Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Applicability of the Histoculture Drug Response Assay to Predict Platinum Sensitivity and Prognosis in Ovarian Cancer

JUHUN LEE, JONG MI KIM, YOON HEE LEE, GUN OH CHONG and DAE GY HONG
Anticancer Research December 2021, 41 (12) 6287-6292; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15450
JUHUN LEE
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JONG MI KIM
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YOON HEE LEE
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
GUN OH CHONG
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DAE GY HONG
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: dghong@knu.ac.kr
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: To retrospectively analyze the results of histoculture drug response assays (HDRAs) to determine whether the results could predict platinum sensitivity and prognosis in ovarian cancer. Patients and Methods: One hundred thirty-nine patients with ovarian cancer were reviewed. HDRAs were conducted for platinum and taxane agents. Platinum resistance and sensitivity occurred in 21 and 118 patients, respectively. To analyze the relationship between the inhibition rates (IRs) of tumor growth caused by the platinum agent and clinical outcomes, Student’s t-test and linear regression analysis were used. Results: We found that the average IRs of the platinum and taxane agent were not statistically significant between the platinum-sensitive and - resistant groups. There was no statistical significance for overall survival, progression-free survival, or platinum-free interval. Conclusion: The HDRA is not useful for predicting platinum sensitivity and survival outcomes.

Key Words:
  • Chemotherapy
  • histoculture drug response assay
  • in vitro tumor response assay
  • ovarian cancer
  • platinum resistance
  • platinum sensitivity

Globally, the incidence and mortality rates of ovarian cancer are the eighth highest among malignant tumors in women (1). It also bears one of the worst prognoses (2). Additionally, the recurrence rate of advanced ovarian cancer relapses is currently 70%. In 2020, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommended optimal debulking surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy for surgical candidates and neoadjuvant therapy for patients who are poor candidates for surgery. For the primary chemotherapy regimens, they recommended platinum-based drugs (3). Most gynecologists and oncologists agree with this recommendation and often administer platinum agents in combination with taxane agents. Many researchers are searching for better regimens to improve the prognosis of ovarian cancer. The histoculture drug response assay (HDRA) was introduced to achieve this purpose (4-12). The HDRA is an in vitro test that measures how much a particular antitumor drug inhibits tumor tissue growth. A few reports have suggested the possibility of applying the HDRA to ovarian and colorectal cancer (13-15); however, this test had a limitation wherein it can help decide only one regimen at a time (16). The integrative tumor response assay was introduced and applied in ovarian cancer to overcome this challenge (17). This new test can determine the two most powerful regimens, enabling physicians to decide on the first and second regimens simultaneously; however, it is not widely applied in gynecologic surgical fields.

The 5-year survival rate of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer is only about 31% (18); it has changed little since platinum-based treatment was introduced more than 30 years ago (19-22). Platinum resistance is a prognostic factor in ovarian cancer. The median survival was reported to be 9-12 months, and the response to subsequent treatment was less than 15%, if it occurred (23). If physicians can predict platinum resistance in ovarian cancer earlier, they could decide to use another regimen as first-line chemotherapy. More specifically, they could exclude platinum-based drugs.

In this respect, we speculated about whether HDRA results correlated with platinum sensitivity and prognosis in the real world for Korean patients with ovarian cancer.

Patients and Methods

Patients. We retrospectively reviewed HDRA results from 163 consenting patients with ovarian cancer from February 2011 to January 2021 at Kyungpook National University Chilgok Hospital (KNUCH). The stage of each patient was evaluated on the scale of I to IV, using the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) guidelines (24). Criteria of diagnoses for patient selection included primary ovarian cancer, primary tubal cancer, and primary peritoneal cancer. One hundred thirty-nine participants remained, and twenty-one were excluded according to the criteria. Five patients were found not to have ovarian cancer by permanent biopsy. Two patients were excluded because they came to our clinic after primary surgery at other institutions. Six were excluded because they refused adjuvant chemotherapy. One was excluded because she died in a traffic accident (Figure 1). The Institutional Review Board of KNUCH approved this study (KNUH 2021-07-048).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Flow diagram for patient selection. *1They included benign, borderline malignancy, and other primary malignancies, such as endometrial cancer or colon cancer, *2They underwent re-staging surgery at our institution.

Surgery. Surgery included total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy, para-aortic lymphadenectomy, omentectomy, and removal of metastatic lesions. Optimal debulking surgery was achieved if the size of the residual tumor was less than 1 cm (25). Some patients underwent interval debulking surgery (IDS) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy due to their general condition or stage.

Chemotherapy. The first adjuvant chemotherapy began within 4 weeks post-surgery. All patients were administered either paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2) and carboplatin (AUC 5) as the first-line regimen. For neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the regimen was a combination of paclitaxel or docetaxel and carboplatin for 3-6 cycles. Some patients could not complete six cycles of first-line chemotherapy due to various reasons, such as poor general condition or severe bone marrow suppression.

Platinum resistance and disease progression. We divided the patients into the platinum-resistant (R group) and platinum-sensitive groups (S group) according to the following criteria: if the disease progressed during the administration of the platinum agent or recurred within 6 months of the last administration, the case was considered platinum-resistant (16). Disease progression was confirmed by imaging studies, such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging, or positron emission tomography (PET)/CT (26).

Histoculture drug response assay. Ovarian cancer tissue harvested during debulking surgery was transported to the laboratory in 4°C Hank’s balanced salt solution (HBSS; GIBCO, Gaithersburg, MD, USA) within 24 h of collection. After the tissue was sectioned into 10-15-mg pieces of 0.5 mm diameter, viable samples were selected by specific staining. These were placed into 24 wells on the collagen sponge gel (Gel Foam; Pharmacia & Upjohn Ltd., Crawley, UK) and incubated with media (RPMI 1640 medium, 20% FCS; Sigma–Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) for 1 day. Then, these samples were incubated for 72 h after the second day after the addition of the chemotherapeutic medicine. The control group was incubated with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) (27).

Statistical analysis. All information about age, stage, histology, surgery, chemotherapy, and IR values determined by HDRA was collected from medical records. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were defined as the periods following the date of primary operation. Platinum-free interval (PFI) was evaluated from the last date of carboplatin administration. To analyze statistical significance, Student’s t-test was used to compare the IRs of carboplatin and taxane determined by the HDRA. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test were used to evaluate correlations between histology, timing of surgery, residual tumor, conduction of HDRA, and death in the follow-up period. To determine the relationships between the IRs of antitumor agents and OS, PFS, and PFIs, simple linear regression analysis was used. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 26; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Of the 139 patients, 118 (84.9%) were in the S group, and 21 (15.1%) were in the R group. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding age, stage, histology, and other clinical factors (Table I).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient characteristics and clinical factors.

The mean IRs of the platinum agent and taxane in both groups showed no significant differences [44.25±17.07 in S group vs. 46.29±20.67 in R group (%), 41.19±17.60 vs. 38.90±21.37 (%)]. In the follow-up period, nine patients (7.6%) in the S group and eight patients (38.1%) in the R group died. The mean OS in the S and R groups were 51.92±18.53 and 35.33±25.54 months, respectively. The mean PFS was 39.97±21.03 months in the S group and 6.05±3.12 months in the R group. The mean PFIs were 20.48±12.00 and 1.33±2.08 months in the S and R groups, respectively. For all three clinical outcomes, the correlations were statistically significant (Table II).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

The results of HDRA and clinical outcomes.

Ten types of antitumor agents were used for the HDRA. Of all drugs, the mean IRs of carboplatin, cisplatin, and paclitaxel were the highest (Figure 2). The IRs of platinum and taxane antitumor agents did not significantly affect OS, PFS, or PFI (Figure 3).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Mean inhibition rates (IRs) of antitumor agents on the histoculture drug response assays for 139 patients with ovarian cancer. TAX: Paclitaxel; CBP: carboplatin; GEM: gemcitabine; DTAX: docetaxel; BEV: bevacizumab; BEL: belotecan; TOP: topotecan; IRINO: irinotecan; CDDP: cisplatin; CAE: liposomal doxorubicin. Data are shown as means±SD. The bold number is the mean IR of each antitumor agent.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Regression analysis for the relationship of the histoculture drug response assays results with OS, PFS, and PFI for 139 patients with ovarian cancer. A: OS and IR of platinum antitumor agent. B: OS and IR of taxane antitumor agent. C: PFS and IR of platinum antitumor agent. D: PFS and IR of taxane antitumor agent. E: PFI and IR of platinum antitumor agent. F: PFI and taxane IR of antitumor agent. OS: Overall survival; PFS: progression-free survival; IR: inhibition rate; PFI: platinum-free interval.

Discussion

The R group showed significantly worse prognostic outcomes than expected, according to previous studies. The R group did show higher IRs of antitumor agents on the HDRA than the S group, although not significant.

