Top

Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology

Published in:

01-12-2019 | Original Article

A reliable method to determine which candidate chemotherapeutic drugs effectively inhibit tumor growth in patient-derived xenografts (PDX) in single mouse trials

Authors: Derek Gordon, David E. Axelrod

Published in: Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology | Issue 6/2019

Abstract

Purpose

We report on a statistical method for grouping anti-cancer drugs (GRAD) in single mouse trials (SMT). The method assigns candidate drugs into groups that inhibit or do not inhibit tumor growth in patient-derived xenografts (PDX). It determines the statistical significance of the group assignments without replicate trials of each drug.

Methods

The GRAD method applies a longitudinal finite mixture model, implemented in the statistical package PROC TRAJ, to analyze a mixture of tumor growth curves for portions of the same tumor in different mice, each single mouse exposed to a different drug. Each drug is classified into an inhibitory or non-inhibitory group. There are several advantages to the GRAD method for SMT. It determines that probability that the grouping is correct, uses the entire longitudinal tumor growth curve data for each drug treatment, can fit different shape growth curves, accounts for missing growth curve data, and accommodates growth curves of different time periods.

Results

We analyzed data for 22 drugs for 18 human colorectal tumors provided by researchers in a previous publication. The GRAD method identified 18 drugs that were inhibitory against at least one tumor, and 10 tumors for which there was at least one inhibitory drug. Analysis of simulated data indicated that the GRAD method has a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 98%.

Conclusion

A statistical method, GRAD, can group anti-cancer drugs into those that are inhibitory and those that are non-inhibitory in single mouse trials and provide probabilities that the grouping is correct.

Available only for authorised users

Shoemaker RH (2006) The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nat Rev Cancer 6(10):813–823. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1951 CrossRefPubMed

Sharma SV, Haber DA, Settleman J (2010) Cell line-based platforms to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of candidate anticancer agents. Nat Rev Cancer 10(4):241–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2820 CrossRefPubMed

Neve RM, Chin K, Fridlyand J, Yeh J, Baehner FL, Fevr T, Clark L et al (2006) A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 10(6):515–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Weiswald LB, Bellet D, Dangles-Marie V (2015) Spherical cancer models in tumor biology. Neoplasia 17(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neo.2014.12.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lancaster MA, Knoblich JA (2014) Organogenesis in a dish: modeling development and disease using organoid technologies. Science 345(6194):1247125. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1247125 CrossRefPubMed

Clevers H (2016) Modeling development and disease with organoids. Cell 165(7):1586–1597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.082 CrossRefPubMed

Crespo M, Vilar E, Tsai SY, Chang K, Amin S, Srinivasan T, Zhang T et al (2017) Colonic organoids derived from human induced pluripotent stem cells for modeling colorectal cancer and drug testing. Nat Med 23(7):878–884. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4355 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gould SE, Junttila MR, de Sauvage FJ (2015) Translational value of mouse models in oncology drug development. Nat Med 21(5):431–439. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3853 CrossRefPubMed

Day CP, Merlino G, Van Dyke T (2015) Preclinical mouse cancer models: a maze of opportunities and challenges. Cell 163(1):39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.068 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Rubio-Viqueira B, Hidalgo M (2009) Direct in vivo xenograft tumor model for predicting chemotherapeutic drug response in cancer patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 85(2):217–221. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2008.200 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Aparicio S, Hidalgo M, Kung AL (2015) Examining the utility of patient-derived xenograft mouse models. Nat Rev Cancer 15(5):311–316. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3944 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Li G (2015) Patient-derived xenograft models for oncology drug discovery. J Cancer Metastasis Treat 1:8–15

13.

