Sponge-Gel-Supported Histoculture Drug-Response Assay for Head and Neck Cancer: Correlations With Clinical Response to Cisplatin

Chemosensitivity of Uterine Cervical Cancer Demonstrated by the Histoculture Drug Response Assay

“…Currently, several chemosensitivity tests are clinically applicable; for examples, the MTT assay (Cole 1986), the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-5-(3-carboxymethoxyphenyl)-2-(4-sulfophenyl)-2H-tetrazolium inner salt (MTS) assay (O'Toole et al 2003), the HDRA (Hoffman 1991b(Hoffman , 1993aRobbins et al 1994;Furukawa et al 1995;Brown and Markman 1996), and collagen gel droplet-embedded culture drug sensitivity test (CD-DST) (Inaba et al 1996;Takamura et al 2002). The monolayer culture MTT assay is based on the reduction of MTT by mitochondrial succinic dehydrogenase which is in living cells.…”

“…Therefore, it would be desirable to establish an effective drug sensitivity test that overcomes such disadvantages. The histoculture drug response assay (HDRA) with the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) endpoint has been proposed to detect individu-al chemosensitivity in many types of cancer (Hoffman 1991b;Robbins et al 1994;Furukawa et al 1995;Kubota et al 1995;Furukawa et al 2000). Among the many available chemosensitivity tests, the HDRA is recognized as an appropriate method for the culture of many types of cancers because it allows cancer cells to be cultured in their natural three-dimensional architecture (Hoffman 1993b;Furukawa et al 2000).…”

In vitro chemosensitivity profile of oral squamous cell cancer and its correlation with clinical response to chemotherapy

“…HDRA needs very small amount of tissue and can evaluate both growing and resting tumor cells, It has several advantages over the conventional clonogenic assays, such as higher positive predictive value (83% vs. 69%), better evaluability (83% vs. 30%), feasibility of multi-drug testing as well as better quality; as the cell clumps can be distinguished from tissues. [10,11] Tissue architecture and cell-to-cell contact are maintained when tumor specimens are incubated for seven days with chemotherapeutic agents and cell disintegration needed for plating clonogenic assays is not necessary in this assay. The concentration of individual drugs used and the duration of exposure in vitro were determined by the pharmacokinetics of the drugs.…”

“…Negative predictive value in the current study is better than those described earlier. [11,14] More recently chemosensitivity by collagen gel droplet drug sensitivity test (CD-DST) has been tried in oral cancer and was successful in 4/6 cases. [27] In this simple and fast method, only a small number of cells are needed and easy quantification of the anticancer effects is possible without contamination with fibroblasts by using an image analysis system.…”

“…[5] This technique has been employed earlier in gastrointestinal, [6] ovarian, [7] uro-genital [8] and breast cancers [9] with excellent results. There are only a few studies in English literature on application of this technique in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma [10][11][12][13][14] and only the last one deals solely with oral cancer. Our study is unique as the in vitro efficacy of all the test drugs and their combinations are tested on the same tumors and clinical response of oral cancer to a particular drug was correlated with its in vitro chemosensitivity, as shown by HDRA.…”