Pancreatic cancer-derived organoids - a disease modeling tool to predict drug response.
Adult
Animals
Antineoplastic Agents
/ pharmacology
Biopsy
Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal
/ drug therapy
Cell Culture Techniques
/ methods
Cell Survival
/ drug effects
Drug Screening Assays, Antitumor
/ methods
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Male
Mice
Organoids
/ drug effects
Pancreas
/ cytology
Pancreatic Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Proof of Concept Study
Xenograft Model Antitumor Assays
PDAC
drug response prediction
organoids
Journal
United European gastroenterology journal
ISSN: 2050-6414
Titre abrégé: United European Gastroenterol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
28
3
2020
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
28
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Organotypic cultures derived from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) termed pancreatic ductal cancer organoids (PDOs) recapitulate the primary cancer and can be derived from primary or metastatic biopsies. Although isolation and culture of patient-derived pancreatic organoids were established several years ago, pros and cons for individualized medicine have not been comprehensively investigated to date. We conducted a feasibility study, systematically comparing head-to-head patient-derived xenograft tumor (PDX) and PDX-derived organoids by rigorous immunohistochemical and molecular characterization. Subsequently, a drug testing platform was set up and validated First, PDOs faithfully recapitulated the morphology and marker protein expression patterns of the PDXs. Second, quantitative proteomes from the PDX as well as from corresponding organoid cultures showed high concordance. Third, genomic alterations, as assessed by array-based comparative genomic hybridization, revealed similar results in both groups. Fourth, we established a small-scale pharmacotyping platform adjusted to operate in parallel considering potential obstacles such as culture conditions, timing, drug dosing, and interpretation of the results. Small-scale drug screening in organoids appears to be a feasible, robust and easy-to-handle disease modeling method to allow response predictions in parallel to daily clinical routine. Therefore, our fast and cost-efficient assay is a reasonable approach in a predictive clinical setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Organotypic cultures derived from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) termed pancreatic ductal cancer organoids (PDOs) recapitulate the primary cancer and can be derived from primary or metastatic biopsies. Although isolation and culture of patient-derived pancreatic organoids were established several years ago, pros and cons for individualized medicine have not been comprehensively investigated to date.
METHODS
We conducted a feasibility study, systematically comparing head-to-head patient-derived xenograft tumor (PDX) and PDX-derived organoids by rigorous immunohistochemical and molecular characterization. Subsequently, a drug testing platform was set up and validated
RESULTS
First, PDOs faithfully recapitulated the morphology and marker protein expression patterns of the PDXs. Second, quantitative proteomes from the PDX as well as from corresponding organoid cultures showed high concordance. Third, genomic alterations, as assessed by array-based comparative genomic hybridization, revealed similar results in both groups. Fourth, we established a small-scale pharmacotyping platform adjusted to operate in parallel considering potential obstacles such as culture conditions, timing, drug dosing, and interpretation of the results.
CONCLUSION
Small-scale drug screening in organoids appears to be a feasible, robust and easy-to-handle disease modeling method to allow response predictions in parallel to daily clinical routine. Therefore, our fast and cost-efficient assay is a reasonable approach in a predictive clinical setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32213029
doi: 10.1177/2050640620905183
pmc: PMC7268941
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
594-606Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Ann Oncol. 2017 Oct 1;28(10):2595-2605
pubmed: 28945830
Z Gastroenterol. 2013 Dec;51(12):1395-440
pubmed: 24338757
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb;13(2):74-5
pubmed: 26758788
Mol Cancer Res. 2019 Jan;17(1):70-83
pubmed: 30171177
Nat Commun. 2015 Jul 29;6:7677
pubmed: 26220524
Cell. 2015 Jan 15;160(1-2):324-38
pubmed: 25557080
United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Aug;5(5):609-624
pubmed: 28815024
Ann Oncol. 2014 Jul;25(7):1260-70
pubmed: 24631947
Stem Cells Int. 2019 Jun 2;2019:8475389
pubmed: 31281387
J Cancer. 2017 Feb 11;8(4):513-522
pubmed: 28367231
Nat Med. 2015 Nov;21(11):1364-71
pubmed: 26501191
J Clin Invest. 2018 Nov 1;128(11):5056-5072
pubmed: 30320600
Cancer Discov. 2014 Sep;4(9):998-1013
pubmed: 25185190
Br J Surg. 2018 Jan;105(2):e48-e60
pubmed: 29341164
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Oct;15(10):586-587
pubmed: 30046146
Oncoscience. 2018 Feb 22;5(1-2):6-8
pubmed: 29556511
Assay Drug Dev Technol. 2012 Feb;10(1):88-96
pubmed: 22066911
Nature. 2015 Feb 26;518(7540):495-501
pubmed: 25719666
Per Med. 2018 Nov;15(6):461-465
pubmed: 30418092
EMBO J. 2013 Oct 16;32(20):2708-21
pubmed: 24045232
Cell Stem Cell. 2018 Mar 1;22(3):454-467.e6
pubmed: 29337182
Cancer Discov. 2018 Sep;8(9):1112-1129
pubmed: 29853643
Clin Cancer Res. 2006 Aug 1;12(15):4652-61
pubmed: 16899615
Nature. 2018 Feb 1;554(7690):62-68
pubmed: 29364867