4.4 Article

Early Development of Human Lymphomas in a Prostate Cancer Xenograft Program Using Triple Knock-Out Immunocompromised Mice

期刊

PROSTATE
卷 75, 期 6, 页码 585-592

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.22939

关键词

prostate cancer; xenograft; lymphoma; triple knock out

资金

  1. Astellas Pharma AG, Swizerland
  2. Movember Global Action Plan GAP1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThere is an urgent need for preclinical models of prostate cancer; however, clinically relevant patient-derived prostate cancer xenografts (PDXs) are demanding to establish. MethodsSixty-seven patients who were undergoing palliative transurethral surgery or radical prostatectomy for histologically confirmed, clinically relevant prostate cancer were included in the study. Fresh prostate cancer tissue was identified by frozen analysis in 48 patients. The cancer tissue was transplanted subcutaneously and under the renal capsule of NSG and NOG mice supplemented with human testosterone. All growing PDXs were evaluated by histology and immunohistochemistry. ResultsEarly assessment of the animals at least three months after transplantation included 27/48 (56.3%) eligible PDX cohorts. PDX growth was detected in 10/27 (37%) mouse cohorts. Eight of the ten PDXs were identified as human donor derived lymphomas, including seven Epstein Barr virus (EBV)-positive diffuse large B-cell lymphomas and one EBV-negative peripheral T-cell lymphoma. One sample consisted of benign prostatic tissue, and one sample comprised a benign epithelial cyst. Prostate cancer was not detected in any of the samples. ConclusionsTumors that arise within the first three months after prostate cancer xenografting may represent patient-derived EBV-positive lymphomas in up to 80% of the early growing PDXs when using triple knockout NSG immunocompromised mice. Therefore, lymphoma should be excluded in prostate cancer xenografts that do not resemble typical prostatic adenocarcinoma. Prostate 75: 585-592, 2015. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, 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

4.4
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