Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28283654›Full record

ArticleCancer research2017

A Model-Based Personalized Cancer Screening Strategy for Detecting Early-Stage Tumors Using Blood-Borne Biomarkers.

Sharon Seiko Hori, Amelie M Lutz, Ramasamy Paulmurugan, Sanjiv Sam Gambhir

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A hitchhiker's guide to cancer models.Trends in biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Minicircles for a two-step blood biomarker and PET imaging early cancer detection strategy.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sharon Seiko HoriDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Amelie M LutzDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Ramasamy PaulmuruganDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Sanjiv Sam GambhirDepartment of Radiology, Molecular Imaging Program at Stanford (MIPS), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. sgambhir@stanford.edu.
Stanford Medicine · US

Funding

Small Animal ImagingP50CA114747 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI RAO, JIANGHONG · 2005 to 2014
$18.2M
Stanford Molecular Imaging Scholars - SMISR25CA118681 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LEVIN, CRAIG S · 2006 to 2015
$5.0M
Modeling and Predicting Therapeutic Resistance of CancerU01CA188383 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI FELSHER, DEAN W, GAMBHIR, SANJIV S · 2014 to 2018
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA114747NCI NIH HHS R25 CA118681NCI NIH HHS U01 CA188383
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An effective cancer blood biomarker screening strategy must distinguish aggressive from nonaggressive tumors at an early, intervenable time. However, for blood-based strategies to be useful, the quantity of biomarker shed into the blood and its relationship to tumor growth or progression must be validated. To study how blood biomarker levels correlate with early-stage viable tumor growth in a mouse model of human cancer, we monitored early tumor growth of engineered human ovarian cancer cells (A2780) implanted orthotopically into nude mice. Biomarker shedding was monitored by serial blood sampling, whereas tumor viability and volume were monitored by bioluminescence imaging and ultrasound imaging. From these metrics, we developed a mathematical model of cancer biomarker kinetics that accounts for biomarker shedding from tumor and healthy cells, biomarker entry into vasculature, biomarker elimination from plasma, and subject-specific tumor growth. We validated the model in a separate set of mice in which subject-specific tumor growth rates were accurately predicted. To illustrate clinical translation of this strategy, we allometrically scaled model parameters from mouse to human and used parameters for PSA shedding and prostate cancer. In this manner, we found that blood biomarker sampling data alone were capable of enabling the detection and discrimination of simulated aggressive (2-month tumor doubling time) and nonaggressive (18-month tumor doubling time) tumors as early as 7.2 months and 8.9 years before clinical imaging, respectively. Our model and screening strategy offers broad impact in their applicability to any solid cancer and associated biomarkers shed, thereby allowing a distinction between aggressive and nonaggressive tumors using blood biomarker sampling data alone.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorEarly Detection of CancerModels, TheoreticalPrecision MedicineAlgorithmsAnimalsCell Line, TumorCell SurvivalDiagnostic ImagingDisease Models, AnimalFemaleGene ExpressionGenes, ReporterHeterograftsHumansMiceBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID28283654
PMCPMC6010058
OpenAlexW2591773109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.