Ben-David U, Ha G, Tseng YY, Greenwald NF, Oh C, Shih J, McFarland JM et al (2017) Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution. Nat Genet 49(11):1567–1575. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3967 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Morgan KM, Riedlinger GM, Rosenfeld J, Ganesan S, Pine SR (2017) Patient-derived xenograft models of non-small cell lung cancer and their potential utility in personalized medicine. Front Oncol 7:2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2017.00002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Nunes M, Vrignaud P, Vacher S, Richon S, Lievre A, Cacheux W, Weiswald LB et al (2015) Evaluating patient-derived colorectal cancer xenografts as preclinical models by comparison with patient clinical data. Cancer Res 75(8):1560–1566. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-1590 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Seol HS, Kang HJ, Lee SI, Kim NE, Kim TI, Chun SM, Kim TW et al (2014) Development and characterization of a colon pdx model that reproduces drug responsiveness and the mutation profiles of its original tumor. Cancer Lett 345(1):56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2013.11.010 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Vlachogiannis G, Hedayat S, Vatsiou A, Jamin Y, Fernandez-Mateos J, Khan K, Lampis A et al (2018) Patient-derived organoids model treatment response of metastatic gastrointestinal cancers. Science 359(6378):920–926. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2774 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Maekawa H, Miyoshi H, Yamaura T, Itatani Y, Kawada K, Sakai Y, Taketo MM (2018) A chemosensitivity study of colorectal cancer using xenografts of patient-derived tumor-initiating cells. Mol Cancer Ther 17(10):2187–2196. https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.Mct-18-0128 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Gu Q, Zhang B, Sun H, Xu Q, Tan Y, Wang G, Luo Q et al (2015) Genomic characterization of a large panel of patient-derived hepatocellular carcinoma xenograft tumor models for preclinical development. Oncotarget 6(24):20160–20176. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.3969 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Townsend EC, Murakami MA, Christodoulou A, Christie AL, Koster J, DeSouza TA, Morgan EA et al (2016) The public repository of xenografts enables discovery and randomized phase II-like trials in mice. Cancer Cell 29(4):574–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2016.03.008 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Bruna A, Rueda OM, Greenwood W, Batra AS, Callari M, Batra RN, Pogrebniak K et al (2016) A biobank of breast cancer explants with preserved intra-tumor heterogeneity to screen anticancer compounds. Cell 167(1):260–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.041 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Pauli C, Hopkins BD, Prandi D, Shaw R, Fedrizzi T, Sboner A, Sailer V et al (2017) Personalized in vitro and in vivo cancer models to guide precision medicine. Cancer Discov 7(5):462–477. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.cd-16-1154 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Gao H, Korn JM, Ferretti S, Monahan JE, Wang Y, Singh M, Zhang C et al (2015) High-throughput screening using patient-derived tumor xenografts to predict clinical trial drug response. Nat Med 21(11):1318–1325. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3954 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Charles River Laboratories. (Accessed April 17 2019). https://www.criver.com/products-services/discovery-services/vivo-pharmacology/oncology-pharmacology-models/patient-derived-xenografts-pdx?region=3601

25.

Mouse tumor biology database. (Accessed 17 April 2019). http://tumor.informatics.jax.org/mtbwi/index.do

26.

CrownBio. (Accessed 17 April 2019). https://www.crownbio.com/oncology/invivo-services/patient-derived-xenograft-pdx-tumor-models

27.

Champions Oncology. (Accessed 17 April 2019). https://championsoncology.com

28.

XenTech. (Accessed 17 April 2019). http://www.xentech.com

29.

Wu J, Houghton PJ (2010) Interval approach to assessing antitumor activity for tumor xenograft studies. Pharm Stat 9(1):46–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.369 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Bertotti A, Migliardi G, Galimi F, Sassi F, Torti D, Isella C, Cora D et al (2011) A molecularly annotated platform of patient-derived xenografts (“xenopatients”) identifies HER2 as an effective therapeutic target in cetuximab-resistant colorectal cancer. Cancer Discov 1(6):508–523. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0109 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Yang M, Shan B, Li Q, Song X, Cai J, Deng J, Zhang L et al (2013) Overcoming erlotinib resistance with tailored treatment regimen in patient-derived xenografts from naive Asian NSCLC patients. Int J Cancer 132(2):E74–E84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.27813 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Corcoran RB, Atreya CE, Falchook GS, Kwak EL, Ryan DP, Bendell JC, Hamid O et al (2015) Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition with dabrafenib and trametinib in BRAF V600-mutant colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 33(34):4023–4031. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.2471 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Stebbing J, Paz K, Schwartz GK, Wexler LH, Maki R, Pollock RE, Morris R et al (2014) Patient-derived xenografts for individualized care in advanced sarcoma. Cancer 120(13):2006–2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28696 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Liang H (2007) Comparison of antitumor activities in tumor xenograft treatment. Contemp Clin Trials 28(2):115–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.001 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J et al (2000) New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(3):205–216CrossRefPubMed

36.

Corwin WL, Ebrahimi-Nik H, Floyd SM, Tavousi P, Mandoiu II, Srivastava PK (2017) Tumor control index as a new tool to assess tumor growth in experimental animals. J Immunol Methods 445:71–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2017.03.013 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Duan F, Simeone S, Wu R, Grady J, Mandoiu I, Srivastava PK (2012) Area under the curve as a tool to measure kinetics of tumor growth in experimental animals. J Immunol Methods 382(1–2):224–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2012.06.005 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Liang H (2005) Modeling antitumor activity in xenograft tumor treatment. Biom J 47(3):358–368CrossRefPubMed

39.

Wu J (2011) Assessment of antitumor activity for tumor xenograft studies using exponential growth models. J Biopharm Stat 21(3):472–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2010.481802 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Hather G, Liu R, Bandi S, Mettetal J, Manfredi M, Shyu WC, Donelan J et al (2014) Growth rate analysis and efficient experimental design for tumor xenograft studies. Cancer Inform 13(Suppl 4):65–72. https://doi.org/10.4137/cin.s13974 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Yao YM, Donoho GP, Iversen PW, Zhang Y, Van Horn RD, Forest A, Novosiadly RD et al (2017) Mouse PDX trial suggests synergy of concurrent inhibition of RAF and EGFR in colorectal cancer with braf or kras mutations. Clin Cancer Res 23(18):5547–5560. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-16-3250 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Benzekry S, Lamont C, Beheshti A, Tracz A, Ebos JM, Hlatky L, Hahnfeldt P (2014) Classical mathematical models for description and prediction of experimental tumor growth. PLoS Comput Biol 10(8):e1003800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003800 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Titterington DM, Smith AFM, Makov UE (1985) Statistical analysis of finite mixture distributions. J. Wiley and Sons, Hoboken

44.

