CELL-PROLIFERATION KINETICS IN HUMAN TUMOR XENOGRAFTS MEASURED WITH IODODEOXYURIDINE LABELING AND FLOW-CYTOMETRY - A STUDY OF HETEROGENEITYAND A COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT METHODS OF CALCULATION AND OTHER PROLIFERATION MEASUREMENTS
La. Perez et al., CELL-PROLIFERATION KINETICS IN HUMAN TUMOR XENOGRAFTS MEASURED WITH IODODEOXYURIDINE LABELING AND FLOW-CYTOMETRY - A STUDY OF HETEROGENEITYAND A COMPARISON BETWEEN DIFFERENT METHODS OF CALCULATION AND OTHER PROLIFERATION MEASUREMENTS, Cancer research, 55(2), 1995, pp. 392-398
The influence of overall treatment time in the results of fractionated
radiation treatment was initially established in experimental tumors
and, subsequently, in the clinic The availability of techniques (antib
odies against halogenated thymidine analogues and flow cytometry) whic
h permit determinations of the duration of the synthesis phase, the la
beling index, and the tumor potential doubling time (T-pot) in a short
period of time and requiring only a small biopsy of tumor tissue, has
expanded interest in the relationship between tumor cell proliferatio
n and response to irradiation. A valuable tool in the study of this re
lationship are human tumor xenografts. Previous studies have shown a s
ubstantial intratumoral heterogeneity in the determinations of T-pot.
Different methods of calculation of the kinetic parameters have been p
ublished. We have conducted a heterogeneity analysis and an evaluation
of the different calculation methods in order to define the validity
of T-pot as a proliferation rate measurement in human tumor xenografts
. Results show the intertumoral variability in T-pot [between differen
t types of human tumor xenografts systems (coefficient of variation =
88.2%)] to be greater than mean intratumoral variation (coefficient of
variation = 30.8%); this suggests that this variation is potentially
adequate to serve as a predictor of response. The diverse calculation
methods provided significantly different absolute values but not diffe
rent tumor ranking, probably because the time interval between labelin
g and sampling was maintained, for all the samples, between 6 and 8 h.
Our study has found significant differences between the labeling inde
x and the S-phase fraction determined with the DNA profile in 9 out of
10 tumor types. No correlation was found between the DNA index of the
tumors in this series and their proliferation rate.