Direct search methods in the optimisation of cancer chemotherapy regimens.

Current cancer chemotherapy regimens may involve 20-30 or more independent variables, each affecting therapeutic response and toxicity. With standard response surface modelling methods, finding the optimum combination with as few as 10 variables entails testing over 1,000 combinations, so these methods do not provide a feasible approach to such problems. However, they may be tackled by direct search methods (DSM), i.e. stepwise searches of the response surface. Experiments were carried out in advanced L1210 leukaemia treated with combinations of adriamycin with cyclophosphamide, isophosphamide with acetylcysteine and methotrexate with leucovorin. Two established DSM (Nelder-Mead and Box) were used, and a new method was designed to find consistent search paths in spite of wide biological variation. With methotrexate and leucovorin, DSM located combinations prolonging mean survival to 40-50 days (compared with 10.4 in controls) and giving high proportions of long-term survivors. These results were achieved with single injections of drugs given 7 days after injection of 10(6) leukaemic cells, i.e. 2-3 days before deaths began in untreated mice, and appear to be unprecedented with these agents. Searching for optimal combinations of established agents may be at least as rewarding as searching for new agents, and thus DSM may prove a powerful tool for improving the results of combination cancer chemotherapy.

[1]  M. J. Box A New Method of Constrained Optimization and a Comparison With Other Methods , 1965, Comput. J..

[2]  E. D. Campbell,et al.  Assessing Physostigmine Efficacy by Response Surface Modeling: A Comparison to Pyridostigmine Efficacy , 1988 .

[3]  M. Berenbaum What is synergy? , 1989, Pharmacological reviews.

[4]  E D Campbell,et al.  Drug activity and therapeutic synergism in cancer treatment. , 1982, Cancer research.

[5]  D. Winfield,et al.  Optimization: Theory and practice , 1972 .

[6]  H. Skipper,et al.  EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL ANTICANCER AGENTS. XIII. ON THE CRITERIA AND KINETICS ASSOCIATED WITH "CURABILITY" OF EXPERIMENTAL LEUKEMIA. , 1964, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[7]  W. H. Carter,et al.  Application of response surface methods for evaluating the interactions of soman, atropine, and pralidioxime chloride. , 1985, Fundamental and applied toxicology : official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[8]  V M Chinchilli,et al.  Estimation and analysis of the concentration-response surfaces associated with multiple-agent combinations. , 1986, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[9]  F. Halberg,et al.  Circadian bioperiodic response of mice bearing advanced L1210 leukemia to combination therapy with adriamycin and cyclophosphamide. , 1980, Cancer research.

[10]  F. Sirotnak,et al.  Optimization of high-dose methotrexate with leucovorin rescue therapy in the L1210 leukemia and sarcoma 180 murine tumor models. , 1978, Cancer research.

[11]  W H Carter,et al.  On determining the levels of treatment to optimize the probability of a favorable response. , 1977, Cancer treatment reports.

[12]  J. Venditti,et al.  Protection with N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NSC-111180) against isophosphamide (NSC-109724) toxicity and enhancement of therapeutic effect in early murine L1210 leukemia. , 1973, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[13]  Galen L. Wampler,et al.  A monte carlo evaluation of the robustness of several sequential optimization techniques when the response is time to an event , 1981 .

[14]  G. Box,et al.  On the Experimental Attainment of Optimum Conditions , 1951 .

[15]  Anthony Segreti,et al.  Monte carlo evaluation of several sequential optimization techniques when the response is time to an event , 1979 .

[16]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[17]  M. J. Box,et al.  Non-linear optimization techniques; , 1969 .

[18]  E. D. Campbell,et al.  Application of response-surface methodology to detect interactions of genotoxic agents in cultured mammalian cells. , 1986, Journal of toxicology and environmental health.

[19]  D. Roberts,et al.  Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide in combination chemotherapy of L1210 leukemia. , 1977, Cancer research.

[20]  M. Pike,et al.  Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. analysis and examples. , 1977, British Journal of Cancer.

[21]  W H Carter,et al.  Combination chemotherapy: arriving at optimal treatment levels by incorporating side effect constraints. , 1978, Cancer treatment reports.

[22]  G. R. Hext,et al.  Sequential Application of Simplex Designs in Optimisation and Evolutionary Operation , 1962 .

[23]  J. Staniswalis,et al.  The Use of Kernel Estimators in Describing Human T Lymphocyte Proliferation Induced by Phorbol Esters and Ca2+ Ionophore , 1988 .

[24]  L. Parker,et al.  Adriamycin/cyclophosphamide and adriamycin/melphalan in advanced L1210 leukaemia. , 1975, British Journal of Cancer.

[25]  N. Mantel,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents against advanced leukemia in mice. , 1958, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  D. Stablein,et al.  Survival analysis of drug combinations using a hazards model with time-dependent covariates. , 1980, Biometrics.

[27]  N. Mantel,et al.  Eradication Of Leukaemic Cells (L1210) by Methotrexate and Methotrexate Plus Citrovorum Factor , 1966, Nature.