We considered three possible reasons for this discrepancy. First, the in vitro HDRA has an evident limitation arising from differences with in vivo conditions. Second, ovarian cancer is highly heterogeneous in genetic and histological aspects (19, 28-30). Each part of the bulky tumor or each metastatic nodule arising from the same origin might respond differently to the same drug. Several tiny pieces of tumor tissue used in the HDRA could not reflect all characteristics of the ovarian cancer of a patient. Each sample might even have shown different IRs against a given antitumor agent. Finally, some procedures of the test were vulnerable to misinterpretation in some conditions. For example, normal tissue, not only tumor tissue, could be included in samples. The cut-off value of the IR on the HDRA is 30% compared with controls, according to the testing laboratory. This means that a high IR over 30% does not guarantee better effect according to the score itself. For example, an antitumor agent with an IR of 60% cannot be considered twice as effective as one with 30%. With these limitations, the HDRA alone is insufficient to determine optimal chemotherapy regimens.

In our study, platinum and paclitaxel antitumor agents showed the highest IRs of 10 drugs tested by the HDRA. This result was similar to that of a previous study in Korea (13), and supports the current combination of paclitaxel and carboplatin as the standard chemotherapy for ovarian cancer.

This study had three limitations. First, this study is a retrospective study based on data from a single center. Second, the small cohort size to compare platinum resistance; we found only 21 patients who met this criterion. Finally, it included 25 patients who were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy with a taxane and carboplatin combination. We obtained their tumor tissue during IDS. These tumor tissues may have developed drug resistance, and this may have been reflected in the IR determined by the HDRA.

In conclusion, the in vitro HDRA is not useful for predicting platinum sensitivity and survival outcomes. such as OS, PFS, and PFI.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    DG HONG conceived of the presented idea and supervised the study. J LEE performed the analytic calculations. Both DG HONG and J LEE contributed to the draft of the manuscript. J LEE and JM KIM processed the clinical data. YH LEE designed the figures. GO CHONG helped supervise the study. All Authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare regarding this study.

  • Received October 6, 2021.
  • Revision received October 25, 2021.
  • Accepted October 26, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sung H,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Siegel RL,
    4. Laversanne M,
    5. Soerjomataram I,
    6. Jemal A and
    7. Bray F
    : Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3): 209–249, 2021. PMID: 33538338. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Coburn SB,
    2. Bray F,
    3. Sherman ME and
    4. Trabert B
    : International patterns and trends in ovarian cancer incidence, overall and by histologic subtype. Int J Cancer 140(11): 2451–2460, 2017. PMID: 28257597. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30676
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Armstrong DK,
    2. Alvarez RD,
    3. Bakkum-Gamez JN,
    4. Barroilhet L,
    5. Behbakht K,
    6. Berchuck A,
    7. Chen LM,
    8. Cristea M,
    9. DeRosa M,
    10. Eisenhauer EL,
    11. Gershenson DM,
    12. Gray HJ,
    13. Grisham R,
    14. Hakam A,
    15. Jain A,
    16. Karam A,
    17. Konecny GE,
    18. Leath CA,
    19. Liu J,
    20. Mahdi H,
    21. Martin L,
    22. Matei D,
    23. McHale M,
    24. McLean K,
    25. Miller DS,
    26. O’Malley DM,
    27. Percac-Lima S,
    28. Ratner E,
    29. Remmenga SW,
    30. Vargas R,
    31. Werner TL,
    32. Zsiros E,
    33. Burns JL and
    34. Engh AM
    : Ovarian cancer, version 2.2020, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 19(2): 191–226, 2021. PMID: 33545690. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Vescio RA,
    2. Redfern CH,
    3. Nelson TJ,
    4. Ugoretz S,
    5. Stern PH and
    6. Hoffman RM
    : In vivo-like drug responses of human tumors growing in three-dimensional gel-supported primary culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84(14): 5029–5033, 1987. PMID: 3474637. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.84.14.5029
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Leighton J
    : A sponge matrix method for tissue culture; formation of organized aggregates of cells in vitro. J Natl Cancer Inst 12(3): 545–561, 1951. PMID: 14889259.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hoffman RM
    : In vitro sensitivity assays in cancer: a review, analysis, and prognosis. J Clin Lab Anal 5(2): 133–143, 1991. PMID: 2023059. DOI: 10.1002/jcla.1860050211
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Furukawa T,
    2. Kubota T,
    3. Watanabe M,
    4. Takahara T,
    5. Yamaguchi H,
    6. Takeuchi T,
    7. Kase S,
    8. Kodaira S,
    9. Ishibiki K and
    10. Kitajima M
    : High in vitro-in vivo correlation of drug response using sponge-gel-supported three-dimensional histoculture and the MTT end point. Int J Cancer 51(3): 489–498, 1992. PMID: 1592540. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910510325
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Furukawa T,
    2. Kubota T,
    3. Watanabe M,
    4. Kase S,
    5. Takahara T,
    6. Yamaguchi H,
    7. Takeuchi T,
    8. Teramoto T,
    9. Ishibiki K and
    10. Kitajima M
    : Chemosensitivity testing of clinical gastrointestinal cancers using histoculture and the MTT end-point. Anticancer Res 12(5): 1377–1382, 1992. PMID: 1444194.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hoffman RM
    : To do tissue culture in two or three dimensions? That is the question. Stem Cells 11(2): 105–111, 1993. PMID: 8457785. DOI: 10.1002/stem.5530110205
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hoffman RM
    : In vitro assays for chemotherapy sensitivity. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 15(2): 99–111, 1993. PMID: 8117418. DOI: 10.1016/1040-8428(93)90050-e
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kubota T,
    2. Sasano N,
    3. Abe O,
    4. Nakao I,
    5. Kawamura E,
    6. Saito T,
    7. Endo M,
    8. Kimura K,
    9. Demura H and
    10. Sasano H
    : Potential of the histoculture drug-response assay to contribute to cancer patient survival. Clin Cancer Res 1(12): 1537–1543, 1995. PMID: 9815954.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  5. ↵
    1. Furukawa T,
    2. Kubota T and
    3. Hoffman RM
    : Clinical applications of the histoculture drug response assay. Clin Cancer Res 1(3): 305–311, 1995. PMID: 9815986.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  6. ↵
    1. Jung PS,
    2. Kim DY,
    3. Kim MB,
    4. Lee SW,
    5. Kim JH,
    6. Kim YM,
    7. Kim YT,
    8. Hoffman RM and
    9. Nam JH
    : Progression-free survival is accurately predicted in patients treated with chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer by the histoculture drug response assay in a prospective correlative clinical trial at a single institution. Anticancer Res 33(3): 1029–1034, 2013. PMID: 23482777.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Lee SW,
    2. Kim YM,
    3. Kim MB,
    4. Kim DY,
    5. Kim JH,
    6. Nam JH and
    7. Kim YT
    : In vitro chemosensitivity using the histoculture drug response assay in human epithelial ovarian cancer. Acta Med Okayama 66(3): 271–277, 2012. PMID: 22729108. DOI: 10.18926/AMO/48567
