The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Relationships between drug activity in NCI preclinical in vitro and in vivo models and early clinical trials
Open accessAbstract
An analysis of the activity of compounds tested in pre-clinical in vivo and in vitro assays by the National Cancer Institute's Developmental Therapeutics Program was performed. For 39 agents with both xenograft data and Phase II clinical trials results available, in vivo activity in a particular histology in a tumour model did not closely correlate with activity in the same human cancer histology, casting doubt on the correspondence of the pre-clinical models to clinical results. However, for compounds with in vivo activity in at least one-third of tested xenograft models, there was correlation with ultimate activity in at least some Phase II trials. Thus, an efficient means of predicting activity in vivo models remains desirable for compounds with anti-proliferative activity in vitro. For 564 compounds tested in the hollow fibre assay which were also tested against in vivo tumour models, the likelihood of finding xenograft activity in at least one-third of the in vivo models tested rose with increasing intraperitoneal hollow fibre activity, from 8% for all compounds tested to 20% in agents with evidence of response in more than 6 intraperitoneal fibres (P< 0.0001). Intraperitoneal hollow fibre activity was also found to be a better predictor of xenograft activity than either subcutaneous hollow fibre activity or intraperitoneal plus subcutaneous activity combined. Since hollow fibre activity was a useful indicator of potential in vivo response, correlates with hollow fibre activity were examined for 2304 compounds tested in both the NCI 60 cell line in vitro cancer drug screen and hollow fibre assay. A positive correlation was found for histologic selectivity between in vitro and hollow fibre responses. The most striking correlation was between potency in the 60 cell line screen and hollow fibre activity; 56% of compounds with mean 50% growth inhibition below 10(-7.5) M were active in more than 6 intraperitoneal fibres whereas only 4% of compounds with a potency of 10(-4) M achieved the same level of hollow fibre activity (P< 0.0001). Structural parameters of the drugs analysed included compound molecular weight and hydrogen-bonding factors, both of which were found to be predictive of hollow fibre activity.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. (2001) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0169-409x(00)00129-0 · Cited by 18,139
Cited by
Olive, K. P., Jacobetz, M. A., Davidson, C. J., Gopinathan, A., McIntyre, D., Honess, D., Madhu, B., Goldgraben, M. A., Caldwell, M. E., Allard, D., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1171362 · Cited by 3,170
Engineered Nanoparticles for Drug Delivery in Cancer Therapy
Sun, T., Zhang, Y. S., Pang, B., Hyun, D. C., Yang, M., & Xia, Y. (2014) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201403036 · Cited by 2,164
The Pancreas Cancer Microenvironment
Feig, C., Gopinathan, A., Neesse, A., Chan, D. S., Cook, N., & Tuveson, D. A. (2012) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-3114 · Cited by 1,316
Patient-derived tumour xenografts as models for oncology drug development
Tentler, J. J., Tan, A. C., Weekes, C. D., Jimeno, A., Leong, S., Pitts, T. M., Arcaroli, J. J., Messersmith, W. A., & Eckhardt, S. G. (2012) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.61 · Cited by 1,277
The use of 3-d cultures for high-throughput screening: the multicellular spheroid model.
Kunz-Schughart, L. A., Freyer, J. P., Hofstaedter, F., & Ebner, R. (2004) · SLAS DISCOVERY · doi:10.1177/1087057104265040 · Cited by 797
Preclinical Mouse Cancer Models: A Maze of Opportunities and Challenges
Day, C.-P., Merlino, G., & Van Dyke, T. (2015) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.068 · Cited by 676
(2003) · PubMed · Cited by 523
Establishment of human tumor xenografts in immunodeficient mice
Morton, C. L., & Houghton, P. J. (2007) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2007.25 · Cited by 489
The pediatric preclinical testing program: Description of models and early testing results
Houghton, P. J., Morton, C. L., Tucker, C., Payne, D., Favours, E., Cole, C., Gorlick, R., Kolb, E. A., Zhang, W., Lock, R., et al. (2007) · Pediatric Blood & Cancer · doi:10.1002/pbc.21078 · Cited by 480
Oral Mucosal Organoids as a Potential Platform for Personalized Cancer Therapy
Driehuis, E., Kolders, S., Spelier, S., Lõhmussaar, K., Willems, S. M., Devriese, L. A., de Bree, R., de Ruiter, E. J., Korving, J., Begthel, H., et al. (2019) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-18-1522 · Cited by 408
Generation of Multicellular Tumor Spheroids with Microwell-Based Agarose Scaffolds for Drug Testing
Gong, X., Lin, C., Cheng, J., Su, J., Zhao, H., Liu, T., Wen, X., & Zhao, P. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130348 · Cited by 373
Engineering cellular microenvironments to improve cell-based drug testing
Bhadriraju, K., & Chen, C. S. (2002) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(02)02273-0 · Cited by 355
Holbeck, S. L., Camalier, R., Crowell, J. A., Govindharajulu, J. P., Hollingshead, M., Anderson, L. W., Polley, E., Rubinstein, L., Srivastava, A., Wilsker, D., et al. (2017) · Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-0489 · Cited by 359
Self-citationKelland, L. R. (2004) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.028 · Cited by 352
What's wrong with our cancer models?