McLachlan G, Peel D (2000) Finite mixture models. Wiley series in probability and statistics. J. Wiley and Sons, New YorkCrossRef

45.

Vermunt JK (2010) Longitudinal research using mixture models. In: Monfort K, Oudh JHL, Satorra A (eds) Longitudinal research with latent variables. Springer, Berlin

46.

Jones BL, Nagin DS (2007) Advances in group-based trajectory modeling and an SAS procedure for estimating them. Sociol Method Res 35(4):542–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124106292364 CrossRef

47.

Jones BL, Nagin DS, Roeder K (2001) A SAS procedure based on mixture models for estimating developmental trajectories. Sociol Method Res 29(3):374–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124101029003005 CrossRef

48.

SAS. (Accessed 9 April 2019). https://www.sas.com/en_us/home.html

49.

Burkholder T, Foltz C, Karlsson E, Linton CG, Smith JM (2012) Health evaluation of experimental laboratory mice. Curr Protoc Mouse Biol 2:145–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470942390.mo110217 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Benson AB, Venook AP, Cederquist L, Chan E, Chen YJ, Cooper HS, Deming D et al (2017) Colon cancer, version 1.2017, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 15(3):370–398CrossRef

51.

Igl BW, Konig IR, Ziegler A (2009) What do we mean by ‘replication’ and ‘validation’ in genome-wide association studies? Hum Hered 67(1):66–68. https://doi.org/10.1159/000164400 CrossRefPubMed

52.

Ott J (1999) Analysis of human genetic linkage, 3rd edn. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

53.

Wu R, Lin M (2006) Functional mapping—how to map and study the genetic architecture of dynamic complex traits. Nat Rev Genet 7(3):229–237. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg1804 CrossRefPubMed

54.

Chang SW, Choi SH, Li K, Fleur RS, Huang C, Shen T, Ahn K et al (2009) Growth mixture modeling as an exploratory analysis tool in longitudinal quantitative trait loci analysis. BMC Proc 3(Suppl 7):S112CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Musolf A, Nato AQ, Londono D, Zhou L, Matise TC, Gordon D (2014) Mapping genes with longitudinal phenotypes via bayesian posterior probabilities. BMC Proc 8(Suppl 1):S81. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-8-s1-s81 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Londono D, Chen KM, Musolf A, Wang R, Shen T, Brandon J, Herring JA et al (2013) A novel method for analyzing genetic association with longitudinal phenotypes. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 12(2):241–261. https://doi.org/10.1515/sagmb-2012-0070 CrossRefPubMed

57.

Muthen B, Shedden K (1999) Finite mixture modeling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm. Biometrics 55(2):463–469CrossRefPubMed

58.

Muthen LK, Muthen BO (1998–2010) Mplus user’s guide, 5th edn. Muthen & Muthen, Los Angeles

59.

Leisch F (2004) FlexMix: A general framework for finite mixture models and latent class regression in r. J Stat Softw 11(8):21374CrossRef

60.

R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/

61.

Ullman-Cullere MH, Foltz CJ (1999) Body condition scoring: a rapid and accurate method for assessing health status in mice. Lab Anim Sci 49(3):319–323PubMed

62.

Vergidis J, Gresham G, Lim HJ, Renouf DJ, Kennecke HF, Ruan JY, Chang JT et al (2016) Impact of weight changes after the diagnosis of stage III colon cancer on survival outcomes. Clin Colorectal Cancer 15(1):16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2015.07.002 CrossRefPubMed

63.

Heitjan DF, Manni A, Santen RJ (1993) Statistical analysis of in vivo tumor growth experiments. Cancer Res 53(24):6042–6050PubMed

64.

Li Q, Dai W, Liu J, Li Y-X, Li Y-Y (2019) DRAP: a toolbox for drug response analysis and visualization tailored for preclinical drug testing on patient-derived xenograft models. J Transl Med 17:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-1785-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: A reliable method to determine which candidate chemotherapeutic drugs effectively inhibit tumor growth in patient-derived xenografts (PDX) in single mouse trials
Authors: Derek Gordon
David E. Axelrod
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology / Issue 6/2019
Print ISSN: 0344-5704
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0843
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-019-03942-y

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2019

Dasatinib attenuates overexpression of Src signaling induced by the combination treatment of veliparib plus carboplatin in triple-negative breast cancer

JOIN trial: treatment outcome and recovery status of peripheral sensory neuropathy during a 3-year follow-up in patients receiving modified FOLFOX6 as adjuvant treatment for stage II/III colon cancer

A prospective phase I multicentre randomized cross-over pharmacokinetic study to determine the effect of food on abiraterone pharmacokinetics

Metformin plus first-line chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer: a prospective open-label pilot trial

NO donor inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis by targeting PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MEK/ERK pathways in hepatocellular carcinoma cells

Upregulation of miR-519 enhances radiosensitivity of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma trough targeting PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer