4.6 Article

Orthotopic and heterotopic triple negative breast cancer preclinical murine models: A tumor microenvironment comparative

Journal

RESEARCH IN VETERINARY SCIENCE
Volume 152, Issue -, Pages 364-371

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2022.08.026

Keywords

Breast cancer; Orthotopic; Heterotopic; Mammary fatpad; Air-pouch; Tumor microenvironment

Funding

  1. Fondo Sectorial de Investigacion para la Educacion, CONACYT, Mexico [A1-S-35951]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer worldwide, and triple negative breast cancer is an aggressive subtype. A study has compared the differences between the mammary fat pad orthotopic model and the air pouch heterotopic model in terms of tumor microenvironment factors. The results showed that orthotopic tumors form more metastases, while heterotopic tumors grow larger and have a higher FOXP3 cell infiltrate.
Breast cancer is the most frequent type of cancer worldwide and triple negative breast cancer is a particularly aggressive subtype. Novel therapies for the treatment of cancer patients focus on the remodeling of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Orthotopic and heterotopic syngeneic mice are the most common model used to study the TME in preclinical research. Despite this, there are no published studies that address the differences between orthotopic and heterotopic murine breast cancer models at the TME level. In this report we compared prolif-eration, immune cell infiltrates, extracellular matrix, vascular density, and response to chemotherapy between the mammary fat pad orthotopic model, and the air pouch heterotopic model. Our study shows that the orthotopic tumors form more metastasis, however, the heterotopic tumors grow larger, have a higher FOXP3 cell infiltrate, and resemble more accurately the breast cancer TME. Our findings show that both models are very similar, there are however some differences that should be considered in the experimental design of preclinical studies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available