Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships between various uses of antineoplastic drug-interaction terms

  • Original Articles
  • Cisplatin, Etoposide, Synergism, P388 Leukemia, Small-Cell Lung Cancer
  • Published:
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

In in vitro testing, no pharmacologic synergism has been found for the combination of cisplatin and etoposide in P388 leukemia in contrast to the demonstration of therapeutic synergism in the same model. No pharmacologic synergism has been found for the same combination in the treatment of four small-cell lung-cancer cell lines, although clinical results obtained using this combination in small-cell lung cancer and other cancers suggest a therapeutic advantage. The popular concept of synergy, implying a therapeutic advantage, is different from the pharmacologic meaning, which generally implies that less drug is required in a combination for an equal effect. Therapeutic advantage may be obtained regardless of whether drugs are synergistic in the pharmacologic sense in the treatment of a tumor. To gain a more comprehensive insight into concepts of drug interaction, it is important to recognize that the type of drug interaction seen is dependent on the drug doses used and may vary with the treatment of different cell lines. All of these factors complicate the use of the word synergism, or any associated term, in a categorical manner to describe the effects of combinations of antineoplastic drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Avery TL, Cruze PG (1978) Therapeutic performance of carminomycin-cyclophosphamide against L1210 leukemia. Cancer Res 38:2892

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berenbaum MC (1981) Criteria for analyzing interactions between biologically active agents. Adv Cancer Res 35: 269

    Google Scholar 

  3. Berenbaum MC (1988) Synergy and antagonism are not synonymous with therapeutic advantage and disadvantage. J Antimicrob Chemother 21: 497

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berenbaum MC (1989) What is synergy? Pharmacol Rev 1989: 93

    Google Scholar 

  5. Byfield JE (1974) The role of radiation repair mechanisms in radiation treatment failures. Cancer Chemother Rep 58: 527

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carney DN, Mitchell JB, Kinsella TJ (1983) In vitro radiation and chemotherapy sensitivity of established cell lines of human small cell lung cancer and its large cell morphological variant. Cancer Res 43: 2806

    Google Scholar 

  7. Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL, Crews SL, Howells R (1977) On determining the levels of treatment to optimize the probability of a favorable response. Cancer Treat Rep 61: 849

    Google Scholar 

  8. Carter WH Jr, Stablein DM, Wampler GL (1979) An improved method for analyzing survival data from combination chemotherapy experients. Cancer Res 39: 3446

    Google Scholar 

  9. Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL, Stablein DM, Campbell ED (1982) Activity and therapeutic synegism in cancer treatment. Cancer Res 42: 2963

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL, Stablein DM (1983) Regression analysis of survival data in cancer chemotherapy, vol 44. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 59, 67, 72, 76, 96, 103, 136–140, 181, 201

    Google Scholar 

  11. Carter WH Jr, Gennings C, Staniswalis JG, Campbell ED, White KL Jr (1988) A statistical approach to the construction and analysis of isobolograms. J Am Coll Toxicol 7: 963

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chang T-T, Gulati S, Chou T-C, Colvin M, Clarkson B (1987) Comparative cytotoxicity of various drug combinations for human leukemic cells and normal hematopoietic precursors. Cancer Res 47: 119

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chou T-C, Talalay P (1981) Generalized equations for the analysis of inhibitions of Michaelis-Menten and higher order kinetic systems with two or more mutually exclusive and nonexclusive inhibitors. Eur J Biochem 115: 207

    Google Scholar 

  14. DeWys WD (1973) A dose-response study of resistance of leukemia L1210 to cyclophosphamide. J Natl Cancer Inst 50: 783

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dombernowsky P, Nissen NI (1973) Schedule dependency of the antileukaemic activity of the podophyllotoxin-derivative VP 16-213 (NSC 141 540). Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand 81: 715

    Google Scholar 

  16. Durand RE, Goldie JH (1987) Interaction of etoposide and cisplatin in an in vitro tumor model. Cancer Treat Rep 71: 673

    Google Scholar 

  17. Einhorn LH (1986) Cisplatin plus VP-16 in small-cell lung cancer. Semin Oncol 13 [Suppl 3]: 3

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fraser TR (1872) The antagonism between the actions of active substances. BMJ 2: 485

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gennings C, Carter WH Jr, Campbell ED, Staniswalis JC, Martin TJ, Martin BR, White KL Jr (1990) Isobolographic characterization of drug interactions incorporating biological variability. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 252: 208

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goldie JH, Coldman AJ (1979) A mathematic model for relating the drug sensitivity of tumors to their spontaneous mutation rate. Cancer Chemother Rep 63: 1727

