Elizabeth Sugar1, Adam J Pascoe, Nilofer Azad. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Characterize the parameters of reporting tumor-graft experiments for oncologic drug development. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Using Institute of Scientific Information impact factors, we identified the most-cited medical and oncology journals with tumor-graft experiments in murine models. For each article, the characteristics of the experimental design, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis were examined. RESULTS: We examined 145 articles describing tumor-graft experiments from October through December 2008. The articles spanned a range of disease types, animal models, treatments and delivery methods. One hundred (69%) articles were missing information needed to replicate the experiments. Outcome measurements included: tumor size (83%), biological changes (57%), and survival or cure-rate outcomes (28%). Thirty-three percent did not specify how tumor size was measured and 30% were missing the formula for evaluating volume. Only 14% utilized appropriate statistical methods. Ninety-one percent of studies were reported as positive and 7% reported with mixed positive-negative results; only 2% of studies were reported negative or inconclusive. Twenty-two articles from 2012 showed improvement in the utilization of statistical methods (35% optimal, p = 0.05) but had a similar fraction with experimental design issues (82%; p = 0.32) limiting reproducibility and 91% had positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor-graft studies are reported without a set standard, often without the methodological information necessary to reproduce the experiments. The high percentage of positive trials suggests possible publication bias. Considering the widespread use of such experiments for oncologic drug development, scientists and publishers should develop experimental and publication guidelines for such experiments to ensure continued improvements in reporting.
PURPOSE: Characterize the parameters of reporting tumor-graft experiments for oncologic drug development. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Using Institute of Scientific Information impact factors, we identified the most-cited medical and oncology journals with tumor-graft experiments in murine models. For each article, the characteristics of the experimental design, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis were examined. RESULTS: We examined 145 articles describing tumor-graft experiments from October through December 2008. The articles spanned a range of disease types, animal models, treatments and delivery methods. One hundred (69%) articles were missing information needed to replicate the experiments. Outcome measurements included: tumor size (83%), biological changes (57%), and survival or cure-rate outcomes (28%). Thirty-three percent did not specify how tumor size was measured and 30% were missing the formula for evaluating volume. Only 14% utilized appropriate statistical methods. Ninety-one percent of studies were reported as positive and 7% reported with mixed positive-negative results; only 2% of studies were reported negative or inconclusive. Twenty-two articles from 2012 showed improvement in the utilization of statistical methods (35% optimal, p = 0.05) but had a similar fraction with experimental design issues (82%; p = 0.32) limiting reproducibility and 91% had positive results. CONCLUSIONS:Tumor-graft studies are reported without a set standard, often without the methodological information necessary to reproduce the experiments. The high percentage of positive trials suggests possible publication bias. Considering the widespread use of such experiments for oncologic drug development, scientists and publishers should develop experimental and publication guidelines for such experiments to ensure continued improvements in reporting.
Authors: Lili Zhao; Meredith A Morgan; Leslie A Parsels; Jonathan Maybaum; Theodore S Lawrence; Daniel Normolle Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Emily S Sena; H Bart van der Worp; Philip M W Bath; David W Howells; Malcolm R Macleod Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: H Bart van der Worp; David W Howells; Emily S Sena; Michelle J Porritt; Sarah Rewell; Victoria O'Collins; Malcolm R Macleod Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Dalil Hannani; Marie Vétizou; David Enot; Sylvie Rusakiewicz; Nathalie Chaput; David Klatzmann; Melanie Desbois; Nicolas Jacquelot; Nadège Vimond; Salem Chouaib; Christine Mateus; James P Allison; Antoni Ribas; Jedd D Wolchok; Jianda Yuan; Philip Wong; Michael Postow; Andrzej Mackiewicz; Jacek Mackiewicz; Dirk Schadendorff; Dirk Jaeger; Inka Zörnig; Jessica Hassel; Alan J Korman; Keith Bahjat; Michele Maio; Luana Calabro; Michele Wl Teng; Mark J Smyth; Alexander Eggermont; Caroline Robert; Guido Kroemer; Laurence Zitvogel Journal: Cell Res Date: 2015-01-13 Impact factor: 25.617
Authors: Federico Pietrocola; Jonathan Pol; Erika Vacchelli; Shuan Rao; David P Enot; Elisa E Baracco; Sarah Levesque; Francesca Castoldi; Nicolas Jacquelot; Takahiro Yamazaki; Laura Senovilla; Guillermo Marino; Fernando Aranda; Sylvère Durand; Valentina Sica; Alexis Chery; Sylvie Lachkar; Verena Sigl; Norma Bloy; Aitziber Buque; Simonetta Falzoni; Bernhard Ryffel; Lionel Apetoh; Francesco Di Virgilio; Frank Madeo; Maria Chiara Maiuri; Laurence Zitvogel; Beth Levine; Josef M Penninger; Guido Kroemer Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Grégoire de Streel; Charlotte Bertrand; Nicolas Chalon; Stéphanie Liénart; Orian Bricard; Sara Lecomte; Julien Devreux; Mélanie Gaignage; Gitte De Boeck; Lore Mariën; Inge Van De Walle; Bas van der Woning; Michael Saunders; Hans de Haard; Elien Vermeersch; Wim Maes; Hans Deckmyn; Pierre G Coulie; Nicolas van Baren; Sophie Lucas Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: James Mattina; Nathalie MacKinnon; Valerie C Henderson; Dean Fergusson; Jonathan Kimmelman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Pawan Noel; Shaimaa Hussein; Serina Ng; Corina E Antal; Wei Lin; Emily Rodela; Priscilla Delgado; Sanna Naveed; Michael Downes; Yin Lin; Ronald M Evans; Daniel D Von Hoff; Haiyong Han Journal: Oncogenesis Date: 2020-11-09 Impact factor: 7.485