Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27612010›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2017

Tumour and normal tissue radiobiology in mouse models: how close are mice to mini-humans?

Bridget F Koontz, Frank Verhaegen, Dirk De Ruysscher

Abstract readComparative StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

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

3 authors.

Bridget F Koontz1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4782-208X
Frank Verhaegen2 Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Dirk De Ruysscher2 Department of Radiation Oncology (MAASTRO), GROW-School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal modelling is essential to the study of radiobiology and the advancement of clinical radiation oncology by providing preclinical data. Mouse models in particular have been highly utilized in the study of both tumour and normal tissue radiobiology because of their cost effectiveness and versatility. Technology has significantly advanced in preclinical radiation techniques to allow highly conformal image-guided irradiation of small animals in an effort to mimic human treatment capabilities. However, the biological and physical limitations of animal modelling should be recognized and considered when interpreting preclinical radiotherapy (RT) studies. Murine tumour and normal tissue radioresponse has been shown to vary from human cellular and molecular pathways. Small animal irradiation techniques utilize different anatomical boundaries and may have different physical properties than human RT. This review addresses the difference between the human condition and mouse models and discusses possible strategies for future refinement of murine models of cancer and radiation for the benefit of both basic radiobiology and clinical translation.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalRadiobiologyAnimalsHumansMiceNeoplasmsRadiotherapy, Computer-AssistedReference Values

Identifiers

PMID27612010
PMCPMC5605019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.