Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1984 Nov;50(5):625–631. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1984.229

The response of tumour cells to radiation and cytotoxic drugs--a comparison of clonogenic and isotope uptake assays.

P R Twentyman, G A Walls, K A Wright
PMCID: PMC1976983  PMID: 6093839

Abstract

We have carried out a series of experiments to compare the response to radiation and drugs of cells disaggregated from solid tumours as assayed by clonogenic survival and by an isotope incorporation method. This latter assay consisted of measuring the 24 h uptake of tritium labelled thymidine into cells plated in liquid medium upon a layer of semi-solid agar. The isotope was administered 4 days after plating. For cells from the RIF-1 mouse tumour, good agreement was seen between response to radiation, adriamycin, vincristine and CCNU as measured by the two assays. The two curves for radiation response, for example, showed similar shoulders and subsequent exponential regions. For cells from xenografts of the NCI-H69 human small cell lung cancer line, the response to radiation was dose-related for both assays, but the curve for clonogenic assay was about twice as steep as that for isotope uptake. For a range of five cytotoxic drugs, good agreement was seen between the two assays over the first 1 1/2 decades of response but with a tendency for the isotope uptake curve to plateau with further increasing drug dose. It appears that, at least for these two well-defined experimental tumour systems, the isotope uptake assay can provide a rapid quantitative assessment of cellular drug and radiation sensitivity comparable to that provided by clonogenic assay but in a much shorter period of time.

Full text

PDF
625

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Courtenay V. D., Mills J. An in vitro colony assay for human tumours grown in immune-suppressed mice and treated in vivo with cytotoxic agents. Br J Cancer. 1978 Feb;37(2):261–268. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1978.35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Durkin W. J., Ghanta V. K., Balch C. M., Davis D. W., Hiramoto R. N. A methodological approach to the prediction of anticancer drug effect in humans. Cancer Res. 1979 Feb;39(2 Pt 1):402–407. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Friedman H. M., Glaubiger D. L. Assessment of in vitro drug sensitivity of human tumor cells using [3H]thymidine incorporation in a modified human tumor stem cell assay. Cancer Res. 1982 Nov;42(11):4683–4689. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hamburger A. W., Salmon S. E. Primary bioassay of human tumor stem cells. Science. 1977 Jul 29;197(4302):461–463. doi: 10.1126/science.560061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Morgan D., Freshney R. I., Darling J. L., Thomas D. G., Celik F. Assay of anticancer drugs in tissue culture: cell cultures of biopsies from human astrocytoma. Br J Cancer. 1983 Feb;47(2):205–214. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1983.28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Roper P. R., Drewinko B. Comparison of in vitro methods to determine drug-induced cell lethality. Cancer Res. 1976 Jul;36(7 Pt 1):2182–2188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Rupniak H. T., Dennis L. Y., Hill B. T. An intercomparison of in vitro assays for assessing cytotoxicity after a 24 hour exposure to anti-cancer drugs. Tumori. 1983 Feb 28;69(1):37–42. doi: 10.1177/030089168306900106. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Salmon S. E., Hamburger A. W., Soehnlen B., Durie B. G., Alberts D. S., Moon T. E. Quantitation of differential sensitivity of human-tumor stem cells to anticancer drugs. N Engl J Med. 1978 Jun 15;298(24):1321–1327. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197806152982401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sanfilippo O., Daidone M. G., Costa A., Canetta R., Silvestrini R. Estimation of differential in vitro sensitivity of non-Hodgkin lymphomas to anticancer drugs. Eur J Cancer. 1981 Feb;17(2):217–226. doi: 10.1016/0014-2964(81)90039-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Twentyman P. R., Brown J. M., Gray J. W., Franko A. J., Scoles M. A., Kallman R. F. A new mouse tumor model system (RIF-1) for comparison of end-point studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1980 Mar;64(3):595–604. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Twentyman P. R. Experimental chemotherapy studies: intercomparison of assays. Br J Cancer Suppl. 1980 Apr;4:279–287. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Twentyman P. R., Yuhas J. M. Use of bacterial neutral protease for disaggregation of mouse tumours and multicellular tumor spheroids. Cancer Lett. 1980 May;9(3):225–228. doi: 10.1016/0304-3835(80)90091-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Volm M., Wayss K., Kaufmann M., Mattern J. Pretherapeutic detection of tumour resistance and the results of tumour chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 1979 Jul;15(7):983–993. doi: 10.1016/0014-2964(79)90282-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Von Hoff D. D., Casper J., Bradley E., Sandbach J., Jones D., Makuch R. Association between human tumor colony-forming assay results and response of an individual patient's tumor to chemotherapy. Am J Med. 1981 May;70(5):1027–1041. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(81)90859-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Weisenthal L. M., Marsden J. A., Dill P. L., Macaluso C. K. A novel dye exclusion method for testing in vitro chemosensitivity of human tumors. Cancer Res. 1983 Feb;43(2):749–757. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Wilson A. P., Ford C. H., Newman C. E., Howell A. A comparison of three assays used for the in vitro chemosensitivity testing of human tumours. Br J Cancer. 1984 Jan;49(1):57–63. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1984.9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES