ArticlePloS one2022
Tumor growth monitoring in breast cancer xenografts: A good technique for a strong ethic.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced subcutaneous delivery of antibody-drug conjugates with recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20: pharmacokinetics and tolerability in minipigs.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- Human induced neural progenitor cells generated from three-dimensional aggregate-based culture significantly improve post-stroke recovery in tMCAO mice.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Article
- A1, an innovative fluorinated CXCR4 inhibitor, redefines the therapeutic landscape in colorectal cancer.Cancer cell international · 2025Article
- Liposomal Formulation of an Organogold Complex Enhancing Its Activity as Antimelanoma Agent-In Vitro and In Vivo Studies.Pharmaceutics · 2024Article
- A nanoencapsulated oral formulation of fenretinide promotes local and metastatic breast cancer dormancy in HER2/neu transgenic mice.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2024Article
- Establishment of Translational Luciferase-Based Cancer Models to Evaluate Antitumoral Therapies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Fast Ultrasound Scanning is a Rapid, Sensitive, Precise and Cost-Effective Method to Monitor Tumor Grafts in Mice.Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia · 2024Article
- Harnessing HfOACS nano · 2024Article
- Article
- Oct4 and Hypoxia Dual-Regulated Oncolytic Adenovirus Armed with shRNA-Targeting Dendritic Cell Immunoreceptor Exerts Potent Antitumor Activity against Bladder Cancer.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- The radioprotectant nano-genistein enhances radiotherapy efficacy of lung tumors in mice.Translational lung cancer research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough recent regulations improved conditions of laboratory animals, their use remains essential in cancer research to determine treatment efficacy. In most cases, such experiments are performed on xenografted animals for which tumor volume is mostly estimated from caliper measurements. However, many formulas have been employed for this estimation and no standardization is available yet.
methodsUsing previous animal studies, we compared all formulas used by the scientific community in 2019. Data were collected from 93 mice orthotopically xenografted with human breast cancer cells. All formulas were evaluated and ranked based on correlation and lower mean relative error. They were then used in a Gompertz quantitative model of tumor growth.
resultsSeven formulas for tumor volume estimation were identified and a statistically significant difference was observed among them (ANOVA test, p < 2.10-16), with the ellipsoid formula (1/6 π × L × W × (L + W)/2) being the most accurate (mean relative error = 0.272 ± 0.201). This was confirmed by the mathematical modeling analysis where this formula resulted in the smallest estimated residual variability. Interestingly, such result was no longer valid for tumors over 1968 ± 425 mg, for which a cubic formula (L x W x H) should be preferred. MAIN
findingsWhen considering that tumor volume remains under 1500mm3, to limit animal stress, improve tumor growth monitoring and go toward mathematic models, the following formula 1/6 π × L × W x (L + W)/2 should be preferred.
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.