    Google Scholar 

  21. Greco WR (1989) The importance of the structural component of generalized nonlinear models for joint durg action. Proc Am Stat Assoc Biopharm Sect 1989: 183

    Google Scholar 

  22. Greco WR, Lawrence DD (1988) Assessment of the degree of drug interaction where the response variable is discrete. Proc Am Stat Assoc Biopharm Sect 1988: 226

    Google Scholar 

  23. Greco WR, Hyoung SP, Rustum YM (1990) Application of a new approach for the quantitation of drug synergism to the combination ofcis-diamminedichloroplatinum and 1-β-d-arabinofuranosylcytosine. Cancer Res 50: 5318

    Google Scholar 

  24. Meyskens FL Jr, Loescher L, Moon TE, Takasugi B, Salmon SE (1984) Relation of in vitro colony survival to clinical response in a prospective trial of single-agent chemotherapy for malignant melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2: 1223

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ruckdeshel JD, Carney DN, Oie HK, Russell EK, Gazdar AF (1987) In vitro chemosensitivity of human lung cancer cell lines. Cancer Treat Rep 71: 697

    Google Scholar 

  26. SAS Institute (1985) SAS user's guide: statistics, version 5. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, p 575

    Google Scholar 

  27. Schabel FM Jr, Trader MW, Laster WR Jr, Corbett TH, Griswold DP Jr (1979)cis-Dichlorodiammineplatinum(II): combination chemotherapy and cross-resistance studies with tumors of mice. Cancer Treat Rep 63: 1459

    Google Scholar 

  28. Slevin ML, Clark PI, Joel SP, Malik S, Osborne RJ, Gregory WM, Lowe DG, Reznek RH, Wrigley PFM (1989) A randomized trial to evaluate the effect of schedule on the activity of etoposide in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 7: 1333

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stablein DM, Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL (1980) Survival analysis of drug combinations using a hazards model with time-dependent covariates. Biometrics 36: 537

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stablein DM, Carter WH Jr, Wampler GL (1983) Confidence regions for constrained optima in response surface experiments. Biometrics 39: 759

    Google Scholar 

  31. Steel GG, Peckham MJ (1979) Exploitable mechanisms in combined radiotherapy-chemotherapy: the concept of additivity. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 5: 85

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tsai C-M, Gazdar AF, Venzon DJ, Steinberg SM, Dedrick RL, Mulshine JL, Kramer BS (1989) Lack of in vitro synergy between etoposide andcis-diamminedichloroplatinum(II). Cancer Res 49: 2390

    Google Scholar 

  33. Usui N, Mimnaugh EG, Sinha BK (1987) Synergistic antitumor activity of etoposide and human interleukin-1α against human melanoma cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 81: 1904

    Google Scholar 

  34. Venditti JM, Goldin A (1964) Drug synergism in antineoplastic chemotherapy. In: Goldin A, Hawking F (eds) Advances in chemotherapy, vol 1. Academic Press, New York, p 397

    Google Scholar 

  35. Wampler GL, Carter WH Jr, Williams VR (1978) Combination chemotherapy: arriving at optimal treatment levels by incorporating side effect constraints. Cancer Treat Rep 62: 333

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wampler GL, Carter WH Jr, Campbell ED (1987) Combination of 5-fluorouracil and cyclophosphamide in L1210 and P388 leukemias with studies of optimum treatments as a function of the age of the L1210 tumor at first treatment. Cancer Invest 5: 523

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wampler GL, Carter WH Jr, Campbell ED, Goldman ID (1987) Demonstration of a schedule-dependent therapeutic synergism utilizing the interacting drugs methotrexate and teniposide in L1210 leukemia. Cancer Treat Rep 71: 581

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Richmond Veterans Administration Medical Center, 1200 Broad Rock Road, 23 249, Richmond, Virginia, USA

    Galen L. Wampler & Peggy A. Keefe

  2. Department of Biostatistics, Medical College of Virginia, Virginia Commonwealth University, Box 230, 23 298, Richmond, VA, USA

    Walter H. Carter Jr. & Eleanor D. Campbell

Authors
  1. Galen L. Wampler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Walter H. Carter Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eleanor D. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peggy A. Keefe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Supported by a Department of Veterans Affairs merit reviewed grant

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wampler, G.L., Carter, W.H., Campbell, E.D. et al. Relationships between various uses of antineoplastic drug-interaction terms. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 31, 111–117 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00685096

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00685096

Keywords

Search

Navigation