Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31894140›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of cancer2020

Patient-derived explants (PDEs) as a powerful preclinical platform for anti-cancer drug and biomarker discovery.

Ian R Powley, Meeta Patel, Gareth Miles, Howard Pringle, Lynne Howells, Anne Thomas, Catherine Kettleborough, Justin Bryans, Tim Hammonds, Marion MacFarlane and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 142 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
142citing papers in PubMed
10.6field-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

142 citing papers in PubMed, 205 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Exploring endometriosis through 3DMaterials today. Bio · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

82 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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ian R PowleyLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. irp2@le.ac.uk.
Meeta PatelLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Gareth MilesLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Howard PringleLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Lynne HowellsLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Anne ThomasLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Catherine KettleboroughLifeArc, Accelerator Building, Open Innovation Campus, Stevenage, SG1 2FX, UK.
Justin BryansLifeArc, Accelerator Building, Open Innovation Campus, Stevenage, SG1 2FX, UK.
Tim HammondsCancer Research UK, Therapeutics Discovery Laboratories, London Bioscience Innovation Centre, 2 Royal College Street, London, NW1 0NH, UK.
Marion MacFarlaneMRC Toxicology Unit, Hodgkin Building, Lancaster Road, Leicester, LE1 9HN, UK. mm21@le.ac.uk.
Catrin PritchardLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. cap8@le.ac.uk.
University of Leicester · GBLifeArc · GBCancer Research UK · GBMRC Toxicology Unit · GB

Funding

Breast Cancer Now (BCN) 2017NOVPCC1066Cancer Research UK (CRUK) C10604/A25151Medical Research Council MC_PC_14117Medical Research Council MC_PC_15045Medical Research Council MC_PC_16051Medical Research Council MC_U132685863Medical Research Council MC_UU_00025/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_00025/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preclinical models that can accurately predict outcomes in the clinic are much sought after in the field of cancer drug discovery and development. Existing models such as organoids and patient-derived xenografts have many advantages, but they suffer from the drawback of not contextually preserving human tumour architecture. This is a particular problem for the preclinical testing of immunotherapies, as these agents require an intact tumour human-specific microenvironment for them to be effective. In this review, we explore the potential of patient-derived explants (PDEs) for fulfilling this need. PDEs involve the ex vivo culture of fragments of freshly resected human tumours that retain the histological features of original tumours. PDE methodology for anti-cancer drug testing has been in existence for many years, but the platform has not been widely adopted in translational research facilities, despite strong evidence for its clinical predictivity. By modifying PDE endpoint analysis to include the spatial profiling of key biomarkers by using multispectral imaging, we argue that PDEs offer many advantages, including the ability to correlate drug responses with tumour pathology, tumour heterogeneity and changes in the tumour microenvironment. As such, PDEs are a powerful model of choice for cancer drug and biomarker discovery programmes.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsDisease Models, AnimalDrug DiscoveryDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorHumansMiceNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineProteomicsTissue Culture TechniquesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID31894140
PMCPMC7078311
OpenAlexW2998568935

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.