ArticleCancer research2016
Evaluation of Alternative In Vivo Drug Screening Methodology: A Single Mouse Analysis.
Article in 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.
- Clinical utility of PDX cohorts to reveal biomarkers of intrinsic resistance and clonal architecture changes underlying acquired resistance to cetuximab in HNSCC.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022Trial
- The ITCC-P4 PDX Platform Enables Preclinical Testing of Pediatric Cancers.Cancer research · 2026Article
- Preclinical Activity of the B7-H3-Targeting Antibody-Drug Conjugate Vobramitamab Duocarmazine in Pediatric Solid Tumors.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026Article
- Defining the Functional Role and Potential as an Immunotherapeutic Target of ALCAM in Neuroblastoma.Molecular cancer therapeutics · 2026Article
- Surface-engineered dual drug-loaded tumor-targeted liposomal nanoparticles to overcome the therapeutic resistance in glioblastoma multiforme.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Antitumor Activity of Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Pediatric Solid Tumors with Variable HER2 Expression.Molecular cancer therapeutics · 2026Article
- Preclinical Modeling of Navtemadlin Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Efficacy in IDH-Wild-type Glioblastoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2025Article
- Functional characterization of the ATOH1 molecular subtype indicates a pro-metastatic role in small cell lung cancer.Cell reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- The CD123 antibody-drug conjugate pivekimab sunirine exerts profound activity in preclinical models of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia.HemaSphere · 2025Article
- Lessons learned from 20 years of preclinical testing in pediatric cancers.Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2024Review
- Article
- A proteogenomic surfaceome study identifies DLK1 as an immunotherapeutic target in neuroblastoma.Cancer cell · 2024Article
- The third generation AKR1C3-activated prodrug, ACHM-025, eradicates disease in preclinical models of aggressive T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia.Blood cancer journal · 2024Article
- Microfluidics in High-Throughput Drug Screening: Organ-on-a-Chip andBiosensors · 2024Review
- Genomic profiling of subcutaneous patient-derived xenografts reveals immune constraints on tumor evolution in childhood solid cancer.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Pre-clinical investigation of astatine-211-parthanatine for high-risk neuroblastoma.Communications biology · 2022Article
- LRH-1/NR5A2 interacts with the glucocorticoid receptor to regulate glucocorticoid resistance.EMBO reports · 2022Article
- Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models, applications and challenges in cancer research.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional approaches to evaluating antitumor agents using human tumor xenograft models have generally used cohorts of 8 to 10 mice against a limited panel of tumor models. An alternative approach is to use fewer animals per tumor line, allowing a greater number of models that capture greater molecular/genetic heterogeneity of the cancer type. We retrospectively analyzed 67 agents evaluated by the Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program to determine whether a single mouse, chosen randomly from each group of a study, predicted the median response for groups of mice using 83 xenograft models. The individual tumor response from a randomly chosen mouse was compared with the group median response using established response criteria. A total of 2,134 comparisons were made. The single tumor response accurately predicted the group median response in 1,604 comparisons (75.16%). The mean tumor response correct prediction rate for 1,000 single mouse random samples was 78.09%. Models had a range for correct prediction (60%-87.5%). Allowing for misprediction of ± one response category, the overall mean correct single mouse prediction rate was 95.28%, and predicted overall objective response rates for group data in 66 of 67 drug studies. For molecularly targeted agents, occasional exceptional responder models were identified and the activity of that agent confirmed in additional models with the same genotype. Assuming that large treatment effects are targeted, this alternate experimental design has similar predictive value as traditional approaches, allowing for far greater numbers of models to be used that more fully encompass the heterogeneity of disease types. Cancer Res; 76(19); 5798-809. ©2016 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.