ArticlePeerJ2018
A systematic review of the validity of patient derived xenograft (PDX) models: the implications for translational research and personalised medicine.
Article in PeerJ, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Derived Orthotopic Xenograft models in gastric cancer: a systematic review.Updates in surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Review
- Harnessing PDX and PDX 2.0: the next-generation paradigm for precision oncology and translational breakthroughs.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- From 2D cultures to 3D systems: evolving cancer models at the interface of functional precision medicine and theranostics.Theranostics · 2026Review
- Advances and challenges in human 3D solid tumor models.Advanced functional materials · 2025Article
- Establishing Patient-Derived Xenograft (PDX) Models of Lymphomas.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- The roles of patient-derived xenograft models and artificial intelligence toward precision medicine.MedComm · 2024Review
- Personalizing non-small cell lung cancer treatment through patient-derived xenograft models: preclinical and clinical factors for consideration.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024Article
- Patient-Derived-Xenografts in Mice: A Preclinical Platform for Cancer Research.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024Review
- High efficacy of huCD20-targeted AcTaferon in humanized patient derived xenograft models of aggressive B cell lymphoma.Experimental hematology & oncology · 2024Article
- The Power and Promise of Patient-Derived Xenografts of Human Breast Cancer.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024Review
- Consistency between Primary Uterine Corpus Malignancies and Their Corresponding Patient-Derived Xenograft Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Patient-Derived Xenografts: Historical Evolution, Immunocompromised Host Models, and Translational Significance.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Patient-derived tumor models: a suitable tool for preclinical studies on esophageal cancer.Cancer gene therapy · 2023Review
- Unlocking Translational Potential: Conditionally Reprogrammed Cells in Advancing Breast Cancer Research.Cells · 2023Review
- Proteomics in Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: Challenges and Opportunities.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Generation, evolution, interfering factors, applications, and challenges of patient-derived xenograft models in immunodeficient mice.Cancer cell international · 2023Review
- Patient-derived xenograft models in cancer therapy: technologies and applications.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2023Review
- 3D Tumor Models in Urology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models are increasingly being used in oncology drug development because they offer greater predictive value than traditional cell line models. Using novel tools to critique model validity and reliability we performed a systematic review to identify all original publications describing the derivation of PDX models of colon, prostate, breast and lung cancer. Validity was defined as the ability to recapitulate the disease of interest. The study protocol was registered with the Collaborative Approach to Meta-Analysis and Review of Animal Data from Experimental Studies (CAMARADES). Searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE and Pubmed up to July 2017. A narrative data synthesis was performed. We identified 105 studies of model validations; 29 for breast, 29 for colon, 25 for lung, 23 for prostate and 4 for multiple tissues. 133 studies were excluded because they did not perform any validation experiments despite deriving a PDX. Only one study reported following the ARRIVE guidelines; developed to improve the standard of reporting for animal experimentation. Remarkably, half of all breast (52%) and prostate (50%) studies were judged to have high concern, in contrast to 16% of colon and 28% of lung studies. The validation criteria that most commonly failed (evidence to the contrary) were: tissue of origin not proven and histology of the xenograft not comparable to the parental tumour. Overall, most studies were categorized as unclear because one or more validation conditions were not reported, or researchers failed to provide data for a proportion of their models. For example, failure to demonstrate tissue of origin, response to standard of care agents and to exclude development of lymphoma. Validation tools have the potential to improve reproducibility, reduce waste in research and increase the success of translational studies.
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.