The application of rigorous statistical criteria to the design and analysis of in-vitro assay techniques can lead to more reliable assessments of their utility. The authors demonstrate that an objective criterion for in-vitro drug sensitivity would yield less pronounced false- negative error rates than a fixed-cutoff rule, and would therefore be more suitable for screen ing of putative chemotherapeutic agents. Key words: drug sensitivity testing; objective criteria. (Med Decis Making 8:304-309, 1988)
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agrez MV, Kovach JS, Beart RW, et al: Human colorectal carcinoma: patterns of sensitivity to chemotherapeutic agents in the human tumor stem cell assay. J Surg Oncol20:187-191, 1982
2.
Armitage P.: Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics11:375-386, 1955
3.
Armitage P. : Statistical Methods in Medical Research. New York , John Wiley and Sons, 1971
4.
Cox DR: The Analysis of Binary Data. London, Methuen, 1970
5.
Eliason JF, Aapro MS, Decrey D., et al: Non-linearity of colony formation by human tumour cells from biopsy samples. Br J Cancer52:311-318, 1985
6.
Feinstein A. : Clinical Biostatistics. St. Louis, C.V. Mosby, 1977
7.
Lehmann EL: Testing Statistical Hypothesis. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1959
8.
MacKillop WJ , Ciampi A., Till JE, et al: A stem cell model of human tumor growth: implications for tumor cell clonogenic assays . JNCI70:9-16, 1983
Mann BD, Kern DH, Giuliano AE, et al: Clinical correlations with drug sensitivities in the clonogenic assay. Arch Surg117:33-36, 1982
11.
Meyskens FL , Moon TE, Dana B., et al: Quantitation of drug sensitivity by human metastatic melanoma colony-forming units. Br J Cancer44:787-797, 1981
12.
Moon TE, Salmon SE, White CS, et al: Quantitative association between the in vitro human tumor stem cell assay and clinical response to cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol6:211-218, 1981
13.
Rockwell S. : Effects of clumps and clusters on survival measurements with clonogenic assays. Cancer Res45:1601-1607, 1985
14.
Rozencweig M., Staquet M.: Predictive tests for the response to cancer chemotherapy: limitations related to the prediction of rare events . Cancer Treat Rep68:611-613, 1984
15.
Salmon SE: Human tumor colony assay and chemosensitivity testingCancer Treat Rep68:117-125, 1984
16.
Salmon SE, Hamburger AW, Soehnlen B., et al: Quantitation of differential sensitivity of human tumor stem cells to anticancer drugs. N Engl J Med298:1321-1327, 1978
17.
Selby P., Buick RN, Tannock I.: A critical appraisal of the "human tumor stem-cell assay." N Engl J Med308:129-134, 1983
18.
Shoemaker RH , Wolpert-Defilippes MK, Kern DH, et al: Application of a human tumor colony-forming assay to new drug screening. Cancer Res45:2145-2153, 1985
19.
Skipper HE, Schabel FM: Quantitative and cytokinetic studies in experimental tumor systems . In: Holland JF, Frei E, III (eds): Cancer Medicine. 2nd ed Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger , 1982; p 663
20.
Taetle R., Koziol J.: In vitro drug testing using hemopoietic cells: goals and limitations . CRC Crit Rev Hematol Oncol4:169-201, 1985
21.
Vecchio TJ: Predictive value of a single diagnostic test in unselected populations . N Engl J Med274:1171-1173, 1966
22.
Von Hoff DD , Casper J., Bradley E., et al: Association between human tumor colony-forming assay results and response of an individual patient's tumor to chemotherapy . Am J Med70:1027-1032, 1981
23.
Weisenthal LM: In vitro assays in preclinical antineoplastic drug screening. Semin Oncol8:362-376, 1981
24.
Williams TJ , Lieber MM, Podratz KC, et al: Soft agar colony formation assay for in vitro testing of sensitivity to chemotherapy of gynecologic malignancies . Am J Obstet Gynecol145:940-947, 1983
