Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27223614›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Monitoring the Growth of an Orthotopic Tumour Xenograft Model: Multi-Modal Imaging Assessment with Benchtop MRI (1T), High-Field MRI (9.4T), Ultrasound and Bioluminescence.

Rajiv Ramasawmy, S Peter Johnson, Thomas A Roberts, Daniel J Stuckey, Anna L David, R Barbara Pedley, Mark F Lythgoe, Bernard Siow, Simon Walker-Samuel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Considerations for Whole-Slide Analysis of Murine Xenografts Experiments.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2021
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Establishment of a [Journal of gastric cancer · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. [Laboratory animal research · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Rajiv RamasawmyUCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, Division of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
S Peter JohnsonUCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, Division of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas A RobertsUCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, Division of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel J StuckeyUCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, Division of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Anna L DavidUCL Institute for Women's Health, London, United Kingdom.
R Barbara PedleyUCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom.
Mark F LythgoeUCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, Division of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Bernard SiowUCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, Division of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Simon Walker-SamuelUCL Centre for Advanced Biomedical Imaging, Division of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

British Heart Foundation C1519/A10331British Heart Foundation C1519/A16463British Heart Foundation FS/15/33/31608Cancer Research UK 16463Cancer Research UK 21030Medical Research Council G1001497Medical Research Council MRC 1028351Medical Research Council MR/J013110/1Medical Research Council MR/K026739/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT100247MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch using orthotopic and transgenic models of cancer requires imaging methods to non-invasively quantify tumour burden. As the choice of appropriate imaging modality is wide-ranging, this study aimed to compare low-field (1T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), a novel and relatively low-cost system, against established preclinical techniques: bioluminescence imaging (BLI), ultrasound imaging (US), and high-field (9.4T) MRI.

methodsA model of colorectal metastasis to the liver was established in eight mice, which were imaged with each modality over four weeks post-implantation. Tumour burden was assessed from manually segmented regions.

resultsAll four imaging systems provided sufficient contrast to detect tumours in all of the mice after two weeks. No significant difference was detected between tumour doubling times estimated by low-field MRI, ultrasound imaging or high-field MRI. A strong correlation was measured between high-field MRI estimates of tumour burden and all the other modalities (p < 0.001, Pearson).

conclusionThese results suggest that both low-field MRI and ultrasound imaging are accurate modalities for characterising the growth of preclinical tumour models.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell Line, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsHumansLuminescent MeasurementsLung NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiceMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm TransplantationTransplantation, HeterologousTumor BurdenUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID27223614
PMCPMC4880291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.