Patient derived xenograft

Last updated

Patient derived xenografts (PDX) are models of cancer where the tissue or cells from a patient's tumor are implanted into an immunodeficient or humanized mouse. [1] It is a form of xenotransplantation. PDX models are used to create an environment that allows for the continued growth of cancer after its removal from a patient. In this way, tumor growth can be monitored in the laboratory, including in response to potential therapeutic options. [1] Cohorts of PDX models can be used to determine the therapeutic efficiency of a therapy against particular types of cancer, or a PDX model from a specific patient can be tested against a range of therapies in a 'personalized oncology' approach.

Contents

Methods of tumor xenotransplantation

Several types of immunodeficient mice can be used to establish PDX models: athymic nude mice, severely compromised immune deficient (SCID) mice, NOD-SCID mice, and recombination-activating gene 2 (Rag2)-knockout mice. [2] The mice used must be immunocompromised to prevent transplant rejection. The NOD-SCID mouse is considered more immunodeficient than the nude mouse, and therefore is more commonly used for PDX models because the NOD-SCID mouse does not produce natural killer cells. [3]

When human tumors are resected, necrotic tissues are removed and the tumor can be mechanically sectioned into smaller fragments, chemically digested, or physically manipulated into a single-cell suspension. There are advantages and disadvantages in utilizing either discrete tumor fragments or single-cell suspensions. Tumor fragments retain cell-cell interactions as well as some tissue architecture of the original tumor, therefore mimicking the tumor microenvironment. Alternatively, a single-cell suspension enables scientists to collect an unbiased sampling of the whole tumor, eliminating spatially segregate subclones that are otherwise inadvertently selected during analysis or tumor passaging. [4] However, single-cell suspensions subject surviving cells to harsh chemical or mechanical forces that may sensitize cells to anoikis, taking a toll on cell viability and engraftment success. [5]

Heterotopic and orthotopic implantation

Unlike creating xenograft mouse models using existing cancer cell lines, there are no intermediate in vitro processing steps before implanting tumor fragments into a murine host to create a PDX. The tumor fragments are either implanted heterotopically or orthotopically into an immunodeficient mouse. With heterotopic implantation, the tissue or cells are implanted into an area of the mouse unrelated to the original tumor site, generally subcutaneously or in subrenal capsular sites. [6] The advantages of this method are the direct access for implantation, and ease of monitoring the tumor growth. With orthotopic implantation, scientists transplant the patient’s tumor tissue or cells into the corresponding anatomical position in the mouse. Subcutaneous PDX models rarely produce metastasis in mice, nor do they simulate the initial tumor microenvironment, with engraftment rates of 40-60%. [6] Subrenal capsular PDX maintains the original tumor stroma as well as the equivalent host stroma and has an engraftment rate of 95%. [7] Ultimately, it takes about 2 to 4 months for the tumor to engraft varying by tumor type, implant location, and strain of immunodeficient mice utilized; engraftment failure should not be declared until at least 6 months. [2] Researchers may use heterotopic implantation for the initial engraftment from the patient to the mouse, then use orthotopic implantation to implant the mouse-grown tumor into further generations of mice. [1]

Generations of engraftments

The first generation of mice receiving the patient's tumor fragments are commonly denoted F0. When the tumor-burden becomes too large for the F0 mouse, researchers passage the tumor over to the next generation of mice. Each generation thereafter is denoted F1, F2, F3…Fn. For drug development studies, expansion of mice after the F3 generation is often utilized after ensuring that the PDX has not genetically or histologically diverged from the patient’s tumor. [8]

Advantages over established cancer cell lines

Cancer cell lines are originally derived from patient tumors, but acquire the ability to proliferate within in vitro cell cultures. As a result of in vitro manipulation, cell lines that have been traditionally used in cancer research undergo genetic transformations that are not restored when cells are allowed to grow in vivo. [9] Because of the cell culturing process, which includes enzymatic environments and centrifugation, cells that are better adapted to survive in culture are selected, tumor resident cells and proteins that interact with cancer cells are eliminated, and the culture becomes phenotypically homogeneous. [4]