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Yoon YS,
    2. Kim CW,
    3. Roh SA,
    4. Cho DH,
    5. Kim GP,
    6. Hong YS,
    7. Kim TW,
    8. Kim MB and
    9. Kim JC
    : Applicability of histoculture drug response assays in colorectal cancer chemotherapy. Anticancer Res 32(8): 3581–3586, 2012. PMID: 22843949.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Ushijima K
    : Treatment for recurrent ovarian cancer-at first relapse. J Oncol 2010: 497429, 2010. PMID: 20066162. DOI: 10.1155/2010/497429
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kim JH,
    2. Yoon YS,
    3. Kim JC and
    4. Kim YM
    : Assessment of the applicability of integrative tumor response assays in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Anticancer Res 39(1): 313–318, 2019. PMID: 30591474. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13113
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Howlader N,
    2. Noone AM,
    3. Krapcho M,
    4. Miller D,
    5. Brest A,
    6. Yu M,
    7. Ruhl J,
    8. Tatalovich Z,
    9. Mariotto A,
    10. Lewis DR,
    11. Chen HS,
    12. Feuer EJ and
    13. Cronin KA
    : SEER cancer statistics review, 1975-2017. Natl Cancer Inst, 2020. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival-rates.html#references [Last accessed on October 22, 2021]
  11. ↵
    1. Vaughan S,
    2. Coward JI,
    3. Bast RC Jr.,
    4. Berchuck A,
    5. Berek JS,
    6. Brenton JD,
    7. Coukos G,
    8. Crum CC,
    9. Drapkin R,
    10. Etemadmoghadam D,
    11. Friedlander M,
    12. Gabra H,
    13. Kaye SB,
    14. Lord CJ,
    15. Lengyel E,
    16. Levine DA,
    17. McNeish IA,
    18. Menon U,
    19. Mills GB,
    20. Nephew KP,
    21. Oza AM,
    22. Sood AK,
    23. Stronach EA,
    24. Walczak H,
    25. Bowtell DD and
    26. Balkwill FR
    : Rethinking ovarian cancer: recommendations for improving outcomes. Nat Rev Cancer 11(10): 719–725, 2011. PMID: 21941283. DOI: 10.1038/nrc3144
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Omura G,
    2. Blessing JA,
    3. Ehrlich CE,
    4. Miller A,
    5. Yordan E,
    6. Creasman WT and
    7. Homesley HD
    : A randomized trial of cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin with or without cisplatin in advanced ovarian carcinoma. A Gynecologic Oncology Group Study. Cancer 57(9): 1725–1730, 1986. PMID: 3513943. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19860501)57:9<1725::aid-cncr2820570903>3.0.co;2-j
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Coleman MP,
    2. Forman D,
    3. Bryant H,
    4. Butler J,
    5. Rachet B,
    6. Maringe C,
    7. Nur U,
    8. Tracey E,
    9. Coory M,
    10. Hatcher J,
    11. McGahan CE,
    12. Turner D,
    13. Marrett L,
    14. Gjerstorff ML,
    15. Johannesen TB,
    16. Adolfsson J,
    17. Lambe M,
    18. Lawrence G,
    19. Meechan D,
    20. Morris EJ,
    21. Middleton R,
    22. Steward J,
    23. Richards MA and ICBP Module 1 Working Group
    : Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995-2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet 377(9760): 127–138, 2011. PMID: 21183212. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62231-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. McGuire WP
    : Maintenance therapy for ovarian cancer: of Helsinki and Hippocrates. J Clin Oncol 27(28): 4633–4634, 2009. PMID: 19704055. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.6653
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Davis A,
    2. Tinker AV and
    3. Friedlander M
    : “Platinum resistant” ovarian cancer: what is it, who to treat and how to measure benefit? Gynecol Oncol 133(3): 624–631, 2014. PMID: 24607285. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.02.038
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Prat J and FIGO Committee on Gynecologic Oncology
    : Abridged republication of FIGO’s staging classification for cancer of the ovary, fallopian tube, and peritoneum. Cancer 121(19): 3452–3454, 2015. PMID: 26110780. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29524
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Salani R,
    2. Axtell A,
    3. Gerardi M,
    4. Holschneider C and
    5. Bristow RE
    : Limited utility of conventional criteria for predicting unresectable disease in patients with advanced stage epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol 108(2): 271–275, 2008. PMID: 18164380. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.11.004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Eisenhauer EA,
    2. Therasse P,
    3. Bogaerts J,
    4. Schwartz LH,
    5. Sargent D,
    6. Ford R,
    7. Dancey J,
    8. Arbuck S,
    9. Gwyther S,
    10. Mooney M,
    11. Rubinstein L,
    12. Shankar L,
    13. Dodd L,
    14. Kaplan R,
    15. Lacombe D and
    16. Verweij J
    : New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45(2): 228–247, 2009. PMID: 19097774. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Kang HJ,
    2. Ko CD,
    3. Yoon HS,
