Premium
Chemosensitivity correlation between the primary tumors and simultaneous metastatic lymph nodes of patients evaluated by DNA synthesis inhibition assay
Author(s) -
Nio Yoshinori,
Imai Shiro,
Shiraishi Takahiro,
Tsubono Michihiko,
Morimoto Hideki,
Tseng ChenChiu,
Tobe Takayoshi
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/1097-0142(19900315)65:6<1273::aid-cncr2820650603>3.0.co;2-o
Subject(s) - medicine , lymph , dna , primary (astronomy) , correlation , cancer research , oncology , pathology , genetics , biology , physics , geometry , mathematics , astronomy
The chemosensitivities of primary tumors (PT) and simultaneous metastatic lymph nodes (MN) to mitomycin C (MMC), 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU), Adriamycin (ADR) (doxorubicin; Adria Laboratories, Columbus, OH), carboquone (CQ), or cisplatin (CDDP) were assessed in a group of 29 patients (11 gastric, 8 colorectal, 4 breast, and 6 other cancers) by a DNA synthesis ( 3 H‐thymidine incorporation) inhibition assay. PT and MN from the same patient showed heterogeneity in chemosensitivity. MN were more sensitive to the agents than PT. PT were sensitive to 5‐FU, whereas MN were sensitive to CDDP. An analysis of the sensitivity correlations showed that the sensitivities of PT to MMC, 5‐FU, CQ, and CDDP correlated with each other, but ADR sensitivity correlated with only CQ sensitivity. The sensitivities of MN correlated with each other, except for those to ADR and CDDP. In contrast, MMC, ADR, or CQ sensitivity showed a correlation between PT and MN. These results suggest that patients should be treated according to the sensitivity of the target lesion. However, if the sensitivity assay is not avilable, the sensitivity correlation may be useful when choosing the agent. It also may be important that ADR sensitivity does not correlate with the sensitivities of other agents.