ArticleNeurosurgical review2010
Bioluminescence imaging of invasive intracranial xenografts: implications for translational research and targeted therapeutics of brain tumors.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2010. 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.
- Bioluminescence in Clinical and Point-of-Care Testing.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Non-invasive Bioluminescence Monitoring of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapy in an HCR Mouse Model.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Article
- Integrating in vitro experiments with in silico approaches for Glioblastoma invasion: the role of cell-to-cell adhesion heterogeneity.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Targeting Orthotopic Glioma in Mice with Genetically Engineered Salmonella typhimurium.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2014Article
- Multimodal imaging enables early detection and characterization of changes in tumor permeability of brain metastases.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite decades of study, the etiology of brain cancer remains elusive. However, extensive molecular characterization of primary brain tumors has been accomplished, outlining recurrent features that are proving useful for devising targeted therapies. There are far too few patients available for comparing the efficacy of therapeutic combinations, especially when variations in dosing, frequency, and sequencing are taken into account. Consequently, there is a substantial need for increasing preclinical testing throughput using clinically relevant models. We review luminescent optical imaging for its potential in facilitating in vivo assessment of intracranial tumor growth and response to therapy in rodent orthotopic xenograft models of primary brain malignancies. We review the rationale behind the need of an in vivo model, why orthotopic tumor models displaying an invasive phenotype may be a superior choice when compared to flank-implanted tumors, and what advantages may be drawn from the use of modified cells, suitable for sequential monitoring by in vivo optical imaging. Studies show that luminescent signal correlates highly both with tumor burden and Kaplan-Meier survival curves of rodents bearing intracranial xenografts. We conclude that bioluminescent imaging is a highly sensitive technique for assessment of tumor burden, response to therapy, tumor recurrence, and behavior to salvage therapy, making it a superior option for longitudinal monitoring in intracranial rodent models of primary brain tumors.
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.