    4. Kim MB and
    5. Ahn SH
    : The reliability of histoculture drug response assay (HDRA) in chemosensitivity tests for breast cancer. Cancer Res Treat 33(5): 392–397, 2001. PMID: 26680813. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2001.33.5.392
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. McPherson A,
    2. Roth A,
    3. Laks E,
    4. Masud T,
    5. Bashashati A,
    6. Zhang AW,
    7. Ha G,
    8. Biele J,
    9. Yap D,
    10. Wan A,
    11. Prentice LM,
    12. Khattra J,
    13. Smith MA,
    14. Nielsen CB,
    15. Mullaly SC,
    16. Kalloger S,
    17. Karnezis A,
    18. Shumansky K,
    19. Siu C,
    20. Rosner J,
    21. Chan HL,
    22. Ho J,
    23. Melnyk N,
    24. Senz J,
    25. Yang W,
    26. Moore R,
    27. Mungall AJ,
    28. Marra MA,
    29. Bouchard-Côté A,
    30. Gilks CB,
    31. Huntsman DG,
    32. McAlpine JN,
    33. Aparicio S and
    34. Shah SP
    : Divergent modes of clonal spread and intraperitoneal mixing in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Nat Genet 48(7): 758–767, 2016. PMID: 27182968. DOI: 10.1038/ng.3573
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Norquist BM,
    2. Harrell MI,
    3. Brady MF,
    4. Walsh T,
    5. Lee MK,
    6. Gulsuner S,
    7. Bernards SS,
    8. Casadei S,
    9. Yi Q,
    10. Burger RA,
    11. Chan JK,
    12. Davidson SA,
    13. Mannel RS,
    14. DiSilvestro PA,
    15. Lankes HA,
    16. Ramirez NC,
    17. King MC,
    18. Swisher EM and
    19. Birrer MJ
    : Inherited mutations in women with ovarian carcinoma. JAMA Oncol 2(4): 482–490, 2016. PMID: 26720728. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5495
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Patch AM,
    2. Christie EL,
    3. Etemadmoghadam D,
    4. Garsed DW,
    5. George J,
    6. Fereday S,
    7. Nones K,
    8. Cowin P,
    9. Alsop K,
    10. Bailey PJ,
    11. Kassahn KS,
    12. Newell F,
    13. Quinn MC,
    14. Kazakoff S,
    15. Quek K,
    16. Wilhelm-Benartzi C,
    17. Curry E,
    18. Leong HS,
    19. Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, Hamilton A,
    20. Mileshkin L,
    21. Au-Yeung G,
    22. Kennedy C,
    23. Hung J,
    24. Chiew YE,
    25. Harnett P,
    26. Friedlander M,
    27. Quinn M,
    28. Pyman J,
    29. Cordner S,
    30. O’Brien P,
    31. Leditschke J,
    32. Young G,
    33. Strachan K,
    34. Waring P,
    35. Azar W,
    36. Mitchell C,
    37. Traficante N,
    38. Hendley J,
    39. Thorne H,
    40. Shackleton M,
    41. Miller DK,
    42. Arnau GM,
    43. Tothill RW,
    44. Holloway TP,
    45. Semple T,
    46. Harliwong I,
    47. Nourse C,
    48. Nourbakhsh E,
    49. Manning S,
    50. Idrisoglu S,
    51. Bruxner TJ,
    52. Christ AN,
    53. Poudel B,
    54. Holmes O,
    55. Anderson M,
    56. Leonard C,
    57. Lonie A,
    58. Hall N,
    59. Wood S,
    60. Taylor DF,
    61. Xu Q,
    62. Fink JL,
    63. Waddell N,
    64. Drapkin R,
    65. Stronach E,
    66. Gabra H,
    67. Brown R,
    68. Jewell A,
    69. Nagaraj SH,
    70. Markham E,
    71. Wilson PJ,
    72. Ellul J,
    73. McNally O,
    74. Doyle MA,
    75. Vedururu R,
    76. Stewart C,
    77. Lengyel E,
    78. Pearson JV,
    79. Waddell N,
    80. deFazio A,
    81. Grimmond SM and
    82. Bowtell DD
    : Whole-genome characterization of chemoresistant ovarian cancer. Nature 521(7553): 489–494, 2015. PMID: 26017449. DOI: 10.1038/nature14410
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (12)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 12
December 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Applicability of the Histoculture Drug Response Assay to Predict Platinum Sensitivity and Prognosis in Ovarian Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
7 + 5 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Applicability of the Histoculture Drug Response Assay to Predict Platinum Sensitivity and Prognosis in Ovarian Cancer
JUHUN LEE, JONG MI KIM, YOON HEE LEE, GUN OH CHONG, DAE GY HONG
Anticancer Research Dec 2021, 41 (12) 6287-6292; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15450

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Applicability of the Histoculture Drug Response Assay to Predict Platinum Sensitivity and Prognosis in Ovarian Cancer
JUHUN LEE, JONG MI KIM, YOON HEE LEE, GUN OH CHONG, DAE GY HONG
Anticancer Research Dec 2021, 41 (12) 6287-6292; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15450
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Comparison of BRCA2 Single Nucleotide Variants Between Japanese Patients With Familial Prostate Cancer, Sporadic Prostate Cancer, and Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
  • Corrigendum
  • Sex-related Survival Differences in Patients With Glioblastoma – Results From a Retrospective Analysis
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Chemotherapy
  • histoculture drug response assay
  • in vitro tumor response assay
  • ovarian cancer
  • platinum resistance
  • platinum sensitivity
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire