Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25574127›Full record

ReviewCancer informatics2014

Growth rate analysis and efficient experimental design for tumor xenograft studies.

Gregory Hather, Ray Liu, Syamala Bandi, Jerome Mettetal, Mark Manfredi, Wen-Chyi Shyu, Jill Donelan, Arijit Chakravarty

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 137 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gregory HatherDepartment of Global Statistics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Ray LiuDepartment of Global Statistics, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Syamala BandiDepartment of Research and Development Systems, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jerome MettetalDepartment of DMPK, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Mark ManfrediDepartment of Cancer Pharmacology, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Wen-Chyi ShyuDepartment of DMPK, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Jill DonelanDepartment of Cancer Pharmacology, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Arijit ChakravartyDepartment of DMPK, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.
Takeda (Japan) · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human tumor xenograft studies are the primary means to evaluate the biological activity of anticancer agents in late-stage preclinical drug discovery. The variability in the growth rate of human tumors established in mice and the small sample sizes make rigorous statistical analysis critical. The most commonly used summary of antitumor activity for these studies is the T/C ratio. However, alternative methods based on growth rate modeling can be used. Here, we describe a summary metric called the rate-based T/C, derived by fitting each animal's tumor growth to a simple exponential model. The rate-based T/C uses all of the data, in contrast with the traditional T/C, which only uses a single measurement. We compare the rate-based T/C with the traditional T/C and assess their performance through a bootstrap analysis of 219 tumor xenograft studies. We find that the rate-based T/C requires fewer animals to achieve the same power as the traditional T/C. We also compare 14-day studies with 21-day studies and find that 14-day studies are more cost efficient. Finally, we perform a power analysis to determine an appropriate sample size.

Indexed as

CdesignTxenograft

Identifiers

PMID25574127
PMCPMC4264612
OpenAlexW2031757213

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.