ArticlePloS one2014
Influence of handling conditions on the establishment and propagation of head and neck cancer patient derived xenografts.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Window-of-Opportunity Study Utilizing Preoperative Cetuximab in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.Cancer research communications · 2026Article
- From Bench to Bedside: A Team's Approach to Multidisciplinary Strategies to Combat Therapeutic Resistance in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Radiation Sensitivity: The Rise of Predictive Patient-Derived Cancer Models.Seminars in radiation oncology · 2023Review
- HPV16 E6 induces chromosomal instability due to polar chromosomes caused by E6AP-dependent degradation of the mitotic kinesin CENP-E.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Establishment and Characterization of Patient-Derived Xenograft Model of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Derived from Malignant Pleural Effusions.Cancer management and research · 2023Article
- Impact of immediate cryopreservation on the establishment of patient derived xenografts from head and neck cancer patients.Journal of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Development and characterization of patient-derived xenografts from non-small cell lung cancer brain metastases.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Review
- Cotargeting mTORC and EGFR Signaling as a Therapeutic Strategy in HNSCC.Molecular cancer therapeutics · 2017Article
- Modeling of Patient-Derived Xenografts in Colorectal Cancer.Molecular cancer therapeutics · 2017Article
- Defining the boundaries and expanding the utility of head and neck cancer patient derived xenografts.Oral oncology · 2017Article
- Targeting the HER Family with Pan-HER Effectively Overcomes Resistance to Cetuximab.Molecular cancer therapeutics · 2016Article
- Proteomic Characterization of Head and Neck Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts.Molecular cancer research : MCR · 2016Article
- Human lung adenocarcinoma cell cultures derived from malignant pleural effusions as model system to predict patients chemosensitivity.Journal of translational medicine · 2016Article
- Therapeutic combination of radiolabeled CLR1404 with external beam radiation in head and neck cancer model systems.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2015Article
- Xenograft assessment of predictive biomarkers for standard head and neck cancer therapies.Cancer medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient derived xenografts (PDXs) for head and neck cancer (HNC) and other cancers represent powerful research platforms. Most groups implant patient tissue into immunodeficient mice immediately although the significance of this time interval is anecdotal. We tested the hypothesis that the time from tumor excision to implantation is crucial for PDX passaging and establishment.
methodsWe examined whether time or storage medium affected PDX viability for passaging two established HNC PDXs (UW-SCC34, UW-SCC52). Tumors were harvested, stored in ice-cold media or saline for 0-48 hours, and implanted into new mice. Tumor growth was compared by two-way ANOVA with respect to time and storage condition. Three new HNC PDXs (UW-SCC63-65) were generated by implanting patient tissue into mice immediately (Time 0) and 24 hours after receiving tissue from the operating room.
resultsSimilar quantities of tumor were implanted into each mouse. At the end of the experiment, no significant difference was seen in mean tumor weight between the media and saline storage conditions for UW-SCC34 or UW-SCC52 (p = 0.650 and p = 0.177, respectively). No difference in tumor formation prevalence was seen on the basis of time from harvest to implantation (≥13 of 16 tumors grew at every time point). Histological analysis showed strong similarity to the initial tumor across all groups. Tumors developed at both Time 0 and 24 hours for UW-SCC63 and UW-SCC64.
conclusionsWe demonstrated that neither storage medium nor time from tumor excision to implantation (up to 48 hours) affected viability or histological differentiation in a subsequent passage for two HNC PDXs. Moreover, we revealed that fresh patient tissue is viable up to 24 hours post-resection. This information is important as it applies to the development and sharing of PDXs.
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.