Predicting responses to chemotherapy in the context that matters - the patient

Alicia Moreno-Gonzalez, James M Olson, Richard A Klinghoffer, Alicia Moreno-Gonzalez, James M Olson, Richard A Klinghoffer

Abstract

Guided by the belief that the most important setting for understanding tumor response to drugs is the human patient, we developed a technology called CIVO. CIVO enables analysis of up to 8 therapies simultaneously in a patient's tumor, without inducing systemic toxicity and while maintaining the integrity of the native tumor microenvironment.

Keywords: Cancer; clinical drug development; human lymphoma; in vivo; microinjection; preclinical; tumor microenvironment; tumor response.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The CIVO tumor microinjection platform – localized responses predict systemic effects of chemotherapy. (A-B) The CIVO platform consists of a handheld array of up to 8 needles capable of simultaneously penetrating subcutaneous solid tumors and delivering easily identifiable column-like tracks of drug spanning the z axis of the tumor. (C) A chemically inert fluorescent tracking marker is co-injected through each needle to indicate each injection site within the tumor. (D) Tumor responses are assessed following tumor resection via histologic staining of tumor cross-sections sampled perpendicular to each injection column. These are quantified by an automated image-based analysis package that outlines radial zones where cells are super-exposed to drug ( 400 μm - yellow ring). (E-F) The fraction of biomarker-positive cells (cleaved caspase-3 [CC3]) is plotted as a function of radial distance from the injection site and localized tumor responses are compared to tumor growth inhibition after systemic treatment.

References

    1. Ocana A, Tannock IF. When are “positive” clinical trials in oncology truly positive? J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103(1):16-20; PMID:21131576;
    1. Eirew P, Steif A, Khattra J, Ha G, Yap D, Farahani H, Gelmon K, Chia S, Mar C, Wan A, et al.. Dynamics of genomic clones in breast cancer patient xenografts at single-cell resolution. Nature 2015; 518(7539):422-6; PMID:25470049;
    1. Siena S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, Balfour J, Bardelli A. Biomarkers predicting clinical outcome of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009; 101(19):1308-24; PMID:19738166;
    1. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, Khayat D, Bleiberg H, Santoro A, Bets D, Mueser M, Harstrick A, Verslype C, et al.. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004; 351(4):337-45; PMID:15269313;
    1. Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet Y, Hendlisz A, Neyns B, Canon JL, Van Laethem JL, Maurel J, Richardson G, et al.. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25(13):1658-64; PMID:17470858;
    1. Siu LL, Shapiro JD, Jonker DJ, Karapetis CS, Zalcberg JR, Simes J, Couture F, Moore MJ, Price TJ, Siddiqui J, et al.. Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled study of cetuximab plus brivanib alaninate versus cetuximab plus placebo in patients with metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, wild-type K-RAS colorectal carcinoma: the NCIC Clinical Trials Group and AGITG CO.20 Trial. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(19):2477-84; PMID:23690424;
    1. van Leeuwen MT, Turner JJ, Joske DJ, Falster MO, Srasuebkul P, Meagher NS, Grulich AE, Giles GG, Vajdic CM. Lymphoid neoplasm incidence by WHO subtype in Australia 1982-2006. Int J Cancer 2014; 135(9):2146-56; PMID:24639369;
    1. Klinghoffer RA, Bahrami SB, Hatton BA, Frazier JP, Moreno-Gonzalez A, Strand AD, Kerwin WS, Casalini JR, Thirstrup DJ, You S, et al.. A technology platform to assess multiple cancer agents simultaneously within a patient's tumor. Sci Transl Med 2015; 7(284):284ra58; PMID:25904742;

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe