ReviewClinical & experimental metastasis2019
Metastasis in the wild: investigating metastasis in non-laboratory animals.
Review in Clinical & experimental metastasis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dissecting cancer in a non-mammalian model: genomic insights from lemon frost geckos.BMC biology · 2026Article
- Nano-Based Drug Delivery Systems: Potential Developments in the Therapy of Metastatic Osteosarcoma-A Narrative Review.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) in an Aged Raccoon (Veterinary sciences · 2022Article
- Extracellular vesicle proteomes of two transmissible cancers of Tasmanian devils reveal tenascin-C as a serum-based differential diagnostic biomarker.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2021Article
- A Systems-Based Key Innovation-Driven Approach Infers Co-option of Jaw Developmental Programs During Cancer Progression.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021Article
- Companion canines: an under-utilised model to aid in translating anti-metastatics to the clinic.Clinical & experimental metastasis · 2020Article
- A Review on Alternative Methods to Experimental Animals in Biological Testing: Recent Advancement and Current Strategies.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesReview
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
Humans are not the only species to spontaneously develop metastatic cancer as cases of metastasis have been reported in a wide range of animals, including dinosaurs. Mouse models have been an invaluable tool in experimental and clinical metastasis research, with the use of genetically-engineered mouse models that spontaneously develop metastasis or ectopic/orthotopic transplantation of tumour cells to wildtype or immunodeficient mice being responsible for many key advances in our understanding of metastasis. However, are there other species that can also be relevant models? Similarities to humans in terms of environmental exposures, life-span, genetics, histopathology and available therapeutics are all factors that can be considered when looking at species other than the laboratory mouse. This review will explore the occurrence of metastasis in multiple species from a variety of domestic, captive and free-living veterinary cases to assist in identifying potential alternative experimental and clinical research models relevant to humans.
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.