Patient-derived breast tumor xenografts facilitating personalized cancer therapy

Landis, Melissa D; Lehmann, Brian D; Pietenpol, Jennifer A; Chang, Jenny C

doi:10.1186/bcr3355

Breast Cancer Research

Table 1 Generation of breast tumor patient-derived xenografts

From: Patient-derived breast tumor xenografts facilitating personalized cancer therapy

	Visonneau *et al*. [1]	Al Hajj *et al. [17]; Liu et al*. [19]	Beckhove *et al*. [18]	Marangoni *et al. [6]; Cottu et al. [21]; Reyal et al*. [23]	Bergamaschi *et al*. [24]	DeRose *et al*. [8]	Zhang *et al*. [9]	Kabos *et al*. [20]	Petrillo *et al*. [22]
Transplantation site	Subcutaneous	Orthotopic, thoracic mammary gland	Intramuscular hind leg, matrigel	Interscapular fatpad	Subcutaneous back pocket, matrigel	Orthotopic, cleared mammary fatpad	Orthotopic, cleared mammary fatpad	Orthotopic, abdominal fatpad, matrigel	Subcutaneous dorsal flank
Additional immunosuppression	Etoposide	Etoposide	Irradiated versus non-irradiated	None	None	None	None	None	None
Estradiol	None	Yes, 5 days before transplant	None	In drinking water 17 μg/ml [6]; 8 μg/ml [21]	1.7 mg/pellet; 900 pg/ml	Yes	Yes, low dose	Yes, silastic pellet	Yes, 0.36 mg pellet
Mouse strain	SCID	NOD/SCID, NSG	NOD/SCID	Swiss nude	SCID	NOD/SCID	SCID/Beige, NSG	NOD/SCID, NSG	NOD/SCID
Initial take rate	Primary tumors 8/16 (50%)		93 versus 90% irradiated; versus non-irradiated	Primary (15%) [6] Metastasis (24%) [6]	6/30 (20%), TG2	18/49 (37%)		10/24 (42%) >TG1
Stable take rate	Two lines were serially passaged		Not serially passaged	12.5% total (25/200) [6]; 2.5% (8/213) luminal 25% non-luminal, TG3 [21]	3/30 (10%), TG8 2/30 (7%) >TG10	12/49 (27%)	27 lines representing individual patients >TG5		5/20 (25%)
Xenograft versus patient concordant histopathology	Yes, one exception		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Engraftment correlation with tumor features	Take rate did not correlate with pathological diagnosis, grading, or ER/PR status	8/9 pleural effusions [17]; primary and metastases [19]	Progression correlated with negative hormone status, high proliferative index, grade III	TNBC and metastases higher; non-luminal higher take rate than luminal	Not statistical but two stable were invasive grade III ductal carcinoma	8/12 stable grafts from metastatic pleural effusions or ascites	TNBC and grade III higher take rate	Non-luminal higher take rate than luminal; ER status and high tumor grade	Receptor subtype and pathological grade higher take rate
IHC subtypes represented		4 TN 2 HER2+ 2 ER+		15 TN 2 HER2+ 1 ER+ [6]; 22 TN, 8 ER+ [21]	1 ER-/PR- (lost PR) 1 ER+/PR+	5 TN 2 HER2+ 2 ER+ -	21 TN 3 HER2+ 3 ER+	1 TN 5 ER+	0/12 ER/PR+ 4/4 TN 1/4 HER2+
Metastases		Yes, 5/8 (62%) micro-metastases [19]	Rare, two in lymph nodes	10 models lung metastases		9/10 (90%)	13/27 (48%) micro-metastases
Genetic stability across generations				Yes, CGH and Affymetrix microarray		Yes, Agilent and SNP microarray	Yes, genomic, transciptomic, proteomic

CGH, comparative genomic hybridization; ER, estrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2; IHC, immunohistochemistry; NOD, non-obese diabetic; NSG, NOD/SCID/IL2γ-receptor null; PR, progesterone receptor; SCID, severe combined immunodeficiency; TG, transplant generation; TN, triple negative; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

Back to article page

ISSN: 1465-542X

Contact us

Submission enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com