Evidence Hub

The Comparative Oncology of Canine Malignant Melanoma in Targeted Therapy: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Experiments and Animal Model Reports

Xiaohui He, Yu Gao, Yuqing Deng, Jun-Ying He, I. Nolte, H. Murua Escobar, Feng Yu

International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2024

16 citations

Abstract

Canine malignant melanoma (CMM) is highly aggressive and mostly located in the oral cavity. CMM is the predominant type of canine oral malignancy and shows striking homologies with human mucosal melanoma. In comparative oncology, canine oral melanomas (COMs), as spontaneous tumor models, have the potential to acquire a unique value as a translational model of rare human melanoma subtypes. This review aims to provide a comprehensive summary of targeted therapies for canine malignant melanoma and to enrich the field of comparative oncology. Following the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across databases for studies from 1976 to April 2024. Studies were selected based on their relevance to targeted treatments. A total of 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. Based on the treatment approaches, the studies were further categorized into immunotherapies, small molecule signaling inhibitors, indirect kinase inhibitors, and other alternative strategies. Some treatments have been shown to result in stable disease or partial response, accounting for 29% (monoclonal antibody) and 76.5% (micro-RNA therapies) in clinical trials. Moreover, in vitro experiments of small molecule inhibitors, including cell signaling inhibitors and indirect kinase inhibitors, have shown the potential to be an effective treatment option for the development of therapeutic strategies in canine malignant melanoma. The observed response in in vitro experiments of CMM…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal and cell cultures (in vitro), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free