Cited by 121Animal testing and alternativesCancer Cells and MetastasisScience, Research, and Medicine

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 163 of the 166 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Harnessing the predictive power of preclinical models for oncology drug development

Abstract

Recent progress in understanding the molecular basis of cellular processes, identification of promising therapeutic targets and evolution of the regulatory landscape makes this an exciting and unprecedented time to be in the field of oncology drug development. However, high costs, long development timelines and steep rates of attrition continue to afflict the drug development process. Lack of predictive preclinical models is considered one of the key reasons for the high rate of attrition in oncology. Generating meaningful and predictive results preclinically requires a firm grasp of the relevant biological questions and alignment of the model systems that mirror the patient context. In doing so, the ability to conduct both forward translation, the process of implementing basic research discoveries into practice, as well as reverse translation, the process of elucidating the mechanistic basis of clinical observations, greatly enhances our ability to develop effective anticancer treatments. In this Review, we outline issues in preclinical-to-clinical translatability of molecularly targeted cancer therapies, present concepts and examples of successful reverse translation, and highlight the need to better align tumour biology in patients with preclinical model systems including tracking of strengths and weaknesses of preclinical models throughout programme development.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41573-021-00301-6

Cites

163 of 163 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 166 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lightfoot, J. T., Bamman, M. M. & Booth, F. W. Translation goes both ways: the power of reverse translation from human trials into animal models. Transl. J. Am. Coll. Sports Med. 2, 29–31 (2017).
  2. Jarnuczak, A. F. et al. An integrated landscape of protein expression in human cancer. Preprint at biorxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/665968v1.abstract (2019). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–121 of 121

Metadata

Authors
Honkala, A., Malhotra, S. V., Kummar, S., & Junttila, M. R.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kummar, Shivaani
  • Junttila, Melissa R.
Venue
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Published
2021-10-26
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
99-114
ISSN
  • 1474-1776 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1784
OpenAlex
W3210942885
Cited by
121
References
166
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Science, Research, and Medicine
Keywords
anticancer drug development, preclinical models, prediction model, translational research, forward translation, reverse translation, molecularly targeted cancer therapy, drug attrition, tumor biology
MeSH terms
Drug Development, Animals, Antineoplastic Agents, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Humans, Neoplasms, Biomarkers, Tumor, Molecular Targeted Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review