When implanted into immunodeficient mice, cell lines do not easily develop tumors and the result of any successfully grown tumor is a genetically divergent tumor unlike the heterogeneous patient tumor. [4] Researchers are beginning to attribute the reason that only 5% of anti-cancer agents are approved by the Food and Drug Administration after pre-clinical testing to the lack of tumor heterogeneity and the absence of the human stromal microenvironment. [10] Specifically, cell line-xenografts often are not predictive of the drug response in the primary tumors because cell lines do not follow pathways of drug resistance or the effects of the microenvironment on drug response found in human primary tumors. [10]

Many PDX models have been successfully established for breast, prostate, colorectal, lung, and many other cancers because there are distinctive advantages when using PDX over cell lines for drug safety and efficacy studies as well as predicting patient tumor response to certain anti-cancer agents. [11] Since PDX can be passaged without in vitro processing steps, PDX models allow the propagation and expansion of patient tumors without significant genetic transformation of tumor cells over multiple murine generations. [12] Within PDX models, patient tumor samples grow in physiologically-relevant tumor microenvironments that mimic the oxygen, nutrient, and hormone levels that are found in the patient’s primary tumor site. [8] Furthermore, implanted tumor tissue maintains the genetic and epigenetic abnormalities found in the patient and the xenograft tissue can be excised from the patient to include the surrounding human stroma. [13] As a result, numerous studies have found that PDX models exhibit similar responses to anti-cancer agents as seen in the actual patient who provided the tumor sample. [14]

Humanized xenograft models

One prominent shortcoming of PDX models is that immunodeficient mice must be used to prevent immune attacks against the xenotransplanted tumor. With the immune system incapacitated, a critical component of the known tumor microenvironment interaction is foregone, preventing immunotherapies and anti-cancer agents that target the immune system components from being studied in PDX models. Researchers are beginning to explore the use of humanized-xenograft models to enable immune studies. Humanized-xenograft models are created by co-engrafting the patient tumor fragment and peripheral blood or bone marrow cells into a NOD/SCID mouse. [3] The co-engraftment allows for reconstitution of the murine immune system, giving insight into the interactions between xenogenic human stroma and tumor environments in cancer progression and metastasis. [15] However, these strategies have yet to be validated for most tumor types and there remain questions over whether the reconstituted immune system will behave in the same way as it does in the patient. For example, the immune system could be 'hyper-activated' due to exposure to mouse tissues in a similar fashion to graft versus host disease. [16] Humanized-xenograft models for acute lymphoblastic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia have been created. [17]

Clinical relevance

Breast cancer

The classification of genetic breast cancer subtypes, including triple-negative and HER2-positive subtypes, [8] have allowed oncologists to use a patient’s breast cancer subtype to personalize cancer therapy schedules. Utilizing PDX triple negative breast cancer models, scientists found that aurora kinase inhibitors slows tumor growth rate and suppresses recurrence in a breast cancer subtype that has a high recurrence rate and poor survivability. [18] Scientists have also found that breast cancer PDX models are capable of predicting the prognosis of newly diagnosed women by observing the rate of tumor engraftment to determine if the patient tumor is aggressive. [19] Breast cancer brain metastases affect younger women disproportionally, especially those lacking estrogen-receptor (ER), progesterone-receptor, and HER2 (known as triple-negative breast cancer, TNBC). Contreras-Zarate MJ et al. developed and characterized novel heterogeneous and clinically relevant human brain metastasis breast cancer PDXs (BM-PDXs) to study mechanisms of brain metastatic colonization, with the added benefit of a slower progression rate that makes them suitable for preclinical testing of drugs in therapeutic settings. [20]

