The Ongoing Trends of Patient‐derived Xenograft Models in Oncology
Jianyong Zhuo,Renyi Su,Winyen Tan,Zhengxing Lian,Di Lu,Xiao Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12096
IF: 15.2825
2020-01-01
Cancer Communications
Abstract:Cancer CommunicationsVolume 40, Issue 11 p. 559-563 EDITORIALOpen Access The ongoing trends of patient-derived xenograft models in oncology Jianyong Zhuo, Jianyong Zhuo Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation, Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China The first two authors contributed equally.Search for more papers by this authorRenyi Su, Renyi Su Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Li Shui Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Lishui, Zhejiang, 323000 P. R. China The first two authors contributed equally.Search for more papers by this authorWinyen Tan, Winyen Tan Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorZhengxing Lian, Zhengxing Lian National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation, Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorDi Lu, Di Lu Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiao Xu, Corresponding Author Xiao Xu zjxu@zju.edu.cn Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation, Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Correspondence Xiao Xu, Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine; Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine; National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation; Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University Zhejiang, P. R. China, 310003. Email: zjxu@zju.edu.cnSearch for more papers by this author Jianyong Zhuo, Jianyong Zhuo Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation, Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China The first two authors contributed equally.Search for more papers by this authorRenyi Su, Renyi Su Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Li Shui Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Lishui, Zhejiang, 323000 P. R. China The first two authors contributed equally.Search for more papers by this authorWinyen Tan, Winyen Tan Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorZhengxing Lian, Zhengxing Lian National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation, Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorDi Lu, Di Lu Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. ChinaSearch for more papers by this authorXiao Xu, Corresponding Author Xiao Xu zjxu@zju.edu.cn Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation, Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003 P. R. China Correspondence Xiao Xu, Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine; Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine; National Health Commission Key Laboratory of Combined Multi-organ Transplantation; Institute of Organ Transplantation, Zhejiang University Zhejiang, P. R. China, 310003. Email: zjxu@zju.edu.cnSearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 September 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12096Citations: 1 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abbreviations CNAs copy number alterations PDX patient-derived xenograft PDX-MI PDX model minimal information standard 1 MAIN TEXT Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models have garnered increasing attention since the last decade. These models are typically characterized by the implantation of fresh patient-derived tumor tissues into immunodeficient mice. PDX models are well recognized in academic laboratories, pharmaceutical institutions, and specialized commercial organizations as having the ability to recapitulate genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics of the parental tumor tissue [1, 2]. Recently, these models have been successfully used in preclinical studies to identify potential biomarkers for drug response and resistance, and to measure tumor evolution in response to treatment [3, 4]. Favorable outcomes demonstrated using PDX models could be used as ideal models for preclinical research and clinical translation studies. At present, the concept of co-clinical trial, the simultaneous use of the so-called Avatar models, has attracted growing attention and has been expanded to include PDX models. These Avatar models are generated from patients enrolled in clinical trials and are simultaneously treated with the same anticancer therapies as the patients [5]. Several retrospective studies have shown that responses of PDX models toward certain agents were strongly correlated to the clinical response seen in the patients [6]. Moreover, Avatar models have been involved in 15 clinical trials covering different tumor settings, including prostate cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, sarcoma, head and neck carcinoma, ovarian cancer, and pancreatic cancer (https://ClinicalTrials.gov). Some prospective studies were also performed using PDX models to guide clinical treatment decisions in a small number of patients and demonstrated prolonged survival [7, 8]. Stebbing's et al. [8] showed that 20.1% (6/29) of their investigated patients with advanced sarcoma obtained direct clinical benefits from PDX-guided therapy. Bousquet et al. [9] suggested that PDX models could be used to select the most aggressive clones in a primary tumor with similar gene expression characteristics as the corresponding metastatic tumors. Associated drug screen results could provide an optimal therapeutic option to patients suffering from recurrence or metastasis. These data indicated that PDX models have the potential to directly influence clinical decision making. However, the reliability of the cancer cells within a PDX has been questioned, impeding the potential future applications of these models. The following represent the main problems associated with PDX models: 1) The current PDX is both time-consuming and expensive. It takes 4 to 8 months to generate a complete PDX cohort for in vivo drug screening. If the current PDX models are to be employed in a clinical setting, patients with advanced-stage cancer could suffer from tumor progression or even death before the screening results are obtained. 2) Intratumor heterogeneity could influence the growth of PDX tumors. A PDX model is usually established by using only a single piece of tumor tissue. However, this piece of tissue may not be able to represent the whole tumor due to the existence of intratumor heterogeneity. 3) Genomic evolution is another problem of PDX. A study performed by Uri et al. [10] showed that the particular copy number alterations (CNAs) in PDX models were different from those in patients by characterizing the CNA dynamics in 1110 PDX models from 24 cancer types. As a result of genetic drift and selection pressure, genomic evolution has been observed in PDX's tumors and this might affect the results of drug response in some PDX models [10, 11]. 4) Human tumor stromal components could not be maintained permanently in PDX models. The stromal components include the extracellular matrix, cancer-associated fibroblasts, endothelial cells, and immune cells. Since the establishment of PDX models, human stromal in tumors are gradually replaced by murine stroma which could probably alter the tumor microenvironment. The interaction between human tumor cells and human stromal could be lost, and anticancer drugs, such as antiangiogenic drugs, acting on human stromal cells would lose their efficacy. [12]. 5) PDX models lack an immune system. The current PDX models are constructed in immuno-compromised mice lacking an immune system, which brings another challenge to immune-oncology research. In view of the above-mentioned drawbacks, several corresponding technical modifications have been proposed. For rapid in vivo screening of the most effective therapeutic regimens, miniPDX models have been proposed as a novel alternative. In this model, patient-derived tumor cells are filled into special hollow fiber capsules and are implanted subcutaneously into mice. Subsequently, the response of these tumor cells to a series of drug regimens are evaluated after treatment for 7 days. Drug responses in miniPDX models were found to be consistent with those in the corresponding conventional PDX models [13]. Further, miniPDX models were found to overcome the disadvantages of conventional PDX models such as the long latency period before tumor engraftment and the low engraftment rate. The duration of regimen screening was shortened to only 7 days when miniPDX models were used, which showed great improvement in the waiting time compared to the conventional PDX models (2-4 months). Clinically, these models could aid decision making for first-line therapies. Zhan et al. [14] reported that the chemotherapeutic regimens based on miniPDX-guided selection demonstrated improved outcomes in patients with gallbladder carcinoma. Still, the lack of a tumor microenvironment in miniPDX models hinders the observation of responses towards immunotherapies. To address the influence of intratumor heterogeneity on treatment decision making, multi-sample implantation could be the key to guarantee a more comprehensive approach. The attempt is to establish multiple PDX models using tissues from different regions of a single tumor and to conduct drug testing on each of these models. This could theoretically cover the genetic and molecular diversity of the corresponding tumor. Besides that, PDX models could also be built with tumor cells derived from liquid biopsies, such as circulating tumor cells, as these are assumed to possess the intratumor heterogeneity of the patient's tumor. However, this approach could still be both time-consuming and skill-demanding due to shortage of available tumor tissue. Genome evolution was considered inevitable in animal tumor models. Recently, Uri et al. [11] proposed that the risks associated with cancer model evolution could be attenuated by three main strategies, namely tracking and reporting model passages, routinely assessing genetic diversification in the model, and minimizing genomic evolution by avoiding unnecessary passaging. On the contrary, genomic evolution in PDX models can also provide novel avenues for cancer research of tumor evolutionary dynamics. To better mimic the human tumor microenvironment, human mesenchymal stem cells or tumor-associated stromal cells have been utilized as co-implants into PDX models, where researchers can analyze complex tumor-stroma interactions in vivo [15]. However, these stromal elements may only be present in one passage and could be lost when the PDX tumor is to be passaged in new mice unless the human stromal cells were co-injected at every passage. Moreover, it is still uncertain whether human tumor cells could cross-talk with murine cells and "instruct" them to create a microenvironment that favors tumor growth. In regard to immune reconstruction, humanized PDX models have been constructed followed by the engraftment of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells and hematopoietic stem cells into immunodeficient mice [16]. The humanized PDX models have paved a way for tumor immunology and immunotherapy research. However, the reconstruction of the tumor microenvironment and the immune system can only present in a designated passage when a cohort of PDX mice are used in one experiment. The transfer of human immunocytes into PDX models usually leads to graft-versus-host disease, which does not allow long-term evaluation of the efficacy of immunotherapy [16]. In addition, it is crucial to construct large-scaled PDX platform by multiple institutions. The construction of PDX models is a resource- and labor-intensive project. A large-scaled PDX platform offers advantages to reduce cost, to share rare or particular tumors, and to launch large-scale cancer research projects. Based on the PDX platform, higher immunodeficient mice, such as NOD SCID gamma (NSG), could be used to increase the engraftment rate. Expansion of the source of PDX samples from surgical resection and biopsy to tumor cells from circulating blood, ascites, and pleural effusion makes it possible to construct PDX models with scarce tissues. Besides in vivo PDX models, ex vivo culture of patients' tumors, such as patient-derived primary cells and organoids, provides additional advantages to rapidly expand primary tumor tissues for large-scale drug screening. It will be highly possible to integrate a patient's own PDX/organoid/ primary cells for discovering effective targets and contributing to tailored treatments. In our opinion, the PDX models improved through the above technical modifications could be termed as PDX 2.0 models. In the foreseeable future, the PDX 2.0 models are expected to play a prominent role in the following aspects. Firstly, PDX 2.0 models are expected to be used in combination with bioinformatics and big data analysis to guide individualized treatment. Next-generation sequencing technology has been introduced in clinical settings to guide decision-making. However, a study from the Mayo Clinic showed that only a small number of patients with actionable genetic mutations could benefit from genotype-directed therapy [17]. Recently, the integration of PDX models to multi-omics technologies, such as genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, has contributed abundantly to the understanding of cancer biology and the discovery of novel targets or biomarkers [18]. It is reasonable to assume that the combination of PDX 2.0 models with omics analysis could be a robust method to indicate individual therapeutic regimens. The tumor samples from one patient could be divided into two parts: one part could be used in omics tests for personalized analysis, while the other could be transplanted into the PDX 2.0 models. The individual omics data could allow clinicians to identify more appropriate treatment options. Further, PDX 2.0 models could be used to test the effectiveness of the identified therapeutic options, and these treatments could be ranked as consideration for administration to the patients. During this process, the PDX 2.0 model should be incorporated into a molecular tumor board platform, composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts in clinical and translational oncology, bioinformatics, and molecular biology. Secondly, the PDX 2.0 models are expected to be used for identifying therapy-guided molecular subtyping. Complex molecular heterogeneity is one of the main reasons for the failure of targeted therapies. Thus, the identification of specific biomarkers, such as HER2, could help to identify more responsive patients [19]. Recently, the concept of pan-cancer molecular subtype has been proposed to supple the traditional system of cancer classification. This concept will shed light on future therapeutic development strategies for different types of cancer with the same molecular alterations [20]. Hence, more attention should be given to the application of PDX model biobanks containing different types of cancer in identifying therapy-guided molecular subtyping. Several PDX biobanks have been constructed by multiple institutes to share their PDX platforms. The shared live biospecimens and integrated information of therapeutic results with clinical and molecular annotation are well-preserved by the following repositories, i.e. PDX Finder (Europe and USA), NCI PDXNet (USA), EurOPDX (Europe), NCI Patient-Derived Models Repository (PDMR, USA), and Public Repository of Xenografts (ProXe, USA). More national or even international PDX groups are anticipated to conduct comprehensive multidisciplinary studies that involve multiple centers and different cancer types to identify best treatment responses to specific molecular subsets. To make the PDX models reproducible in different institutions, it is critical to standardize the procedures and the efficacy of evaluation criteria. Recently, some international experts have put up the PDX models Minimal Information Standard (PDX-MI) to define the minimal information in describing the clinical attributes of a patient's tumor, the processes of implantation and passaging of tumors into a host mouse strain, the quality assurance methods, and the use of PDX models in cancer research [21]. Furthermore, PDX platforms should be developed to integrate and converge PDX-relevant resources from multilateral cooperation in a "co-constructed, co-managed, and shared" pattern. Under this pattern, institutions are expected to generate a PDX union to contribute to the construction of large-scale PDX model platform to participate in project operation and management, and to share PDX model resources. Hence, it is necessary to formulate more detailed guidelines and consensuses for quality control. Only when effective and enforceable standard operating procedures are established, then can multiple institutions achieve reliable and reproducible datasets from PDX models. In short, the current PDX models could be modified in specific ways. Prospectively, the ultimate goal of a PDX model is to be the optimal model that could comprehensively simulate the human body environment. The modified PDX models are expected to combine with big data analysis to guide individualized treatment and be used to identify therapy-guided molecular subtyping. In the predictable future, we believe that the main focus of PDX models will be on how to improve the existing PDX models and their application in clinical settings. AUTHORSHIP ZJY, SRY, TWY, and LZX wrote the manuscript. LD and XX revised the work. All authors have read the manuscript and agreed for publication. ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Not applicable CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION Not applicable CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare no conflict of interest. FUNDING This work was funded by grants from the National Science and Technology Major Project of China (2017ZX10203205), the National Natural Science Funds for Distinguished Young Scholar of China (81625003), the Key Research & Development Plan of Zhejiang Province (2019C03050), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81702858). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank a lot to Dr. Xuyong Wei for their outstanding advice and support on the manuscript. Open Research DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Not applicable REFERENCES 1Huang KL, Li S, Mertins P, Cao S, Gunawardena HP, Ruggles KV, et al. Proteogenomic integration reveals therapeutic targets in breast cancer xenografts. Nat Commun. 2017; 8:14864. 2Blomme A, Van Simaeys G, Doumont G, Costanza B, Bellier J, Otaka Y, et al. Murine stroma adopts a human-like metabolic phenotype in the PDX model of colorectal cancer and liver metastases. Oncogene. 2018; 37(9): 1237- 50. 3Evrard YA, Srivastava A, Randjelovic J, Consortium NP, Doroshow JH, Dean DA, et al. Systematic Establishment of Robustness and Standards in Patient-Derived Xenograft Experiments and Analysis. Cancer Res. 2020. 4Hidalgo M, Bruckheimer E, Rajeshkumar NV, Garrido-Laguna I, De Oliveira E, Rubio-Viqueira B, et al. A pilot clinical study of treatment guided by personalized tumorgrafts in patients with advanced cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2011; 10(8): 1311- 6. 5Byrne AT, Alferez DG, Amant F, Annibali D, Arribas J, Biankin AV, et al. Interrogating open issues in cancer medicine with patient-derived xenografts. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017; 17(10): 632. 6Aparicio S, Hidalgo M, Kung AL. Examining the utility of patient-derived xenograft mouse models. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015; 15(5): 311- 6. 7Costa B, Estrada MF, Mendes RV, Fior R. Zebrafish Avatars towards Personalized Medicine-A Comparative Review between Avatar Models. Cells. 2020; 9(2). 8Stebbing J, Paz K, Schwartz GK, Wexler LH, Maki R, Pollock RE, et al. Patient-derived xenografts for individualized care in advanced sarcoma. Cancer. 2014; 120(13): 2006- 15. 9Bousquet G, Janin A. Patient-Derived Xenograft: An Adjuvant Technology for the Treatment of Metastatic Disease. Pathobiology. 2016; 83(4): 170- 6. 10Ben-David U, Ha G, Tseng YY, Greenwald NF, Oh C, Shih J, et al. Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution. Nat Genet. 2017; 49(11): 1567- 75. 11Ben-David U, Beroukhim R, Golub TR. Genomic evolution of cancer models: perils and opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019; 19(2): 97- 109. 12Yamamoto K, Tateishi K, Kudo Y, Hoshikawa M, Tanaka M, Nakatsuka T, et al. Stromal remodeling by the BET bromodomain inhibitor JQ1 suppresses the progression of human pancreatic cancer. Oncotarget. 2016; 7(38): 61469- 84. 13Zhang F, Wang W, Long Y, Liu H, Cheng J, Guo L, et al. Characterization of drug responses of mini patient-derived xenografts in mice for predicting cancer patient clinical therapeutic response. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2018; 38(1): 60. 14Zhan M, Yang RM, Wang H, He M, Chen W, Xu SW, et al. Guided chemotherapy based on patient-derived mini-xenograft models improves survival of gallbladder carcinoma patients. Cancer Commun (Lond). 2018; 38(1): 48. 15Flores-Morales A, Bergmann TB, Lavallee C, Batth TS, Lin D, Lerdrup M, et al. Proteogenomic Characterization of Patient-Derived Xenografts Highlights the Role of REST in Neuroendocrine Differentiation of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2019; 25(2): 595- 608. 16Stripecke R, Munz C, Schuringa JJ, Bissig KD, Soper B, Meeham T, et al. Innovations, challenges, and minimal information for standardization of humanized mice. EMBO Mol Med. 2020; 12(7):e8662. 17Bryce AH, Egan JB, Borad MJ, Stewart AK, Nowakowski GS, Chanan-Khan A, et al. Experience with precision genomics and tumor board, indicates frequent target identification, but barriers to delivery. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(16): 27145- 54. 18Parsons J, Francavilla C. 'Omics Approaches to Explore the Breast Cancer Landscape. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019; 7: 395. 19Ho DWH, Chan LK, Chiu YT, Xu IMJ, Poon RTP, Cheung TT, et al. TSC1/2 mutations define a molecular subset of HCC with aggressive behaviour and treatment implication. Gut. 2017; 66(8): 1496- 506. 20Hoadley KA, Yau C, Hinoue T, Wolf DM, Lazar AJ, Drill E, et al. Cell-of-Origin Patterns Dominate the Molecular Classification of 10,000 Tumors from 33 Types of Cancer. Cell. 2018; 173(2): 291- 304 e6. 21Meehan TF, Conte N, Goldstein T, Inghirami G, Murakami MA, Brabetz S, et al. PDX-MI: Minimal Information for Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Models. Cancer Res. 2017; 77(21): e62- e6. Citing Literature Volume40, Issue11November 2020Pages 559-563 This article also appears in:Cellular and molecular biology ReferencesRelatedInformation
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
-
Patient-derived Xenograft Models in Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer
Binhua Pan,Xuyong Wei,Xiao Xu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-022-02454-9
IF: 6.429
2022-01-01
Cancer Cell International
Abstract:Animal models are crucial tools for evaluating the biological progress of human cancers and for the preclinical investigation of anticancer drugs and cancer prevention. Various animals are widely used in hepatopancreatobiliary cancer research, and mouse models are the most popular. Generally, genetic tools, graft transplantation, and chemical and physical measures are adopted to generate sundry mouse models of hepatopancreatobiliary cancer. Graft transplantation is commonly used to study tumour progression. Over the past few decades, subcutaneous or orthotopic cell-derived tumour xenograft models (CDX models) have been developed to simulate distinct tumours in patients. However, two major limitations exist in CDX models. One model poorly simulates the microenvironment of tumours in humans, such as the vascular, lymphatic and immune environments. The other model loses genetic heterogeneity compared with the corresponding primary tumour. Increased efforts have focused on developing better models for hepatopancreatobiliary cancer research. Hepatopancreatobiliary cancer is considered a tumour with high molecular heterogeneity, making precision medicine challenging in cancer treatment. Developing a new animal model that can better mimic tumour tissue and more accurately predict the efficacy of anticancer treatments is urgent. For the past several years, the patient-derived xenograft model (PDX model) has emerged as a promising tool for translational research. It can retain the genetic and histological stability of their originating tumour at limited passages and shed light on precision cancer medicine. In this review, we summarize the methodology, advantages/disadvantages and applications of PDX models in hepatopancreatobiliary cancer research.
-
Integrative Pharmacogenomics Analysis of Patient-Derived Xenografts
Arvind Singh Mer,Wail Ba-alawi,Petr Smirnov,Yi Xiao Wang,Ben Brew,Janosch Ortmann,Ming-Sound Tsao,David Cescon,Anna Goldenberg,Benjamin Haibe-Kains
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/471227
IF: 11.2
2019-01-01
Cancer Research
Abstract:AbstractIdentifying robust biomarkers of drug response constitutes a key challenge in precision medicine. Patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDX) have emerged as reliable preclinical models that more accurately recapitulate tumor response to chemo- and targeted therapies. However, the lack of computational tools makes it difficult to analyze high-throughput molecular and pharmacologic profiles of PDX. We have developed Xenograft Visualization & Analysis (Xeva), an open-source software package for in vivo pharmacogenomic datasets that allows for quantification of variability in gene expression and pathway activity across PDX passages. We found that only a few genes and pathways exhibited passage-specific alterations and were therefore not suitable for biomarker discovery. Using the largest PDX pharmacogenomic dataset to date, we identified 87 pathways that are significantly associated with response to 51 drugs (FDR < 0.05). We found novel biomarkers based on gene expressions, copy number aberrations, and mutations predictive of drug response (concordance index > 0.60; FDR < 0.05). Our study demonstrates that Xeva provides a flexible platform for integrative analysis of preclinical in vivo pharmacogenomics data to identify biomarkers predictive of drug response, representing a major step forward in precision oncology.Significance:A computational platform for PDX data analysis reveals consistent gene and pathway activity across passages and confirms drug response prediction biomarkers in PDX.See related commentary by Meehan, p. 4324
-
Progress in building clinically relevant patient‐derived tumor xenograft models for cancer research
Weijing Wang,Yongshu Li,Kaida Lin,Xiaokang Wang,Yanyang Tu,Zhenjian Zhuo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ame2.12349
2023-09-09
Animal Models and Experimental Medicine
Abstract:Patient‐derived tumor xenografts (PDX) have evolved since 1953, involving tumor implantation into immunodeficient mice. Uncertain engraftment rates obscure benefits like retained tumor characteristics and enhanced drug sensitivity. Patient‐derived orthotopic xenografts (PDOX), emerging in 1982, enhance drug assessment and metastatic capabilities. Humanized mice (1988) involve transplanting immune components, resembling human tumor microenvironments. Zebrafish PDX (2005) offer quick modeling, drug testing, and live imaging, aiding metastasis and molecular mechanism studies. Patient‐derived tumor xenograft (PDX) models, a method involving the surgical extraction of tumor tissues from cancer patients and subsequent transplantation into immunodeficient mice, have emerged as a pivotal approach in translational research, particularly in advancing precision medicine. As the first stage of PDX development, the patient‐derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) models implant tumor tissue in mice in the corresponding anatomical locations of the patient. The PDOX models have several advantages, including high fidelity to the original tumor, heightened drug sensitivity, and an elevated rate of successful transplantation. However, the PDOX models present significant challenges, requiring advanced surgical techniques and resource‐intensive imaging technologies, which limit its application. And then, the humanized mouse models, as well as the zebrafish models, were developed. Humanized mouse models contain a human immune environment resembling the tumor and immune system interplay. The humanized mouse models are a hot topic in PDX model research. Regarding zebrafish patient‐derived tumor xenografts (zPDX) and patient‐derived organoids (PDO) as promising models for studying cancer and drug discovery, zPDX models are used to transplant tumors into zebrafish as novel personalized medical animal models with the advantage of reducing patient waiting time. PDO models provide a cost‐effective approach for drug testing that replicates the in vivo environment and preserves important tumor‐related information for patients. The present review highlights the functional characteristics of each new phase of PDX and provides insights into the challenges and prospective developments in this rapidly evolving field.
