Challenges and Opportunities in New Drug Development

  • Kirpal S. Gulliya
Part of the Medical Intelligence Unit book series (MIU.LANDES)


In the 18th century, mercury was the treatment of choice for syphilis.1 Mercury was so commonly used, in fact, that physicians rarely saw a patient who had not taken it, even though it was eventually proven ineffective.2 As a result, it was virtually impossible to separate the effects of the disease from the treatment. Many physicians even insisted that mercury had no toxic effects.


Drug Development Drug Selection Adrenocortical Carcinoma Nitrogen Mustard Modern Chemotherapy 
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. 1.
    Mathias A. The Mercurial Disease: an inquiry into the history and nature of the disease produced in the human condition by the use of mercury. 3rd ed. London: J. Callow, 1866.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goldwater LJ. Mercury: a History of Quicksilver. Baltimore: York Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hacker MP, Lazo JS, Tritton TR. Organ directed toxicities of anticancer drugs. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perry MC. Toxicity of chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 1982; 9: 1–154.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Perry MC, Yarbro JW. Toxicity of chemotherapy. Orlandlo: Grune and Stratton, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldsmith MA, Slavik M, Carter SK. Quantitaive prediction of drug toxicity in humans from toxicology in small and large animals. Cancer Res 1975; 35: 1354–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Driscoll JS. The preclinical new drug research program of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer Treat Rep 1984; 68: 63–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marsoni S, Hoth D, Simmon R et al. Clinical drug development: an analysis of phase II trials 1970–1985. Cancer Treat Rep 1987; 71: 71–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Muggia FM. Closing the loop: providing feedback on drug development (editorial). Cancer Treat Rep 1987; 71: 1–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grindey GB. Current status of cancer drug development: failure or limited sucess. Cancer Cells 1990; 2: 163–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hamburger AW, Salmon SE. Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science 1977; 197: 461–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salmon SE, Hamburger AW, Soehnlen B et al. Quantitation of differential sensitivity of human tumor stem cells to anticancer drugs. N Eng J Med 1978; 298: 1312–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Von Hoff DD, Casper J, Bradley E et al. Association between human tumor colony forming assay results and response of an individual patient’s tumor to chemotherapy. Am J Med 1981; 70: 1047.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Von Hoff DD, Clark GM, Stogdill BJ et al. Prospective clinical trial of a human tumor cloning system. Cancer Res 1983; 3: 1926–31.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boyd MR, Paull KD, Rubinstein LR. Data display and analysis strategies for the NCI disease-oriented in vitro antitumor drug screen. In: Valeriote FA, Corbett T, Baker L, eds. Cytotoxic anticancer drugs: models and concepts for drug discovery and development. Amsterdam: Kulwer Academic Publishers, 1992; 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyd MR. The future of new drug development. In: Niederhubr JE, ed. Current therapy in oncology. Philadelphia: BC Decker Inc., 1993; 11–22.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grever MR, Hollingshead MG, Alley MC et al. Status of in vivo evaluations in the NCI anticancer drug discovery program. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1994; 35: 369.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alley MC, Scudiero DA, Monks A et al. Feasibility of drug screening with panels of human tumor cell lines using a microculture tetrazolium assay. Cancer Res 1988; 48: 589–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubenstein LV, Shoemaker RR, Paull KD et al. Comparision of in vitro anticancer-drug-screening. Data generated with a tetrazolium assay versus a protein assay against a diverse panel of human tumor cell lines. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 1113–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Skehan P, Storeng R, Scudiero D et al. New colorimetric cytotoxicity assay for anticancer drug screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 1107–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Monks A, Scudiero D, Skehan P et al. Feasibility of a high-flux anticancer drug screen utilizing a diverse panel of human tumor cell lines in culture. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991; 83: 757–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyd MR, Paull KD. Some practical considerations and applications of the national cancer institute in vitro anticancer drug discovery screen. Drug Devel Res 1995; 34: 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boyd MR. Status of the NCI preclinical antitumor drug discovery screen. In: Devita VT Jr, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principle and practice of oncology updates. Philadelphia: JP Lippincott, 1989; 3: 1–12.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Einhorn J. Nitrogen mustard: the origin of chemotherapy for cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11: 1375–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sager R. Tumor suppressor genes: the puzzle and the promise. Science 1989; 246: 1406–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Easton EW, Bolsher, JGM, Eijnden DH. Enzymatic amplification involving glcosyltransferases from the basis for the increased size of asparagine linked glycans at the surface of NIH 3T3 cells expressing the N-ras proto-oncogenes. J Biol Chem 1991; 266: 21674–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirpal S. Gulliya
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Baylor Research InstituteBaylor University Medical CenterDallasUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Biomedical StudiesBaylor UniversityWacoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Biological ScienceUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations