Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31238897›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2019

Intertumoral heterogeneity in patient-specific drug sensitivities in treatment-naïve glioblastoma.

Erlend Skaga, Evgeny Kulesskiy, Artem Fayzullin, Cecilie J Sandberg, Swapnil Potdar, Aija Kyttälä, Iver A Langmoen, Aki Laakso, Emília Gaál-Paavola, Markus Perola and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05043701 (Individualized Systems Medicine Strategy for Targeting Cancer Stem Cells in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

NCT05043701 early_phase1unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Individualized Systems Medicine Strategy for Targeting Cancer Stem Cells in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma (ISM-GBM)

TypeinterventionalSponsorOslo University HospitalRan2023 to 2026Enrolled15ConditionsRecurrent GlioblastomaArmsPersonalized drug combination
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Erlend SkagaVilhelm Magnus Laboratory for Neurosurgical Research, Institute for Surgical Research and Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway. erlend.skaga@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3942-3492
Evgeny KulesskiyInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland, FIMM, University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8, 00290, Helsinki, Finland.
Artem FayzullinVilhelm Magnus Laboratory for Neurosurgical Research, Institute for Surgical Research and Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Cecilie J SandbergVilhelm Magnus Laboratory for Neurosurgical Research, Institute for Surgical Research and Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Swapnil PotdarInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland, FIMM, University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8, 00290, Helsinki, Finland.
Aija KyttäläNational Institute for Health and Welfare, Genomics and Biomarkers Unit, P.O. Box 30, FI-00271, Helsinki, Finland.
Iver A LangmoenVilhelm Magnus Laboratory for Neurosurgical Research, Institute for Surgical Research and Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
Aki LaaksoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Hospital and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Helsinki, Topeliuksenkatu 5, 00260, Helsinki, Finland.
Emília Gaál-PaavolaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Helsinki University Hospital and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Helsinki, Topeliuksenkatu 5, 00260, Helsinki, Finland.
Markus PerolaInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland, FIMM, University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8, 00290, Helsinki, Finland.
Krister WennerbergInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland, FIMM, University of Helsinki, Tukholmankatu 8, 00290, Helsinki, Finland.
Einar O Vik-MoVilhelm Magnus Laboratory for Neurosurgical Research, Institute for Surgical Research and Department of Neurosurgery, Oslo University Hospital, P.O. Box 4950 Nydalen, 0424, Oslo, Norway.
University of Helsinki · FIOslo University Hospital · NOFinnish Institute for Health and Welfare · FI

Funding

Kreftforeningen (NO) GRANT# 144402
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA major barrier to effective treatment of glioblastoma (GBM) is the large intertumoral heterogeneity at the genetic and cellular level. In early phase clinical trials, patient heterogeneity in response to therapy is commonly observed; however, how tumor heterogeneity is reflected in individual drug sensitivities in the treatment-naïve glioblastoma stem cells (GSC) is unclear.

methodsWe cultured 12 patient-derived primary GBMs as tumorspheres and validated tumor stem cell properties by functional assays. Using automated high-throughput screening (HTS), we evaluated sensitivity to 461 anticancer drugs in a collection covering most FDA-approved anticancer drugs and investigational compounds with a broad range of molecular targets. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA and Spearman correlation.

resultsAlthough tumor stem cell properties were confirmed in GSC cultures, their in vitro and in vivo morphology and behavior displayed considerable tumor-to-tumor variability. Drug screening revealed significant differences in the sensitivity to anticancer drugs (p < 0.0001). The patient-specific vulnerabilities to anticancer drugs displayed a heterogeneous pattern. They represented a variety of mechanistic drug classes, including apoptotic modulators, conventional chemotherapies, and inhibitors of histone deacetylases, heat shock proteins, proteasomes and different kinases. However, the individual GSC cultures displayed high biological consistency in drug sensitivity patterns within a class of drugs. An independent laboratory confirmed individual drug responses.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that patient-derived and treatment-naïve GSC cultures maintain patient-specific traits and display intertumoral heterogeneity in drug sensitivity to anticancer drugs. The heterogeneity in patient-specific drug responses highlights the difficulty in applying targeted treatment strategies at the population level to GBM patients. However, HTS can be applied to uncover patient-specific drug sensitivities for functional precision medicine.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Screening AssaysAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBrain NeoplasmsDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorFemaleGlioblastomaHumansMice, SCIDNeoplasm TransplantationNeoplastic Stem CellsSpheroids, CellularTumor Cells, CulturedAntineoplastic AgentsDrug sensitivityFunctional precision medicineGlioblastomaGlioblastoma stem cellsHigh-throughput drug screeningIndividualized medicine

Identifiers

PMID31238897
PMCPMC6593575
OpenAlexW2954234849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.