Gross tumor assessment is not a reliable measure of the efficacy of chemo-preventive agents for breast cancer in preclinical mouse models

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2025-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-19423-7
Primary Topic
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Gross tumor assessment is not a reliable measure of the efficacy of chemo-preventive agents for breast cancer in preclinical mouse models

Anjana Bhardwaj, Raniv D. Rojo, Matthew Embury, Jat Sandhu et al.
Scientific Reports
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
article

Gross tumor assessment is not a reliable measure of the efficacy of chemo-preventive agents for breast cancer in preclinical mouse models

Anjana Bhardwaj, Raniv D. Rojo, Matthew Embury, Jat Sandhu, Constance T. Albarracin, Alexander Koh, Isabelle Bedrosian
article en

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.

Scientific ReportsVol. 15(1)
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), Philippine General Hospital (PH)
Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment
Openalex Percentile: Top 60%
Cancer, Stress, Anesthesia, and Immune Response
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.