Implications of Certain Cell Kinetic and Biological Parameters for Preoperative Chemotherapy

  • B. T. Hill
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 103)

Abstract

The object of cancer chemotherapy is to do the maximum damage to the tumor and the minimum damage to the patient. This objective is most likely to be achieved when fulldose intensive drug combinations are administered on a frequent intermittent schedule at the earliest opportunity in the course of the disease. Experimental evidence to support this contention has been available for over a decade from laboratory studies and certainly provides a sound basis for preoperative chemotherapy. Those data will be reviewed briefly in this presentation, with emphasis on their demonstrated and potential clinical relevance.

Keywords

Toxicity Lymphoma Oncol Methotrexate Alkaloid 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bruce WR, Meeker BE (1967) Comparison of the sensitivity of hematopoietic colony-forming cells in different proliferative states of 5-fluorouracil,. J Natl Cancer Inst 38: 401–405PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bruce WR, Valeriote FA (1968) Normal and malignant stem cells and chemotherapy. In: Proliferation and spread of neoplastic cells. 21st Annual symposium on fundamental cancer research at M. D. Anderson Hospital and Tumor Institute at Houston, Texas. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 409–430Google Scholar
  3. Bruce WR, Meeker BE, Valeriote FA (1966) Comparison of the sensitivity of normal hematopoietic and transplanted lymphoma colony-forming cells to chemotherapeutic agents administered in vivo. J Natl Cancer Inst 37: 233–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Buick RN (1984) Cell heterogeneity in human ovarian carcinoma. J Cell Physiol [Suppl] 3: 117–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carnie AB, Lala PK, Osmond DG (1976) Stem cells of renewing cell populations, 1st edn. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. De Vita VT (1983) The relationship between tumor mass and resistance to chemotherapy. Cancer 51: 1209–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldie JH, Coldman AJ (1979) A mathematical model for relating the drug sensitivity of tumors to their spontaneous mutation rate. Cancer Treat Rep 63: 1727–1733PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldie JH, Price LA, Harrap KR (1972) Methotrexate toxicity: correlation with duration of administration, plasma levels, dose and excretion pattern. Eur J Cancer 8: 409–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goldie JH, Coldman AJ, Gudauskas GA (1982) Rationale for the use of alternating non-cross-resistant chemotherapy. Cancer Treat Rep 66: 439–449PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamburger AW, Salmon SE (1977) Primary bio-assay of human tumor stem cells. Science 197: 461–463PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill BT (1978 a) The management of human “solid” tumors: some observations on the irrelevance of traditional cell cycle kinetics and the value of certain recent concepts. Cell Biol Int Rep 2: 215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hill BT (1978 b) Cancer chemotherapy — the relevance of certain concepts of cell cycle kinetics. Biochem Biophys Acta 516: 389–417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hill BT (1983) Biochemical and cell kinetic aspects of drug resistance. In: Bruchovsky N, Goldie JH (eds) Drug and hormone resistance in neoplasia, vol I. Basic concepts. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 21–53Google Scholar
  14. Hill BT (1983) An overview of clonogenic assays for human tumor biopsies. In: Dendy PP, Hill BT (eds) Human tumor drug sensitivity testing in vitro. Academic, London, pp 91–102Google Scholar
  15. Hill BT, Baserga R (1975) The cell cycle and its significance for cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Rev 2: 159–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill BT, Bellamy AS (1984) Establishment of an etoposide-resistant human epithelial tumor cell line in vitro: characterization of patterns of cross-resistance and drug sensitivities. Int J Cancer 33: 599–608PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill BT, Price LA (1982) An experimental biological basis for increasing the therapeutic index of clinical cancer therapy. Ann NY Acad Sci 397: 72–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill BT, Price LA, Busby E, MacRae K, Shaw JH (1984 a) Positive impact of initial 24-hour combination chemotherapy without cis-platinum on 6-year survival figures in advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. In: Jones SE, Salmon E (eds) Adjuvant therapy of cancer IV. Grune and Stratton, Orlando, pp 97–106Google Scholar
  19. Hill BT, Shaw JH, Dalley VM, Price LA (1984b) 24-hour combination chemotherapy without cisplatin in patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 7: 335–340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill BT, Whelan RDH, Bellamy AS (1984 c) Fractionated radiation exposure in vitro results in altered drug responses in murine and human continuous tumor cell lines. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 25: 331Google Scholar
  21. Hill BT, Whelan RDH, Hosking LK, Ward BG, Gibby EM (1984d) The value of human tumor continuous cell lines for investigating aspects of the methodologies used for in vitro drug sensitivity testing. In: Salmon SE, Trent JM (eds) Human tumor cloning. Grune and Stratton, Orlando, pp 487–496Google Scholar
