide Neuroblastoma Carboplatin
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 10.Deacon JM, Wilson PA and Steel GG: Radiosensitivity of neuroblastoma. Advances in Neuroblastoma Research 1985: 525–531Google Scholar
- 14.Gibbs J, Peckham MJ and Steel GG (unpublished)Google Scholar
- 17.Millar JL, Blackett NM, Hudspith BN: Enhanced postirradiation recovery of the haemopoietic system in animals pretreat-ed with a variety of cytotoxic agents. Cel Tiss Kinet 1978 (11): 543–553Google Scholar
- 19.Peacock JH (unpublished)Google Scholar
- 23.Selby PJ and Thomas JM: Clonogenic cell survival curves for human melanoma xenografts using agar diffusion chamber and lung colony assays. Br J Cancer 1980 (41 Suppl IV): 150–153Google Scholar
- 24.Shorthouse AJ, Carter SM, Ellison ML: Tumour marker production in human bronchial carcinoma xenografts. Oncodevelop Biol Med 1982 (3): 273–281Google Scholar
- 26.Steel GG: The growth kinetics of tumours. Oxford University Press, London 1977, pp 255–265Google Scholar
- 27.Steel GG: Therapeutic response of human tumour xenografts in immune-suppressed mice. In: Sordat B (ed) Immune-deficient animals in experimental research. Karger AG, Basel 1984, pp 395–404Google Scholar
- 28.Steel GG: How well do xenografts maintain the therapeutic characteristics of the source tumour in the donor patient? In: RF Kallman (ed) Rodent tumours in experimental cancer therapy. 1987 pp 205–208Google Scholar
- 29.Steel GG, Courtenay VD and Peckham MJ: The immune-suppressed mouse as an alternative host for heterotransplantation. In: Fogh J and Giovanella BC (eds) The nude mouse in experimental and clinical research, Vol. 2. Academic Press Inc 1982, pp 207–227Google Scholar
- 31.Steel GG, Courtenay VD, Phelps TA and Peckham MJ: The therapeutic response of human tumour xenografts. In: Sparrow S (ed) Symposium on immuno-deficient animals in cancer research. McMillan, London 1980, pp 179–189Google Scholar
- 32.Steel GG, Deacon JM, Duchesne GM, Horwich A, Kelland LR and Peacock JH: The dose-rate effect in human tumour cells. Radiother and Oncol 1987. Radiother and Oncol 1987 (9): 299–310Google Scholar