This group's major peer-reviewed paper on the original murine xenograft work appears to be: http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v16/n11/full/mt2008184a.html http:/

This group's major peer-reviewed paper on the original murine xenograft work appears to be: http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v16/n11/full/mt2008184a.html http://www.nature.com/mt/journal/v16/n11/full/mt2008184a.htm... Of course the human work will be peer-reviewed, but the study is in the early stages and still ongoing. They have an IND (investigational drug) protocol approved by the FDA to conduct the trial, and the trial is overseen by panels at both the institutional and federal level. The point of pieces like this is essentially to attract patients to the trial (both directly and by making referral providers aware) so that the science can be validated. Perhaps surprisingly, there are a large number of active trials in the country and relatively limited numbers of patients who meet inclusion criteria. So to some degree the big centers have to compete for enrollment. (secondarily, they hope to attract donors for future work in this and other areas; this kind of risky pilot work is heavily seeded by institutional money, before NIH will get involved)