Cancer Res Treat.  2005 Jun;37(3):196-200.

Correlative Effect between in vivo Hollow Fiber Assay and Xenografts Assay in Drug Screening

• Lee KH
• Rhee KH

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study was carried out to assess the usage of an in vivo hollow fiber assay to screen drugs with highly predictive accuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The assay systems used were the hollow fiber and xenografts assays. The hollow fiber assay was carried out with the following steps; preparation of fibers, preparation of cells, loading and implanting fibers, treatment with drugs, removal of fibers and assaying for the cell viability by the MTT assay. For the xenografts assay, cell suspensions were subcutaneously transplanted into the mice. Therapy was started when the tumor volume reached 100~200 mm3. The tumor volumes were calculated using the formula V=[length+(width)2]/2, and used for evaluating the efficacy of the drugs. The drug treatment doses used were adriamycin 2.1 mg/kg, mitomycin-C 0.25 mg/kg, 5-fluo-rouracil 24.5 mg/kg and paclitaxel 2.5 mg/kg, and administrated intravenously five times daily. RESULTS: The correlation between the xenografts and hollow fiber assays was evaluated in 20 tumor cell lines and 4 anti-cancer agents. In the 20 tumor cell lines, the overall predictive accuracy of the hollow fiber assay for sensitivity was 83%, with a predictive accuracy for resistance of 92%. CONCLUSION: The hollow fiber assay was assessed as effective in drug efficacy evaluation, and found to be compatible with that of the xenografts assay.

Keyword

Hollow fiber assay; Xenografts assay; Correlation; Drug screen

MeSH Terms

Animals
Cell Line, Tumor
Cell Survival
Doxorubicin
Drug Evaluation, Preclinical*
Heterografts*
Mice
Mitomycin
Paclitaxel
Suspensions
Tumor Burden
Doxorubicin
Mitomycin
Paclitaxel
Suspensions

Reference

1. Hollingshead MG, Alley MC, Camalier RF, Abott BJ, Mayo JG, Malspeis L, et al. In vivo cultivation of tumor cells in hollow fibers. Life Sci. 1995; 57:131–141. PMID: 7603295.

2. Hollingshead M, Roberson J, Decker W, Buckheit R Jr, Elder C, Malspeis L, et al. In vivo drug screening applications of HIV-infected cells cultivated within hollow fibers in two physiologic compartments of mice. Antiviral Res. 1995; 28:265–279. PMID: 8629818.

3. Casciari JJ, Hollingshead MG, Alley MC, Mayo JG, Malspeis L, Miyauchi S, et al. Growth and chemotherapeutic response of cells in a hollow fiber in vitro solid tumor model. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994; 86:1846–1852. PMID: 7990159.

4. Sadar MD, Akopian VA, Beraldi E. Characterization of a new in vivo hollow fiber assay model for the study of progression of prostate cancer to androgen independence. Mol Cancer Ther. 2002; 1:629–637. PMID: 12479223.

5. Jayaraman M, Fox BM, Hollingshead M, Kohlhagen G, Pommier Y, Cushman M. Synthesis of new dihydroindeno [1,2-c] isoquinoline and indenoisoquinolinium chloride topoisomerase I inhibitors having high in vivo anticancer activity in the hollow fiber animal model. J Med Chem. 2002; 45:242–249. PMID: 11754595.

6. Hu K, Yao X. The cytotoxicity of methyl protoneoracillin (NSC-698793) and gracillin (NSC-698787), two steroidal saponins from rhizomes of Dioscorea collettii var. hypoglauca, against human cancer cells in vitro. Phytother Res. 2003; 17:620–626. PMID: 12820229.

7. Rockwell S. In vivo-in vitro tumor cell lines: characteristics and limitations as models for human cancer. Br J Cancer Suppl. 1980; 4:118–122. PMID: 6932914.

8. Borenfreund E, Puerner JA. A simple quantitative procedure using monolayer cultures for cytotoxicity assays (HTD/Nr-90). Tissue Culture Meth. 1984; 9:7–9.

9. Driscoll JS. The preclinical new drug research program of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer Treat Rep. 1984; 68:63–76. PMID: 6692438.

