Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29016819›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018

Tissue specificity of in vitro drug sensitivity.

Fupan Yao, Seyed Ali Madani Tonekaboni, Zhaleh Safikhani, Petr Smirnov, Nehme El-Hachem, Mark Freeman, Venkata Satya Kumar Manem, Benjamin Haibe-Kains

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Anticancer drug synergy prediction in understudied tissues using transfer learning.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors.

Fupan YaoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Seyed Ali Madani TonekaboniPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Zhaleh SafikhaniPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Petr SmirnovPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Nehme El-HachemIntegrative Systems Biology, Institut de Recherches Cliniques de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Mark FreemanPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Venkata Satya Kumar ManemPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Benjamin Haibe-KainsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: We sought to investigate the tissue specificity of drug sensitivities in large-scale pharmacological studies and compare these associations to those found in drug clinical indications. Materials and Methods: We leveraged the curated cell line response data from PharmacoGx and applied an enrichment algorithm on drug sensitivity values' area under the drug dose-response curves (AUCs) with and without adjustment for general level of drug sensitivity. Results: We observed tissue specificity in 63% of tested drugs, with 8% of total interactions deemed significant (false discovery rate <0.05). By restricting the drug-tissue interactions to those with AUC > 0.2, we found that in 52% of interactions, the tissue was predictive of drug sensitivity (concordance index > 0.65). When compared with clinical indications, the observed overlap was weak (Matthew correlation coefficient, MCC = 0.0003, P > .10). Discussion: While drugs exhibit significant tissue specificity in vitro, there is little overlap with clinical indications. This can be attributed to factors such as underlying biological differences between in vitro models and patient tumors, or the inability of tissue-specific drugs to bring additional benefits beyond gold standard treatments during clinical trials. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis of pan-cancer drug screening datasets indicates that most tested drugs exhibit tissue-specific sensitivities in a large panel of cancer cell lines. However, the observed preclinical results do not translate to the clinical setting. Our results suggest that additional research into showing parallels between preclinical and clinical data is required to increase the translational potential of in vitro drug screening.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorOrgan SpecificityAntineoplastic AgentsArea Under CurveCell Line, TumorDatasets as TopicDrug Resistance, NeoplasmHumansIn Vitro TechniquesNeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID29016819
PMCPMC6381764

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.