ReviewILAR journal2010
Modeling opportunities in comparative oncology for drug development.
Review in ILAR journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Preclinical Evaluation of the Novel BTK Inhibitor Acalabrutinib in Canine Models of B-Cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Virus-like particles in cancer immunotherapy: bridging human and veterinary medicine through one health.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Article
- Development of a next-generation sequencing protocol for the canine T cell receptor beta chain repertoire.Veterinary immunology and immunopathology · 2024Article
- Review
- Translating Nanomedicine to Comparative Oncology-the Case for Combining Zinc Oxide Nanomaterials with Nucleic Acid Therapeutic and Protein Delivery for Treating Metastatic Cancer.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2019Review
- Model of vitamin and mineral deficiency for toxicological research: Apoptosis activity under conditions of CCL4 intoxication.Toxicology reports · 2019Article
- Pilot study of safety and feasibility of DNA microseeding for treatment of spontaneous canine melanoma.Veterinary medicine and science · 2017Article
- Creation of an NCI comparative brain tumor consortium: informing the translation of new knowledge from canine to human brain tumor patients.Neuro-oncology · 2016Review
- Defining the Value of a Comparative Approach to Cancer Drug Development.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2016Review
- Newcastle Disease Virus: Potential Therapeutic Application for Human and Canine Lymphoma.Viruses · 2015Article
- Species differences in tumour responses to cancer chemotherapy.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015Review
- Cats, Cancer and Comparative Oncology.Veterinary sciences · 2015Review
- Model-based assessment of erlotinib effect in vitro measured by real-time cell analysis.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2015Article
- The importance of comparative oncology in translational medicine.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2015Review
- Isolation, genetic manipulation, and transplantation of canine spermatogonial stem cells: progress toward transgenesis through the male germ-line.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2013Article
- Oncolytic reovirus in canine mast cell tumor.PloS one · 2013Article
- A naturally occurring feline model of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.Pathology research international · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Successful development of novel cancer drugs depends on well-reasoned scientific drug discovery, rigorous preclinical development, and carefully conceived clinical trials. Failure in any of these steps contributes to poor rates of approval for new drugs to treat cancer. As technological and scientific advances have opened the door to a variety of novel approaches to cancer drug discovery and development, preclinical models that can answer questions about the activity and safety of novel therapies are increasingly necessary. The advance of a drug to clinical trials based on information from preclinical models presupposes that the models convey informative data for future use in human patients with cancer. The study of novel cancer drugs using in vitro models is highly controllable, reproducible, relatively inexpensive, and linked to high throughput. However, these models fail to reproduce many of the complex features of human cancer. Mouse models address some of these limitations but have important biological differences from human cancer. The integration of studies using pet dogs with spontaneously occurring tumors as models in the development path can answer questions not adequately addressed in conventional models and is therefore gaining attention and interest in drug development communities. The study of novel cancer drugs in dogs with naturally occurring tumors allows drug assessment in a cancer that shares many fundamental features with the human cancer condition, and thus provides an opportunity to answer questions that inform the cancer drug development path in ways not possible in more conventional models.
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.