4.6 Review

From Mice to Men and Back: An Assessment of Preclinical Model Systems for the Study of Lung Cancers

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 287-299

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2015.10.009

关键词

Cell lines; Genetically engineered mouse models; Lung cancer; Patient-derived xenografts; Cell lines; Pre-clinical models; Neuroendocrine carcinomas; Non-small cell lung cancer; Small cell lung cancer

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50 CA058187, P50CA70907, P50 CA070907] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Studies of preclinical models are essential for determining the biology of lung cancers and testing new and novel therapeutic approaches. We review the commonly used preclinical models for lung cancers and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. Methods: We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed using combinations of the following medical subject headings: lung cancer; animal models, mice; cell line, tumor; cell culture, mice; transgenic, mice; SCID, transplantation; heterologous; and genetic engineering. We reviewed the relevant published articles. Results: Multiple examples of the three major preclinical models tumor cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, and genetically engineered mouse models exist and have been used by investigators worldwide, with more than 15,000 relevant publications. Each model has its strengths and actual or potential weaknesses. In addition, newer forms of these models have been proposed or are in use as potential improvements over the conventional models. Conclusions: A large number and variety of models have been developed and extensively used for the study of all major types of lung cancer. While they remain the cornerstone of preclinical studies, each model has its individual strengths and weaknesses. These must be carefully evaluated and applied to the proposed studies to obtain the maximum usefulness from the models. 2015 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.6
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