One chemical in particular was linked in study to larger, more aggressive tumors
by Gdpawel on Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:00 AM
by Gdpawel on Sat Jan 14, 2006 12:00 AM
Dr Ian Cree, Director, Translational Oncology Research Centre, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth UK performed the very first prospective, randomized clinical trial of physician's choice chemotherapy versus ATP assay-directed chemotherapy in non-surgically debulked, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer and presented it at the May, 2005 American Society of Clinical Oncologists (ASCO) meeting in Orlando, Florida.
The results were highly suggestive of an effect due to the assay, and the most successful drug regimens used were nearly all developed using the assay. UK results in cancer are always lower than in the US for a variety of reasons. Part of this is probably lead time bias, but data on surgical debulking may be part of the explanation. Patients in the US get a whole lot more surgery along the way than in Europe.
As a result of this, the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) has decided to move forward with a study in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, utilizing a different assay called EDR, to direct chemotherapy. However, this assay is specifically designed to identify 'inactive' rather than 'active' drugs. In this light, the EDR assay has the advantage of telling you who will 'not respond' but cannot in any way change the negative outcome by selecting an 'active' alternative. At least it's a start!
There are other medical oncologists in the US, headed up by Drs Larry Weisenthal and Robert Nagourney, that are making proposals for a separate study, a front-line randomized trial with head to head comparison of several assays (EDR, ATP, DISC, MTT, as well as Caspase 3/7). These assays correlate very well with each other on direct comparisons of different methods. Different methods of assay results should be applied in choosing a particular drug regimen to be used in treating an individual patient's cancer.
by Gdpawel on Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:00 AM
1. Their expertise was in establishing permanent cell lines and they only tested tumors after first culturing them to amplify their cell number (these were all passaged, grown up, multiplied, replated). The result was that their assay evaluability rate for primary lung cancers was only 11%.
2. The second problem they had is that they were selecting subpopulations. Subsequent work showed that you get different results when you test passaged cells compared to primary, fresh tumors.
3. The third problem is that the ability to get lung cancer to actually grow is an independent marker for virulent disease. It was actually the single greatest negative predictor for survival in one study.
So the NCI concluded that it was too much trouble and not all that useful. If they couldn't get it to work at the NCI, then of course no one can do it. That was the attitude thereafter.
"If the NCI can't do something, nobody can." What a heck of a way to do science!
by Gdpawel on Fri Jul 06, 2007 12:00 AM
When you track a discussion, you will get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to track this discussion?
If you stop tracking this discussion, you will no longer get notified by e-mail if anyone else posts a new message on this discussion. Are you sure you want to stop tracking this discussion?
We care about your feedback. Let us know how we can improve your CancerCompass experience.