Kamb, A. (2005) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1635 · Cited by 335
Preclinical mouse solid tumour models: status quo, challenges and perspectives
Gengenbacher, N., Singhal, M., & Augustin, H. G. (2017) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc.2017.92 · Cited by 332
Translational value of mouse models in oncology drug development
Gould, S. E., Junttila, M. R., & de Sauvage, F. J. (2015) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/nm.3853 · Cited by 293
Kim-Fuchs, C., Le, C. P., Pimentel, M. A., Shackleford, D., Ferrari, D., Angst, E., Hollande, F., & Sloan, E. K. (2014) · Brain, Behavior, and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2014.02.019 · Cited by 287
Systematic reviews of animal models: methodology versus epistemology
Greek, R., & Menache, A. (2013) · International Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.7150/ijms.5529 · Cited by 207
Pillarisetti, K., Edavettal, S., Mendonça, M., Li, Y., Tornetta, M., Babich, A., Majewski, N., Husovsky, M., Reeves, D., Walsh, E., et al. (2020) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood.2019003342 · Cited by 174
Unger, C., Kramer, N., Walzl, A., Scherzer, M., Hengstschläger, M., & Dolznig, H. (2014) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2014.10.015 · Cited by 158
Nanomedicines: from bench to bedside and beyond.
Havel, H., Finch, G., Strode, P., Wolfgang, M., Zale, S., Bobe, I., Youssoufian, H., Peterson, M., & Liu, M. (2016) · The AAPS Journal · doi:10.1208/s12248-016-9961-7 · Cited by 149
Pillarisetti, K., Powers, G., Luistro, L., Babich, A., Baldwin, E., Li, Y., Zhang, X., Mendonça, M., Majewski, N., Nanjunda, R., et al. (2020) · Blood Advances · doi:10.1182/bloodadvances.2020002393 · Cited by 144
“As defined by National Cancer Institute criteria,$60% TGI is considered biologically significant.(32) Animals were removed from the studies when a maximum tumor volume of $1500 mm(3) was reached or when adverse clinical signs of pain and distress were noted.”
BackgroundWong, H., Choo, E. F., Alicke, B., Ding, X., La, H., McNamara, E., Theil, F.-P., Tibbitts, J., Friedman, L. S., Hop, C. E. C. A., et al. (2012) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-0738 · Cited by 133
Combination therapeutics in complex diseases
He, B., Lu, C., Zheng, G., He, X., Wang, M., Chen, G., Zhang, G., & Lu, A. (2016) · Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1111/jcmm.12930 · Cited by 112
Molecular imaging with SPECT as a tool for drug development
Gomes, C. M., Abrunhosa, A. J., Ramos, P., & Pauwels, E. K. J. (2011) · Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.addr.2010.09.015 · Cited by 100
Goldstein, S. D., Trucco, M., Guzman, W. B., Hayashi, M., & Loeb, D. M. (2016) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.8522 · Cited by 78
Proteinaceous Hydrogels for Bioengineering Advanced 3D Tumor Models
Blanco‐Fernandez, B., Gaspar, V. M., Engel, E., & Mano, J. F. (2021) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202003129 · Cited by 78
HLA class I and II genotype of the NCI-60 cell lines
Adams, S., Robbins, F.-M., Chen, D., Wagage, D., Holbeck, S. L., Morse, H. C., Stroncek, D., & Marincola, F. M. (2005) · Journal of Translational Medicine · doi:10.1186/1479-5876-3-11 · Cited by 68
Sirianni, R., Zolea, F., Chimento, A., Ruggiero, C., Cerquetti, L., Fallo, F., Pilon, C., Arnaldi, G., Carpinelli, G., Stigliano, A., et al. (2012) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2012-2374 · Cited by 58
Heylman, C., Sobrino, A., Shirure, V. S., Hughes, C. C., & George, S. C. (2014) · Experimental Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1177/1535370214525295 · Cited by 53
Xiang, X., Phung, Y., Feng, M., Nagashima, K., Zhang, J., Broaddus, V. C., Hassan, R., FitzGerald, D., & Ho, M. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014640 · Cited by 51
Two unsuccessful clinical trials on endometriosis and a few lessons learned
Guo, S.-W., & Olive, D. L. (2007) · Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation · doi:10.1159/000098413 · Cited by 49
Thompson, P. A., Eam, B., Young, N. P., Fish, S., Chen, J., Barrera, M., Howard, H., Sung, E., Parra, A., Staunton, J., et al. (2021) · Molecular Cancer Therapeutics · doi:10.1158/1535-7163.mct-19-0973 · Cited by 50
Pham, K., Delitto, D., Knowlton, A. E., Hartlage, E. R., Madhavan, R., Gonzalo, D. H., Thomas, R. M., Behrns, K. E., George, T. J., Hughes, S. J., et al. (2016) · The American Journal of Pathology · doi:10.1016/j.ajpath.2016.02.009 · Cited by 46
Canine Cancer: Strategies in Experimental Therapeutics
Thamm, D. H. (2019) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.01257 · Cited by 38
Li, W., Zhou, Y., Deng, Y., & Khoo, B. L. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14030818 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, J. I., Decker, S., Zaharevitz, D., Rubinstein, L. V., Venditti, J. M., Schepartz, S., Kalyandrug, S., Christian, M., Arbuck, S., Hollingshead, M., & Sausville, E. A.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1424-1431
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W1992252639
- Cited by
- 856
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
