ArticleThe AAPS journal2016
Optimal Design for Informative Protocols in Xenograft Tumor Growth Inhibition Experiments in Mice.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Huachansu triggers mitochondrial apoptosis and ER stress to inhibit hepatocellular carcinoma progression.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2026Article
- Investigating tumor-host response dynamics in preclinical immunotherapy experiments using a stepwise mathematical modeling strategy.Mathematical biosciences · 2023Article
- Mechanistic characterization of oscillatory patterns in unperturbed tumor growth dynamics: The interplay between cancer cells and components of tumor microenvironment.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Predicting response to combination evofosfamide and immunotherapy under hypoxic conditions in murine models of colon cancer.Mathematical biosciences and engineering : MBE · 2023Article
- Exposure-response modeling improves selection of radiation and radiosensitizer combinations.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2022Article
- Modeling restoration of gefitinib efficacy by co-administration of MET inhibitors in an EGFR inhibitor-resistant NSCLC xenograft model: A tumor-in-host DEB-based approach.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2021Article
- Translational Modeling of Anticancer Efficacy to Predict Clinical Outcomes in a First-in-Human Phase 1 Study of MDM2 Inhibitor HDM201.The AAPS journal · 2021Article
- Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model of MBQ-167 to Predict Tumor Growth Inhibition in Mice.Pharmaceutics · 2020Article
- Generating Robust and Informative NonclinicalAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tumor growth inhibition (TGI) models are increasingly used during preclinical drug development in oncology for the in vivo evaluation of antitumor effect. Tumor sizes are measured in xenografted mice, often only during and shortly after treatment, thus preventing correct identification of some TGI model parameters. Our aims were (i) to evaluate the importance of including measurements during tumor regrowth and (ii) to investigate the proportions of mice included in each arm. For these purposes, optimal design theory based on the Fisher information matrix implemented in PFIM4.0 was applied. Published xenograft experiments, involving different drugs, schedules, and cell lines, were used to help optimize experimental settings and parameters using the Simeoni TGI model. For each experiment, a two-arm design, i.e., control versus treatment, was optimized with or without the constraint of not sampling during tumor regrowth, i.e., "short" and "long" studies, respectively. In long studies, measurements could be taken up to 6 g of tumor weight, whereas in short studies the experiment was stopped 3 days after the end of treatment. Predicted relative standard errors were smaller in long studies than in corresponding short studies. Some optimal measurement times were located in the regrowth phase, highlighting the importance of continuing the experiment after the end of treatment. In the four-arm designs, the results showed that the proportions of control and treated mice can differ. To conclude, making measurements during tumor regrowth should become a general rule for informative preclinical studies in oncology, especially when a delayed drug effect is suspected.
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.