» Articles » PMID: 27306546

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

Overview
Journal AAPS J
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2016 Jun 17
PMID 27306546
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Predicting response to combination evofosfamide and immunotherapy under hypoxic conditions in murine models of colon cancer.

Lima E, Song P, Reeves K, Larimer B, Sorace A, Yankeelov T Math Biosci Eng. 2023; 20(10):17625-17645.

PMID: 38052529 PMC: 10703000. DOI: 10.3934/mbe.2023783.


Investigating tumor-host response dynamics in preclinical immunotherapy experiments using a stepwise mathematical modeling strategy.

Jarrett A, Song P, Reeves K, Lima E, Larimer B, Yankeelov T Math Biosci. 2023; 366:109106.

PMID: 37931781 PMC: 10841996. DOI: 10.1016/j.mbs.2023.109106.


Mechanistic characterization of oscillatory patterns in unperturbed tumor growth dynamics: The interplay between cancer cells and components of tumor microenvironment.

Sancho-Araiz A, Parra-Guillen Z, Bragard J, Ardanza S, Mangas-Sanjuan V, Troconiz I PLoS Comput Biol. 2023; 19(10):e1011507.

PMID: 37792732 PMC: 10550146. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011507.


Modeling restoration of gefitinib efficacy by co-administration of MET inhibitors in an EGFR inhibitor-resistant NSCLC xenograft model: A tumor-in-host DEB-based approach.

Tosca E, Gauderat G, Fouliard S, Burbridge M, Chenel M, Magni P CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2021; 10(11):1396-1411.

PMID: 34708556 PMC: 8592518. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12710.


Exposure-response modeling improves selection of radiation and radiosensitizer combinations.

Cardilin T, Almquist J, Jirstrand M, Zimmermann A, Lignet F, El Bawab S J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2021; 49(2):167-178.

PMID: 34623558 PMC: 8940791. DOI: 10.1007/s10928-021-09784-7.


References
1.
Mentre F, Chenel M, Comets E, Grevel J, Hooker A, Karlsson M . Current Use and Developments Needed for Optimal Design in Pharmacometrics: A Study Performed Among DDMoRe's European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations Members. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2013; 2:e46. PMC: 3697035. DOI: 10.1038/psp.2013.19. View

2.
Kelland L . Of mice and men: values and liabilities of the athymic nude mouse model in anticancer drug development. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40(6):827-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.028. View

3.
Magni P, Simeoni M, Poggesi I, Rocchetti M, De Nicolao G . A mathematical model to study the effects of drugs administration on tumor growth dynamics. Math Biosci. 2006; 200(2):127-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.mbs.2005.12.028. View

4.
Tod M, Rocchisani J . Comparison of ED, EID, and API criteria for the robust optimization of sampling times in pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1997; 25(4):515-37. DOI: 10.1023/a:1025701327672. View

5.
Bazzoli C, Retout S, Mentre F . Design evaluation and optimisation in multiple response nonlinear mixed effect models: PFIM 3.0. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2009; 98(1):55-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2009.09.012. View