Literature DB >> 1764768

Tumor models in drug development.

D P Griswold1, S D Harrison.   

Abstract

In this short essay, we have taken the opportunity to review briefly the history of anticancer drug screening, consider the changes that have been made throughout that history, and reflect on the suitability of current screening practices and the models employed. A major change in emphasis in drug discovery has influenced the development and selection of new model tumor systems as well as screening practices. This new direction, a search for drugs that are selective for particular tumor histotypes, especially solid tumors, was stimulated by the paucity of drugs that have clinical solid tumor activity. The new approach to drug discovery and screening is in itself an experiment. Only time will tell if this approach is successful.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1764768     DOI: 10.1007/bf00050796

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Metastasis Rev        ISSN: 0167-7659            Impact factor:   9.264


  22 in total

1.  Experimental evaluation of potential anticancer agents. II. Studies on the growth characteristics, metastases, and drug response of hamster neoplasms of diverse "sites of origin".

Authors:  F M SCHABEL; H E SKIPPER; J G FORTNER; J R THOMSON; W R LASTER; J H MOORE; C A KELLEY; D R FARNELL
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1961-07       Impact factor: 12.701

2.  Feasibility of drug screening with panels of human tumor cell lines using a microculture tetrazolium assay.

Authors:  M C Alley; D A Scudiero; A Monks; M L Hursey; M J Czerwinski; D L Fine; B J Abbott; J G Mayo; R H Shoemaker; M R Boyd
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  1988-02-01       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 3.  Is the P388 murine tumor no longer adequate as a drug discovery model?

Authors:  T H Corbett; F A Valeriote; L H Baker
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.850

4.  Proceedings: Anticancer drug development programs: a comparison of approaches in the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, and Western Europe.

Authors:  S K Carter
Journal:  Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  1974-02

5.  Experimental screening procedures and clinical predictability value.

Authors:  A Goldin; A A Serpick; N Mantel
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Rep       Date:  1966-05

Review 6.  A critical appraisal of the predictive value of in vitro chemosensitivity assays.

Authors:  R M Phillips; M C Bibby; J A Double
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1990-09-19       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  Drug sensitivity of ten human tumor cell lines compared to mouse leukemia (L1210) cells.

Authors:  G J Badiner; R D Hamilton; L H Li; B K Bhuyan
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 3.850

8.  Sensitivity of proliferating cultured murine pancreatic tumor cells to selected antitumor agents.

Authors:  L J Wilkoff; E A Dulmadge
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Variability of tumor response to chemotherapy. II. Contribution of tumor heterogeneity.

Authors:  L Simpson-Herren; P E Noker; S D Wagoner
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.333

10.  Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells.

Authors:  A W Hamburger; S E Salmon
Journal:  Science       Date:  1977-07-29       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  1 in total

1.  Acute effects of 4-ipomeanol on experimental lung tumors with bronchiolar or alveolar cell features in Syrian hamsters or C3H/HeNCr mice.

Authors:  S Rehm; D E Devor
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 4.553

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.