ReviewClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2016
Defining the Value of a Comparative Approach to Cancer Drug Development.
Review in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 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
48 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virus-like particles in cancer immunotherapy: bridging human and veterinary medicine through one health.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- Article
- Establishment and transcriptomic characterization of canine organoids from multiple tissues.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Article
- Identification of the First Case of Dedifferentiated Liposarcoma in Amphibians: Insights fromVeterinary sciences · 2024Article
- Bringing the Genomic Revolution to Comparative Oncology: Human and Dog Cancers.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2024Review
- Comparative responses to demethylating therapy in animal models of osteosarcoma.Research square · 2024Article
- COAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Clinical, pathologic and molecular findings in 2 Rottweiler littermates with appendicular osteosarcoma.Research square · 2024Article
- Unedited allogeneic iNKT cells show extended persistence in MHC-mismatched canine recipients.Cell reports. Medicine · 2023Article
- Transcriptional profiling of canine osteosarcoma identifies prognostic gene expression signatures with translational value for humans.Communications biology · 2023Article
- Companion Animals as a Key to Success for Translating Radiation Therapy Research into the Clinic.Cancers · 2023Review
- Single institution study of the immune landscape for canine oral melanoma based on transcriptome analysis of the primary tumor.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Deep Domain Adversarial Learning for Species-Agnostic Classification of Histologic Subtypes of Osteosarcoma.The American journal of pathology · 2023Article
- Tumor-associated macrophages: Prognostic and therapeutic targets for cancer in humans and dogs.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- A new detection method for canine and feline cancer using the olfactory system of nematodes.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2022Article
- Review
- Transcriptomic profiling in canines and humans reveals cancer specific gene modules and biological mechanisms common to both species.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Meningeal B Cell Clusters Correlate with Submeningeal Pathology in a Natural Model of Multiple Sclerosis.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2021Article
- Adjuvant Sirolimus Does Not Improve Outcome in Pet Dogs Receiving Standard-of-Care Therapy for Appendicular Osteosarcoma: A Prospective, Randomized Trial of 324 Dogs.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2021Article
- Target-Based Radiosensitization Strategies: Concepts and Companion Animal Model Outlook.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Comparative oncology as a tool in drug development requires a deeper examination of the value of the approach and examples of where this approach can satisfy unmet needs. This review seeks to demonstrate types of drug development questions that are best answered by the comparative oncology approach. We believe common perceived risks of the comparative approach relate to uncertainty of how regulatory bodies will prioritize or react to data generated from these unique studies conducted in diseased animals, and how these new data will affect ongoing human clinical trials. We contend that it is reasonable to consider these data as potentially informative and valuable to cancer drug development, but as supplementary to conventional preclinical studies and human clinical trials particularly as they relate to the identification of drug-associated adverse events. Clin Cancer Res; 22(9); 2133-8. ©2015 AACR.
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.