Acquired resistance to targeted and/or cytotoxic cancer treatment is an important clinical problem that can lead to treatment failure, relapse, and increased patient mortality1. Given the high level of heterogeneity in most tumors, it is a mathematical certainty that a tumor of sufficiently high cell number will contain a subset of cells resistant to single or combined therapies targeting molecular pathways on which those cells depend for survival2,3. Such tumor cells can be positively selected for during treatment, leading to disease recurrence. Development of novel therapies that simultaneously target different cancer cell survival mechanisms, either before or after treatment-mediated selection, is thus clinically important.
A high level of genome instability and mutation in tumor genomes is a fundamental characteristic that distinguishes cancer cells from non-tumor host cells4. Consequently, a useful strategy to increase the effectiveness of DNA-damaging chemotherapy and to prevent the development of resistance is to actively inhibit DNA repair in tumor cells5. This is an active field of investigation and a variety of novel DNA repair targets are being explored in a pre-clinical setting. A number of small molecule or antisense-based inhibitors of these targets have been developed and are undergoing testing6-8. The objective is to identify the most promising pre-clinical candidates and evaluate their safety and efficacy in clinical trials.
The high cost of clinical trials and the risk of failure (for a variety of reasons including sub-optimal pre-clinical evaluation) are formidable obstacles to progress in development of new therapies9. The use of appropriate and rigorous pre-clinical models to adequately evaluate new therapeutic targets and candidate drugs may decrease the high failure rate of clinical trials10.
Some commonly-used pre-clinical methods to evaluate the effectiveness of novel anti-cancer regimens are: a) measurement of capacity to reduce tumor cell proliferation in vitro (cell proliferation assays), b) therapy-induced reduction in capacity of tumor cells to form tissue culture colonies (colony formation assays), c) therapy-induced reduction in tumor cell metabolic activity in vitro (redox-dye conversion) , d) therapy-induced induction of in vitro tumor cell death (apoptotic, necrotic, autophagic, associated with mitosis and others)11, and e) in vivo therapy-induced reduction of growth or ablation of human and mouse xenografts12-14.
A major weakness of the listed in vitro methods is that none of them provide continuous real-time evaluation of the effect of candidate therapies. Rather, they provide information only at selected, widely-separated time points during the course of treatment. Such measurements have diminished capacity to accurately reflect the magnitude and timing of tumor cell responses. In vivo mouse xenograft models are also limited by high cost, length of time to complete, and risk of sub-optimal dosing and treatment timing (scheduling). In addition, there is evidence that rodent xenograft models are limited predictors of clinical efficacy in humans, compared to in vitro assessment of responses of primary human tumor cells and established human tumor cell lines to candidate therapeutic interventions15,16.
We devised a novel combination protocol to evaluate new drug combinations pre-clinically, in a manner that addresses the weaknesses of the more common procedures listed above. In place of proliferation, colony formation, or redox-dye conversion assays, we utilized a metabolism measurement unit to analyze cell adhesion, respiration, and acidification in real time during the entire treatment period17. Simultaneously, we investigated the effects of treatment combination in vivo by using a chicken embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) model of invasion and metastasis18,19. We used these methods to evaluate the ability of an antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) targeting BRCA2 to potentiate the effectiveness of the commonly used chemotherapeutic drug cisplatin.