ArticleNPJ precision oncology2026
Ex vivo drug sensitivity profiling to complement molecular profiling in pediatric precision oncology.
Article in NPJ precision oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integration and validation of complementary ex vivo assays for functional precision oncology.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Article
- Molecular Oncodiagnostics in Precision Oncology: Integrating Tumor Transcriptomics, Patient Pharmacogenetics, and Ex Vivo Chemoresistance Testing to Improve Individual Chemotherapy Response.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pediatric patients with high-risk extra-cranial solid tumors face a 5-year survival rate below 50%. As molecular profiling alone is insufficient to guide treatment at relapse, complementary strategies like drug screening are urgently needed. We evaluated short-term drug screening as a rapid, reliable method to assess drug sensitivities in pediatric solid tumors using ex vivo cultures from previously established patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. Ex vivo drug screening was performed within 14 days of receipt across two institutes, testing 77-224 compounds depending on cell availability. Drug responses were consistent across institutes (n = 6), and effective compounds were reproducibly identified in a replicate model. Tumor type-specific responses were observed. In neuroblastoma, ALK-mutation status did not correlate with ALK-inhibitor response, whereas correlations with transcriptomic changes were observed. Timepoint-specific drug sensitivities were observed in serial Ewing sarcoma models. Overall, drug hits were identified in 94% of screens (n = 63), broadening treatment options for 88% of cases without targetable alterations (n = 11). In case of a targetable event, drug screening refined compound choice. Ex vivo drug screening is a fast and feasible method, providing insights into compound efficacy and enabling quick identification of functional treatment suggestions. Ex vivo drug screening should be integrated into a future next-generation diagnostic platform for pediatric solid tumors, combined with genomics and transcriptomics.
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.