Abstract
Malignant glioma cell line models are integral to pre-clinical testing of novel potential therapies. Accurate prediction of likely efficacy in the clinic requires that these models are reliable and consistent. We assessed this by examining the reporting of experimental conditions and sensitivity to temozolomide in glioma cells lines.
We searched Medline and Embase (Jan 1994-Jan 2021) for studies that evaluated the effect of temozolomide monotherapy on cell viability of at least one malignant glioma cell line. Studies using a drug-resistant cell line or a modified preparation of temozolomide were excluded. Key data items included type of cell lines, temozolomide exposure duration, and cell viability measure (IC50).
We included 212 eligible studies from 2,789 non-duplicate records that reported 248 distinct cell lines. The commonest cell line was U87 (60.4%). Only 10.4% studies used a patient-derived cell line. The proportion of studies not reporting each experimental condition ranged from 8.0-27.4%, including base medium (8.0%), serum supplementation (9.9%) and number of replicates (27.4%). In studies reporting IC50 the median value for U87 cell line at 24 hours, 48 hours and 72 hours was 123.9μM (IQR 75.3-277.7μM), 223.1μM (IQR 92.0-590.1μM) and 230.0μM (IQR 34.1-650.0μM), respectively (Figure 2A). The median IC50 at 72 hours for patient-derived cell lines was 220μM (IQR 81.1-800.0μM).
Temozolomide sensitivity reported in comparable studies was not consistent between and within individual malignant glioma cell lines. Drug discovery science performed on these models cannot reliably inform clinical translation. A consensus model of reporting can maximise reproducibility and consistency among in vitro studies.
Key points
There is a wide variety of study designs for malignant glioma cell line studies.
Reporting of experimental designs of cell line studies was suboptimal.
Temozolomide sensitivity was inconsistent between and within individual cell lines.
Importance of the study
There is a wide variety of experimental designs for malignant glioma cell line studies but the reporting of these is suboptimal.
Temozolomide sensitivity reported in comparable studies was not consistent between and within individual malignant glioma cell lines.
While there will be variations of opinion on what the optimal design is, a consensus model of a reporting structure is the only rational way to maximise the yield from in vitro studies to find novel therapies for our patients.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
JES is supported by Cancer Research UK (C52370/A21586). MTCP is supported by Cancer Research UK Brain Tumour Centre of Excellence Award (C157/A27589).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This is a systematic review of existing literature and therefore is exempt from ethical approval.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding JES is supported by Cancer Research UK (C52370/A21586). MTCP is supported by Cancer Research UK Brain Tumour Centre of Excellence Award (C157/A27589).
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Authorship Study conceptualisation: MTCP, MB, PMB. Protocol design: MTCP, MB, CH, PMB. Abstract screening, eligibility assessment, data extraction, data analyses: MTCP, MB. Interpretation of data: MTCP, MB, JES, CH, PMB. Drafting the manuscript: MTCP and MB. Critical revision of manuscript: JES, CH, PMB. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Data Availability
Data is available on request