Colorectal cancer

Colorectal PDX models are relatively easy to establish and the models maintain genetic similarity of primary patient tumor for about 14 generations. [21] In 2012, a study established 27 colorectal PDX models that did not diverge from their respective human tumors in histology, gene expression, or KRAS/BRAF mutation status. [22] Due to their stability, the 27 colorectal PDX models may be able to serve as pre-clinical models in future drug studies. Drug resistance studies have been conducted using colorectal PDX models. In one study, researchers found that the models predicted patient responsiveness to cetuximab with 90% accuracy. [23] Another study identified the amplification of ERBB2 as another mechanism of resistance, and a putative new actionable target in treatments. [24]

Pancreatic cancer

Researchers initially focused on using pancreatic PDX models for drug studies to improve the process to develop predictive and pharmacodynamics end points for several molecularly targeted therapies. [8] Other studies have been conducted to explore if pancreatic PDX models can be used to guide the ongoing treatment of advance pancreatic cancer patient by screening multiple drugs to select the drug with most activity as the next line of treatment. [25] [26] Pancreatic PDX models have shown anti-mesothilin CAR-T cells (T-cells modified with a chimeric antigen receptor) to suppress cancer growth. [27]

Pediatric cancer (neuroblastoma)

Researchers have established neuroblastoma PDXs by orthotopic implantation of patient tumor explants into immunodeficient mice. The PDXs retained the genotype and phenotype of patient tumors, and exhibited substantial infiltrative growth and metastasis to distant organs including the bone marrow. The researchers cultured PDX-derived neuroblastoma cells in vitro and the cells retained tumorigenic and metastatic capacity in vivo. [28]

Brain cancer (Glioblastoma)

PDX models of glioblastoma (GBM) have been essential for improving our understanding of the disease both in preclinical and translational research. [29] In vitro cell culture models of glioblastoma, although valuable, can not fully replicate the complexity of the disease since there is a clear lack of the brain microenvironment and clonal selection. [30] Orthotopic PDXs of GBM can be established through intracranial injections of tumor cells using a stereotactic frame. [31] It has been shown that PDX models of GBM can recapitulate the histopathology, phenotypic properties and genetics of the parental patient tumor, highlighting the relevance of such models for GBM research. [31] [32] [33]

Challenges with PDX model adaptation

There are several challenges that scientists face when developing or using PDX models in research. For instance, not all tumor samples will successfully engraft in an immunodeficient mouse. When engraftment does occur, clinical study protocols are difficult to standardize if engraftment rates vary. [11] There is also a possibility that the genetic complexity of the patients tumor is reduced during the initiation of PDX models, through a process known as genomic bottlenecking. [34] [35] Further, it is expensive to house mice, maintain histopathological cores for frequent testing, [11] and perform ex vivo passaging of tumors in mice with high tumor burdens. [3] The scientific community is trying to tackle these challenges mutualising efforts and exchanging models and expertise to avoid duplication: academic networks have sprung in Europe [36] and USA, [37] and the Horizon 2020 program is funding a new Research Infrastructure [38] providing standardised services and resources, with the goal of improving reproducibility and open access to resources and services. [39]

With regard to using PDX in personalized medicine, there are financial challenges. In the US, the cost to develop PDX models can potentially cost a patient thousands of dollars for treatment. [40] PDX models can also take significant time to create, which may pose a challenge to patients with advanced stages of cancer. [1] Despite these setbacks, the PDX market is expected to grow from a market capitalization of $77.4 million in 2017 to $167.6 million in 2022 due to growing demand for personalized medicine. [41]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neuroblastoma</span> Medical condition

Neuroblastoma (NB) is a type of cancer that forms in certain types of nerve tissue. It most frequently starts from one of the adrenal glands but can also develop in the head, neck, chest, abdomen, or spine. Symptoms may include bone pain, a lump in the abdomen, neck, or chest, or a painless bluish lump under the skin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cancer stem cell</span> Cancer cells with features of normal cells

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are cancer cells that possess characteristics associated with normal stem cells, specifically the ability to give rise to all cell types found in a particular cancer sample. CSCs are therefore tumorigenic (tumor-forming), perhaps in contrast to other non-tumorigenic cancer cells. CSCs may generate tumors through the stem cell processes of self-renewal and differentiation into multiple cell types. Such cells are hypothesized to persist in tumors as a distinct population and cause relapse and metastasis by giving rise to new tumors. Therefore, development of specific therapies targeted at CSCs holds hope for improvement of survival and quality of life of cancer patients, especially for patients with metastatic disease.

Actibind is an actin-binding fungal T(2)-RNase protein that is produced by the black mold Aspergillus niger, a microorganism used in biotechnology and food technology. In plants, actibind binds actin, a major component of the cytoskeleton, interfering with the plants' pollen tubes and halting cell growth. Research published in the journal Cancer on 15 May 2006 reports evidence that actibind has antiangiogenic and anticarcinogenic characteristics. In human colon cancer, breast cancer and melanoma, increasing the level of actibind was found to reduce the ability of these cells to form tumorogenic colonies. In animal models, increased actibind inhibited the growth of colon cancer-derived tumors, metastases and blood vessel formation. During the completion of the Human Genome Project, the gene encoding for RNaseT2, the human actibind-like protein, was found on chromosome 6.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PAC-1</span> Chemical compound

PAC-1 is a synthesized chemical compound that selectively induces apoptosis, in cancerous cells. It was granted orphan drug status by the FDA in 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cilengitide</span> Chemical compound

Cilengitide is a molecule designed and synthesized at the Technical University Munich in collaboration with Merck KGaA in Darmstadt. It is based on the cyclic peptide cyclo(-RGDfV-), which is selective for αv integrins, which are important in angiogenesis, and other aspects of tumor biology. Hence, it is under investigation for the treatment of glioblastoma, where it may act by inhibiting angiogenesis, and influencing tumor invasion and proliferation.

AFPep is an orally-active, cyclic, 9-amino acid, peptide with a molecular weight of 969 daltons and is derived from the anti-oncogenic active site of alpha fetoprotein (AFP). Using the standard amino acid abbreviations, AFPep has the sequence cyclo(EKTOVNOGN), where O is hydroxyproline. This peptide has been shown in experimental animal models to be efficacious in the prevention and treatment of ER+ breast cancer.

A humanized mouse is a genetically modified mouse that has functioning human genes, cells, tissues and/or organs. Humanized mice are commonly used as small animal models in biological and medical research for human therapeutics.

mIRN21 Non-coding RNA in the species Homo sapiens

microRNA 21 also known as hsa-mir-21 or miRNA21 is a mammalian microRNA that is encoded by the MIR21 gene.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genetically modified mouse</span>

A genetically modified mouse or genetically engineered mouse model (GEMM) is a mouse that has had its genome altered through the use of genetic engineering techniques. Genetically modified mice are commonly used for research or as animal models of human diseases and are also used for research on genes. Together with patient-derived xenografts (PDXs), GEMMs are the most common in vivo models in cancer research. Both approaches are considered complementary and may be used to recapitulate different aspects of disease. GEMMs are also of great interest for drug development, as they facilitate target validation and the study of response, resistance, toxicity and pharmacodynamics.

The NSG mouse is a brand of immunodeficient laboratory mice, developed and marketed by Jackson Laboratory, which carries the strain NOD.Cg-Prkdcscid Il2rgtm1Wjl/SzJ. NSG branded mice are among the most immunodeficient described to date. NSG branded mice lack mature T cells, B cells, and natural killer (NK) cells. NSG branded mice are also deficient in multiple cytokine signaling pathways, and they have many defects in innate immunity. The compound immunodeficiencies in NSG branded mice permit the engraftment of a wide range of primary human cells, and enable sophisticated modeling of many areas of human biology and disease. NSG branded mice were developed in the laboratory of Dr. Leonard Shultz at Jackson Laboratory, which owns the NSG trade mark.

Mouse avatars, or avatar mice, refers to an experimental method employed to identify the best chemotherapeutic choice for a particular cancer patient.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Champions Oncology</span> American technology company

Champions Oncology is an American technology company that develops mouse avatars. Called TumorGrafts, they are used to test a panel of chemotherapy regimens, targeted therapies and monoclonal antibodies to identify potential therapeutic options for cancer patients. The company was founded in 2007 by David Sidransky, M.D., a Johns Hopkins University oncologist.

Breast cancer metastatic mouse models are experimental approaches in which mice are genetically manipulated to develop a mammary tumor leading to distant focal lesions of mammary epithelium created by metastasis. Mammary cancers in mice can be caused by genetic mutations that have been identified in human cancer. This means models can be generated based upon molecular lesions consistent with the human disease.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">T-47D</span>

T-47D is a human breast cancer cell line commonly used in biomedical research involving the hormonal expression of cancer cells.

Mice with severe combined immunodeficiency (SCIDs) are often used in the research of human disease. Human immune cells are used to develop human lymphoid organs within these immunodeficient mice, and many different types of SCID mouse models have been developed. These mice allow researchers to study the human immune system and human disease in a small animal model.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">4T1</span>

4T1 is a breast cancer cell line derived from the mammary gland tissue of a mouse BALB/c strain. 4T1 cells are epithelial and are resistant to 6-thioguanine. In preclinical research, 4T1 cells have been used to study breast cancer metastasis as they can metastasize to the lung, liver, lymph nodes, brain and bone. The cells are known to be highly aggressive in live tissues.

Circulating mitochondrial DNA, also called cell-free circulating mitochondrial DNA and circulating cell-free mitochondrial DNA(ccf mtDNA), are short sections of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that are released by cells undergoing stress or other damaging or pathological events. Circulating mitochondrial DNA is recognized by the immune system and activates inflammatory reactions. It is also a biomarker that can be used to detect the degree of damage from myocardial infarctions, cancers and ordinary stress. In certain situations it acts as a hormone.

The host response to cancer therapy is defined as a physiological response of the non-malignant cells of the body to a specific cancer therapy. The response is therapy-specific, occurring independently of cancer type or stage.

Sheila K. Singh MD, PhD, FRCSC is a chief pediatric neurosurgeon at McMaster Children's Hospital in Ontario, Canada. She is also Professor of Surgery and Biochemistry, the Division Head of Neurosurgery at Hamilton Health Sciences, the Research Director for McMaster's Division of Neurosurgery, and a scientist/principal investigator appointed to the Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute at McMaster University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mouse Models of Human Cancer database</span> Database of mouse models of human cancer

The laboratory mouse has been instrumental in investigating the genetics of human disease, including cancer, for over 110 years. The laboratory mouse has physiology and genetic characteristics very similar to humans providing powerful models for investigation of the genetic characteristics of disease.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Lai Y, Wei X, Lin S, Qin L, Cheng L, Li P (May 2017). "Current status and perspectives of patient-derived xenograft models in cancer research". Journal of Hematology & Oncology. 10 (1): 106. doi: 10.1186/s13045-017-0470-7 . PMC   5427553 . PMID   28499452.
  2. 1 2 Morton CL, Houghton PJ (2007). "Establishment of human tumor xenografts in immunodeficient mice". Nature Protocols (Protocol). 2 (2): 247–250. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2007.25 . PMID   17406581. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  3. 1 2 3 Siolas D, Hannon GJ (September 2013). "Patient-derived tumor xenografts: transforming clinical samples into mouse models". Cancer Research (Perspective). 73 (17): 5315–5319. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-1069. PMC   3766500 . PMID   23733750. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  4. 1 2 3 Williams SA, Anderson WC, Santaguida MT, Dylla SJ (September 2013). "Patient-derived xenografts, the cancer stem cell paradigm, and cancer pathobiology in the 21st century". Laboratory Investigation; A Journal of Technical Methods and Pathology. 93 (9): 970–982. doi: 10.1038/labinvest.2013.92 . PMID   23917877. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  5. ↑ Zvibel I, Smets F, Soriano H, Schmoldt A, Benthe HF, Haberland G, et al. (February 1976). "Proline endopeptidase and exopeptidase activity in polymorphonuclear granulocytes". Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry. 10 (2): 77–80. doi: 10.3727/000000002783985404 . PMID   12518889. S2CID   27366723. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  6. 1 2 Jin K, Teng L, Shen Y, He K, Xu Z, Li G (July 2010). "Patient-derived human tumour tissue xenografts in immunodeficient mice: a systematic review". Clinical & Translational Oncology (Review). 12 (7): 473–480. doi:10.1007/s12094-010-0540-6. PMID   20615824. S2CID   38277136. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  7. ↑ Cutz JC, Guan J, Bayani J, Yoshimoto M, Xue H, Sutcliffe M, et al. (July 2006). "Establishment in severe combined immunodeficiency mice of subrenal capsule xenografts and transplantable tumor lines from a variety of primary human lung cancers: potential models for studying tumor progression-related changes". Clinical Cancer Research. 12 (13): 4043–4054. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0252 . PMID   16818704. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  8. 1 2 3 4 Tentler JJ, Tan AC, Weekes CD, Jimeno A, Leong S, Pitts TM, et al. (April 2012). "Patient-derived tumour xenografts as models for oncology drug development". Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology (Review). 9 (6): 338–350. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.61. PMC   3928688 . PMID   22508028. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg Note: open access via PMC; closed via publisher site.
  9. ↑ Daniel VC, Marchionni L, Hierman JS, Rhodes JT, Devereux WL, Rudin CM, et al. (April 2009). "A primary xenograft model of small-cell lung cancer reveals irreversible changes in gene expression imposed by culture in vitro". Cancer Research. 69 (8): 3364–3373. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-4210. PMC   2821899 . PMID   19351829. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  10. 1 2 Hutchinson L, Kirk R (March 2011). "High drug attrition rates--where are we going wrong?". Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology (Editorial). 8 (4): 189–190. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.34 . PMID   21448176. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  11. 1 2 3 Malaney P, Nicosia SV, Davé V (March 2014). "One mouse, one patient paradigm: New avatars of personalized cancer therapy". Cancer Letters (Mini-review). 344 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2013.10.010. PMC   4092874 . PMID   24157811. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  12. ↑ Reyal F, Guyader C, Decraene C, Lucchesi C, Auger N, Assayag F, et al. (January 2012). "Molecular profiling of patient-derived breast cancer xenografts". Breast Cancer Research. 14 (1): R11. doi: 10.1186/bcr3095 . PMC   3496128 . PMID   22247967. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  13. ↑ Richmond A, Su Y (2008). "Mouse xenograft models vs GEM models for human cancer therapeutics". Disease Models & Mechanisms (Editorial). 1 (2–3): 78–82. doi:10.1242/dmm.000976. PMC   2562196 . PMID   19048064. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  14. ↑ Kerbel RS (2003). "Human tumor xenografts as predictive preclinical models for anticancer drug activity in humans: better than commonly perceived-but they can be improved". Cancer Biology & Therapy (Review). 2 (4 Suppl 1): S134–S139. doi: 10.4161/cbt.213 . PMID   14508091. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  15. ↑ Talmadge JE, Singh RK, Fidler IJ, Raz A (March 2007). "Murine models to evaluate novel and conventional therapeutic strategies for cancer". The American Journal of Pathology (Review). 170 (3): 793–804. doi:10.2353/ajpath.2007.060929. PMC   1864878 . PMID   17322365. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  16. ↑ Cassidy JW, Caldas C, Bruna A (August 2015). "Maintaining Tumor Heterogeneity in Patient-Derived Tumor Xenografts". Cancer Research (Review). 75 (15): 2963–2968. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0727. PMC   4539570 . PMID   26180079. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  17. ↑ Meyer LH, Debatin KM (December 2011). "Diversity of human leukemia xenograft mouse models: implications for disease biology". Cancer Research (Review). 71 (23): 7141–7144. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-1732 . PMID   22088964. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  18. ↑ Romanelli A, Clark A, Assayag F, Chateau-Joubert S, Poupon MF, Servely JL, et al. (December 2012). "Inhibiting aurora kinases reduces tumor growth and suppresses tumor recurrence after chemotherapy in patient-derived triple-negative breast cancer xenografts". Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. 11 (12): 2693–2703. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0441-T . PMID   23012245. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  19. ↑ DeRose YS, Wang G, Lin YC, Bernard PS, Buys SS, Ebbert MT, et al. (October 2011). "Tumor grafts derived from women with breast cancer authentically reflect tumor pathology, growth, metastasis and disease outcomes". Nature Medicine. 17 (11): 1514–1520. doi:10.1038/nm.2454. PMC   3553601 . PMID   22019887. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  20. ↑ Contreras-Zárate MJ, Ormond DR, Gillen AE, Hanna C, Day NL, Serkova NJ, et al. (2017). "Development of Novel Patient-Derived Xenografts from Breast Cancer Brain Metastases". Frontiers in Oncology. 7: 252. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2017.00252 . PMC   5673842 . PMID   29164052.
  21. ↑ Guenot D, Guérin E, Aguillon-Romain S, Pencreach E, Schneider A, Neuville A, et al. (April 2006). "Primary tumour genetic alterations and intra-tumoral heterogeneity are maintained in xenografts of human colon cancers showing chromosome instability". The Journal of Pathology. 208 (5): 643–652. doi:10.1002/path.1936. PMID   16450341. S2CID   30504094. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  22. ↑ Uronis JM, Osada T, McCall S, Yang XY, Mantyh C, Morse MA, et al. (2012). "Histological and molecular evaluation of patient-derived colorectal cancer explants". PLOS ONE. 7 (6): e38422. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...738422U. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038422 . PMC   3366969 . PMID   22675560. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  23. ↑ Krumbach R, Schüler J, Hofmann M, Giesemann T, Fiebig HH, Beckers T (May 2011). "Primary resistance to cetuximab in a panel of patient-derived tumour xenograft models: activation of MET as one mechanism for drug resistance". European Journal of Cancer. 47 (8): 1231–1243. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.019. PMID   21273060.
