Immunochemotherapy of Cancer with Chlorambucil-carrying Antibody

Ghose, T.; Norvell, S. T.; Guclu, A.; Cameron, Donald P.; Bodurtha, A.; Macdonald, A. S.

doi:10.1136/bmj.3.5825.495

Cited by 151 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 14 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the least effective situation of cyclophosphamide, and with a time lapse of 96 h between challenge and treatment, the DRAB effect was clear (Fig. 2 (Ghose et al, 1972) but the effects claimed are likely to be due to the DRAB effect we now describe (see Davies and O'Neill, 1 973;O'Neill, Pearson and Davies, 1974). A slight buit measurable benefit found with (Irug an(i normal rabbit serum may be due to the direct toxicity of most rabbit sera for mice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Protection of Mice Against Syngeneic Lymphomata

Davies¹,

Buckham²,

Manstone³

1974

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rabbit anti-mouse tumour cell serum can be made tumour specific by absorption with normal mouse cells and in an in vivo protection test can be shown to have a measurable protective effect on mice against a given number of lethal doses of a lymphoma. Some drugs have been evaluated in this system. When drug treatment is combined with antibody treatment much greater protection can be obtained than when the same amounts of drug or antibody are used alone. It is preferable to administer drug before antibody and with the combined schedule it is possible in the test model to protect all mice from tumour growth, even allowing the tumour up to 48 h “get-away” time before starting treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Protection of Mice Against Syngeneic Lymphomata

Davies¹,

Buckham²,

Manstone³

1974

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Witz, 1973;Romsdahl and Cox, 1971;Ran and Witz, 1970), few of these reports have demonstrated that the antibody was attached to the surface of the tumour cells per se. In those iinstances where this was definitively shown to be true, the tumours studied were either lymphoid in origin Witz, Klein and Pressman, 1969;Nishioka, 1971), or in the case of solid tumours, lymph node metastases (Morton, Eilber and Malmgren, 1971 ) or malignant effusions (Sjogren et al, 1972;Witz, 1973;Ghose et al, 1972). In all such cases, serum antibody might be expected to have reasonable access to the tumour cells.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Xenogeneic labelled anti-tumour antisera injected into the circulation have been shown to localize in the tumour against which it was raised (Ghose et al, 1972). Pressman (1966) noted that this localization occurred in the vascular bed of the target tissue.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cellular localization of immunoglobulin within human malignant melanomata

Lewis¹,

Proctor²,

Thomson³

et al. 1976

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary.-The presence of antibody in patients with malignant melanoma is well established if one examines the serum. In this report we have attempted to identify antibody within solid tumours showing that they are rarely present in any appreciable quantity on the surface of tumour cells but can be seen frequently on a number of different types of host cell within the tumours. This is discussed in the light of the role of antibody in the circulation and the possibility of antibody behaving as a blocking factor in vivo.

show abstract

“…Consequently, attempts have been made to adsorb chlorambucil to tumour specific antibodies, in the hope that such conjugates would have the specificity of the antibodies as well as the toxicity of the drug. Both binding (Blakeslee and Kennedy, 1974;Linford, 1963b;Ross, 1974) and cytotoxicity studies (Davies and O'Neill, 1973;Flechner, 1973;Ghose and Nigam, 1972;Ghose et al, 1972;Rubens and Dulbecco, 1974) of such conjugates have been reported. However, the data reported below indicate that an artefact was probably responsible for previous conclusions that active chlorambucil can bind non-covalently to immunoglobulin G; thus it will be necessary to re-evaluate the various studies in which the cytotoxicity of free chlorambucil in the presence of cell specific antibodies was compared with that of what now appears to be a non-existent conjugate of chlorambucil with antibody.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%