Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18957675›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2008

Antitumor efficacy testing in rodents.

Melinda G Hollingshead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. A high-throughputActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Spheroid-plug model as a tool to study tumor development, angiogenesis, and heterogeneity in vivo.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Melinda G HollingsheadBiological Testing Branch, Developmental Therapeutics Program, Fairview Center, Frederick, MD 21701, USA. hollingm@mail.nih.gov

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS NIH0010072871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The preclinical research and human clinical trials necessary for developing anticancer therapeutics are costly. One contributor to these costs is preclinical rodent efficacy studies, which, in addition to the costs associated with conducting them, often guide the selection of agents for clinical development. If inappropriate or inaccurate recommendations are made on the basis of these preclinical studies, then additional costs are incurred. In this commentary, I discuss the issues associated with preclinical rodent efficacy studies. These include the identification of proper preclinical efficacy models, the selection of appropriate experimental endpoints, and the correct statistical evaluation of the resulting data. I also describe important experimental design considerations, such as selecting the drug vehicle, optimizing the therapeutic treatment plan, properly powering the experiment by defining appropriate numbers of replicates in each treatment arm, and proper randomization. Improved preclinical selection criteria can aid in reducing unnecessary human studies, thus reducing the overall costs of anticancer drug development.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalEndpoint DeterminationResearch DesignRodentiaAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBiological AvailabilityDacarbazineDrug ApprovalDrug DesignDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorDrugs, InvestigationalHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMiceNeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsDacarbazineDrugs, InvestigationalPharmaceutical VehiclesTamoxifenTemozolomideTopotecan

Identifiers

PMID18957675
PMCPMC2597219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.