Cited by 100Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentBRCA gene mutations in cancerPARP inhibition in cancer therapy

Patient-derived Xenograft Models to Improve Targeted Therapy in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Treatment

Open access
Scott, Clare L., Becker, Marc A., Haluska, Paul, Samimi, Goli·2013·Frontiers in Oncology

Abstract

Despite increasing evidence that precision therapy targeted to the molecular drivers of a cancer has the potential to improve clinical outcomes, high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) patients are currently treated without consideration of molecular phenotype, and predictive biomarkers that could better inform treatment remain unknown. Delivery of precision therapy requires improved integration of laboratory-based models and cutting-edge clinical research, with pre-clinical models predicting patient subsets that will benefit from a particular targeted therapeutic. Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) are renewable tumor models engrafted in mice, generated from fresh human tumors without prior in vitro exposure. PDX models allow an invaluable assessment of tumor evolution and adaptive response to therapy. PDX models have been applied to pre-clinical drug testing and biomarker identification in a number of cancers including ovarian, pancreatic, breast, and prostate cancers. These models have been shown to be biologically stable and accurately reflect the patient tumor with regards to histopathology, gene expression, genetic mutations, and therapeutic response. However, pre-clinical analyses of molecularly annotated PDX models derived from high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HG-SOC) remain limited. In vivo response to conventional and/or targeted therapeutics has only been described for very small numbers of individual HG-SOC PDX in conjunction with sparse molecular annotation and patient outcome data. Recently, two consecutive panels of epithelial OC PDX correlate in vivo platinum response with molecular aberrations and source patient clinical outcomes. These studies underpin the value of PDX models to better direct chemotherapy and predict response to targeted therapy. Tumor heterogeneity, before and following treatment, as well as the importance of multiple molecular aberrations per individual tumor underscore some of the important issues addressed in PDX models.

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 · 10.3389/fonc.2013.00295

Cites

56 of 57 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?

  • An extensive review of ovarian cancer PDX models by Scott et al. (2013) highlighted a number of gaps in the field related to variations in methodologies, genetic stability over multiple generations, representation of few ovarian cancer histotypes and the limitation of using immunocompromised mice as hosts.

    “An extensive review of ovarian cancer PDX models by Scott et al. (2013), highlighted a number of gaps in the field related to variations in methodologies, genetic stability over multiple generations, representation of few ovarian cancer histotypes and the limitation of using immunocompromised mice as hosts.”

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

1 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scott, C. L., Becker, M. A., Haluska, P., & Samimi, G.
Affiliations
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Garvan Institute of Medical Research (AU)
Corresponding author
Samimi, Goli
Venue
Frontiers in Oncology
Published
2013
Volume
3
Pages
295-295
ISSN
2234-943X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125633887
Cited by
100
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Ovarian Cancer Research Fund (OCRF258797)
  • Australian Government
  • Australian Cancer Research Foundation
  • Cancer Australia
  • Cure Cancer Australia Foundation
  • Petre Foundation
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • Cancer Council Victoria
  • Cancer Council NSW
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA136393)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (T32DK007352)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › PARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Keywords
patient-derived xenografts, epithelial ovarian cancer, high-grade serous ovarian cancer, targeted therapy, predictive biomarkers, precision medicine, platinum response, tumor heterogeneity, molecular alterations, preclinical drug testing

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