Back

A comprehensive pharmacodynamic dataset reconciles 50 years of laboratory and clinical knowledge

Douglass, E. F.; Joshi, C.; Hannan, E.; Paez, T.; Hughes, E. A.; Mochel, J. P.

2025-12-02 pharmacology and toxicology
10.1101/2025.09.22.676882 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Single-agent clinical response data for widely used chemotherapies have remained difficult to analyze because they are scattered across decades of print literature. We consolidated these sources into NCI1970-Meta, a 49,002-patient dataset covering 30 drugs across 18 cancers, enabling the first quantitative comparison of clinical outcomes, laboratory potency metrics, clinical exposure, and literature-derived biomarkers. Clinical patterns were strongly lineage-driven: cancer type explained far more ORR variability than drug identity (37.3% vs 15.6%; F = 13.43 vs 3.29). FDA approvals reflected these same patterns where ORR strongly predicted indication status (F = 98.3-104.1). In contrast, laboratory efficacy metrics did not track clinical activity. Raw in vitro AUC showed no association with ORR (R2 = 0.00; 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) and was dominated by drug identity rather than cancer lineage (85.2% vs 8.6%; F = 212.2 vs 21.6). Instead, AUC correlated with clinical exposure: unbound Cmax (R2 = 0.21 [0.21-0.34]) and therapeutic minimum concentrations (R2 = 0.69 [0.64-0.73]). This indicates that standard assay ranges capture exposure requirements rather than true efficacy. Normalizing potency by exposure restored the expected clinical relationships and resolved drug-specific anomalies such as gemcitabine. Biomarkers showed consistent behavior across clinical and laboratory settings. Among 314 biomarker-drug pairs, correlation directions were significantly conserved (R2 = 0.17 [0.10-0.25]; p = 2.8x10-14). Literature-defined sensitivity and resistance annotations were enriched in vitro (OR = 3.7; p = 2.36x10-8) and in the clinic (OR = 3.9; p = 6.52x10-9), with stronger performance for correlations >0.1 (OR = 13.3 in vitro; OR = 8.4 clinically). Simple biomarker-sum models performed well across drugs, consistent with multi-pathway pseudo-first-order behavior. Overall, NCI1970-Meta provides a quantitative framework linking laboratory pharmacology to real-world clinical efficacy. Biological signal is reliably preserved within drugs, while cross-drug comparisons require explicit exposure normalization. This resource offers a statistical foundation for improving drug prioritization, biomarker development, and translational pharmacodynamic modeling.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
ACS Central Science
71 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.8%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 15%
12.1%
3
Nature Cancer
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 12%
4.4%
5
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
6
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.4%
50% of probability mass above
7
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
8
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 7%
4.1%
9
Cell Reports Medicine
153 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.1%
10
Clinical and Translational Science
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
11
Nature
645 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.8%
12
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
77 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
13
Cell Chemical Biology
94 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.7%
14
Nature Chemical Biology
119 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.1%
16
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.1%
18
Cancer Discovery
66 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.9%
20
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
21
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
22
ACS Chemical Biology
167 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
23
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.6%
24
Nature Chemistry
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%