Ex vivo modelling of drug efficacy in a rare metastatic urachal carcinoma.
Adenocarcinoma
/ drug therapy
Adult
Antineoplastic Agents
/ pharmacology
Cell Line, Tumor
Cell Proliferation
/ drug effects
Cell Survival
/ drug effects
Cystectomy
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Drug Screening Assays, Antitumor
/ methods
Enzyme Assays
/ methods
Feasibility Studies
Humans
Male
Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinases
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Mutation
Precision Medicine
/ methods
Primary Cell Culture
/ methods
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-met
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
/ genetics
Reproducibility of Results
TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Urachus
/ pathology
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Ex vivo drug screening
Precision medicine
Rare cancer
Urachal carcinoma
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jun 2020
23 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
06
05
2019
accepted:
19
06
2020
entrez:
25
6
2020
pubmed:
25
6
2020
medline:
30
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ex vivo drug screening refers to the out-of-body assessment of drug efficacy in patient derived vital tumor cells. The purpose of these methods is to enable functional testing of patient specific efficacy of anti-cancer therapeutics and personalized treatment strategies. Such approaches could prove powerful especially in context of rare cancers for which demonstration of novel therapies is difficult due to the low numbers of patients. Here, we report comparison of different ex vivo drug screening methods in a metastatic urachal adenocarcinoma, a rare and aggressive non-urothelial bladder malignancy that arises from the remnant embryologic urachus in adults. To compare the feasibility and results obtained with alternative ex vivo drug screening techniques, we used three different approaches; enzymatic cell viability assay of 2D cell cultures and image-based cytometry of 2D and 3D cell cultures in parallel. Vital tumor cells isolated from a biopsy obtained in context of a surgical debulking procedure were used for screening of 1160 drugs with the aim to evaluate patterns of efficacy in the urachal cancer cells. Dose response data from the enzymatic cell viability assay and the image-based assay of 2D cell cultures showed the best consistency. With 3D cell culture conditions, the proliferation rate of the tumor cells was slower and potency of several drugs was reduced even following growth rate normalization of the responses. MEK, mTOR, and MET inhibitors were identified as the most cytotoxic targeted drugs. Secondary validation analyses confirmed the efficacy of these drugs also with the new human urachal adenocarcinoma cell line (MISB18) established from the patient's tumor. All the tested ex vivo drug screening methods captured the patient's tumor cells' sensitivity to drugs that could be associated with the oncogenic KRAS
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Ex vivo drug screening refers to the out-of-body assessment of drug efficacy in patient derived vital tumor cells. The purpose of these methods is to enable functional testing of patient specific efficacy of anti-cancer therapeutics and personalized treatment strategies. Such approaches could prove powerful especially in context of rare cancers for which demonstration of novel therapies is difficult due to the low numbers of patients. Here, we report comparison of different ex vivo drug screening methods in a metastatic urachal adenocarcinoma, a rare and aggressive non-urothelial bladder malignancy that arises from the remnant embryologic urachus in adults.
METHODS
METHODS
To compare the feasibility and results obtained with alternative ex vivo drug screening techniques, we used three different approaches; enzymatic cell viability assay of 2D cell cultures and image-based cytometry of 2D and 3D cell cultures in parallel. Vital tumor cells isolated from a biopsy obtained in context of a surgical debulking procedure were used for screening of 1160 drugs with the aim to evaluate patterns of efficacy in the urachal cancer cells.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Dose response data from the enzymatic cell viability assay and the image-based assay of 2D cell cultures showed the best consistency. With 3D cell culture conditions, the proliferation rate of the tumor cells was slower and potency of several drugs was reduced even following growth rate normalization of the responses. MEK, mTOR, and MET inhibitors were identified as the most cytotoxic targeted drugs. Secondary validation analyses confirmed the efficacy of these drugs also with the new human urachal adenocarcinoma cell line (MISB18) established from the patient's tumor.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
All the tested ex vivo drug screening methods captured the patient's tumor cells' sensitivity to drugs that could be associated with the oncogenic KRAS
Identifiants
pubmed: 32576176
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07092-w
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-07092-w
pmc: PMC7313172
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
KRAS protein, human
0
MTOR protein, human
EC 2.7.1.1
MET protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-met
EC 2.7.10.1
TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases
EC 2.7.11.1
Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinases
EC 2.7.12.2
Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
EC 3.6.5.2
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
590Subventions
Organisme : AstraZeneca
ID : 18122013
Références
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 6;12(9):e0183074
pubmed: 28877221
Int J Urol. 2007 Oct;14(10):963-5
pubmed: 17880303
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Feb;17(2):e70-e80
pubmed: 26868356
Eur Urol. 2016 Nov;70(5):771-775
pubmed: 27178450
Oncotarget. 2016 Jun 28;7(26):39293-39301
pubmed: 27283768
Cell Syst. 2019 Jul 24;9(1):35-48.e5
pubmed: 31302153
Eur Urol. 2019 Oct;76(4):430-434
pubmed: 31256944
Cancer Res. 2010 Jan 15;70(2):440-6
pubmed: 20068163
J Antibiot (Tokyo). 1981 Oct;34(10):1248-52
pubmed: 7309620
Lung Cancer. 2020 Jul;145:27-32
pubmed: 32388277
Mol Cancer Ther. 2010 Dec;9(12):3175-85
pubmed: 21159605
Hum Pathol. 2014 Feb;45(2):327-30
pubmed: 24355196
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015 Aug;14(8):513-5
pubmed: 26228747
Anticancer Res. 2019 Nov;39(11):5867-5877
pubmed: 31704811
J Vis Exp. 2013 Jan 03;(71):
pubmed: 23328888
BMJ Case Rep. 2019 Aug 26;12(8):
pubmed: 31451464
Int J Urol. 2020 Feb;27(2):157-162
pubmed: 31793080
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016 Aug;14(4):e449-52
pubmed: 27102403
Chemotherapy. 2013;59(6):402-6
pubmed: 24969043
Cancer. 2007 Dec 1;110(11):2434-40
pubmed: 17932892
Br J Cancer. 2020 Mar;122(6):735-744
pubmed: 31894140
Cells. 2020 Jan 13;9(1):
pubmed: 31941155
Sci Rep. 2017 May 4;7(1):1502
pubmed: 28473715
Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 May;33(5):659-68
pubmed: 19252435
Nat Commun. 2018 Jun 19;9(1):2404
pubmed: 29921838
Mol Oncol. 2018 Aug;12(8):1296-1307
pubmed: 29901861
Can J Urol. 2010 Apr;17(2):5120-3
pubmed: 20398453
Urol Int. 2012;88(2):209-14
pubmed: 22143067
Urol Case Rep. 2014 Dec 23;3(2):9-11
pubmed: 26793485
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019 Sep;45(9):1740-1744
pubmed: 31003721
Cancer Discov. 2017 May;7(5):462-477
pubmed: 28331002
Cancer. 2006 Aug 15;107(4):712-20
pubmed: 16826585
Int J Cancer. 2018 Oct 1;143(7):1764-1773
pubmed: 29672836
Lancet Haematol. 2017 Dec;4(12):e595-e606
pubmed: 29153976
Adv Anat Pathol. 2016 Mar;23(2):71-83
pubmed: 26849813
Cancer Discov. 2017 Mar;7(3):302-321
pubmed: 28108460
J Urol. 2003 Apr;169(4):1295-8
pubmed: 12629346
Urol Oncol. 2016 Sep;34(9):388-98
pubmed: 27267737
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jan 4;46(D1):D1062-D1067
pubmed: 29165669
Can Urol Assoc J. 2020 Mar;14(3):E57-E64
pubmed: 31348743
Urol Oncol. 2017 Jan;35(1):33.e11-33.e19
pubmed: 27592530