Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-14T05:02:25.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth Inhibitory and Haematological Effects of Alkylating Agents and Attempts at their Modification to give Greater Selectivity of Anti-Tumour Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

L. A. Elson
L. A. Elson*
Affiliation:
Chester Beatty Research Ins., Institute of Cancer Research, Royal Cancer Hospital, London

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Attempts to induce greater relative tumour specificity in cancer chemotherapeutic drugs may be aimed at (1) reducing toxicity towards host tissues or (2) increasing the susceptibility of the tumor.

1. Pretreatment with certain thiol derivatives has some protective action against the host toxicity of X-irradiation and of certain alkylating agents. However, in many cases even better protection against the tumour-inhibitory action occurs so that the therapeutic index is unfavourably affected.

2. Pretreatment with glucose which accentuates the pH difference between normal and tumour tissues can, in some cases, produce an increase in therapeutic index.

3. The most encouraging aspect is to explore and take advantage of biochemical variations from the normal tissue pattern which are found in certain tumours, e.g. the successful treatment of the ADJ/PC5 mouse myeloma with «aniline mustard» is believed to be related to the very high glucuronidase activity of this tumour.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1968 , pp. 51 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1967

References

Calcutt, G. et al. (1963). Reduction of the toxicity of « radiomimetic » alkylating agents in rats by thiol pretreatment. Part II. Mechanism of protection. Biochem. Pharmacol., 12: 833.Google Scholar
Connors, T. A., Elson, L. A. (1962). Reduction of the toxicity of « radiomimetic » alkylating agents in rats by thiol pretreatment. Biochem. Pharmacol., 11: 1221.Google Scholar
Connors, T. A., Whisson, M. E. (1966). Cure of mice bearing advanced plasma cell tumours with aniline mustard: the relationship between glucuronidase activity and tumour sensitivity. Mature, London, 210: 866.Google Scholar
Connors, T. A., et al. (1965). Reduction of the toxicity of «radiomimetic» alkylating agents in rats by thiol pretreatment. V. The effect of thiol pretreatment on the anti-tumour action of merophan. Biochem. Pharmacol., 14: 1681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connors, T. A., et al. (1964). The effect of glucose pretreatment on the carcinostatic and toxic activities of some alkylating agents. Biochem. Pharmacol., 13: 395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elson, L. A. (1958). Some dynamic aspects of chemical carcinogenesis. Brit. Med. Bull., 14: 161.Google Scholar
Elson, L. A. (1963). Radiation and Radiomimetic Chemicals. Comparative Physiological Effects. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Elson, L. A. (1967). Preclinical pharmacology of cancer chemotherapeutic agents. Experimental Chemotherapy. Vol. V. Academic Press., New York, London (in press).Google Scholar
Elson, L. A. et al. (1958). The metabolism of aromatic amines in relation to carcinogenesis. Brit. J. Cancer, 12: 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roseoner, V. M., Whisson, M. E. (1964). A transplantable plasma cell tumour in the study of carcinostatic agents. Biochem. Pharmacol, 13: 589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, W. C. J. (1961). Increased sensitivity of te Walker tumour towards aromatic nitrogen mustards carrying basic side chains following glucose pretreatment. Biochem. Pharmacol., 7: 235.Google Scholar
Ross, W. C. J. (1962). Biological Alkylating Agents. Biological Alkylating Agents. Butterworth, London.Google Scholar
Whisson, M. E., Connors, T. A. (1965). Cure of mice bearing advanced plasma cell tumours with aniline mustard. Nature, London, 206: 689.Google Scholar