Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33318618›Full record

ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2021

Evaluating and comparing immunostaining and computational methods for spatial profiling of drug response in patient-derived explants.

Gareth J Miles, Ian Powley, Seid Mohammed, Lynne Howells, J Howard Pringle, Tim Hammonds, Marion MacFarlane, Catrin Pritchard

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gareth J MilesLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK. gjm14@le.ac.uk.
Ian PowleyLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Seid MohammedLeicester 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.
J Howard PringleLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
Tim HammondsCancer Research UK Therapeutic 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.
Catrin PritchardLeicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester, LE2 7LX, UK.
University of Leicester · GBMRC Toxicology Unit · GBRoyal College of Nursing · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25916Cancer Research UK C10604/A25151Medical Research Council MC_U132685863Medical Research Council MC_UU_00025/4Medical Research Council MC_UU_00025/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient-derived explants (PDEs) represent the direct culture of fragments of freshly-resected tumour tissue under conditions that retain the original architecture of the tumour. PDEs have advantages over other preclinical cancer models as platforms for predicting patient-relevant drug responses in that they preserve the tumour microenvironment and tumour heterogeneity. At endpoint, PDEs may either be processed for generation of histological sections or homogenised and processed for 'omic' evaluation of biomarker expression. A significant advantage of spatial profiling is the ability to co-register drug responses with tumour pathology, tumour heterogeneity and changes in the tumour microenvironment. Spatial profiling of PDEs relies on the utilisation of robust immunostaining approaches for validated biomarkers and incorporation of appropriate image analysis methods to quantitatively and qualitatively monitor changes in biomarker expression in response to anti-cancer drugs. Automation of immunostaining and image analysis would provide a significant advantage for the drug discovery pipeline and therefore, here, we have sought to optimise digital pathology approaches. We compare three image analysis software platforms (QuPath, ImmunoRatio and VisioPharm) for evaluating Ki67 as a marker for proliferation, cleaved PARP (cPARP) as a marker for apoptosis and pan-cytokeratin (CK) as a marker for tumour areas and find that all three generate comparable data to the views of a histomorphometrist. We also show that Virtual Double Staining of sequential sections by immunohistochemistry results in imperfect section alignment such that CK-stained tumour areas are over-estimated. Finally, we demonstrate that multi-immunofluorescence combined with digital image analysis is a superior method for monitoring multiple biomarkers simultaneously in tumour and stromal areas in PDEs.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsAntineoplastic AgentsCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungComputational BiologyDrug MonitoringHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImmunohistochemistryLung NeoplasmsTumor Cells, CulturedAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID33318618
PMCPMC7116793
OpenAlexW3111664387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.