Integrating pharmacology and in vivo cancer models in preclinical and clinical drug development
- PMID: 15120039
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.01.003
Integrating pharmacology and in vivo cancer models in preclinical and clinical drug development
Abstract
Historically, cancer drug development has been a roller coaster. Numerous agents have shown exciting activity in preclinical models and yet have had minimal activity clinically. These disappointments have led to reasonable scepticism about the true value of both syngeneic and xenograft rodent tumour models in accurately identifying agents that will have important clinical utility. Whereas the development of newer techniques, including transgenic mouse models of cancer, offers the potential to develop more predictive models, the role of such mice in cancer drug development is not yet validated. To advance in our understanding of predictive model systems it may be wise to analyse both the successes and the failures of conventional models in order to understand some of their limitations and perhaps to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. Here we review the value and limitations of xenograft models, and the role of integrating preclinical pharmacology in developing new treatments for solid tumours of childhood.
Similar articles
-
Of mice and men: values and liabilities of the athymic nude mouse model in anticancer drug development.Eur J Cancer. 2004 Apr;40(6):827-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.028. Eur J Cancer. 2004. PMID: 15120038 Review.
-
Orthotopic models of cancer for preclinical drug evaluation: advantages and disadvantages.Eur J Cancer. 2004 Apr;40(6):852-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.021. Eur J Cancer. 2004. PMID: 15120041 Review.
-
The hollow fibre model in cancer drug screening: the NCI experience.Eur J Cancer. 2004 Apr;40(6):821-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.029. Eur J Cancer. 2004. PMID: 15120037
-
The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development.Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006 Sep;5(9):741-54. doi: 10.1038/nrd2110. Epub 2006 Aug 18. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006. PMID: 16915232 Review.
-
[Preclinical evaluation of anticancer drugs: a model remaining a model!].Bull Cancer. 1998 Oct;85(10):837-42. Bull Cancer. 1998. PMID: 9835860 French.
Cited by
-
A review of new agents evaluated against pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia by the Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program.Leukemia. 2016 Nov;30(11):2133-2141. doi: 10.1038/leu.2016.192. Epub 2016 Jul 15. Leukemia. 2016. PMID: 27416986 Review.
-
Hypoxia-activated prodrugs and (lack of) clinical progress: The need for hypoxia-based biomarker patient selection in phase III clinical trials.Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jan 18;15:62-69. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2019.01.005. eCollection 2019 Feb. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2019. PMID: 30734002 Free PMC article.
-
A framework to select clinically relevant cancer cell lines for investigation by establishing their molecular similarity with primary human cancers.Cancer Res. 2011 Dec 15;71(24):7398-409. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-2427. Epub 2011 Oct 19. Cancer Res. 2011. PMID: 22012889 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of Alternative In Vivo Drug Screening Methodology: A Single Mouse Analysis.Cancer Res. 2016 Oct 1;76(19):5798-5809. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-0122. Epub 2016 Aug 5. Cancer Res. 2016. PMID: 27496711 Free PMC article.
-
Childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: Integrating genomics into therapy.Cancer. 2015 Oct 15;121(20):3577-90. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29573. Epub 2015 Jul 20. Cancer. 2015. PMID: 26194091 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources