A validated tumorgraft model reveals activity of dovitinib against renal cell carcinoma.

Department of Developmental Biology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390, USA.
Science translational medicine (Impact Factor: 14.41). 06/2012; 4(137):137ra75. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003643
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Most anticancer drugs entering clinical trials fail to achieve approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Drug development is hampered by the lack of preclinical models with therapeutic predictive value. Herein, we report the development and validation of a tumorgraft model of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and its application to the evaluation of an experimental drug. Tumor samples from 94 patients were implanted in the kidneys of mice without additives or disaggregation. Tumors from 35 of these patients formed tumorgrafts, and 16 stable lines were established. Samples from metastatic sites engrafted at higher frequency than those from primary tumors, and stable engraftment of primary tumors in mice correlated with decreased patient survival. Tumorgrafts retained the histology, gene expression, DNA copy number alterations, and more than 90% of the protein-coding gene mutations of the corresponding tumors. As determined by the induction of hypercalcemia in tumorgraft-bearing mice, tumorgrafts retained the ability to induce paraneoplastic syndromes. In studies simulating drug exposures in patients, RCC tumorgraft growth was inhibited by sunitinib and sirolimus (the active metabolite of temsirolimus in humans), but not by erlotinib, which was used as a control. Dovitinib, a drug in clinical development, showed greater activity than sunitinib and sirolimus. The routine incorporation of models recapitulating the molecular genetics and drug sensitivities of human tumors into preclinical programs has the potential to improve oncology drug development.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effective systemic treatment of cancer relies on the delivery of agents with optimal therapeutic potential. The molecular age of medicine has provided genomic tools that can identify a large number of potential therapeutic targets in individual patients, heralding the promise of personalized treatment. However, determining which potential targets actually drive tumor growth and should be prioritized for therapy is challenging. Indeed, reliable molecular matches of target and therapeutic agent have been stringently validated in the clinic for only a small number of targets. Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) are tumor models developed in immunocompromised mice using tumor procured directly from the patient. As patient surrogates, PDX models represent a powerful tool for addressing individualized therapy. Challenges include humanizing the immune system of PDX models and ensuring high quality molecular annotation, in order to maximise insights for the clinic. Importantly, PDX can be sampled repeatedly and in parallel, to reveal clonal evolution, which may predict mechanisms of drug resistance and inform therapeutic strategy design. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 03/2015; 1855(2). DOI:10.1016/j.bbcan.2015.03.002 · 4.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The patient-derived tumor xenograft (PDTX) model has become the most realistic model for preclinical studies. PDTX models of gastric cancer using surgical tissues are reported occasionally; however, the PDTX models using gastroscopic biopsies, which are best for evaluating new drugs, are unreported. In our study, a total of 185 fresh gastroscopic biopsies of gastric cancer were subcutaneously transplanted into NOD/SCID (Nonobese Diabetic/Severe Combined Immunodeficiency) mice. Sixty-three PDTX models were successfully established (34.1%, 63/185) and passaged to maintain tumors in vivo, and the mean latency period of xenografts was 65.86 ± 32.84 days (11-160 days). Biopsies of prior chemotherapy had a higher transplantation rate (52.1%, 37/71) than biopsies after chemotherapy (21.9%, 25/114; P = 0.000). No differences were found between the latency period of xenografts and characteristics of patients. The pathological and molecular features of PDTX as well as chemosensitivity were highly consistent with those of primary tumors of patients. The genetic characteristics were stable during passaging of PDTX models. In summary PDTX models using gastroscopic biopsies in gastric cancer were demonstrated for the first time, and the biological characteristics of the PDTX models were highly consistent with patients, which provided the best preclinical study platform for gastric cancer.
    Scientific Reports 02/2015; 5:8542. DOI:10.1038/srep08542 · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular annotated patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models are useful for the preclinical investigation of anticancer drugs and individualized anticancer therapy. We established 23 PDXs from 88 surgical specimens of lung cancer patients and determined gene mutations in these PDXs and their paired primary tumors by ultradeep exome sequencing on 202 cancer-related genes. The numbers of primary tumors with deleterious mutations in TP53, KRAS, PI3KCA, ALK, STK11, and EGFR were 43.5%, 21.7%, 17.4%, 17.4%, 13.0%, and 8.7%, respectively. Other genes with deleterious mutations in ≥3 (13.0%) primary tumors were MLL3, SETD2, ATM, ARID1A, CRIPAK, HGF, BAI3, EP300, KDR, PDGRRA and RUNX1. Of 315 mutations detected in the primary tumors, 293 (93%) were also detected in their corresponding PDXs, indicating that PDXs have the capacity to recapitulate the mutations in primary tumors. Nevertheless, a substantial number of mutations had higher allele frequencies in the PDXs than in the primary tumors, or were not detectable in the primary tumor, suggesting the possibility of tumor cell enrichment in PDXs or heterogeneity in the primary tumors. The molecularly annotated PDXs generated from this study could be useful for future translational studies. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Cancer Letters 11/2014; 357(1). DOI:10.1016/j.canlet.2014.11.024 · 5.02 Impact Factor