Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31282586›Full record

ReviewThe EMBO journal2019

Xenograft and organoid model systems in cancer research.

Margit Bleijs, Marc van de Wetering, Hans Clevers, Jarno Drost

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The EMBO journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 264 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
264citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
20.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

264 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 400 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Organoid technology in cancer research.Molecular biomedicine · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

204 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Margit BleijsOncode Institute, Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marc van de WeteringOncode Institute, Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hans CleversOncode Institute, Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3077-5582
Jarno DrostOncode Institute, Princess Máxima Center for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2941-6179
Oncode Institute · NLRoyal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences · NL

Funding

Dutch Cancer Society 10218
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-derived tumour xenografts and tumour organoids have become important preclinical model systems for cancer research. Both models maintain key features from their parental tumours, such as genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity, which allows them to be used for a wide spectrum of applications. In contrast to patient-derived xenografts, organoids can be established and expanded with high efficiency from primary patient material. On the other hand, xenografts retain tumour-stroma interactions, which are known to contribute to tumorigenesis. In this review, we discuss recent advances in patient-derived tumour xenograft and tumour organoid model systems and compare their promises and challenges as preclinical models in cancer research.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell Line, TumorDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansModels, BiologicalNeoplasmsOrganoidsXenograft Model Antitumor Assayscancerorganoidspreclinical modelstumour heterogeneityxenografts

Identifiers

PMID31282586
PMCPMC6670015
OpenAlexW2953395929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.