  22. Hill BT, Whelan RDH, Bellamy AS, Rupniak HT (1985) Pitfalls in the soft agar clonogenic assays: recommendations for improving colony-forming effiencies and the potential value of cell lines derived from head and neck tumors. In: Chretien P (ed) Head and neck cancer. Decker, Philadelphia (in press)Google Scholar
  23. Holland JK, Glidewell O, Cooper RG (1980) Adverse effect of radiotherapy on adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer. Surg Gynecol Obstet 150: 817–821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kern DH, Bertelsen CA (1984) Present status of chemosensitivity assays. Int Adv Surg Oncol 7: 187–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Mann BD, Kern DH, Giuliano AE, Burk MW, Campbell MA, Kaiser LR, Morton DL (1982) Clinical correlations with drug sensitivities in the clonogenic assay. Arch Surg 117: 33–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCullough EA, Till JE (1971) Regulatory mechanisms acting on hematopoietic stem cells: some clinical implications. Am J Pathol 65: 601–619Google Scholar
  27. Paulson DF, Einhorn L, Peckham M, Williams SD (1982) Cancer of the testis. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds) Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 786–822Google Scholar
  28. Price LA (1973) The application of a kinetic model to the clinical use of antitumor drugs. In: Shedden WIH (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd Eli Lilly symposium on the vinca alkaloids in the chemotherapy of malignant disease. Sherraff, Cheshire, pp 35–40Google Scholar
  29. Price LA, Goldie JH (1971) Multiple drug therapy for disseminated malignant disease. Br Med J 4: 336–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Price LA, Hill BT (1981 a). Safe and effective combination chemotherapy without cis-platinum for squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Cancer Treat Rep 65: (Suppl 1) 149–154PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Price LA, Hill BT (1981 b) Safer chemotherapy using a kinetically-based approach: clinical applications. In: Price LA, Hill BT, Ghilchik M (eds) Safer cancer chemotherapy. Bailliere Tindall, London, pp 9–18Google Scholar
  32. Price LA, Hill BT (1982) Safe and effective induction chemotherapy without cisplatin for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: impact on complete response rate and survival at five years, following local therapy. Med Ped Oncol 10: 535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Price LA, Hill BT (1983) An experimentally-based safe method of administering intensive cancer chemotherapy: prospects for increased survival in patients with’ solid’ tumors in the next decade. S Afr Med J 64: 987–994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Price LA, Hill BT, Ghilchik M (1981) Safer cancer chemotherapy. Bailliere Tindall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Rupniak HT, Whelan RD, Hill BT (1983) Concentration and time-dependent inter-relationships for antitumor drug cytotoxicities against tumor cells in vitro. Int J Cancer 32: 7–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salmon SE (1984) Preclinical and clinical applications of chemosensitivity testing with a human tumor colony assay. In: Salmon SE, Trent JM (eds) Human tumor cloning. Grune and Stratton, Orlando, pp 499–508Google Scholar
  37. Schabel FM (1977) Surgical adjuvant chemotherapy of metastatic murine tumors. Cancer 40: 558–568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shackney SE, McCormack GW, Cuchural GJ (1978) Growth rate patterns of solid tumors and their relation to responsiveness to therapy. Ann Intern Med 89: 107–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Skipper HE, Schabel FM, Wilcox WS (1965) Experimental evaluation of potential anticancer drugs. XIV. Further study of certain basic concepts underlying chemotherapy of leukemia. Cancer Chemother Rep 45: 5–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Steel GC (1977) Growth kinetics of tumors, 1st edn. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 1–351Google Scholar
  41. Thomson SP, Moon TE, Meyskens FL (1984) Kinetics of clonogenic melanoma cell proliferation and the limits of growth within a bilayer agar system. J Cell Physiol 121: 114–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Valeriote FA, Bruce WR (1967) Comparison of the sensitivity of hematopoietic colony-forming cells in different proliferative states to vinblastine. J Natl Cancer Inst 38: 393–399PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Valeriote FA, van Putten LM (1975) Proliferation-dependent cytotoxicity of anticancer agents: a review. Cancer Res 35: 2619–2630PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Von Hoff DD, Casper J, Bradley E, Sandbank 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
  45. Wilcox WS, Griswold DP, Laster WR, Schabel SM, Skipper HE (1965) Experimental evaluation of potential anticancer agents. XVII. Kinetics of growth and regression after treatment of certain solid tumors. Cancer Chemother Rep 47: 27–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolf GT, Chretien PB (1981) The chemotherapy and immunotherapy of head and neck cancer. In: Suen JY, Myers EN (eds) Cancer of the head and neck. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 782–820Google Scholar
  47. Young RC, Knapp RC, Perez CA (1982) Cancer of the ovary. In: De Vita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA (eds) Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 884–913Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. T. Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Cellular ChemotherapyImperial Cancer Research FundLondonGreat Britain

Personalised recommendations