-
PDX-MI: Minimal Information for Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Models.
Terrence F Meehan,Nathalie Conte,Theodore Goldstein,Giorgio Inghirami,Mark A Murakami,Sebastian Brabetz,Zhiping Gu,Jeffrey A Wiser,Patrick Dunn,Dale A Begley,Debra M Krupke,Andrea Bertotti,Alejandra Bruna,Matthew H Brush,Annette T Byrne,Carlos Caldas,Amanda L Christie,Dominic A Clark,Heidi Dowst,Jonathan R Dry,James H Doroshow,Olivier Duchamp,Yvonne A Evrard,Stephane Ferretti,Kristopher K Frese,Neal C Goodwin,Danielle Greenawalt,Melissa A Haendel,Els Hermans,Peter J Houghton,Jos Jonkers,Kristel Kemper,Tin O Khor,Michael T Lewis,K C Kent Lloyd,Jeremy Mason,Enzo Medico,Steven B Neuhauser,James M Olson,Daniel S Peeper,Oscar M Rueda,Je Kyung Seong,Livio Trusolino,Emilie Vinolo,Robert J Wechsler-Reya,David M Weinstock,Alana Welm,S John Weroha,Frédéric Amant,Stefan M Pfister,Marcel Kool,Helen Parkinson,Atul J Butte,Carol J Bult
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0582
IF: 11.2
2019-10-03
Cancer Research
Abstract:Patient-derived tumor xenograft (PDX) mouse models have emerged as an important oncology research platform to study tumor evolution, mechanisms of drug response and resistance, and tailoring chemotherapeutic approaches for individual patients. The lack of robust standards for reporting on PDX models has hampered the ability of researchers to find relevant PDX models and associated data. Here we present the PDX models minimal information standard (PDX-MI) for reporting on the generation, quality assurance, and use of PDX models. PDX-MI defines the minimal information for describing the clinical attributes of a patient's tumor, the processes of implantation and passaging of tumors in a host mouse strain, quality assurance methods, and the use of PDX models in cancer research. Adherence to PDX-MI standards will facilitate accurate search results for oncology models and their associated data across distributed repository databases and promote reproducibility in research studies using these models. Cancer Res; 77(21); e62-66. ©2017 AACR.
oncology
-
Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Models: Toward the Establishment of Precision Cancer Medicine
Taichiro Goto
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm10030064
IF: 3.5083
2020-07-18
Journal of Personalized Medicine
Abstract:Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) describe models involving the implantation of patient-derived tumor tissue into immunodeficient mice. Compared with conventional preclinical models involving the implantation of cancer cell lines into mice, PDXs can be characterized by the preservation of tumor heterogeneity, and the tumor microenvironment (including stroma/vasculature) more closely resembles that in patients. Consequently, the use of PDX models has improved the predictability of clinical therapeutic responses to 80% or greater, compared with approximately 5% for existing models. In the future, molecular biological analyses, omics analyses, and other experiments will be conducted using recently prepared PDX models under the strong expectation that the analysis of cancer pathophysiology, stem cells, and novel treatment targets and biomarkers will be improved, thereby promoting drug development. This review outlines the methods for preparing PDX models, advances in cancer research using PDX mice, and perspectives for the establishment of precision cancer medicine within the framework of personalized cancer medicine.
medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
-
Challenges and Prospects of Patient-Derived Xenografts for Cancer Research
Jiankang Jin,Katsuhiro Yoshimura,Matheus Sewastjanow-Silva,Shumei Song,Jaffer A Ajani,Jaffer A. Ajani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15174352
2023-09-01
Cancers
Abstract:We discuss the importance of the in vivo models in elucidating cancer biology, focusing on the patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models, which are classic and standard functional in vivo platforms for preclinical evaluation. We provide an overview of the most representative models, including cell-derived xenografts (CDX), tumor and metastatic cell-derived xenografts, and PDX models utilizing humanized mice (HM). The orthotopic models, which could reproduce the cancer environment and its progression, similar to human tumors, are particularly common. The standard procedures and rationales of gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) orthotopic models are addressed. Despite the significant advantages of the PDX models, such as recapitulating key features of human tumors and enabling drug testing in the in vivo context, some challenges must be acknowledged, including loss of heterogeneity, selection bias, clonal evolution, stroma replacement, tumor micro-environment (TME) changes, host cell carryover and contaminations, human-to-host cell oncogenic transformation, human and host viral infections, as well as limitations for immunologic research. To compensate for these limitations, other mouse models, such as syngeneic and humanized mouse models, are currently utilized. Overall, the PDX models represent a powerful tool in cancer research, providing critical insights into tumor biology and potential therapeutic targets, but their limitations and challenges must be carefully considered for their effective use. Lastly, we present an intronic quantitative PCR (qPCR) method to authenticate, detect, and quantify human/murine cells in cell lines and PDX samples.
oncology
-
Patient-derived xenograft models in cancer therapy: technologies and applications
Yihan Liu,Wantao Wu,Changjing Cai,Hao Zhang,Hong Shen,Ying Han
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-023-01419-2
IF: 39.3
2023-04-13
Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy
Abstract:Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models, in which tumor tissues from patients are implanted into immunocompromised or humanized mice, have shown superiority in recapitulating the characteristics of cancer, such as the spatial structure of cancer and the intratumor heterogeneity of cancer. Moreover, PDX models retain the genomic features of patients across different stages, subtypes, and diversified treatment backgrounds. Optimized PDX engraftment procedures and modern technologies such as multi-omics and deep learning have enabled a more comprehensive depiction of the PDX molecular landscape and boosted the utilization of PDX models. These irreplaceable advantages make PDX models an ideal choice in cancer treatment studies, such as preclinical trials of novel drugs, validating novel drug combinations, screening drug-sensitive patients, and exploring drug resistance mechanisms. In this review, we gave an overview of the history of PDX models and the process of PDX model establishment. Subsequently, the review presents the strengths and weaknesses of PDX models and highlights the integration of novel technologies in PDX model research. Finally, we delineated the broad application of PDX models in chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and other novel therapies.
biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology
-
Recent Progress in Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Model of Breast Cancer
LiJun MA,Jun ZHAN,HongQuan ZHANG
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/N052015-00386
2016-01-01
Abstract:Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) model of breast cancer faithfully maintains the biological characteristics of the donor tumors and reproduces the heterogeneity of primary tumor.PDXs have been used in the investigations of uncovering the mechanism of drug resistance.This preservation of breast cancer biology involves a number of different aspects, including gene expression patterns, mutational status, drug response and tumor architecture.Therefore, PDXs are of great value in the translational research of cancer drug discovery.These models have been shown to be a valuable tool for the identification of new treatment targets in the translation of cancer therapeutics into clinical settings.This review summarizes the recent progress of methodologies of establishing PDXs and the limitations of PDXs used in the development of anti-tumor drugs.In conclusion, as the development of PDX models is time-consuming and expensive, their development and use for a personalized cancer therapy should be improved in the future.
-
Establishing A Patient-Derived Colorectal Cancer Xenograft Model For Translational Research
Zhonghai Guan,Xiangheng Chen,Xiaoxia Jiang,Zhongqi Li,Xiongfei Yu,Ketao Jin,Jiang Cao,Lisong Teng
2016-01-01
Abstract:Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains to present a high incidence and mortality rate, despite of the advances in current targeted theraputic approaches. Accumulating studies indicates that Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) is an important cancer research tool for more personalized precision medicine. In this study, eighty five CRC tumors derived from Chinese patients were transplanted into BALB/c nude mice for PDX models establishment. Immunohistochemical and molecular investigations (such as, Sanger sequencing, AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel Version 2 and Proteomics) were performed to verify if the PDX retained both features from the patient. Then, PDX (the first generation) initiation engraftment rate and speed related pathologic and genetic factors were explored. We found that 50 out of 85 (58.5%) CRC tumors successfully engrafted. A high genetic concordance between patient donor tumor and PDX was confirmed by pathologic, genetic, and proteomics investigations. CRC tumor staging, tumor location, somatic mutations were correlated with PDX initiation engraftment rate and speed. In conclusion, we established 50 CRC PDX models with a high histologic and genetic representativeness of the primary tumor. This platform will represent a reliable tool for CRC precision medicine and cancer translational research.
-
A Melanoma Patient-Derived Xenograft Model
Min Xiao,Vito W. Rebecca,Meenhard Herlyn
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3791/59508
2019-01-01
Journal of Visualized Experiments
Abstract:Accumulating evidence suggests that molecular and biological properties differ in melanoma cells grown in traditional two-dimensional tissue culture vessels versus in vivo in human patients. This is due to the bottleneck selection of clonal populations of melanoma cells that can robustly grow in vitro in the absence of physiological conditions. Further, responses to therapy in two-dimensional tissue cultures overall do not faithfully reflect responses to therapy in melanoma patients, with the majority of clinical trials failing to show the efficacy of therapeutic combinations shown to be effective in vitro. Although xenografting of melanoma cells into mice provides the physiological in vivo context absent from two-dimensional tissue culture assays, the melanoma cells used for engraftment have already undergone bottleneck selection for cells that could grow under two-dimensional conditions when the cell line was established. The irreversible alterations that occur as a consequence of the bottleneck include changes in growth and invasion properties, as well as the loss of specific subpopulations. Therefore, models that better recapitulate the human condition in vivo may better predict therapeutic strategies that effectively increase the overall survival of patients with metastatic melanoma. The patient-derived xenograft (PDX) technique involves the direct implantation of tumor cells from the human patient to a mouse recipient. In this manner, tumor cells are consistently grown under physiological stresses in vivo and never undergo the two-dimensional bottleneck, which preserves the molecular and biological properties present when the tumor was in the human patient. Notable, PDX models derived from organ sites of metastases (i.e., brain) display similar metastatic capacity, while PDX models derived from therapy naive patients and patients with acquired resistance to therapy (i.e., BRAF/MEK inhibitor therapy) display similar sensitivity to therapy.
-
Using PDX for Preclinical Cancer Drug Discovery: The Evolving Field
Juliet A Williams,Juliet Williams
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7030041
IF: 3.9
2018-03-02
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Abstract:The ability to create patient derived xenografts (PDXs) has evolved considerably from the breakthrough of the development of immune compromised mice. How researchers in drug discovery have utilized PDX of certain cancer types has also changed from traditionally selecting a few models to profile a drug, to opting to assess inter-tumor response heterogeneity by screening across a broad range of tumor models, and subsequently to enable clinical stratification strategies. As with all models and methodologies, imperfections with this approach are apparent, and our understanding of the fidelity of these models continues to expand. To date though, they are still viewed as one of the most faithful modeling systems in oncology. Currently, there are many efforts ongoing to increase the utility and translatability of PDXs, including introducing a human immune component to enable immunotherapy studies.
medicine, general & internal
-
Patient-derived xenografts: a relevant preclinical model for drug development
Luca Pompili,Manuela Porru,Carla Caruso,Annamaria Biroccio,Carlo Leonetti
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-016-0462-4
2016-12-01
Abstract:Identifying appropriate preclinical cancer models remains a major challenge in increasing the efficiency of drug development. A potential strategy to improve patient outcomes could be selecting the ‘right’ treatment in preclinical studies performed in patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) obtained by direct implants of surgically resected tumours in mice. These models maintain morphological similarities and recapitulate molecular profiling of the original tumours, thus representing a useful tool in evaluating anticancer drug response. In this review, we will present the state-of-art use of PDXs as a reliable strategy to predict clinical findings. The main advantages and limitations will also be discussed.
