Relationship between in vitro drug sensitivity and clinical response of patients to treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Rogalińska, Małgorzata; Błoński, Jerzy Z.; Góralski, Paweł; Wawrzyniak, Ewa; Hartman, Mariusz L.; Rogalska, Aneta; Robak, Paweł; Koceva‐Chyła, Aneta; Piekarski, Henryk; Robak, Tadeusz; Kiliańska, Zofia M.

doi:10.3892/ijo.2015.2823

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous study of 28 patients with CLL (15), and a previously published case report (20), revealed a correlation between apoptosis induction potential of cells isolated from peripheral blood of untreated CLL patients to the subsequent application of anticancer drugs (cladribine, mafosfamide, fludarabine, rituximab or their combinations). The present study compared two blood analyses from a young previously-untreated adult female.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The fractions of viable and apoptotic cells following 48 h of exposure were determined by Vybrant Apoptosis assay kit #4 (Molecular Probes; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Waltham, MA, USA), as described previously (15). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Numerous studies have identified factors that may affect the anticancer response and disease prognosis, such as genetic aberrations, alterations at a micro (mi)RNA level and epigenetic modifications (6–14). Currently available diagnostic markers for CLL, including specific genetic aberrations, are insufficient to provide a clear indication of the correct anticancer treatment choice (9,15). Individual differences in the expression of the factors that regulate apoptosis, cell signaling and stimulate the cellular microenvironment may result in nonstandard and unfavorable responses to anticancer therapy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the complexity of metabolic signaling pathways (18), choosing an effective therapeutic regimen for CLL patients remains difficult. The heterogeneity of CLL and the growing number of novel therapeutic options, such as immunochemotherapy, immunomodulators and cell signaling inhibitors, emphasizes the requirement to improve the methods for determining individual sensitivity to different therapies, in order to allow the selection of the optimal treatment (15,19,20). Therapeutic decisions are additionally complicated by the variation in disease development (4,5,21).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the subsequent clinical response to the applied treatment was recorded. A comparative cytometric analysis of cell viability, apoptosis rate, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) profiles of nuclear preparations and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP-1) protein expression of the leukemic cell samples was performed as described previously (15,20). The ability of CLL cells to initiate apoptosis following exposure to cladribine + mafosfamide (CM), fludarabine + mafosfamide (FM), CM + rituximab (RCM), rituximab alone (Rit) or kinetin riboside (RK) was investigated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Personalized therapy tests for the monitoring of chronic lymphocytic leukemia development

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is individual variation in the course of disease development and response to therapy of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Novel treatment options for CLL include a new generation of purine analogs, antibodies and inhibitors of specific cell signaling pathways, which typically induce apoptosis or necrosis. A prospective analysis of patient blood samples revealed that a combination of four tests allowed the most appropriate and effective type of treatment to be selected prior to drug administration, and for the analysis of leukemic cell sensitivity to anticancer drug(s) during disease development. The comparative analysis of blood from the stable and progressive form of CLL in an individual patient revealed diversity in the response to anticancer agents. CLL peripheral blood mononuclear cells were incubated with cladribine + mafosfamide (CM), fludarabine + mafosfamide, CM + rituximab, rituximab alone (Rit) or kinetin riboside (RK). A combination of cell viability, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) profiles of nuclear preparations and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP-1) protein expression analysis of the leukemic cells was performed to evaluate the anticancer effects of the tested agents during CLL development. The results of the present study indicate that such studies are effective in determining the most appropriate anticancer drug and could monitor disease progression on an individual level. In addition, the results of the current study suggest that CLL progression leads to diversification of the cellular drug response. The most efficient apoptosis inducer for the patient was purine analog RK when the disease was stable, while the CM combination was the most effective agent for the progressive form of disease.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Personalized therapy tests for the monitoring of chronic lymphocytic leukemia development

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Calorimetric signatures of human cancer cells and their nuclei

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemosensitivity and Chemoresistance Assays in Cancer

Lyons‐Weiler¹

2016

Cures vs. Profits

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Medical Policy provides assistance in interpreting UnitedHealthcare benefit plans. When deciding coverage, the federal, state or contractual requirements for benefit plan coverage must be referenced. The terms of the federal, state or contractual requirements for benefit plan coverage may differ greatly from the standard benefit plan upon which this Medical Policy is based. In the event of a conflict, the federal, state or contractual requirements for benefit plan coverage supersede this Medical Policy. All reviewers must first identify member eligibility, any federal or state regulatory requirements, and the contractual requirements for benefit plan coverage prior to use of this Medical Policy. Other Policies and Coverage Determination Guidelines may apply. UnitedHealthcare reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify its Policies and Guidelines as necessary. This Medical Policy is provided for informational purposes. It does not constitute medical advice. UnitedHealthcare may also use tools developed by third parties, such as the MCG™ Care Guidelines, to assist us in administering health benefits. The MCG™ Care Guidelines are intended to be used in connection with the independent professional medical judgment of a qualified health care provider and do not constitute the practice of medicine or medical advice. BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS Before using this policy, please check the federal, state or contractual requirements for benefit coverage. COVERAGE RATIONALE Chemosensitivity assays and chemoresistance assays are unproven and/or not medically necessary for predicting response to chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Results of the available studies fail to provide sufficient evidence that testing with chemoresistance and chemosensitivity assays leads to improved health outcomes in individuals with cancer. To date, the majority of the available studies failed to demonstrate a survival benefit with chemotherapy regimens selected based on chemosensitivity and chemoresistance assays, compared with chemotherapy regimens selected based on traditional clinical factors. Well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to determine the clinical utility of chemosensitivity and chemoresistance assays compared with traditional clinical factors to guide treatment selection and improve clinical outcomes including tumor response, time to progression and overall survival. APPLICABLE CODES The following list(s) of procedure and/or diagnosis codes is provided for reference purposes only and may not be all inclusive. Listing of a code in this policy does not imply that the service described by the code is a covered or noncovered health service. Benefit coverage for health services is determined by federal, state or contractual requirements and applicable laws that may require coverage for a specific service. The inclusion of a code does not

show abstract

Relationship between in vitro drug sensitivity and clinical response of patients to treatment in chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Cited by 8 publications

References 39 publications

Personalized therapy tests for the monitoring of chronic lymphocytic leukemia development

Personalized therapy tests for the monitoring of chronic lymphocytic leukemia development

Calorimetric signatures of human cancer cells and their nuclei

Chemosensitivity and Chemoresistance Assays in Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About