ArticleScientific reports2025
Gross tumor assessment is not a reliable measure of the efficacy of chemo-preventive agents for breast cancer in preclinical mouse models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite success in preclinical animal models, most cancer prevention drugs fail to show efficacy in clinical trials. One potential reason could be that study end points in animal models are not sufficiently robust. Preclinical efficacy studies often use tumor development, as measured by palpation, as an endpoint. A comprehensive study design that includes more rigorous measures by histologic assessment of all the mammary glands is less common. We hypothesized that the efficacy of drug treatment may vary based on the approach to tumor assessment. SV40C3TAg mice that spontaneously develop TNBC-like tumors were used to assess the efficacy of drugs for breast cancer prevention. Histological grading was performed using a 5-point scale. Animals were treated with fluvastatin and/or aspirin for 16 weeks and the experiment was concluded at 22 weeks, and all the mammary glands removed for histologic assessment. Grossly palpable mammary glands (> 3 mm) and /or histologic grade 4-5 was considered tumor bearing and treatment non-responder. 112 mammary glands from 40 mice were assessed. A high concordance (> 90%) was noted between palpably enlarged glands and the finding of grade 4-5 lesions. Conversely, among 74 non-palpably enlarged mammary glands, more than 66% were histologically high-grade and would have been wrongly classified as tumor-free based on gross tumor measurement. In drug efficacy studies, significant differences were noted in the rate of treatment response based on the method of tumor assessment, with a 22% response rate noted using the histological grading system and a 65% response rate using gross palpation. These analyses suggest that there is poor concordance between the gross tumor measurements and histological tumor assessment in a mouse model of breast cancer. Thus, gross tumor measurement alone is insufficient for determining chemopreventive efficacy in preclinical animal models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.