Title |
Interrogating open issues in cancer precision medicine with patient-derived xenografts
|
---|---|
Published in |
Nature Reviews Cancer, January 2017
|
DOI | 10.1038/nrc.2016.140 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Annette T. Byrne, Denis G. Alférez, Frédéric Amant, Daniela Annibali, Joaquín Arribas, Andrew V. Biankin, Alejandra Bruna, Eva Budinská, Carlos Caldas, David K. Chang, Robert B. Clarke, Hans Clevers, George Coukos, Virginie Dangles-Marie, S. Gail Eckhardt, Eva Gonzalez-Suarez, Els Hermans, Manuel Hidalgo, Monika A. Jarzabek, Steven de Jong, Jos Jonkers, Kristel Kemper, Luisa Lanfrancone, Gunhild Mari Mælandsmo, Elisabetta Marangoni, Jean-Christophe Marine, Enzo Medico, Jens Henrik Norum, Héctor G. Palmer, Daniel S. Peeper, Pier Giuseppe Pelicci, Alejandro Piris-Gimenez, Sergio Roman-Roman, Oscar M. Rueda, Joan Seoane, Violeta Serra, Laura Soucek, Dominique Vanhecke, Alberto Villanueva, Emilie Vinolo, Andrea Bertotti, Livio Trusolino |
Abstract |
Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) have emerged as an important platform to elucidate new treatments and biomarkers in oncology. PDX models are used to address clinically relevant questions, including the contribution of tumour heterogeneity to therapeutic responsiveness, the patterns of cancer evolutionary dynamics during tumour progression and under drug pressure, and the mechanisms of resistance to treatment. The ability of PDX models to predict clinical outcomes is being improved through mouse humanization strategies and the implementation of co-clinical trials, within which patients and PDXs reciprocally inform therapeutic decisions. This Opinion article discusses aspects of PDX modelling that are relevant to these questions and highlights the merits of shared PDX resources to advance cancer medicine from the perspective of EurOPDX, an international initiative devoted to PDX-based research. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 9 | 15% |
United Kingdom | 5 | 8% |
Ireland | 4 | 7% |
Spain | 4 | 7% |
Norway | 3 | 5% |
Germany | 2 | 3% |
China | 2 | 3% |
Switzerland | 2 | 3% |
Bangladesh | 1 | 2% |
Other | 6 | 10% |
Unknown | 22 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 30 | 50% |
Scientists | 25 | 42% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 5% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 2 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
Norway | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Argentina | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 747 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 149 | 20% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 146 | 19% |
Student > Master | 63 | 8% |
Other | 45 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 39 | 5% |
Other | 130 | 17% |
Unknown | 183 | 24% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 178 | 24% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 118 | 16% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 99 | 13% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 31 | 4% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 28 | 4% |
Other | 88 | 12% |
Unknown | 213 | 28% |