No abstract

In vitro cross-resistance and collateral sensitivity in seven resistant small-cell lung cancer cell lines: preclinical identification of suitable drug partners to taxotere, taxol, topotecan and gemcitabin PB Jensen1, B Holm', M Sorensen1, IJ Christensen2 and M Sehested3 'Laboratory of Experimental Medical Oncology, The Finsen Center, Rigshospitalet, 9 Blegdamsvej, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; 2The Finsen Laboratory, Rigshospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen; 3Department of Pathology, Righospitalet, DK-2100 Copenhagen Summary The acquisition of drug-resistant tumour cells is the main problem in the medical treatment of a range of malignant diseases. In recent years, three new classes of anti-cancer agents, each with a novel mechanism of action, have been brought forward to clinical trials. These are the topoisomerase (topo 1) poisons topotecan and irinotecan, which are both camptothecin derivatives, the taxane tubulin stabilizers taxol and taxotere and, finally, the antimetabolite gemcitabin, which is active in solid tumours. The process of optimizing their use in a combination with established agents is very complex, with numerous possible drug and schedule regimens. We describe here how a broad panel of drug-resistant small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) cell lines can be used as a model of tumour heterogeneity to aid in the selection of non-cross-resistant regimens. We have selected low-fold (3-1Ox) drug-resistant sublines from a classic (NCI-H69) and a variant (OC-NYH) SCLC cell line. The resistant cell lines include two sublines with different phenotypes towards alkylating agents (H69/BCNU and NYH/CIS), two sublines with different phenotypes against topo I poisons (NYH/CAM and NYH/TPT) and three multidrug resistant (MDR) sublines (H69/DAU, NYH/VM, and H69NP) with combinations of mdrl and MRP overexpression as well as topoisomerase 11 (topo 11) down-regulation or mutation. Sensitivity to 20 established and new agents was measured in a standardized clonogenic assay. Resistance was highly drug specific. Thus, none of the cell lines was resistant to all drugs. In fact, all resistant cell lines exhibited patterns of collateral sensitivity to various different classes of drugs. The most intriguing pattern was collateral sensitivity to gemcitabin in two cell lines and to ara-C in five drugresistant cell lines, i.e. in all lines except the lines resistant to topo poisons. Next, all sensitivity patterns in the nine cell lines were compared by correlation analysis. A high correlation coefficient (CC) for a given pair of compounds indicates a similar pattern in response in the set of cell lines. Such data corroborate the view that there is cross-resistance among the drugs. A numerically low coefficient indicates that the two drugs are acting in different ways, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance between the drugs, and a negative correlation coefficient implies that two drugs exhibit collateral sensitivity. The most negative CCs (%) to the new drug leads were: taxotere-carmustine (BCNU) (-75), taxol-cisplatin (-58), ara-C-taxol (-2...

Reliable prognostic markers could help to guide patients and treating physicians regarding the relevance and choice of systemic therapy. Small fragments of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) can be measured in a simple blood sample. This report presents the first meta-analysis of the prognostic value of total cfDNA measurement in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Data from 1,076 patients confirmed that patients with the lowest pre-treatment levels of cfDNA had a significantly higher chance of longer survival than those with higher levels. Cell-free DNA analysis can also be used for detection of tumor-specific mutations, and hold potential as a valuable tool in colorectal cancer treatment.

Background:This phase I study assessed the maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and pharmacokinetics of belinostat with carboplatin and paclitaxel and the anti-tumour activity of the combination in solid tumours.Methods:Cohorts of three to six patients were treated with escalating doses of belinostat administered intravenously once daily, days 1–5 q21 days; on day 3, carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC) 5) and/or paclitaxel (175 mg m−2) were administered 2–3 h after the end of the belinostat infusion.Results:In all 23 patients received 600–1000 mg m−2 per day of belinostat with carboplatin and/or paclitaxel. No DLT was observed. The maximal administered dose of belinostat was 1000 mg m−2 per day for days 1–5, with paclitaxel (175 mg m−2) and carboplatin AUC 5 administered on day 3. Grade III/IV adverse events were (n; %): leucopenia (5; 22%), neutropenia (7; 30%), thrombocytopenia (3; 13%) anaemia (1; 4%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (2; 9%), fatigue (1; 4%), vomiting (1; 4%) and myalgia (1; 4%). The pharmacokinetics of belinostat, paclitaxel and carboplatin were unaltered by the concurrent administration. There were two partial responses (one rectal cancer and one pancreatic cancer). A third patient (mixed mullerian tumour of ovarian origin) showed a complete CA-125 response. In addition, six patients showed a stable disease lasting ⩾6 months.Conclusion:The combination was well tolerated, with no evidence of pharmacokinetic interaction. Further evaluation of anti-tumour activity is warranted.