4.6 Article

Cryopreservation of human colorectal carcinomas prior to xenografting

Journal

BMC CANCER
Volume 10, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-362

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Else-Kroner Fresenius Stiftung [2006/A29]
  2. Deutsche Krebshilfe [108446]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Molecular heterogeneity of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is well recognized, forming the rationale for molecular tests required before administration of some of the novel targeted therapies that now are rapidly entering the clinics. For clinical research at least, but possibly even for future individualized tumor treatment on a routine basis, propagation of patients' CRC tissue may be highly desirable for detailed molecular, biochemical or functional analyses. However, complex logistics requiring close liaison between surgery, pathology, laboratory researchers and animal care facilities are a major drawback in this. We here describe and evaluate a very simple cryopreservation procedure for colorectal carcinoma tissue prior to xenografting that will considerably reduce this logistic complexity. Methods: Fourty-eight CRC collected ad hoc were xenografted subcutaneously into immunodeficient mice either fresh from surgery (N = 23) or after cryopreservation (N = 31; up to 643 days). Results: Take rates after cryopreservation were satisfactory (71%) though somewhat lower than with tumor tissues fresh from surgery (74%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Re-transplantation of cryopreserved established xenografts (N = 11) was always successful. Of note, in this series, all of the major molecular types of CRC were xenografted successfully, even after cryopreservation. Conclusions: Our procedure facilitates collection, long-time storage and propagation of clinical CRC specimens (even from different centres) for (pre) clinical studies of novel therapies or for basic research.

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