Brock N, Pohl J, Schneider B
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 1990;116(5):411-24. doi: 10.1007/BF01612986.
Anticancer agents so far available and their mechanisms of action suffer from the problem of their relatively low selectivity. Their insufficient clinical efficacy against the common, slowly growing solid tumors of the lung, gastrointestinal system, kidneys, urinary bladder, and brain remains disappointing. Recently the possibility has been discussed that the limited clinical activity of current anticancer drugs could result from the screening models and methods used in their selection. The initial approach to drug discovery used by the National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, USA (NCI), the greatest oncological research unit in the world, has been empirical large-scale screening in transplantable rodent tumor models. In the past, these preclinical models have been changed periodically in line with retrospecitve analyses of preclinical predictivity for clinical efficacy. Recently, as a new strategy, a “disease-orientated” concept has been developed to screen agents against particular types of human cancer on the basis of the human tumor colony-forming assay in vitro. Each compound should now be tested directly against a spectrum of human tumor lines without passing through a rodent prescreen. Additional assays in vivo may be performed later on. This new screening concept seems to be suitable for identifying the cytotoxicity of new chemical structures and for an evaluation of sensitivity or resistance of the different tumor types. The contrasting concept of “rational drug design” is exemplified by the development of the oxazaphosphorinecytostatics. The basis of this concept was the application of the transport form/active form principle to the antiproliferative nitrogen mustard. Cyclophosphamide, the first representative of this group, had already largely reached the given objective. Generalizing conclusions from the different concepts are as follows. 1. Methods and perceptions of general pharmacotherapy must be the principal basis for the development of antitumor compounds. 2. Progress and essential new developments in cancer chemotherapy are based on experiments in intact animals. 3. An important feature of rational drug design is the stepwise or sequential procedure: the design of new drugs is based on the screening results of former drugs to achieve an optimal progress. 4. For the analysis of the activity of alkylating agents on rats and mice, the panel of test tumors for screening and pharmacological evaluation must be selected according to a different degree of chemoresistance or chemosensitivity, respectively. It should be aimed at a complete dose/activity curve with cyclophosphamide as standard at least for the most sensitive tumors of that panel. 5. The therapeutic index, i.e. LD5/CD95, has proved to be a valuable tool for chemotherapeutic usefulness, as has the danger coefficient for the quantification of organotoxic side-effects. These values provide a measure of the therapeutic range and, consequently, of the selectivity of the antitumor activity. Results from a given tumor have proved to be predictive for other tumors and turned out to be relevant also for clinical trials. 6. The different sensitivities of experimental tumors against alkylating agents is not a fundamental property but a quantitative feature. With sub- or even supra-lethal doses it is possible to overcome vitality and transplantability of even the very most resistant tumors. A new product with impressively increased selectivity is consequently expected to achieve remissions in more resistant tumors also. This evaluation system also remains applicable and useful in the context of a “disease-oriented” concept. 7. A profound knowledge of the mechanism of action of cytostatic agents and a deep insight into the metabolic patterns in the host and in tumor cells are the essential basis for a rational augmentation of cytostatic activity. 8. Promising leads, identified initially by empirical large-scale screening programs, mostly need forther optimization through the rational approach. Thus there is most often an essential and intimate interplay between the rational and large-scale screening strategies.
目前可用的抗癌药物及其作用机制存在相对选择性较低的问题。它们对肺部、胃肠道系统、肾脏、膀胱和脑部常见的生长缓慢的实体瘤临床疗效不足,仍然令人失望。最近有人讨论,当前抗癌药物有限的临床活性可能是由于其筛选模型和选择方法所致。美国国立癌症研究所(NCI)是世界上最大的肿瘤学研究机构,其最初用于药物研发的方法是在可移植啮齿动物肿瘤模型中进行经验性大规模筛选。过去,这些临床前模型根据对临床疗效的临床前预测性的回顾性分析而定期改变。最近,作为一种新策略,已开发出一种“以疾病为导向”的概念,以基于体外人肿瘤集落形成试验来筛选针对特定类型人类癌症的药物。现在每种化合物都应直接针对一系列人类肿瘤细胞系进行测试,而无需经过啮齿动物预筛选。稍后可进行额外的体内试验。这种新的筛选概念似乎适用于鉴定新化学结构的细胞毒性以及评估不同肿瘤类型的敏感性或耐药性。“合理药物设计”的对比概念以氧氮磷杂环胞嘧啶类化疗药物的开发为例。这一概念的基础是将转运形式/活性形式原理应用于抗增殖氮芥。该类的首个代表药物环磷酰胺在很大程度上已经实现了既定目标。从不同概念得出的一般性结论如下。1. 一般药物治疗的方法和观念必须是抗肿瘤化合物研发的主要基础。2. 癌症化疗的进展和重要的新发展基于完整动物实验。3. 合理药物设计的一个重要特征是逐步或顺序程序:新药的设计基于先前药物的筛选结果,以实现最佳进展。4. 为了分析烷化剂对大鼠和小鼠的活性,用于筛选和药理评估的测试肿瘤组必须分别根据不同程度的化疗耐药性或化疗敏感性来选择。至少对于该组中最敏感的肿瘤,应以环磷酰胺为标准绘制完整的剂量/活性曲线。5. 治疗指数,即LD5/CD95,已被证明是评估化疗有效性的有价值工具,器官毒性副作用量化的危险系数也是如此。这些值提供了治疗范围的度量,因此也提供了抗肿瘤活性选择性的度量。来自特定肿瘤的结果已被证明对其他肿瘤具有预测性,并且对临床试验也具有相关性。6. 实验肿瘤对烷化剂的不同敏感性不是基本特性,而是定量特征。使用亚致死或甚至超致死剂量有可能克服即使是最耐药肿瘤的活力和可移植性。因此,一种具有显著提高的选择性的新产品有望在更耐药的肿瘤中也实现缓解。这种评估系统在“以疾病为导向”的概念背景下也仍然适用且有用。7. 对细胞毒性药物作用机制的深入了解以及对宿主和肿瘤细胞代谢模式的深刻洞察是合理增强细胞毒性活性的基本基础。8. 最初通过经验性大规模筛选计划确定的有前景的先导物,大多需要通过合理方法进一步优化。因此,合理筛选策略和大规模筛选策略之间通常存在至关重要且密切的相互作用。