A COMPARISON OF 2 COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE AN VITRO CHEMOSENSITIVITY ASSAYS

被引:0
|
作者
TAVASSOLI, FA [1 ]
COOK, CB [1 ]
PESTANER, JP [1 ]
机构
[1] FAIRFAX HOSP,DEPT PATHOL,FALLS CHURCH,VA 22046
关键词
CULTURE; IN VITRO ASSAYS; CHEMOTHERAPY; DRUG RESISTANCE;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
In vitro chemosensitivity assays (IVCAs) are expensive laboratory tests utilized to assist oncologists in the selection of chemotherapeutic regimens. Their utility is disputed; yet, these assays continue to be requested because of the importance of the information they can provide and their scientifically logical approach. Therefore, we compared the results of two assays offered to clinicians at our hospital; the extreme drug resistance assay performed by Oncotech (OT) and the fluorescent cytoprint assays performed by Analytical Biosystems (AB). The two techniques used and the expression of assay results by the two companies are discussed. Twenty neoplasms, all at least 3 cm in diameter and predominantly of breast and ovarian origin, were compared. OT performed 74 drug assays on 17 tumors, while AB performed 194 assays on the correponding neoplasms; 3 neoplasms were insufficient for comparison. Evaluation of the results revealed apparent disagreement on at least 44 drug assays with complete disagreement on at least 2 of the drugs tested in 12 of 17 cases. In conclusion, based on available information, comparisons between IVCAs show great variation in results; prospective studies are needed to evaluate commercially available assays for correlation with clinical outcome, and results should be expressed so comparisons can be readily made. Though utility may be limited to tumors resistant to standard therapy, cost and benefit to the patient will ultimately determine the fate of these tests.
引用
收藏
页码:413 / 418
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison of Commercially Available and Laboratory-Developed Assays for In Vitro Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Clinical Laboratories
    Lieberman, Joshua A.
    Pepper, Gregory
    Naccache, Samia N.
    Huang, Meei-Li
    Jerome, Keith R.
    Greninger, Alexander L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2020, 58 (08)
  • [2] Comparison of commercially available PCR assays for the detection of Coxiella burnetii
    Frangoulidis, D.
    Kallilhofer, C.
    Antwerpen, M.
    Kaysser, P.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2008, 298 : 14 - 14
  • [3] HIV-1 genotyping:: comparison of two commercially available assays
    Stürmer, M
    Berger, A
    Preiser, W
    [J]. EXPERT REVIEW OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2004, 4 (03) : 281 - 291
  • [4] A COMPARISON IN DETERMINING OF VITAMIN D STATUS BETWEEN COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE ASSAYS
    Vanuga, P.
    Huba, P.
    Sagova, I.
    Payer, J.
    Vanuga, A.
    [J]. OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL, 2017, 28 : S388 - S389
  • [5] IN VITRO CHEMOSENSITIVITY IN OVARIAN CARCINOMA - COMPARISON OF THREE LEADING ASSAYS
    Tatar, B.
    Boyraz, G.
    Selcuk, I
    Dogan, A. K.
    Usubutun, A.
    Tuncer, Z. S.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2017, 27 : 1688 - 1688
  • [6] Clinical comparison of two commercially available lyme screening ELISA assays
    Dudley, T. A.
    Erwin, D.
    Ewell, A.
    [J]. CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2007, 53 (06) : A141 - A141
  • [7] Comparison of three commercially available assays for cystic fibrosis population screening
    Holtegaard, T
    Highsmith, WE
    Dawson, DB
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2004, 6 (04): : 436 - 436
  • [8] Determining Vitamin D Status: A Comparison between Commercially Available Assays
    Snellman, Greta
    Melhus, Hakan
    Gedeborg, Rolf
    Byberg, Liisa
    Berglund, Lars
    Wernroth, Lisa
    Michaelsson, Karl
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2010, 5 (07):
  • [9] Comparison of CMV Patient Quantitation Using the Three Commercially Available Assays
    Moussa, G.
    Herman, C.
    Lucic, D.
    Mazzulli, T.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2016, 18 (06): : 982 - 982
  • [10] Comparison of commercially available myeloid next-generation sequencing assays
    Johnson, Sarah
    Riccitelli, Nathan
    Pollner, Reinhold
    [J]. CANCER RESEARCH, 2019, 79 (13)