Back

Ex vivo drug testing in metastatic biopsies reveals patient-specific vulnerabilities to cancer targeting and immune activating drugs

Woehrl, L.; Das, D.; Weidele, K.; Treitschke, S.; Baron, C.; Halbritter, D.; Botteron, C.; Lueke, F.; Stojanovic Guzvic, N.; Werner-Klein, M.; Harrer, D. C.; Pukrop, T.; Lanznaster, J.; Nitsch, T.; Suedhoff, T.; Fischer, N.; Kubuschok, B.; Claus, R.; Benz, M.; Bruns, V.; Hoffmann, M.; Stutz, A.; Klein, C. A.; Werno, C.

2026-02-09 cancer biology
10.64898/2026.02.06.704037 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Biomarker-guided therapies in oncology often fail to induce considerable responses in patients with advanced cancer. As a complementary approach, direct drug testing on individual patient samples is highly attractive yet is currently hampered by the lack of assays that combine (i) fast reporting, (ii) the ability to inform about immune-mediated responses, (iii) robust quantification, and (iv) scalability for parallel assessment of multiple drugs. Here, we introduce our patient-derived ex vivo drug response assay (PEDRA) that fulfills all these requirements. Using malignant pleural effusions (MPEs) from five non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with detailed clinical treatment histories, we tested 52 guideline-recommended therapies and eight investigational antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). In all patients, PEDRA identified treatment options that outperformed the therapies the patients had received. The results reflected clinical observations as well as expectations derived from mutational profiling and disease courses. To extend the applicability of PEDRA beyond MPEs to other metastatic lesions, we generated a protocol starting from core needle biopsies. Owing to its reproducible and quantitative nature, PEDRA may provide a valuable diagnostic tool to guide time-sensitive clinical therapy decisions. Additionally, PEDRA has great potential for preclinical testing of investigational drugs, thereby reducing the need for animal experiments.

Matching journals

The top 12 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.1%
2
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.8%
3
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
Clinical Cancer Research
58 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.3%
5
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 35%
4.3%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 36%
3.6%
7
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
8
Cancer Cell
38 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.9%
9
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
10
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.6%
11
Cancer Research Communications
46 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
12
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
13
EMBO Molecular Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.9%
15
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
16
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.7%
17
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.7%
18
Molecular Cancer
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
19
Cancer Research
116 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
20
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 45%
1.5%
21
EBioMedicine
39 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
22
Antibody Therapeutics
16 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.3%
23
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
24
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
25
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 24%
1.0%
26
Molecular Oncology
50 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
27
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
28
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
29
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 44%
0.7%