ArticleCancer research and treatment2005
Correlative effect between in vivo hollow fiber assay and xenografts assay in drug screening.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preclinical screening models in anticancer drug development: strengths, limitations, and translational challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Models used to screen for the treatment of multidrug resistant cancer facilitated by transporter-based efflux.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2019Review
- Characterization of drug responses of mini patient-derived xenografts in mice for predicting cancer patient clinical therapeutic response.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2018Article
- Preclinical efficacy testing for stomach and liver cancers.Cancer research and treatment · 2014Article
- Hu-Qi-Zheng-Xiao Decoction Inhibits the Metastasis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells by Suppressing the HIF-1α Signaling Pathway to Inhibit EMT, LCSC, and Angiogenic Process.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was carried out to assess the usage of an in vivo hollow fiber assay to screen drugs with highly predictive accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe assay systems used were the hollow fiber and xenografts assays. The hollow fiber assay was carried out with the following steps; preparation of fibers, preparation of cells, loading and implanting fibers, treatment with drugs, removal of fibers and assaying for the cell viability by the MTT assay. For the xenografts assay, cell suspensions were subcutaneously transplanted into the mice. Therapy was started when the tumor volume reached 100 approximately 200 mm(3). The tumor volumes were calculated using the formula V=[length+(width)(2)]/2, and used for evaluating the efficacy of the drugs. The drug treatment doses used were adriamycin 2.1 mg/kg, mitomycin-C 0.25 mg/kg, 5-fluorouracil 24.5 mg/kg and paclitaxel 2.5 mg/kg, and administrated intravenously five times daily.
resultsThe correlation between the xenografts and hollow fiber assays was evaluated in 20 tumor cell lines and 4 anti-cancer agents. In the 20 tumor cell lines, the overall predictive accuracy of the hollow fiber assay for sensitivity was 83%, with a predictive accuracy for resistance of 92%.
conclusionThe hollow fiber assay was assessed as effective in drug efficacy evaluation, and found to be compatible with that of the xenografts assay.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.