Page 19 - Read Online
P. 19

models established in immune-compromised mice. It   interpret studies. Collectively, these new developments
            is well documented and accepted that immune system   emphasize the importance of employing PDX models in
            is an important part of tumor stroma and signifi cantly   key areas of oncology drug discovery and development.
            contributes to tumor initiation, progression, metastasis
            and therapeutic response. [84,85]   The introduction of mice   References
            with partially or completely humanized immune systems   1.   DiMasi JA, Reichert JM, Feldman L, Malins  A. Clinical
            can potentially ameliorate this issue, but signifi cant   approval success rates for investigational cancer drugs.
            technical challenges still exist. [86,87]             Clin Pharmacol Ther 2013;94:329-35.
                                                              2.   Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce
            Second, although technical advances have gradually    attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:711-5.
            improved the tumor take, different tumor types, and   3.   Rosfjord E, Lucas J, Li G, Gerber HP.  Advances in
            different subtypes within the same tumor type, have   patient-derived tumor xenografts: From target identifi cation
            varying rates of success.  This has led to imbalanced   to  predicting  clinical  response  rates  in  oncology.
            representation of tumor types/subtypes that is more   Biochem Pharmacol 2014;91:135-43.
            determined by take rate rather than clinical incidence   4.   Hanahan D,  Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer:  The next
            rate. Although PDX models can avoid artifi cial selection   generation. Cell 2011;144:646-74.
            in extended culture on plastic, the in vivo  selection   5.   Hanahan D,  Weinberg RA.  The hallmarks of cancer.  Cell
            process exists as soon as the tumors are implanted. For   2000;100:57-70.
            example, high-grade, fast proliferating tumors tend to be   6.   Hoelder S, Clarke PA,  Workman P. Discovery of small
                                                                          cancer
                                                                                 drugs:
                                                                                                 challenges
                                                                                        Successes,
                                                                                                           and
                                                                  molecule
            easier to establish as PDX models than low-grade, slowly   opportunities. Mol Oncol 2012;6:155-76.
            growing but progressive tumors. [88,89]           7.   Gibbs JB. Mechanism-based target identifi cation  and  drug
            Additionally, compared to cell lines, PDX models are   discovery in cancer research. Science 2000;287:1969-73.
            diffi cult to manipulate genetically. Most PDX models   8.   Carter P, Smith L, Ryan M. Identifi cation and validation
            are established from and passaged as tumor fragments,   of cell surface antigens for antibody targeting in oncology.
                                                                  Endocr Relat Cancer 2004;11:659-87.
            and conventional transfection or transduction are not   9.   Wang IM, Stone DJ, Nickle D, Loboda A, Puig O, Roberts C.
            effi cient to genetically modify the tumors or introduce   Systems biology approach for new target and biomarker
            detection markers (such as luciferase or  fl uorescent   identifi cation. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 2013;363:169-99.
            proteins).  Therefore, PDX tumors are rarely established   10.  Rius M, Lyko F. Epigenetic cancer therapy: Rationales, targets
            as orthotopic models, unless there is a surrogate     and drugs. Oncogene 2012;31:4257-65.
            biomarker that be readily used to measure tumor burden   11.  Jerby L, Ruppin E. Predicting drug targets and biomarkers of
            noninvasively. [90]                                   cancer via genome-scale metabolic modeling. Clin Cancer Res
                                                                  2012;18:5572-84.
             Conclusion                                       12.  Boven E, Winograd B, Berger DP, Dumont MP, Braakhuis BJ,
                                                                  Fodstad O, Langdon S, Fiebig HH. Phase II preclinical
            Although hardly a new concept, PDX models have        drug screening in human tumor xenografts: A  fi rst  European
            gained much attention and premium status in the past   multicenter collaborative study. Cancer Res 1992;52:5940-7.
            few years as they are becoming increasingly available   13.  Voskoglou-Nomikos  T, Pater JL, Seymour L. Clinical
            and affordable, and are believed to offer a superior   predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft, and
            predictive value over conventional cell line xenograft   mouse allograft preclinical cancer models.  Clin Cancer Res
            models. Ample data indicated that PDX models maintain   2003;9:4227-39.
            heterogeneity and tumor initiation ability, as well as   14.  Tentler JJ, Tan AC, Weekes CD, Jimeno A, Leong S, Pitts TM,
                                                                  Arcaroli JJ, Messersmith  WA, Eckhardt SG. Patient-derived
            molecular and genetic characteristics refl ective of human   tumour xenografts as models for oncology drug development.
            tumors. Emerging data indicated an improved predictive   Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:338-50.
            value of the PDX models; however, it is still early to   15.  Greenman C, Stephens P, Smith R, Dalgliesh GL, Hunter C,
            conclude whether the advantage in translatability is   Bignell G, Davies H,  Teague J, Butler  A, Stevens C,
            applicable to large sample size and to various therapeutic   Edkins S, O’Meara S,  Vastrik I, Schmidt EE,  Avis  T,
            mechanisms and modalities.  The mouse clinical trial   Barthorpe S, Bhamra G, Buck G, Choudhury B, Clements J,
            has the potential to accelerate and de-risk human     Cole J, Dicks E, Forbes S, Gray K, Halliday K, Harrison R,
                                                                  Hills K, Hinton J, Jenkinson  A, Jones D, Menzies  A,
            clinical trials and hopefully reduce clinical attrition rates   Mironenko  T, Perry J, Raine K, Richardson D, Shepherd R,
            for novel compounds, and to prioritize therapies by   Small  A, Tofts  C, Varian  J, Webb T, West  S, Widaa  S,
            allowing parallel testing of multiple treatment schemes   Yates A, Cahill DP, Louis DN, Goldstraw P, Nicholson AG,
            for an individual patient. However, there are still much   Brasseur F, Looijenga L,  Weber BL, Chiew YE, DeFazio A,
            to be done to address technical challenges to make    Greaves MF, Green  AR, Campbell P, Birney E, Easton DF,
            this approach feasible and affordable and to convince   Chenevix-Trench G,  Tan MH, Khoo SK,  Teh BT,  Yuen ST,
                                                                  Leung SY,  Wooster R, Futreal PA, Stratton MR. Patterns
            the medical and insurance community of the value      of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes.  Nature
            this approach can offer.  At the same time, one cannot   2007;446:153-8.
            overlook the limitations of PDX models and should take   16.  Stratton MR, Campbell PJ, Futreal PA.  The cancer genome.
            into consideration of their shortcomings when design and   Nature 2009;458:719-24.

            12                                      Journal of Cancer Metastasis and Treatment  ¦  Volume 1 ¦ Issue 1 ¦ April 15, 2015 ¦
   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24