ArticleHistology and histopathology2020
Growth pattern of experimental glioblastoma.
Article in Histology and histopathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined anti-C1-INH and radiotherapy against glioblastoma.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Comparable survival in rats with intracranial glioblastoma irradiated with single-fraction conventional radiotherapy or FLASH radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Long-term anti-tumor effects following both conventional radiotherapy and FLASH in fully immunocompetent animals with glioblastoma.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Increased effect of two-fraction radiotherapy in conjunction with IDO1 inhibition in experimental glioblastoma.PloS one · 2020Article
- Comparable Long-Term Tumor Control for Hypofractionated FLASH Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy in an Immunocompetent Rat Glioma Model.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is an aggressive primary brain malignancy with a very poor prognosis. Researchers employ animal models to develop potential therapies. It is important that these models have clinical relevance. This means that old models, propagated for decades in cultures, should be questioned. Parameters to be evaluated include whether animals are immune competent or not, the infiltrative growth pattern of the tumor, tumor volume resulting in symptoms and growth rate. We here describe the growth pattern of an experimental glioblastoma model in detail with GFP positive glioblastoma cells in fully immune competent animals and study tumor growth rate and tumor mass as a function of time from inoculation. We were able to correlate findings made with classical immunohistochemistry and MR findings. The tumor growth rate was fitted by a Gompertz function. The model predicted the time until onset of symptoms for 5000 inoculated cells to 18.7±0.4 days, and the tumor mass at days 10 and 14, which are commonly used as the start of treatment in therapeutic studies, were 5.97±0.62 mg and 29.1±3.0 mg, respectively. We want to raise the question regarding the clinical relevance of the outline of glioblastoma experiments, where treatment is often initiated at a very early stage. The approach presented here could potentially be modified to gain information also from other tumor models.
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.