4.7 Article

Accelerating development of high-risk neuroblastoma patient-derived xenograft models for preclinical testing and personalised therapy

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 122, Issue 5, Pages 680-691

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41416-019-0682-4

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Kids Cancer Alliance
  2. Cancer Institute New South Wales Translational Cancer Research Centre
  3. Neuroblastoma Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Predictive preclinical models play an important role in the assessment of new treatment strategies and as avatar models for personalised medicine; however, reliable and timely model generation is challenging. We investigated the feasibility of establishing patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models of high-risk neuroblastoma from a range of tumour-bearing patient materials and assessed approaches to improve engraftment efficiency. Methods PDX model development was attempted in NSG mice by using tumour materials from 12 patients, including primary and metastatic solid tumour samples, bone marrow, pleural fluid and residual cells from cytogenetic analysis. Subcutaneous, intramuscular and orthotopic engraftment were directly compared for three patients. Results PDX models were established for 44% (4/9) of patients at diagnosis and 100% (5/5) at relapse. In one case, attempted engraftment from pleural fluid resulted in an EBV-associated atypical lymphoid proliferation. Xenogeneic graft versus host disease was observed with attempted engraftment from lymph node and bone marrow tumour samples but could be prevented by T-cell depletion. Orthotopic engraftment was more efficient than subcutaneous or intramuscular engraftment. Conclusions High-risk neuroblastoma PDX models can be reliably established from diverse sample types. Orthotopic implantation allows more rapid model development, increasing the likelihood of developing an avatar model within a clinically useful timeframe.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available