Optimizing Xenograft Models for Breast Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of Cell-Derived and Patient-Derived Implantation Techniques in Pre-Clinical Research

Overview

Journal Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press)

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Date 2025 Jan 15

PMID 39811602

Authors

Astrid Feinisa Khairani

Shella Harmonia

Yoan Chou

Nayla Majeda Alfarafisa

Julia Ramadhanti

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The high mortality rate of breast cancer motivates researchers to search for effective treatments. Due to their ability to simulate human conditions, xenograft models such as CDX (Cell line-Derived Xenografts) and PDX (Patient-Derived Xenografts) have gained popularity in pre-clinical research. The choice of xenograft technique is influenced by the type of tumor employed, particularly in more aggressive tumor models like TNBC with metastases. Subcutaneous or orthotopic implantation may influence tumor engraftment rates and the applicability of the models for drug testing. To optimize xenograft models and support the development of breast cancer drugs, selecting a suitable transplantation technique is essential to attaining the best results.

Methods: This scoping review used PRISMA-Scr methodology to summarize findings from eleven articles published between 2012 and 2024 on pre-clinical trials related to xenograft models for breast cancer considering PDX began traction after 2010. Using specific criteria, the review included studies from electronic platforms. The inclusion criteria ensured relevant English sources were available in full text, while the exclusion criteria eliminated certain types of articles and inadequately comprehensive studies.

Results: Subcutaneous and orthotopic implantation are critical methods for xenograft models in cancer research. Subcutaneous implantation is less invasive and more manageable but does not fully mimic the tumor's natural environment. Orthotopic implantation accurately mimic the migration, invasion, and molecular characteristics of the original tumor, although the procedure is more complex and requires specialized techniques. The specific research objectives determine their choice, the need for accurate tumor replication, and the testing convenience.

Conclusion: Orthotopic implantation is the preferable method for developing PDX and CDX models of breast cancer because it closely mimics the tumor microenvironment and metastatic behavior, yielding clinically relevant results for drug testing. Subcutaneous implantation may result in higher engraftment rates, but it cannot accurately represent the complexity of tumors.

References

Zhang X, Claerhout S, Prat A, Dobrolecki L, Petrovic I, Lai Q . A renewable tissue resource of phenotypically stable, biologically and ethnically diverse, patient-derived human breast cancer xenograft models. Cancer Res. 2013; 73(15):4885-97. PMC: 3732575. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4081. View

Dranoff G . Experimental mouse tumour models: what can be learnt about human cancer immunology?. Nat Rev Immunol. 2011; 12(1):61-6. DOI: 10.1038/nri3129. View

Pedroza D, Gao Y, Zhang X, Rosen J . Leveraging preclinical models of metastatic breast cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2024; 1879(5):189163. PMC: 11390310. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2024.189163. View

Singhal S, Garg R, Mohanty A, Garg P, Ramisetty S, Mirzapoiazova T . Recent Advancement in Breast Cancer Research: Insights from Model Organisms-Mouse Models to Zebrafish. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(11). PMC: 10252042. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15112961. View

Murayama T, Gotoh N . Patient-Derived Xenograft Models of Breast Cancer and Their Application. Cells. 2019; 8(6). PMC: 6628218. DOI: 10.3390/cells8060621. View

Schmidt K, Geissler E, Lang S . Subcutaneous Murine Xenograft Models: A Critical Tool for Studying Human Tumor Growth and Angiogenesis In Vivo. Methods Mol Biol. 2016; 1464:129-137. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-3999-2_12. View

Valta M, Yla-Pelto J, Lan Y, Kahkonen T, Taimen P, Bostrom P . Critical evaluation of the subcutaneous engraftments of hormone naïve primary prostate cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2020; 9(3):1120-1134. PMC: 7354344. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2020.03.38. View

Jung J, Seol H, Chang S . The Generation and Application of Patient-Derived Xenograft Model for Cancer Research. Cancer Res Treat. 2017; 50(1):1-10. PMC: 5784646. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2017.307. View

Okano M, Oshi M, Butash A, Okano I, Saito K, Kawaguchi T . Orthotopic Implantation Achieves Better Engraftment and Faster Growth Than Subcutaneous Implantation in Breast Cancer Patient-Derived Xenografts. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2020; 25(1):27-36. PMC: 7141774. DOI: 10.1007/s10911-020-09442-7. View

10.

Kanaya N, Somlo G, Wu J, Frankel P, Kai M, Liu X . Characterization of patient-derived tumor xenografts (PDXs) as models for estrogen receptor positive (ER+HER2- and ER+HER2+) breast cancers. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016; 170:65-74. PMC: 5094906. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.05.001. View

11.

Bleijs M, van de Wetering M, Clevers H, Drost J . Xenograft and organoid model systems in cancer research. EMBO J. 2019; 38(15):e101654. PMC: 6670015. DOI: 10.15252/embj.2019101654. View

12.

Zeng M, Ruan Z, Tang J, Liu M, Hu C, Fan P . Generation, evolution, interfering factors, applications, and challenges of patient-derived xenograft models in immunodeficient mice. Cancer Cell Int. 2023; 23(1):120. PMC: 10283277. DOI: 10.1186/s12935-023-02953-3. View

13.

Zhang Y, Zhang G, Sun X, Cao K, Ma C, Nan N . Establishment of a murine breast tumor model by subcutaneous or orthotopic implantation. Oncol Lett. 2018; 15(5):6233-6240. PMC: 5876452. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.8113. View

14.

Tomayko M, Reynolds C . Determination of subcutaneous tumor size in athymic (nude) mice. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989; 24(3):148-54. DOI: 10.1007/BF00300234. View

15.

Lefley D, Howard F, Arshad F, Bradbury S, Brown H, Tulotta C . Development of clinically relevant in vivo metastasis models using human bone discs and breast cancer patient-derived xenografts. Breast Cancer Res. 2019; 21(1):130. PMC: 6884811. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1220-2. View

16.

Tsumura R, Koga Y, Hamada A, Kuwata T, Sasaki H, Doi T . Report of the use of patient-derived xenograft models in the development of anticancer drugs in Japan. Cancer Sci. 2020; 111(9):3386-3394. PMC: 7469811. DOI: 10.1111/cas.14564. View

17.

Jin J, Yoshimura K, Sewastjanow-Silva M, Song S, Ajani J . Challenges and Prospects of Patient-Derived Xenografts for Cancer Research. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15(17). PMC: 10486659. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15174352. View

18.

Beckhove P, Schutz F, Diel I, Solomayer E, Bastert G, Foerster J . Efficient engraftment of human primary breast cancer transplants in nonconditioned NOD/Scid mice. Int J Cancer. 2003; 105(4):444-53. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.11125. View

19.

Binnewies M, Roberts E, Kersten K, Chan V, Fearon D, Merad M . Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy. Nat Med. 2018; 24(5):541-550. PMC: 5998822. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-018-0014-x. View

20.

Williams A, Bleicher R, Ciocca R . Breast Cancer Risk, Screening, and Prevalence Among Sexual Minority Women: An Analysis of the National Health Interview Survey. LGBT Health. 2020; 7(2):109-118. PMC: 8881954. DOI: 10.1089/lgbt.2019.0274. View