  24. ↑ Bertotti A, Migliardi G, Galimi F, Sassi F, Torti D, Isella C, et al. (November 2011). "A molecularly annotated platform of patient-derived xenografts ("xenopatients") identifies HER2 as an effective therapeutic target in cetuximab-resistant colorectal cancer". Cancer Discovery. 1 (6): 508–523. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0109 . hdl: 2318/96346 . PMID   22586653. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  25. ↑ Hidalgo M, Bruckheimer E, Rajeshkumar NV, Garrido-Laguna I, De Oliveira E, Rubio-Viqueira B, et al. (August 2011). "A pilot clinical study of treatment guided by personalized tumorgrafts in patients with advanced cancer". Molecular Cancer Therapeutics. 10 (8): 1311–1316. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-11-0233. PMC   4629061 . PMID   21673092. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  26. ↑ Laheru D, Shah P, Rajeshkumar NV, McAllister F, Taylor G, Goldsweig H, et al. (December 2012). "Integrated preclinical and clinical development of S-trans, trans-Farnesylthiosalicylic Acid (FTS, Salirasib) in pancreatic cancer". Investigational New Drugs. 30 (6): 2391–2399. doi:10.1007/s10637-012-9818-6. PMC   3557459 . PMID   22547163. Closed Access logo transparent.svg
  27. ↑ Jiang H, Song B, Wang P, Shi B, Li Q, Fan M, et al. (December 2017). "Efficient growth suppression in pancreatic cancer PDX model by fully human anti-mesothelin CAR-T cells". Protein & Cell. 8 (12): 926–931. doi:10.1007/s13238-017-0472-9. PMC   5712292 . PMID   28929447.
  28. ↑ Braekeveldt N, Wigerup C, Gisselsson D, Mohlin S, Merselius M, Beckman S, et al. (March 2015). "Neuroblastoma patient-derived orthotopic xenografts retain metastatic patterns and geno- and phenotypes of patient tumours". International Journal of Cancer. 136 (5): E252–E261. doi:10.1002/ijc.29217. PMC   4299502 . PMID   25220031. Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  29. ↑ Alcaniz J, Winkler L, Dahlmann M, Becker M, Orthmann A, Haybaeck J, et al. (2023-04-11). "Clinically relevant glioblastoma patient-derived xenograft models to guide drug development and identify molecular signatures". Frontiers in Oncology. 13: 1129627. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1129627 . PMC   10126369 . PMID   37114125.
  30. ↑ Kerstetter-Fogle AE, Harris PL, Brady-Kalnay SM, Sloan AE (July 2020). "Generation of Glioblastoma Patient-Derived Intracranial Xenografts for Preclinical Studies". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 21 (14): 5113. doi: 10.3390/ijms21145113 . PMC   7403971 . PMID   32698368.
  31. 1 2 Joo KM, Kim J, Jin J, Kim M, Seol HJ, Muradov J, et al. (January 2013). "Patient-specific orthotopic glioblastoma xenograft models recapitulate the histopathology and biology of human glioblastomas in situ". Cell Reports. 3 (1): 260–273. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2012.12.013 . PMID   23333277.
  32. ↑ Xie Y, Bergström T, Jiang Y, Johansson P, Marinescu VD, Lindberg N, et al. (October 2015). "The Human Glioblastoma Cell Culture Resource: Validated Cell Models Representing All Molecular Subtypes". eBioMedicine. 2 (10): 1351–1363. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.08.026. PMC   4634360 . PMID   26629530.
  33. ↑ Vaubel RA, Tian S, Remonde D, Schroeder MA, Mladek AC, Kitange GJ, et al. (March 2020). "Genomic and Phenotypic Characterization of a Broad Panel of Patient-Derived Xenografts Reflects the Diversity of Glioblastoma". Clinical Cancer Research. 26 (5): 1094–1104. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0909. PMC   7056576 . PMID   31852831.
  34. ↑ Hynds RE, Huebner A, Pearce DR, Pich O, Akarca AU, Moore DA, et al. (May 2024). "Representation of genomic intratumor heterogeneity in multi-region non-small cell lung cancer patient-derived xenograft models". Nature Communications. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47547-3. PMC   11143323 . PMID   38821942.
  35. ↑ Ben-David U, Ha G, Tseng YY, Greenwald NF, Oh C, Shih J, et al. (November 2017). "Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution". Nature Genetics. 49 (11): 1567–1575. doi:10.1038/ng.3967. PMC   5659952 . PMID   28991255.
  36. ↑ "EurOPDX - European Oncology PDX network" . Retrieved 9 February 2021.
  37. ↑ "PDXNet - PDX Development and Trial Centers Research Network" . Retrieved 9 February 2021.
  38. ↑ "Research Infrastructures - European Commission" . Retrieved 9 February 2021.
  39. ↑ "EDIReX - the EurOPDX Distributed Infrastructure for Research on patient-derived cancer Xenografts" . Retrieved 9 February 2021.
  40. ↑ Pollack A (September 25, 2012). "Seeking cures, patients enlist mice stand-ins". Business Day. The New York Times . Open Access logo PLoS transparent.svg
  41. ↑ "Patient Derived Xenograft/PDX Models Market - Global Forecast to 2022 - Growing Demand for Personalized Medicine - Research and Markets". Business Wire. 2017-12-29. Retrieved 11 June 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.