Development of a Nucleotide Precursor Incorporation Assay for Testing Drug Sensitivity of Human Tumors

  • O. Sanfilippo
  • M. G. Daidone
  • N. Zaffaroni
  • R. Silvestrini
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 94)


Experimental research carried out in the past few years has led to different kinds of in vitro assays for drug screening on human tumors at the preclinical level. At present, many different systems, newly developed or derived from the improvement of previous ones (Daidone et al. 1981; Group for sensitivity testing of tumors 1981; Salmon 1980; Sanfilippo et al. 1981; Von Hoff et al. 1981; Weisenthal et al. 1983), have proved to be specific enough and potentially useful in different fields of application. Some of these systems appear more suitable for basic studies of biochemical and genetic aspects of cellular sensitivity and of the relationship between activity and pharmacokinetics at the cellular level; others can be used for studies more directly related to clinical application, such as the screening of new drugs and of the more active drugs on different tumor types or on individual patients for a tailored therapy.


Clonogenic Assay Testicular Tumor Tumor Cell Population Tumor Material Nucleic Acid Metabolism 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alberts DS, Chen HSG (1980) Tabular summary of pharmacokinetic parameters relevant to in vitro drug assay. In: Salmon SE (ed) Cloning of human tumor stem cells. Liss, New York, pp 351–359Google Scholar
  2. Costa A. Piazza R, Sanfilippo 0, Silvestrini R (1977) A quantitative test for chemosensitivity of short-term cultures of human lymphomas. Tumori 63: 237–247Google Scholar
  3. Daidone MG, Silvestrini R, Sanfilippo O (1981) Clinical relevance of an in vitro antimetabolic assay for monitoring human tumor chemosensitivity. In: Salmon SE, Jones SE (eds) Adjuvant therapy of cancer III. Grune & Stratton, New York, pp 25–32Google Scholar
  4. Daidone MG, Silvestrini R, Zaffaroni N, Sanfilippo 0, Varini M (to be published) Reliability of a short-term antimetabolic assay in predicting drug sensitivity of breast cancer. Rev Endocrine-Related CancerGoogle Scholar
  5. Hamburger AW, Salmon SE (1977) Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science 197: 461–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Moon TE (1980) Quantitative and statistical analysis of the association between in vitro and in vivo studies. In: Salmon SE (ed) Cloning of human tumor stem cells. Liss, New York, pp 209–221Google Scholar
  7. Salmon SE (1980) Cloning of human tumor stem cells. Liss, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Sanfilippo O, Daidone MG, Costa A, Canetta R, Silvestrini R (1981) Estimation of differential in vitro sensitivity of non-Hodgkin lymphomas to anticancer drugs. Eur J Cancer 17: 217–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Sanfilippo O, Daidone MG, Zaffaroni N, Silvestrini R (1983a) Criteria for the definition of in vitro sensitivity in a short-term antimetabolic assay (abstract 1218 ). Proceedings, 74th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, San Diego, May 25–28Google Scholar
  10. Sanfilippo 0, Silvestrini R, Zaffaroni N, Piva L (1983b) Potentiality of an in vitro chemosensitivity assay for human germ cell testicular tumors (GCTT) (abstract C-145). Proceedings of 19th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, San Diego, May 25–28Google Scholar
  11. Schmoll H (1982) Review of etoposide single-agent activity. Cancer Treat Rev (Suppl A) 9: 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Silvestrini R, Sanfilippo O, Daidone MG (1983) An attempt to use incorporation of radioactive nucleic acid precursors to predict clinical response. In: Dendy PP, Hill BT (eds) Human tumour drug sensitivity testing in vitro. Academic Press, London, pp 281–290Google Scholar
  13. Schmoll H (1982) Review of etoposide single-agent activity. Cancer Treat Rev (Suppl A) 9: 21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sky-Peck HH (1971) Effects of chemotherapy on the incorporation of 3H-thymidine into DNA of human neoplastic tissue. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 34: 197–203PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tisman G, Herbert V, Edlis H (1973) Determination of therapeutic index of drugs by in vitro sensitivity tests using human host and tumor cell suspensions. Cancer Chemother Rep 57: 11–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Volm M, Waiss K, Kaufmann M, Mattem J (1979) Pretherapeutic detection of tumor resistance and the results of tumor chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 15: 983–993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Von Hoff DD, Casper J, Bradley E, Sandbach J, Jones D, Makuch R (1981) Association between human tumor colony-forming assay results and response of an individual patient’s tumor to chemotherapy. Am J Med 70: 1027–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Weisenthal LM, Marsden JA, Dill PL, Macaluso CK (1983) A novel dye exclusion method for testing in vitro chemosensitivity of human tumors. Cancer Res 43: 749–757PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Zaffaroni N, Silvestrini R, Sanfilippo O, Daidone MG, De Marco C (1983) Tumor heterogeneity: analysis of the chemosensitivity of different tumor sites of the same patient. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Chemotherapy, Vienna, Austria, August 28-September 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Sanfilippo
    • 1
  • M. G. Daidone
    • 1
  • N. Zaffaroni
    • 1
  • R. Silvestrini
    • 1
  1. 1.Oncologia Sperimentale CIstituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei TumoriMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations