Predictive assays for cancer treatment are not new technology, but they have failed to meet the criteria necessary for standardized use in clinical decision-making.
Methods
The authors summarize the use of predictive assays and the challenges and values associated with these assays in the clinical setting.
Results
Predictive assays commercially available in the clinical setting are not standardized, have significant obstacles to overcome, and cannot be relied upon by health care professionals due to the limited value these assays provide to the decision-making process for the treatment of patients.
Conclusions
A method that more closely recapitulates the human tumor microenvironment and accurately predicts response with high reproducibility would be beneficial to patient outcomes and quality of life.
WagnerA.J.. Patient-derived sarcoma xenografts for individual-patient selection of chemotherapy-ready for prime time?Cancer.2014; 120(13): 1917–1919.
3.
GerlingerM., RowanA.J., HorswellS.. Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing.N Engl J Med.2012; 366(10): 883–892.
4.
BarberL.J., DaviesM.N., GerlingerM.. Dissecting cancer evolution at the macro-heterogeneity and micro-heterogeneity scale.Curr Opin Genet Dev.2014; 30C: 1–6.
5.
GerlingerM., SwantonC.. How Darwinian models inform therapeutic failure initiated by clonal heterogeneity in cancer medicine.Br J Cancer.2010; 103(8): 1139–1143.
6.
GilliesR.J., VerduzcoD., GatenbyR.A.. Evolutionary dynamics of carcinogenesis and why targeted therapy does not work.Nat Rev Cancer.2012; 12(7): 487–493.
7.
JenksS.. Chemosensitivity assays: still eyeing the clinic.J Natl Cancer Inst.2012; 104(23): 1775–1777.
8.
WeisenthalL.M., KernD.H.. Prediction of drug resistance in cancer chemotherapy: the Kern and DiSC assays.Oncology (Williston Park).1991; 5(9): 93–104, 111-114, 117, 118.
9.
FruehaufJ.P., AlbertsD.S.. In vitro drug resistance versus chemosensitivity: two sides of different coins.J Clin Oncol.2005; 23(15): 3641–3643.
ReedD., AltiokS.. Metastatic soft tissue sarcoma chemotherapy: an opportunity for personalized medicine.Cancer Control.2011; 18(3): 188–195.
13.
The Regence Group; Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Oregon, Utah, Idaho, and Select Counties of Washington. Medical policy manual: in vitro chemoresistance and chemosensitivity assays. Policy No. 6. Published January 1996. Updated March 2014. http://blue.regence.com/trgmedpol/lab/lab06.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2015.
14.
MasonJ.M., DrummondM.F., BosanquetA.G.. The DiSC assay. A cost-effective guide to treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia?Int J Technol Assess Health Care.1999; 15(1): 173–184.
15.
SoléR.V., ValverdeS., Rodriguez-CasoC.. Can a minimal replicating construct be identified as the embodiment of cancer?Bioessays.2014; 36(5): 503–512.
YungW.K.. In vitro chemosensitivity testing and its clinical application in human gliomas.Neurosurg Rev.1989; 12(3): 197–203.
20.
KernD.H., WeisenthalL.M.. Highly specific prediction of antineoplastic drug resistance with an in vitro assay using suprapharmacologic drug exposures.J Natl Cancer Inst.1990; 82(7): 582–588.
GazdarA F., SteinbergS.M., RussellE.K.. Correlation of in vitro drug sensitivity testing results with response to chemotherapy and survival in extensive stage small cell lung cancer: a prospective clinical trial.J Natl Cancer Inst.1990; 82(2): 117–124.
23.
AgiostratidouG., SgourosI., GalaniE.. Correlation of in vitro cytotoxicity nd clinical response to chemotherapy in ovarian and breast cancer patients.Anticancer Res.2001; 21 (1A): 455–459.
24.
KonecnyG., CrohnsC., PegramM.. Correlation of drug response with the ATP tumor chemosensitivity assay in primary FIGO stage III ovarian cancer.Gynecol Oncol.2000; 77(2): 258–263.
25.
SalomE., PenalverM., HomesleyH.. Correlation of pretreatment drug induced apoptosis in ovarian cancer cells with patient survival and clinical response.J Transl Med.2012; 10: 162.
26.
StricklandS.A., RaptisA., HallquistA.. Correlation of the microculture-kinetic drug-induced apoptosis assay with patient outcomes in initial treatment of adult acute myelocytic leukemia.Leuk Lymphoma.2013; 54(3): 528–534.
27.
BhagwandinS., NaffoujeS., SaltiG.. Utility of chemoresponse assay in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.Ann Surg Oncol. 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
28.
BursteinH.J., ManguP.B., SomerfieldM.R.. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update on the use of chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays.J Clin Oncol.2011; 29(24): 3328–3330.
29.
SchragD., GarewalH.S., BursteinH.J.. American Society of Clinical Oncology technology assessment: chemotherapy sensitivity and resistance assays.J Clin Oncol.2004; 22(17): 3631–3638.
StebbingJ., PazK., SchwartzG.K.. Patient-derived xenografts for individualized care in advanced sarcoma.Cancer.2014; 120(13): 2006–2015.
32.
RyanC.W., DolanM.E., BrocksteinB.B.. A phase II trial of O6-benzylguanine and carmustine in patients with advanced soft tissue sarcoma.Cancer Chemother Pharmacol.2006; 58(5): 634–639.
33.
DongX., GuanJ., EnglishJ.C.. Patient-derived first generation xenografts of non-small cell lung cancers: promising tools for predicting drug responses for personalized chemotherapy.Clin Cancer Res.2010; 16(5): 1442–1451.
