Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16760006›Full record

ReviewClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2006

Mouse models in oncogenesis and cancer therapy.

M V Céspedes, I Casanova, M Parreño, R Mangues

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient-derived human tumour tissue xenografts in immunodeficient mice: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2010
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Mouse Models of Breast Cancer Bone Metastasis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Establishing a three-dimensional scaffold model of hepatoblastoma.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

M V CéspedesGrup d'Oncogenesi i Antitumorals, Institut de Recerca, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
I Casanova
M Parreño
R Mangues

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal models have been critical in the study of the molecular mechanisms of cancer and in the development of new antitumor agents; nevertheless, there is still much room for improvement. The relevance of each particular model depends on how close it replicates the histology, physiological effects, biochemical pathways and metastatic pattern observed in the same human tumor type. Metastases are especially important because they are the main determinants of the clinical course of the disease and patient survival, and are the target of systemic therapy. The generation of clinically relevant models using the mouse requires their humanization, since differences exist in transformation and oncogenesis between human and mouse. Although genetically modified (GM) mice have been instrumental in understanding the molecular mechanisms involved in tumor initiation, they have been less successful in replicating advanced cancer. Moreover, a particular genetic alteration frequently leads to different tumor types in human and mouse and to lower metastastatic rates in GM mice than in humans. These findings question the capacity of current GM mouse carcinoma models to predict clinical response to therapy. On the other hand, orthotopic (ORT) xenografts of human tumors, or tumor cell lines, in nude mice reproduce the histology and metastatic pattern of most human tumors at advanced stage. Using ex vivo genetic manipulation of human tumor cells, ORT models can be used to molecularly dissect the metastatic process and to evaluate in vivo tumor response to therapy, using non-invasive procedures. Nevertheless, this approach is not useful in the study of the initial stages of tumorigenesis or the contribution of the immune system in this process. Despite ORT models are more promising than the most commonly used subcutaneous xenografts in preclinical drug development, their capacity to predict clinical response to antitumor agents remains to be studied. Humanizing mouse models of cancer will most likely require the combined use of currently available methodologies.

Indexed as

Models, AnimalXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCell Line, TumorCell Transformation, NeoplasticHumansImmunocompromised HostMiceMice, Mutant StrainsMice, NudeMice, SCIDNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasms, ExperimentalNeoplasm TransplantationSpecies SpecificityAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.