4.7 Review

Patient-derived explants (PDEs) as a powerful preclinical platform for anti-cancer drug and biomarker discovery

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 122, 期 6, 页码 735-744

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-019-0672-6

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. University of Leicester
  2. MRC Toxicology Unit
  3. Cancer Research UK Therapeutic Discovery Laboratories
  4. LifeArc
  5. CRUK-NIHR Leicester Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre [C10604/A25151]
  6. Breast Cancer Now's Catalyst Programme - Pfizer [2017NOVPCC1066]
  7. MRC [MC_U132685863, MC_PC_14117, MC_UU_00025/5, MC_UU_00025/4, MC_PC_15045, MC_PC_16051] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preclinical models that can accurately predict outcomes in the clinic are much sought after in the field of cancer drug discovery and development. Existing models such as organoids and patient-derived xenografts have many advantages, but they suffer from the drawback of not contextually preserving human tumour architecture. This is a particular problem for the preclinical testing of immunotherapies, as these agents require an intact tumour human-specific microenvironment for them to be effective. In this review, we explore the potential of patient-derived explants (PDEs) for fulfilling this need. PDEs involve the ex vivo culture of fragments of freshly resected human tumours that retain the histological features of original tumours. PDE methodology for anti-cancer drug testing has been in existence for many years, but the platform has not been widely adopted in translational research facilities, despite strong evidence for its clinical predictivity. By modifying PDE endpoint analysis to include the spatial profiling of key biomarkers by using multispectral imaging, we argue that PDEs offer many advantages, including the ability to correlate drug responses with tumour pathology, tumour heterogeneity and changes in the tumour microenvironment. As such, PDEs are a powerful model of choice for cancer drug and biomarker discovery programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据