Cited by 69Animal testing and alternativesCancer Cells and MetastasisVeterinary Oncology Research

Evaluation of Alternative In Vivo Drug Screening Methodology: A Single Mouse Analysis

Open access
Murphy, Brendan, Yin, Han, Maris, John M., Kolb, E. Anders, Gorlick, Richard, Reynolds, C. Patrick, Kang, Min H., Keir, Stephen T. +8 more·2016·Cancer Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Traditional approaches to evaluating antitumor agents using human tumor xenograft models have generally used cohorts of 8 to 10 mice against a limited panel of tumor models. An alternative approach is to use fewer animals per tumor line, allowing a greater number of models that capture greater molecular/genetic heterogeneity of the cancer type. We retrospectively analyzed 67 agents evaluated by the Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program to determine whether a single mouse, chosen randomly from each group of a study, predicted the median response for groups of mice using 83 xenograft models. The individual tumor response from a randomly chosen mouse was compared with the group median response using established response criteria. A total of 2,134 comparisons were made. The single tumor response accurately predicted the group median response in 1,604 comparisons (75.16%). The mean tumor response correct prediction rate for 1,000 single mouse random samples was 78.09%. Models had a range for correct prediction (60%–87.5%). Allowing for misprediction of ± one response category, the overall mean correct single mouse prediction rate was 95.28%, and predicted overall objective response rates for group data in 66 of 67 drug studies. For molecularly targeted agents, occasional exceptional responder models were identified and the activity of that agent confirmed in additional models with the same genotype. Assuming that large treatment effects are targeted, this alternate experimental design has similar predictive value as traditional approaches, allowing for far greater numbers of models to be used that more fully encompass the heterogeneity of disease types. Cancer Res; 76(19); 5798–809. ©2016 AACR.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-0122

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [48]Kolb EA Gorlick R Houghton PJ Morton CL Neale G Keir ST Initial testing (stage 1) of AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) by the Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program Pediatr Blood Cancer 2010 55 4 668 77 20806365 PMC3004092
  2. [50]Smith MA Hampton OA Reynolds CP Kang MH Maris JM Gorlick R Initial testing (stage 1) of the PARP inhibitor BMN 673 by the Pediatric Preclinical Testing Program: PALB2 mutation predicts exceptional in vivo response to BMN 673 Pediatr Blood Cancer 2015 62 91 98 25263539 PMC4456187

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Murphy, B., Yin, H., Maris, J. M., Kolb, E. A., Gorlick, R., Reynolds, C. P., Kang, M. H., Keir, S. T., Kurmasheva, R. T., Dvorchik, I., Wu, J., Billups, C. A., Boateng, N., Smith, M. A., Lock, R. B., & Houghton, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Nationwide Children's Hospital (US)
  • Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (US)
  • Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children (US)
  • Children's Hospital at Montefiore (US)
  • Texas Tech University (US)
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • Children's Cancer Institute Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Houghton, Peter J.
Venue
Cancer Research
Published
2016-10-01
Volume
76
Issue
19
Pages
5798-5809
ISSN
  • 0008-5472 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7445
OpenAlex
W2492058432
Cited by
69
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
11.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (NO1-CM42216 and UO1CA199297)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Veterinary Oncology Research
Keywords
tumor xenograft models, anticancer drug screening, predictive value, objective response rate, molecularly targeted agents, childhood cancer, tumor heterogeneity
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays, Cell Line, Tumor, Mice, Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma

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