Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27517155›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2016

Patient-derived xenograft models of colorectal cancer in pre-clinical research: a systematic review.

Kai M Brown, Aiqun Xue, Anubhav Mittal, Jaswinder S Samra, Ross Smith, Thomas J Hugh

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Kai M BrownNorthern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Aiqun XueCancer Surgery and Metabolism Research Group, The Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anubhav MittalNorthern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jaswinder S SamraNorthern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ross SmithCancer Surgery and Metabolism Research Group, The Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Thomas J HughNorthern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsWe sought to objectively assess the internal and external validity of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models as a platform in pre-clinical research into colorectal cancer (CRC). Metastatic disease is the most common cause of death from CRC, and despite significant research, the results of current combination chemotherapy and targeted therapies have been underwhelming for most of this patient group. One of the key factors limiting the success of translational CRC research is the biologically inaccurate models in which new therapies are developed.

methodsWe used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and SYRCLE (Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation) guidelines to search Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases up to July 2015 to identify studies involving PDX models of CRC where the model had been validated across multiple parameters. Data was extracted including host mouse strain, engraftment rate, site of engraftment, donor tumour source and development of metastases in the model.

resultsThirteen articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. There was significant heterogeneity amongst the included studies, but overall the median engraftment rate was high (70%) and PDX models faithfully recapitulated the characteristics of their patient tumours on the microscopic, genetic and functional levels.

conclusionsPDX models of CRC have a reasonable internal validity and a high external validity. Developments in xenografting technology are broadening the applications of the PDX platform. However, the included studies could be improved by standardising reporting standards and closed following the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) guidelines.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalTranslational Research, BiomedicalXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysAnimalsColorectal NeoplasmsHumansMicePatientsanimal modelcolorectal cancerpatient-derived xenograftPDXsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27517155
PMCPMC5323228

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.