Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36178898›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Tumor growth monitoring in breast cancer xenografts: A good technique for a strong ethic.

Anne Rodallec, Cristina Vaghi, Joseph Ciccolini, Raphaelle Fanciullino, Sebastien Benzekry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Harnessing HfOACS nano · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors.

Anne RodallecCOMPO, CRCM, INRIA Sophia Antipolis, INSERM UMR1068, CNRS UMR7258, AMU U105, IPC, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0787-8241
Cristina VaghiMONC, Inria Bordeaux Sud-Ouest, Talence, France.
Joseph CiccoliniCOMPO, CRCM, INRIA Sophia Antipolis, INSERM UMR1068, CNRS UMR7258, AMU U105, IPC, Marseille, France.
Raphaelle FanciullinoCOMPO, CRCM, INRIA Sophia Antipolis, INSERM UMR1068, CNRS UMR7258, AMU U105, IPC, Marseille, France.
Sebastien BenzekryCOMPO, CRCM, INRIA Sophia Antipolis, INSERM UMR1068, CNRS UMR7258, AMU U105, IPC, Marseille, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3749-8637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast NeoplasmsAnimalsFemaleHeterograftsHumansMiceModels, TheoreticalTransplantation, HeterologousTumor Burden

Identifiers

PMID36178898
PMCPMC9524649

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.