4.6 Review

Prioritizing therapeutic targets using patient-derived xenograft models

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2015.03.002

关键词

Personalized medicine; Patient-derived xenografts; Genomics; Targeted therapy; Therapeutic targets

资金

  1. National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia [1062702, 1076048]
  2. Cancer Council Victoria Sir Edward Dunlop Fellowship in Cancer Research
  3. Victorian Cancer Agency Clinical Fellowship
  4. United States National Institute of Health [R01 CA184502]
  5. Mayo Clinic SPORE in Ovarian Cancer [CA136393]
  6. Minnesota Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics
  7. Ovarian Cancer Research Fund [OCRF258797]
  8. Ginkgo, LLC
  9. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1062702, 1076048] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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 (PDXs) 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 maximize 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. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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