Abstract
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.
Progress in medical science depends chiefly on the uncommon man, possessed of that rare asset, a brain so beautifully integrated with the retina, that when he looks, he perceives. —David Seegal, Journal of Medical Education 1964; 39:321.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
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.
Goldwater LJ. Mercury: a History of Quicksilver. Baltimore: York Press, 1972.
Hacker MP, Lazo JS, Tritton TR. Organ directed toxicities of anticancer drugs. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, 1987.
Perry MC. Toxicity of chemotherapy. Semin Oncol 1982; 9: 1–154.
Perry MC, Yarbro JW. Toxicity of chemotherapy. Orlandlo: Grune and Stratton, 1984.
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.
Driscoll JS. The preclinical new drug research program of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer Treat Rep 1984; 68: 63–76.
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.
Muggia FM. Closing the loop: providing feedback on drug development (editorial). Cancer Treat Rep 1987; 71: 1–2.
Grindey GB. Current status of cancer drug development: failure or limited sucess. Cancer Cells 1990; 2: 163–71.
Hamburger AW, Salmon SE. Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science 1977; 197: 461–63.
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.
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.
Von Hoff DD, Clark GM, Stogdill BJ et al. Prospective clinical trial of a human tumor cloning system. Cancer Res 1983; 3: 1926–31.
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.
Boyd MR. The future of new drug development. In: Niederhubr JE, ed. Current therapy in oncology. Philadelphia: BC Decker Inc., 1993; 11–22.
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.
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.
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.
Skehan P, Storeng R, Scudiero D et al. New colorimetric cytotoxicity assay for anticancer drug screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 1107–12.
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.
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.
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.
Einhorn J. Nitrogen mustard: the origin of chemotherapy for cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1985; 11: 1375–78.
Sager R. Tumor suppressor genes: the puzzle and the promise. Science 1989; 246: 1406–10.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1996 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gulliya, K.S. (1996). Challenges and Opportunities in New Drug Development. In: Novel Chemotherapeutic Agents: Preactivation in the Treatment of Cancer and AIDS. Medical Intelligence Unit. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-22241-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-22241-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-22243-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-22241-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive