Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1987 Sep;56(3):321–324. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1987.196

Response of spheroids implanted in the peritoneal cavity of mice exposed to cyclophosphamide and ionizing radiation.

P L Olive 1
PMCID: PMC2002187  PMID: 3663480

Abstract

Chinese hamster V79-171B spheroids implanted in the peritoneal cavity of C3H mice were characterized as a model for evaluating the toxicity of drugs requiring metabolic activation in vivo. After 24 hours in the peritoneal cavity, spheroid cellularity and plating efficiency were not significantly decreased, and host cell infiltration was estimated between 5 and 10%. The oxygenation of spheroids in the peritoneal cavity was assessed using their response to ionizing radiation. Spheroids were recovered after irradiation, incubated for 20 minutes in vitro with the slowly penetrating fluorescent dye, Hoechst 33342, and reduced to single cells with trypsin. Cells were analysed for clonogenicity as a function of position within the spheroid by using fluorescence-activated cell sorting in conjunction with the Hoechst diffusion gradient. When spheroids were first placed in the peritoneal cavity, the hypoxic fraction was close to 100%, but after 24 hours, cell oxygenation increased, probably due to a decrease in cell respiration rate. However, the location of a spheroid within the peritoneal cavity did not influence the radiosensitivity of individual spheroids or the amount of Hoechst 33342 delivered to the spheroid when Hoechst was given intravenously; individual spheroids recovered from mice given an intravenous injection of Hoechst showed no greater heterogeneity in binding than that observed when spheroids were incubated with Hoechst in vitro. Mice implanted with spheroids were also exposed to cyclophosphamide; the external cells of 0.6 mm diameter spheroids were about 30% more sensitive than the internal cells to the toxic effects of both cyclophosphamide and X-rays, and the combination of the two agents was additive at all depths within the spheroid.

Full text

PDF
321

Selected References

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

  1. Biaglow J. E., Durand R. E. The effects of nitrobenzene derivatives on oxygen utilization and radiation response of an in vitro tumor model. Radiat Res. 1976 Mar;65(3):529–539. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Byfield J. E., Lynch M., Kulhanian F. Exclusion of an interactive effect of combined x-irradiation and activated cyclophosphamide in tissue culture. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1986 Aug;12(8):1441–1444. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(86)90190-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cox P. J. Evidence for the active intermediate in cyclophosphamide metabolism. Br J Cancer. 1973 Jul;28(1):81–81. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1973.91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Durand R. E. Chemosensitivity testing in V79 spheroids: drug delivery and cellular microenvironment. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986 Jul;77(1):247–252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Durand R. E. Oxygen enhancement ratio in V79 spheroids. Radiat Res. 1983 Nov;96(2):322–334. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Durand R. E. Use of Hoechst 33342 for cell selection from multicell systems. J Histochem Cytochem. 1982 Feb;30(2):117–122. doi: 10.1177/30.2.6174559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Durand R. E. Use of a cell sorter for assays of cell clonogenicity. Cancer Res. 1986 Jun;46(6):2775–2778. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Lees R. K., Sordat B., MacDonald H. R. Multicellular tumor spheroids of human colon carcinoma origin. Kinetic analysis of infiltration and in situ destruction in a xenogeneic (murine) host. Exp Cell Biol. 1981;49(4):207–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Lord E. M., Burkhardt G. Assessment of in situ host immunity to syngeneic tumors utilizing the multicellular spheroid model. Cell Immunol. 1984 May;85(2):340–350. doi: 10.1016/0008-8749(84)90248-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Lord E. M. Comparison of in situ and peripheral host immunity to syngeneic tumours employing the multicellular spheroid model. Br J Cancer Suppl. 1980 Apr;4:123–127. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. MacDonald H. R., Howell R. L. The multicellular spheroid as a model tumor allograft. I. Quantitative assessment of spheroid destruction in alloimmune mice. Transplantation. 1978 Mar;25(3):136–140. doi: 10.1097/00007890-197803000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Olive P. L., Chaplin D. J., Durand R. E. Pharmacokinetics, binding and distribution of Hoechst 33342 in spheroids and murine tumours. Br J Cancer. 1985 Nov;52(5):739–746. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1985.252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Olive P. L. Patterns of mutagen binding and penetration in multicell spheroids. Environ Mutagen. 1986;8(5):705–715. doi: 10.1002/em.2860080506. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Sutherland R. M., Durand R. E. Radiation response of multicell spheroids--an in vitro tumour model. Curr Top Radiat Res Q. 1976 Jan;11(1):87–139. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Vindelov L. L. Flow microfluorometric analysis of nuclear DNA in cells from solid tumors and cell suspensions. A new method for rapid isolation and straining of nuclei. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol. 1977 Aug 10;24(3):227–242. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Yuhas J. M., Tarleton A. E., Harman J. G. In vitro analysis of the response of multicellular tumor spheroids exposed to chemotherapeutic agents in vitro or in vivo. Cancer Res. 1978 Nov;38(11 Pt 1):3595–3598. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

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

RESOURCES