4.6 Article

Prediction of drug combination chemosensitivity in human bladder cancer

Journal

MOLECULAR CANCER THERAPEUTICS
Volume 6, Issue 2, Pages 578-586

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0497

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA 075115] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The choice of therapy for metastatic cancer is largely empirical because of a lack of chemosensitivity prediction for available combination chemotherapeutic regimens. Here, we identify molecular models of bladder carcinoma chemosensitivity based on gene expression for three widely used chemotherapeutic agents: cisplatin, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine. We measured the growth inhibition elicited by these three agents in a series of 40 human urothelial cancer cell lines and correlated the G150 (50% of growth inhibition) values with quantitative measures of global gene expression to derive models of chemosensitivity using a misclassification-penalized posterior approach. The misclassification-penalized posterior-derived models predicted the growth response of human bladder cancer cell lines to each of the three agents with sensitivities of between 0.93 and 0.96. We then developed an in sifico approach to predict the cellular growth responses for each of these agents in the clinically relevant two-agent combinations. These predictions were prospectively evaluated on a series of 15 randomly chosen bladder carcinoma cell lines. Overall, 80% of the predicted combinations were correct (P = 0.0002). Together, our results suggest that chemosensitivity to drug combinations can be predicted based on molecular models and provide the framework for evaluation of such models in patients undergoing combination chemotherapy for cancer. If validated in vivo, such predictive models have the potential to guide therapeutic choice at the level of an individual's tumor.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available