oncology
-
Abstract 4250: Adherent and spheroid cell models of patient-derived xenograft for drug development and translational research
Lars Winkler,Joshua Alcaniz,Maria Stecklum,Wolfgang Walther,Jens Hoffmann
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-4250
IF: 11.2
2024-03-31
Cancer Research
Abstract:Introduction: The development of new drugs in cancer therapy comprises toxicity and efficacy tests with increasing complexity. First and foremost, in vitro experiments are performed with well-established cancer cell lines, which are subsequently validated in animal experiments as prerequisite for clinical trials. Until a few years ago, there were gaps in the complexity chain between in vitro and in vivo experiments. Ethical considerations have led to use of systems like organ on a chip or mini-organ 3D in vitro models. In cancer research, cell cultures or organoids are generated from patient tumor material. However, these cultures only reflect the tumor of one patient, which is why panels of patient tumors should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs on different patients. In vivo panel screens of patient derived xenografts (PDX) mouse models need high numbers of animals and takes several months. A pre-screen with in vitro models generated from in vivo PDX tissues allows large scale and faster pre-screens complementing in vivo systems for more focused in vivo analyses. Methods: Currently we have a pool of more than 600 established PDX models of 21 tumor entities. From this pool, cancer tissues of glioblastoma, mesothelioma, gastric, head/neck, lung and breast cancer were processed in single cell suspensions and cultured under defined conditions to obtain adherent cells or spheroids. The generated PDX in vitro cultures were analyzed for cellular impurities, cancer stem cell content and perpetuation of in vivo PDX characteristics. FACS analyses for tumor specific markers, chemo sensitivity assays and growth characteristics of the PDX derived cell lines (especially for glioblastoma) were analyzed. Results: From PDX tissues used, 90% grew as adherent and/or spheroid PDX derived in vitro cultures, in which mouse cells were entirely depleted. A high percentage of these cultures showed enriched cancer stem cell features and stem cell marker expression. Tumor marker expression and standard drug sensitivity data correlate to the in vivo PDX and derived in vitro cell culture models. RNAseq data were used to predict drug sensitivities in silico for untested drugs and drug combinations on our newly established PDX derived glioblastoma cell lines. Initial screens with predicted candidates were performed. Promising conditions were successfully repeated in corresponding animal PDX models. Conclusion: The newly developed technology for establishment if in vitro cell cultures from PDX efficiently generates stably growing cell lines possessing all key features of the original PDX. These cell lines can be used for initial pre-screens to optimize and improve selection of pharmacologically active drugs or drug combinations before initiating in vivo PDX studies. Citation Format: Lars Winkler, Joshua Alcaniz, Maria Stecklum, Wolfgang Walther, Jens Hoffmann. Adherent and spheroid cell models of patient-derived xenograft for drug development and translational research [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 4250.
oncology
-
Patient-derived Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Xenograft Mirrors Complex Tumor Heterogeneity.
Xuanming Chen,Cheng Shen,Zhe Wei,Rui Zhang,Yongsheng Wang,Lili Jiang,Ke Chen,Shuang Qiu,Yuanli Zhang,Ting Zhang,Bin Chen,Yanjun Xu,Qiyi Feng,Jinxing Huang,Zhihui Zhong,Hongxia Li,Guowei Che,Kai Xiao
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2020.0012
2021-01-01
Cancer Biology and Medicine
Abstract:Objective:Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models have shown great promise in preclinical and translational applications, but their consistency with primary tumors in phenotypic, genetic, and pharmacodynamic heterogeneity has not been well-studied. This study aimed to establish a PDX repository for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and to further elucidate whether it could preserve the heterogeneity within and between tumors in patients.Methods:A total of 75 surgically resected NSCLC specimens were implanted into immunodeficient NOD/SCID mice. Based on the successful establishment of the NSCLC PDX model, we compared the expressions of vimentin, Ki67, EGFR, and PD-L1 proteins between cancer tissues and PDX models using hematoxylin and eosin staining and immunohistochemical staining. In addition, we detected whole gene expression profiling between primary tumors and PDX generations. We also performed whole exome sequencing (WES) analysis in 17 first generation xenografts to further assess whether PDXs retained the patient heterogeneities. Finally, paclitaxel, cisplatin, doxorubicin, atezolizumab, afatininb, and AZD4547 were used to evaluate the responses of PDX models to the standard-of-care agents.Results:A large collection of serially transplantable PDX models for NSCLC were successfully developed. The histology and pathological immunohistochemistry of PDX xenografts were consistent with the patients' tumor samples. WES and RNA-seq further confirmed that PDX accurately replicated the molecular heterogeneities of primary tumors. Similar to clinical patients, PDX models responded differentially to the standard-of-care treatment, including chemo-, targeted- and immuno-therapeutics.Conclusions:Our established PDX models of NSCLC faithfully reproduced the molecular, histopathological, and therapeutic characteristics, as well as the corresponding tumor heterogeneities, which provides a clinically relevant platform for drug screening, biomarker discovery, and translational research.
-
Abstract 1028: Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution
Uri Ben-David,Gavin Ha,Yuen-Yi Tseng,Noah F. Greenwald,Coyin Oh,Juliann Shih,James M. McFarland,Bang Wong,Jesse S. Boehm,Rameen Beroukhim,Todd R. Golub
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2018-1028
2018-07-01
Tumor Biology
Abstract:Abstract Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) have become a prominent cancer model system, as they are presumed to faithfully represent the genomic features of primary tumors. Here we monitored the dynamics of copy number alterations (CNAs) in 1,110 PDX samples across 24 cancer types. We observed rapid accumulation of CNAs during PDX passaging, often due to selection of pre-existing minor clones. CNA acquisition in PDXs was correlated with the tissue-specific levels of aneuploidy and genetic heterogeneity observed in primary tumors. However, the particular CNAs acquired during PDX passaging differed from those acquired during tumor evolution in patients. Several CNAs recurrently observed in primary tumors gradually disappeared in PDXs, indicating that events undergoing positive selection in humans can become dispensable during propagation in mice. Importantly, the genomic stability of PDXs was associated with their response to chemotherapy and targeted drugs. These findings have important implications for PDX-based modeling of human cancer. Citation Format: Uri Ben-David, Gavin Ha, Yuen-Yi Tseng, Noah F. Greenwald, Coyin Oh, Juliann Shih, James M. McFarland, Bang Wong, Jesse S. Boehm, Rameen Beroukhim, Todd R. Golub. Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1028.
