↓ Skip to main content

Optimal Design for Informative Protocols in Xenograft Tumor Growth Inhibition Experiments in Mice

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Optimal Design for Informative Protocols in Xenograft Tumor Growth Inhibition Experiments in Mice
Published in
The AAPS Journal, June 2016
DOI 10.1208/s12248-016-9924-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giulia Lestini, France Mentré, Paolo Magni

Abstract

Tumor growth inhibition (TGI) models are increasingly used during preclinical drug development in oncology for the in vivo evaluation of antitumor effect. Tumor sizes are measured in xenografted mice, often only during and shortly after treatment, thus preventing correct identification of some TGI model parameters. Our aims were (i) to evaluate the importance of including measurements during tumor regrowth and (ii) to investigate the proportions of mice included in each arm. For these purposes, optimal design theory based on the Fisher information matrix implemented in PFIM4.0 was applied. Published xenograft experiments, involving different drugs, schedules, and cell lines, were used to help optimize experimental settings and parameters using the Simeoni TGI model. For each experiment, a two-arm design, i.e., control versus treatment, was optimized with or without the constraint of not sampling during tumor regrowth, i.e., "short" and "long" studies, respectively. In long studies, measurements could be taken up to 6 g of tumor weight, whereas in short studies the experiment was stopped 3 days after the end of treatment. Predicted relative standard errors were smaller in long studies than in corresponding short studies. Some optimal measurement times were located in the regrowth phase, highlighting the importance of continuing the experiment after the end of treatment. In the four-arm designs, the results showed that the proportions of control and treated mice can differ. To conclude, making measurements during tumor regrowth should become a general rule for informative preclinical studies in oncology, especially when a delayed drug effect is suspected.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 2 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,400,766
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#77
of 1,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,830
of 352,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,287 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.