4.7 Review

Clinical translation of patient-derived tumour organoids- bottlenecks and strategies

期刊

BIOMARKER RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s40364-022-00356-6

关键词

Tumour; Organoid; Precision; Medicine; Three-Dimensional (3D)

资金

  1. National Medical Research Council, Singapore [NMRC/STaR/MOH-000709]
  2. Joint NCIS and NUS Cancer Program Seed Funding Grants [R713-009-272-733]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple three-dimensional tumour organoid models assisted by multi-omics and AI have contributed to preclinical drug development and precision medicine. However, there are challenges in translating these models to clinical applications. This review identifies potential strategies to overcome these limitations.
Multiple three-dimensional (3D) tumour organoid models assisted by multi-omics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) have contributed greatly to preclinical drug development and precision medicine. The intrinsic ability to maintain genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of tumours allows for the reconciliation of shortcomings in traditional cancer models. While their utility in preclinical studies have been well established, little progress has been made in translational research and clinical trials. In this review, we identify the major bottlenecks preventing patient-derived tumour organoids (PDTOs) from being used in clinical setting. Unsuitable methods of tissue acquisition, disparities in establishment rates and a lengthy timeline are the limiting factors for use of PDTOs in clinical application. Potential strategies to overcome this include liquid biopsies via circulating tumour cells (CTCs), an automated organoid platform and optical metabolic imaging (OMI). These proposed solutions accelerate and optimize the workflow of a clinical organoid drug screening. As such, PDTOs have the potential for potential applications in clinical oncology to improve patient outcomes. If remarkable progress is made, cancer patients can finally benefit from this revolutionary technology.

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