Literature DB >> 33569251

Exploring a model-based analysis of patient derived xenograft studies in oncology drug development.

Jake Dickinson1, Hitesh B Mistry1,2, Marcel de Matas1, Paul A Dickinson1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess whether a model-based analysis increased statistical power over an analysis of final day volumes and provide insights into more efficient patient derived xenograft (PDX) study designs.
METHODS: Tumour xenograft time-series data was extracted from a public PDX drug treatment database. For all 2-arm studies the percent tumour growth inhibition (TGI) at day 14, 21 and 28 was calculated. Treatment effect was analysed using an un-paired, two-tailed t-test (empirical) and a model-based analysis, likelihood ratio-test (LRT). In addition, a simulation study was performed to assess the difference in power between the two data-analysis approaches for PDX or standard cell-line derived xenografts (CDX).
RESULTS: The model-based analysis had greater statistical power than the empirical approach within the PDX data-set. The model-based approach was able to detect TGI values as low as 25% whereas the empirical approach required at least 50% TGI. The simulation study confirmed the findings and highlighted that CDX studies require fewer animals than PDX studies which show the equivalent level of TGI.
CONCLUSIONS: The study conducted adds to the growing literature which has shown that a model-based analysis of xenograft data improves statistical power over the common empirical approach. The analysis conducted showed that a model-based approach, based on the first mathematical model of tumour growth, was able to detect smaller size of effect compared to the empirical approach which is common of such studies. A model-based analysis should allow studies to reduce animal use and experiment length providing effective insights into compound anti-tumour activity. ©2021 Dickinson et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mathematical modelling; Patient derived xenograft; Statistical modelling; Tumour growth inhibition

Year:  2021        PMID: 33569251      PMCID: PMC7847196          DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10681

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PeerJ        ISSN: 2167-8359            Impact factor:   2.984


  12 in total

1.  Antitumor activity of targeted and cytotoxic agents in murine subcutaneous tumor models correlates with clinical response.

Authors:  Harvey Wong; Edna F Choo; Bruno Alicke; Xiao Ding; Hank La; Erin McNamara; Frank-Peter Theil; Jay Tibbitts; Lori S Friedman; Cornelis E C A Hop; Stephen E Gould
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 2.  Preclinical mouse cancer models: a maze of opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Chi-Ping Day; Glenn Merlino; Terry Van Dyke
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  High-throughput screening using patient-derived tumor xenografts to predict clinical trial drug response.

Authors:  Hui Gao; Joshua M Korn; Stéphane Ferretti; John E Monahan; Youzhen Wang; Mallika Singh; Chao Zhang; Christian Schnell; Guizhi Yang; Yun Zhang; O Alejandro Balbin; Stéphanie Barbe; Hongbo Cai; Fergal Casey; Susmita Chatterjee; Derek Y Chiang; Shannon Chuai; Shawn M Cogan; Scott D Collins; Ernesta Dammassa; Nicolas Ebel; Millicent Embry; John Green; Audrey Kauffmann; Colleen Kowal; Rebecca J Leary; Joseph Lehar; Ying Liang; Alice Loo; Edward Lorenzana; E Robert McDonald; Margaret E McLaughlin; Jason Merkin; Ronald Meyer; Tara L Naylor; Montesa Patawaran; Anupama Reddy; Claudia Röelli; David A Ruddy; Fernando Salangsang; Francesca Santacroce; Angad P Singh; Yan Tang; Walter Tinetto; Sonja Tobler; Roberto Velazquez; Kavitha Venkatesan; Fabian Von Arx; Hui Qin Wang; Zongyao Wang; Marion Wiesmann; Daniel Wyss; Fiona Xu; Hans Bitter; Peter Atadja; Emma Lees; Francesco Hofmann; En Li; Nicholas Keen; Robert Cozens; Michael Rugaard Jensen; Nancy K Pryer; Juliet A Williams; William R Sellers
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Human tumor xenograft models for preclinical assessment of anticancer drug development.

Authors:  Joohee Jung
Journal:  Toxicol Res       Date:  2014-03

Review 5.  Growth rate analysis and efficient experimental design for tumor xenograft studies.

Authors:  Gregory Hather; Ray Liu; Syamala Bandi; Jerome Mettetal; Mark Manfredi; Wen-Chyi Shyu; Jill Donelan; Arijit Chakravarty
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2014-12-09

Review 6.  Using PDX for Preclinical Cancer Drug Discovery: The Evolving Field.

Authors:  Juliet A Williams
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 4.241

7.  A simple model of a growing tumour.

Authors:  David Orrell; Hitesh B Mistry
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 2.984

8.  Dihomo-γ-linolenic acid inhibits xenograft tumor growth in mice bearing shRNA-transfected HCA-7 cells targeting delta-5-desaturase.

Authors:  Yi Xu; Xiaoyu Yang; Di Gao; Liu Yang; Keith Miskimins; Steven Y Qian
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-12-19       Impact factor: 4.430

9.  A review of mixed-effects models of tumor growth and effects of anticancer drug treatment used in population analysis.

Authors:  B Ribba; N H Holford; P Magni; I Trocóniz; I Gueorguieva; P Girard; C Sarr; M Elishmereni; C Kloft; L E Friberg
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2014-05-07

10.  Accounting for dropout in xenografted tumour efficacy studies: integrated endpoint analysis, reduced bias and better use of animals.

Authors:  Emma C Martin; Leon Aarons; James W T Yates
Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 3.333

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.