OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of the extent of extreme drug resistance (EDR) in in vitro drug resistance assays in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian, and primary peritoneal cancers. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using the database for in vitro drug resistance assay (EDR Assay, Oncotech, Inc.) results for advanced stage ovarian cancer samples obtained at primary surgery between 1995 and 2009. In vitro drug resistance assay results were evaluated for thirteen drugs according to the following two groups: platinum and taxane (primary treatment group) vs remaining agents (secondary treatment group). Dual-resistance was then defined as at least one EDR in the primary and secondary treatment groups. Chemotherapy response and survival outcome were correlated with assay results. RESULTS: There were 253 cases identified. Dual-resistance (n=53, 20.9%) was not associated with chemotherapy response (p=0.62) or survival outcomes (PFS, p=0.52; OS, p=0.11). Only one (0.4%) case exhibited complete EDR to all tested drugs, and 74 (29.4%) cases showed no EDR. There was no statistical correlation between total number of drugs in the EDR range and chemotherapy response (p=0.55), progression-free survival (PFS) (p=0.18), and overall survival (OS) (p=0.87). Proportion of EDR, defined as the ratio of the number of EDR drugs divided by all drugs for an individual patient, was also not related to chemotherapy response (p=0.37), PFS (p=0.13), or OS (p=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Presence of extreme drug resistance to multiple agents in the in vitro drug resistance assays was not associated with survival outcomes in advanced stage epithelial ovarian, fallopian, and primary peritoneal cancers.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical significance of the extent of extreme drug resistance (EDR) in in vitro drug resistance assays in advanced epithelial ovarian, fallopian, and primary peritoneal cancers. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted using the database for in vitro drug resistance assay (EDR Assay, Oncotech, Inc.) results for advanced stage ovarian cancer samples obtained at primary surgery between 1995 and 2009. In vitro drug resistance assay results were evaluated for thirteen drugs according to the following two groups: platinum and taxane (primary treatment group) vs remaining agents (secondary treatment group). Dual-resistance was then defined as at least one EDR in the primary and secondary treatment groups. Chemotherapy response and survival outcome were correlated with assay results. RESULTS: There were 253 cases identified. Dual-resistance (n=53, 20.9%) was not associated with chemotherapy response (p=0.62) or survival outcomes (PFS, p=0.52; OS, p=0.11). Only one (0.4%) case exhibited complete EDR to all tested drugs, and 74 (29.4%) cases showed no EDR. There was no statistical correlation between total number of drugs in the EDR range and chemotherapy response (p=0.55), progression-free survival (PFS) (p=0.18), and overall survival (OS) (p=0.87). Proportion of EDR, defined as the ratio of the number of EDR drugs divided by all drugs for an individual patient, was also not related to chemotherapy response (p=0.37), PFS (p=0.13), or OS (p=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Presence of extreme drug resistance to multiple agents in the in vitro drug resistance assays was not associated with survival outcomes in advanced stage epithelial ovarian, fallopian, and primary peritoneal cancers.
Authors: Robert W Holloway; Rita S Mehta; Neil J Finkler; Kuo-Tung Li; Christine E McLaren; Ricardo J Parker; John P Fruehauf Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Krishnansu S Tewari; Rita S Mehta; Robert A Burger; Ing-Ru Yu; Ainura S Kyshtoobayeva; Bradley J Monk; Alberto Manetta; Michael L Berman; Philip J Disaia; John P Fruehauf Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: G H Eltabbakh; M S Piver; R E Hempling; F O Recio; S B Lele; D L Marchetti; T R Baker; L E Blumenson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Vera Loizzi; John K Chan; Kathryn Osann; Fabio Cappuccini; Philip J DiSaia; Michael L Berman Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: J U Mäenpää; E Heinonen; S M Hinkka; P Karnani; P J Klemi; T A Korpijaakko; T A Kuoppala; A M Laine; M A Lähde; E K Nuoranne Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Suming Wang; Anna Blois; Tina El Rayes; Joyce F Liu; Michelle S Hirsch; Karsten Gravdal; Sangeetha Palakurthi; Diane R Bielenberg; Lars A Akslen; Ronny Drapkin; Vivek Mittal; Randolph S Watnick Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Molly M Morgan; Brian P Johnson; Megan K Livingston; Linda A Schuler; Elaine T Alarid; Kyung E Sung; David J Beebe Journal: Pharmacol Ther Date: 2016-05-21 Impact factor: 12.310
Authors: Nina Hedemann; Andreas Herz; Jan Hendrik Schiepanski; Jan Dittrich; Susanne Sebens; Astrid Dempfle; Julia Feuerborn; Christoph Rogmans; Nils Tribian; Inken Flörkemeier; Jörg Weimer; Sandra Krüger; Nicolai Maass; Dirk O Bauerschlag Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Ming Chen; Hong Huang; Haojie He; Wantao Ying; Xin Liu; Zhiqin Dai; Jie Yin; Ning Mao; Xiaohong Qian; Lingya Pan Journal: Cancer Sci Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 6.716