Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19902363›Full record

ArticleThe AAPS journal2010

Comparison of two pharmacodynamic transduction models for the analysis of tumor therapeutic responses in model systems.

Jun Yang, Donald E Mager, Robert M Straubinger

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The AAPS journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Towards a comprehensive assessment of QSP models: what would it take?Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Array of translational systems pharmacodynamic models of anti-cancer drugs.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2016
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Jun YangThe Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Amherst, New York 14260-1200, USA.
Donald E Mager
Robert M Straubinger

Funding

Drug carrier of blood/tumor/brain permeabilityR01CA107570 · NCI · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI STRAUBINGER, ROBERT M · 2004 to 2008
$1.6M
PHARMOCOLOGY AND EFFICACY OF NOVEL TAXOL FORMULATIONSR01CA055251 · NCI · STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO · PI STRAUBINGER, ROBERT M · 1991 to 1999
–
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107570NCI NIH HHS R01-CA107570NCI NIH HHS R01-CA55251
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Semi-mechanistic pharmacodynamic (PD) models that capture tumor responses to anticancer agents with fidelity can provide valuable insights that could aid in the optimization of dosing regimens and the development of drug delivery strategies. This study evaluated the utility and potential interchangeability of two transduction-type PD models: a cell distribution model (CDM) and a signal distribution model (SDM). The evaluation was performed by simulating dense and sparse tumor response data with one model and analyzing it using the other. Performance was scored by visual inspection and precision of parameter estimation. Capture of tumor response data was also evaluated for a liposomal formulation of paclitaxel in the paclitaxel-resistant murine Colon-26 model. A suitable PK model was developed by simultaneous fitting of literature data for paclitaxel formulations in mice. Analysis of the simulated tumor response data revealed that the SDM was more flexible in describing delayed drug effects upon tumor volume progression. Dense and sparse data simulated using the CDM were fit very well by the SDM, but under some conditions, data simulated using the SDM were fitted poorly by the CDM. Although both models described the dose-dependent therapeutic responses of Colon-26 tumors, the fit by the SDM contained less bias. The CDM and SDM are both useful transduction models that recapitulate, with fidelity, delayed drug effects upon tumor growth. However, they are mechanistically distinct and not interchangeable. Both fit some types of tumor growth data well, but the SDM appeared more robust, particularly where experimental data are sparse.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsColonic NeoplasmsComputer SimulationMiceModels, BiologicalPaclitaxelAntineoplastic AgentsPaclitaxel

Identifiers

PMID19902363
PMCPMC2811636

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.