Impact of immediate cryopreservation on the establishment of patient derived xenografts from head and neck cancer patients.
Biobanking
Cryopreservation
Patient-derived xenografts
Journal
Journal of translational medicine
ISSN: 1479-5876
Titre abrégé: J Transl Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 04 2021
28 04 2021
Historique:
received:
13
02
2021
accepted:
18
04
2021
entrez:
29
4
2021
pubmed:
30
4
2021
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patient-derived xenografts established from human cancers are important tools for investigating novel anti-cancer therapies. Establishing PDXs requires a significant investment and many PDXs may be used infrequently due to their similarity to existing models, their growth rate, or the lack of relevant mutations. We performed this study to determine whether we could efficiently establish PDXs after cryopreservation to allow molecular profiling to be completed prior to implanting the human cancer. Fresh tumor was split with half used to establish a PDX immediately and half cryopreserved for later implantation. Resulting tumors were assessed histologically and tumors established from fresh or cryopreserved tissues compared as to the growth rate, extent of tumor necrosis, mitotic activity, keratinization, and grade. All PDXs were subjected to short tandem repeat testing to confirm identity and assess similarity between methods. Tumor growth was seen in 70% of implanted cases. No growth in either condition was seen in 30% of tumors. One developed a SCC from the immediate implant but a lymphoproliferative mass without SCC from the cryopreserved specimen. No difference in growth rate was seen. No difference between histologic parameters was seen between the two approaches. Fresh human cancer tissue can be immediately cryopreserved and later thawed and implanted to establish PDXs. This resource saving approach allows for tumor profiling prior to implantation into animals thus maximizing the probability that the tumor will be utilized for future research.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patient-derived xenografts established from human cancers are important tools for investigating novel anti-cancer therapies. Establishing PDXs requires a significant investment and many PDXs may be used infrequently due to their similarity to existing models, their growth rate, or the lack of relevant mutations. We performed this study to determine whether we could efficiently establish PDXs after cryopreservation to allow molecular profiling to be completed prior to implanting the human cancer.
METHODS
Fresh tumor was split with half used to establish a PDX immediately and half cryopreserved for later implantation. Resulting tumors were assessed histologically and tumors established from fresh or cryopreserved tissues compared as to the growth rate, extent of tumor necrosis, mitotic activity, keratinization, and grade. All PDXs were subjected to short tandem repeat testing to confirm identity and assess similarity between methods.
RESULTS
Tumor growth was seen in 70% of implanted cases. No growth in either condition was seen in 30% of tumors. One developed a SCC from the immediate implant but a lymphoproliferative mass without SCC from the cryopreserved specimen. No difference in growth rate was seen. No difference between histologic parameters was seen between the two approaches.
CONCLUSIONS
Fresh human cancer tissue can be immediately cryopreserved and later thawed and implanted to establish PDXs. This resource saving approach allows for tumor profiling prior to implantation into animals thus maximizing the probability that the tumor will be utilized for future research.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33910584
doi: 10.1186/s12967-021-02850-1
pii: 10.1186/s12967-021-02850-1
pmc: PMC8082827
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
180Subventions
Organisme : NIDCR NIH HHS
ID : P50 DE026787
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA014520
Pays : United States
Références
Nat Med. 2011 Oct 23;17(11):1514-20
pubmed: 22019887
Mol Oncol. 2013 Aug;7(4):776-90
pubmed: 23607916
Int J Cancer. 2017 Mar 15;140(6):1356-1363
pubmed: 27935045
Cell Oncol (Dordr). 2011 Dec;34(6):511-21
pubmed: 21681527
Int J Cancer. 2013 Jun 1;132(11):2510-9
pubmed: 23136038
Transl Oncol. 2019 Jan;12(1):69-75
pubmed: 30273859
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 1;30(4):e45-8
pubmed: 22184402
Sci Rep. 2019 Apr 11;9(1):5901
pubmed: 30976061
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 26;9(6):e100995
pubmed: 24967635
Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Mar 1;16(5):1442-51
pubmed: 20179238
Cell Rep. 2018 Oct 30;25(5):1318-1331.e4
pubmed: 30380421
Oral Oncol. 2017 Jan;64:65-72
pubmed: 28024726
Mol Cancer Ther. 2011 Aug;10(8):1311-6
pubmed: 21673092
Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Feb 15;19(4):855-64
pubmed: 23251001
Cancer Discov. 2014 Sep;4(9):998-1013
pubmed: 25185190
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Oct 15;23(20):6044-6053
pubmed: 28659312
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886