English Else
-
Patient-derived Xenografts: a Valuable Platform for Clinical and Preclinical Research in Pancreatic Cancer.
Yu Wang,Jiujie Cui,Liwei Wang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/cco.2019.02.04
2019-01-01
Chinese Clinical Oncology
Abstract:Pancreatic cancer (PC) remains a highly lethal cancer, which still requires profound clinical and preclinical research. The predictive power of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) model determines that it will become an important tool for preclinical and clinical research. PDX is not only widely used in preclinical studies of PC drugs, but also can be used to predict the result of human clinical trials. The PDX model and the corresponding patients' co-clinical trial can quickly obtain the drug response, optimize the combination, explore drug resistance mechanisms, and screen for biomarkers. Meanwhile, PDX can be used for personalized medicine as patient's avatar model. With the development of novel PDX models: patient-derived orthotopic xenografts (PDOX) model, humanized PDX model and CTC-derived PDX model, cooperation of various research teams is needed to build PDX encyclopedia of PC.
-
[Application and Development of Patient-Derived Tumor Xenograft Model in Translational Medicine of Tumor].
Zhenqiang Wang,Zhenggang Zhu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2017.05.028
2017-01-01
Abstract:Development of novel drugs is an integral part of the translational medicine in the field of cancer research, and the construction and application of preclinical animal models play vital roles in drugs development. Patient-derived tumor xenograft models (PDX) have been shown to be more accurate in prediction of clinical outcomes of novel drugs and are being used for preclinical drug evaluation based on the fact that PDX models mostly retain the principal histologic and genetic characteristics of their donor tumor. To set up PDX model, primary or metastatic tumor are achieved to translate into immune-deficiency mice. The tumor in immune-deficiency mouse is acquired to translate to other immune-deficiency mouse to generate stable PDX model, which usually is affected by the strain of mouse, translation method and translation location in mouse. PDX models recapitulate the same histology and gene expression as the original patients' carcinoma. PDX models can accurately predict the effectiveness of novel drugs, screen more predictive biomarker for drug resistance and optimize the use of classic drugs in clinic. However, sole source of surgical resection of tumor, long time of construction, high failure rate and hardly used in evaluating immune drugs would be the barriers to be overcome to improve PDX models. The methodological issues, salient features, practical applications, and future directions of PDX models will be illustrated.
-
The roles of patient-derived xenograft models and artificial intelligence toward precision medicine
Venkatachalababu Janitri,Kandasamy Nagarajan ArulJothi,Vijay Murali Ravi Mythili,Sachin Kumar Singh,Parteek Prasher,Gaurav Gupta,Kamal Dua,Rakshith Hanumanthappa,Karthikeyan Karthikeyan,Krishnan Anand
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mco2.745
2024-09-25
Abstract:Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) involve transplanting patient cells or tissues into immunodeficient mice, offering superior disease models compared with cell line xenografts and genetically engineered mice. In contrast to traditional cell-line xenografts and genetically engineered mice, PDX models harbor the molecular and biologic features from the original patient tumor and are generationally stable. This high fidelity makes PDX models particularly suitable for preclinical and coclinical drug testing, therefore better predicting therapeutic efficacy. Although PDX models are becoming more useful, the several factors influencing their reliability and predictive power are not well understood. Several existing studies have looked into the possibility that PDX models could be important in enhancing our knowledge with regard to tumor genetics, biomarker discovery, and personalized medicine; however, a number of problems still need to be addressed, such as the high cost and time-consuming processes involved, together with the variability in tumor take rates. This review addresses these gaps by detailing the methodologies to generate PDX models, their application in cancer research, and their advantages over other models. Further, it elaborates on how artificial intelligence and machine learning were incorporated into PDX studies to fast-track therapeutic evaluation. This review is an overview of the progress that has been done so far in using PDX models for cancer research and shows their potential to be further improved in improving our understanding of oncogenesis.
-
Patient-derived xenograft models—the future of personalised cancer treatment
Jenna Bhimani,Katie Ball,Justin Stebbing
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0678-0
IF: 9.075
2020-01-10
British Journal of Cancer
Abstract:For many tumours there is a lack of randomised data from which we can guide systemic treatments. Although gene expression profiling along with proteomics has led to advances in diagnosis, classification and prognosis, our ability to target many cancers has been further limited due to a lack of therapeutic options. The use of patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models in the setting of a rare malignancy is discussed here by Kamili et al, with the successful establishment of new model systems.
oncology
-
The fidelity of cancer cells in PDX models: Characteristics, mechanism and clinical significance
Jiahao Shi,Yongyun Li,Renbing Jia,Xianqun Fan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32662
2020-01-01
International Journal of Cancer
Abstract:Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models are widely used as preclinical cancer models and are considered better than cell culture models in recapitulating the histological features, molecular characteristics and intratumoral heterogeneity (ITH) of human tumors. While the PDX model is commonly accepted for use in drug discovery and other translational studies, a growing body of evidence has suggested its limitations. Recently, the fidelity of cancer cells within a PDX has been questioned, which may impede the future application of these models. In this review, we will focus the variable phenotypes of xenograft tumors and the genomic instability and molecular inconsistency of PDX tumors after serial transplantation. Next, we will discuss the underlying mechanism of ITH and its clinical relevance. Stochastic selection bias in the sampling process and/or deterministic clonal dynamics due to murine selective pressure may have detrimental effects on the results of personalized medicine and drug screening studies. In addition, we aim to identify a possible solution for the issue of fidelity in current PDX models and to discuss emerging next-generation preclinical models.