Literature DB >> 10684711

Development of a panel of 15 human ovarian cancer xenografts for drug screening and determination of the role of the glutathione detoxification system.

G M Kolfschoten1, H M Pinedo, P G Scheffer, H M Schlüper, C A Erkelens, E Boven.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We have established a panel of 15 human ovarian cancer xenografts grown subcutaneously in the flank of the nude mouse. Similar to the clinic, the xenografts show differences in histological subtype and volume doubling time. We determined whether the panel is useful for drug screening by testing the sensitivity to six conventional anticancer agents. In addition, we investigated whether the glutathione detoxification system affects sensitivity to cisplatin and cyclophosphamide, major drugs in the treatment of ovarian cancer.
METHODS: Mice bearing well-established tumors were treated at maximum tolerated doses as defined by a reversible weight loss up to 15% of their initial weight: cisplatin 5 mg/kg iv weekly x2, cyclophosphamide 150 mg/kg ip 2-weekly x2, doxorubicin 8 mg/kg iv weekly x2, hexamethylmelamine ip 150 mg/kg every other day x4, methotrexate ip 150 mg/kg weekly x2, and 5-fluorouracil 60 mg/kg ip weekly x4. Glutathione levels and the activities of three different glutathione-dependent enzymes were measured in untreated xenograft tissues.
RESULTS: Growth inhibition >75% was reached for cisplatin in 40%, for cyclophosphamide in 27%, and for doxorubicin in 20% of the xenografts. Methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil did not induce growth inhibition of importance. Hexamethylmelamine showed >75% growth inhibition in 53% of the xenografts, which may have been caused by the favorable metabolism of the drug in mice when compared with that in patients. Glutathione levels varied 3.6-fold in the xenografts and did not show a relation with sensitivity to cisplatin, cyclophosphamide, or doxorubicin. No relation was found between the activities of glutathione S-transferase and glutathione peroxidase and the sensitivities to the three anticancer agents. Glutathione reductase activity, however, showed a weak, inverse relation with the efficacy of cisplatin and cyclophosphamide (r values of -0.55 and -0.58, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity to the six anticancer agents of our panel of 15 human ovarian cancer xenografts reflects the response rates known for similar drugs in ovarian cancer patients. In that respect, the panel may be useful for drug screening as well as studies on the relevance of drug resistance features in vivo. The various components of the glutathione detoxification system did not predict for primary drug resistance which confirms clinical data in ovarian cancer. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10684711     DOI: 10.1006/gyno.1999.5689

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  14 in total

Review 1.  Patient-derived tumour xenografts as models for oncology drug development.

Authors:  John J Tentler; Aik Choon Tan; Colin D Weekes; Antonio Jimeno; Stephen Leong; Todd M Pitts; John J Arcaroli; Wells A Messersmith; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 2.  Patient-derived human tumour tissue xenografts in immunodeficient mice: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ketao Jin; Lisong Teng; Yanping Shen; Kuifeng He; Zhenzhen Xu; Guangliang Li
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.405

3.  Xenograft and Transgenic Mouse Models of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer and Non Invasive Imaging Modalities to Monitor Ovarian Tumor Growth In situ -Applications in Evaluating Novel Therapeutic Agents.

Authors:  Denise C Connolly; Harvey H Hensley
Journal:  Curr Protoc Pharmacol       Date:  2009-06-01

4.  Tumor interstitial fluid pressure as an early-response marker for anticancer therapeutics.

Authors:  Stephane Ferretti; Peter R Allegrini; Mike M Becquet; Paul Mj McSheehy
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.715

5.  Drug resistance features and S-phase fraction as possible determinants for drug response in a panel of human ovarian cancer xenografts.

Authors:  G M Kolfschoten; T M Hulscher; H M Pinedo; E Boven
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 6.  Patient-derived xenograft models to improve targeted therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer treatment.

Authors:  Clare L Scott; Marc A Becker; Paul Haluska; Goli Samimi
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 6.244

7.  Correlation between genetic alterations and growth of human malignant glioma xenografted in nude mice.

Authors:  P Leuraud; L Taillandier; L Aguirre-Cruz; J Medioni; E Crinière; Y Marie; A M Dutrillaux; M Kujas; A Duprez; J-Y Delattre; M-F Poupon; M Sanson
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-12-15       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Biobanking of patient and patient-derived xenograft ovarian tumour tissue: efficient preservation with low and high fetal calf serum based methods.

Authors:  Nicolette G Alkema; Tushar Tomar; Evelien W Duiker; Gert Jan Meersma; Harry Klip; Ate G J van der Zee; G Bea A Wisman; Steven de Jong
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 9.  Current status and evolution of preclinical drug development models of epithelial ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Panagiotis A Konstantinopoulos; Ursula A Matulonis
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 6.244

10.  Histologic and molecular analysis of patient derived xenografts of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.

Authors:  Ruifen Dong; Wenan Qiang; Haiyang Guo; Xiaofei Xu; J Julie Kim; Andrew Mazar; Beihua Kong; Jian-Jun Wei
Journal:  J Hematol Oncol       Date:  2016-09-21       Impact factor: 17.388

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.