10. Rubinstein LV, Shoemaker RH, Paull KD, Simon RM, Tosini S, Skehan P, et al. Comparison 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; 82:1113–1118. PMID: 2359137.

11. Salmon SE, Hamburger AW, Soehnlen B, Durie BG, Alberts DS, Moon TE. Quantitation of differential sensitivity of human tumor stem cells to anticancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 1978; 298:1321–1327. PMID: 77475.

12. Skehan P, Storeng R, Scudiero D, Monks A, McMahon J, Vistica D, et al. New colorimetric cytotoxicity assay for anticancer-drug screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990; 82:1107–1112. PMID: 2359136.

13. Bellet RE, Danna V, Mastrangelo MJ, Berd D. Evaluation of a nude mouse-human tumor panel as a predictive secondary screen for cancer chemotherapeutic agents. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1979; 63:1185–1188. PMID: 91697.

14. Gazdar AF, Carney DN, Sims HL, Simmons A. Heterotransplantation of small-cell carcinoma of the lung into nude mice: comparison of intracranial and subcutaneous routes. Int J Cancer. 1981; 28:777–783. PMID: 6277800.

15. Houghton JA, Taylor DM. Growth characteristics of human colorectal tumors during serial passage in immune-deprived mice. Br J Cancer. 1978; 37:213–223. PMID: 629859.

16. Neely JE, Ballard ET, Britt AL, Workman L. Characteristics of 85 pediatric tumors heterotransplanted into nude mice. Exp Cell Biol. 1983; 51:217–227. PMID: 6873437.

17. Ovejera AA, Houchens DP. Human tumor xenografts in athymic nude mice as a preclinical screen for anticancer agents. Semin Oncol. 1981; 8:386–393. PMID: 7323810.

18. Povlsen CO, Rygaard J. Heterotransplantation of human adenocarcinomas of the colon and rectum to the mouse mutant nude. A study of nine consecutive transplantations. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand A. 1971; 79:159–169. PMID: 4325120.

19. Maruo K, Ueyama Y, Inaba M, Emura R, Ohnishi Y, Nakamura O, et al. Responsiveness of subcutaneous human glioma xenografts to various antitumor agents. Anticancer Res. 1990; 10:209–212. PMID: 2334129.

20. Mi Q, Lantvit D, Reyes-Lim E, Chai H, Zhao W, Lee IS, et al. Evaluation of the potential cancer chemotherapeutic efficacy of natural product isolates employing in vivo hollow fiber tests. J Nat Prod. 2002; 65:842–850. PMID: 12088425.

21. Gullbo J, Lindhagen E, Bashir-Hassan S, Tullberg M, Ehrsson H, Lewensohn R, et al. Antitumor efficacy and acute toxicity of the novel dipeptide melphalanyl-p-L-fluorophenylalanine ethyl ester (J1) in vivo. Invest New Drugs. 2004; 22:411–420. PMID: 15292711.

22. Kupchinsky S, Centioni S, Howard T, Trzupek J, Roller S, Carnahan V, et al. A novel class of achiral seco-analogs of CC-1065 and the duocarmycins: design, synthesis, DNA binding, and anticancer properties. Bioorg Med Chem. 2004; 12:6221–6236. PMID: 15519165.

23. Labarbera DV, Skibo EB. Synthesis of imidazo[1,5,4-de]quinoxalin-9-ones, benzimidazole analogues of pyrroloiminoquinone marine natural products. Bioorg Med Chem. 2005; 13:387–395. PMID: 15598560.

24. Hovstadius P, Lindhagen E, Hassan S, Nilsson K, Jernberg-Wiklund H, Nygren P, et al. Cytotoxic effect in vivo and in vitro of CHS 828 on human myeloma cell lines. Anticancer Drugs. 2004; 15:63–70. PMID: 15090745.

25. Berger DP, Fiebig HH, Winterhalter BR, Wallbrecher E, Henss H. Preclinical phase II study of ifosfamide in human tumor xenografts in vivo. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1990; 26(Suppl):S7–S11. PMID: 2347054.