Patient-derived tumour xenografts as models for breast cancer drug development

Current Opinion in Oncology

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 556-561

  Marangoni, Elisabetta ^a   Poupon, Marie France ^a  

^a INSTITUT CURIE   (France)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Drug development; Patient derived xenograft models

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

BREAST CANCER; CANCER MODEL; CANCER RESISTANCE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENE MUTATION; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TUMOR XENOGRAFT; ANIMAL; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG SCREENING; FEMALE; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DRUG DISCOVERY; FEMALE; HUMANS; XENOGRAFT MODEL ANTITUMOR ASSAYS;

EID: 84927632214     PISSN: 10408746     EISSN: 1531703X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000133     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61:69-90.
2. Tentler JJ, Tan AC, Weekes CD, et al. Patient-derived tumour xenografts as models for oncology drug development. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012; 9:338-350.
3. Sausville EA, Burger AM. Contributions of human tumor xenografts to anticancer drug development. Cancer Res 2006; 66:3351-3354.
4. Voskoglou-Nomikos T, Pater JL, Seymour L. Clinical predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft, and mouse allograft preclinical cancer models. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9:4227-4239.
5. Hidalgo M, Amant F, Biankin AV, et al. Patient derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Dis 2014. [Epub ahead of print]
6. Gillet JP, Calcagno AM, Varma S, et al. Redefining the relevance of established cancer cell lines to the study of mechanisms of clinical anticancer drug resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011; 108:18708-18713.
7. Gillet JP, Varma S, Gottesman MM. The clinical relevance of cancer cell lines. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105:452-458.
8. Toolan HW. Successful subcutaneous growth and transplantation of human tumors in X-irradiated laboratory animals. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1951; 77:572-578.
9. Flanagan SP. 'Nude', a new hairless gene with pleiotropic effects in the mouse. Genet Res 1966; 8:295-309.
10. Rygaard J, Povlsen CO. Heterotransplantation of a human malignant tumour to 'Nude' mice. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 1969; 77:758-760.
11. Bailey MJ, Gazet JC, Peckham MJ. Human breast-cancer xenografts in immune-suppressed mice. Br J Cancer 1980; 42:524-529.
12. Bailey MJ, Ormerod MG, Imrie SF, et al. Comparative functional histopathology of human breast carcinoma xenografts. Br J Cancer 1981; 43:125-134.
13. Landis MD, Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA, Chang JC. Patient-derived breast tumor xenografts facilitating personalized cancer therapy. Breast Cancer Res 2013; 15:201.
14. Cottu P, Marangoni E, Assayag F, et al. Modeling of response to endocrine therapy in a panel of human luminal breast cancer xenografts. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 133:595-606.
15. Marangoni E, Vincent-Salomon A, Auger N, et al. A new model of patient tumor-derived breast cancer xenografts for preclinical assays. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:3989-3998.
16. Zhang X, Claerhout S, Prat A, et al. A renewable tissue resource of phenotypically stable, biologically and ethnically diverse, patient-derived human breast cancer xenograft models. Cancer Res 2013; 73:4885-4897.
17. DeRose YS, Wang G, Lin YC, et al. Tumor grafts derived from women with breast cancer authentically reflect tumor pathology, growth, metastasis and disease outcomes. Nat Med 2011; 17:1514-1520.
18. DeRose YS, Gligorich KM, Wang G, et al. Patient-derived models of human breast cancer: protocols for in vitro and in vivo applications in tumor biology and translational medicine. Curr Protoc Pharmacol 2013; Chapter 14:Unit14 23.
19. du Manoir S, Orsetti B, Bras-Goncalves R, et al. Breast tumor PDXs are genetically plastic and correspond to a subset of aggressive cancers prone to relapse. Mol Oncol 2014; 8:431-443.
20. S Rui H, Utama FE, Yanac AF et al. Prolactin-humanized mice: an improved animal recipient for therapy response-testing of patient-derived breast cancer xenotransplants. In: Thirty-Fifth Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; San Antonio: Cancer Research; 2012.
21. Al-Hajj M, Wicha MS, Benito-Hernandez A, et al. Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100:3983-3988.
22. Charafe-Jauffret E, Ginestier C, Bertucci F, et al. ALDH1-positive cancer stem cells predict engraftment of primary breast tumors and are governed by a common stem cell program. Cancer Res 2013; 73:7290-7300.
23. Reyal F, Guyader C, Decraene C, et al. Molecular profiling of patient-derived breast cancer xenografts. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14:R11.
24. Bergamaschi A, Hjortland GO, Triulzi T, et al. Molecular profiling and characterization of luminal-like and basal-like in vivo breast cancer xenograft models. Mol Oncol 2009; 3:469-482.
25. Moestue SA, Borgan E, Huuse EM, et al. Distinct choline metabolic profiles are associated with differences in gene expression for basal-like and luminallike breast cancer xenograft models. BMC cancer 2010; 10:433.
26. Grinde MT, Skrbo N, Moestue SA, et al. Interplay of choline metabolites and genes in patient-derived breast cancer xenografts. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16:R5.
27. Reyal F, Belichard C, Rouzier R, et al. Nonsentinel lymph node metastasis prediction in breast cancer with metastatic sentinel lymph node: impact of molecular subtypes classification. PLoS One 2012; 7:e47390.
28. Kresse SH, Meza-Zepeda LA, Machado I, et al. Preclinical xenograft models of human sarcoma show nonrandom loss of aberrations. Cancer 2012; 118:558-570.
29. Ding L, Ellis MJ, Li S, et al. Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 2010; 464:999-1005.
30. Li S, Shen D, Shao J, et al. Endocrine-therapy-resistant ESR1 variants revealed by genomic characterization of breast-cancer-derived xenografts. Cell Rep 2013; 4:1116-1130.
31. Malaney P, Nicosia SV, Dave V. One mouse, one patient paradigm: new avatars of personalized cancer therapy. Cancer Lett 2014; 344:1-12.
32. Ibrahim YH, Garcia-Garcia C, Serra V, et al. PI3K inhibition impairs BRCA1/2 expression and sensitizes BRCA-proficient triple-negative breast cancer to PARP inhibition. Cancer Discov 2012; 2:1036-1047.
33. Moestue SA, Dam CG, Gorad SS, et al. Metabolic biomarkers for response to PI3K inhibition in basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2013; 15:R16.
34. Romanelli A, Clark A, Assayag F, et al. Inhibiting aurora kinases reduces tumor growth and suppresses tumor recurrence after chemotherapy in patientderived triple-negative breast cancer xenografts. Mol Cancer Ther 2012; 11:2693-2703.
35. Qiu M, Peng Q, Jiang I, et al. Specific inhibition of Notch1 signaling enhances the antitumor efficacy of chemotherapy in triple negative breast cancer through reduction of cancer stem cells. Cancer Lett 2013; 328:261-270.
36. Kabos P, Finlay-Schultz J, Li C, et al. Patient-derived luminal breast cancer xenografts retain hormone receptor heterogeneity and help define unique estrogen-dependent gene signatures. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 135:415-432.
37. Green JL, La J, Yum KW, et al. Paracrine Wnt signaling both promotes and inhibits human breast tumor growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110:6991-6996.
38. Schott AF, Landis MD, Dontu G, et al. Preclinical and clinical studies of gamma secretase inhibitors with docetaxel on human breast tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:1512-1524.
39. Ma CX, Cai S, Li S, et al. Targeting Chk1 in p53-deficient triple-negative breast cancer is therapeutically beneficial in human-in-mouse tumor models. J Clin Invest 2012; 122:1541-1552.
40. Singh JK, Farnie G, Bundred NJ, et al. Targeting CXCR1/2 significantly reduces breast cancer stem cell activity and increases the efficacy of inhibiting HER2 via HER2-dependent and-independent mechanisms. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:643-656.
41. Zhang H, Cohen AL, Krishnakumar S, et al. Patient-derived xenografts of triple-negative breast cancer reproduce molecular features of patient tumors and respond to mTOR inhibition. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16:R36.
42. Cottu PH, Bieche I, Assayag F, et al. Acquired resistance to endocrine treatments is associated to tumor-specific molecular changes in patientderived luminal breast cancer xenografts. Clin Can Res 2014; 20:4314-4325.
43. Garralda E, Paz K, Lopez-Casas PP, et al. Integrated next-generation sequencing and avatar mouse models for personalized cancer treatment. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:2476-2484.
44. Berenbaum MC, Sheard CE, Reittie JR, Bundick RV. The growth of human tumours in immunosuppressed mice and their response to chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 1974; 30:13-32.
45. Bailey MJ, Jones AJ, Shorthouse AJ, et al. Limitations of the human tumour xenograft system in individual patient drug sensitivity testing. Br J Cancer 1984; 50:721-724.
46. Bousquet G, Feugeas JP, Ferreira I, et al. Individual xenograft as a personalized therapeutic resort for women with metastatic triple-negative breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16:401.