4.8 Article

A Comprehensive Patient-Derived Xenograft Collection Representing the Heterogeneity of Melanoma

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 1953-1967

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.10.021

关键词

-

资金

  1. Perelman School of Medicine
  2. Abramson Cancer Center [P30 CA016520-40]
  3. Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) [P30CA010815, CA016672]
  4. MDACC Melanoma SPORE [P50 CA093459]
  5. NIH [P01 CA114046, P01 CA025874, R01 CA047159, R01 CA182635, R01 CA198015, 5P30 CA016520]
  6. SPORE grant on Skin Cancer
  7. University of Pennsylvania [P50 CA174523-02]
  8. Margaretta and R.R.M Carpenter Foundation
  9. SR Cancer Stem Cell Research Program
  10. University of North Carolina Cancer Research Fund
  11. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Melanoma Moon Shot Program
  12. Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
  13. GSK
  14. Novartis
  15. Bayer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Therapy of advanced melanoma is changing dramatically. Following mutational and biological subclassification of this heterogeneous cancer, several targeted and immune therapies were approved and increased survival significantly. To facilitate further advancements through pre-clinical in vivo modeling, we have established 459 patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and live tissue samples from 384 patients representing the full spectrum of clinical, therapeutic, mutational, and biological heterogeneity of melanoma. PDX have been characterized using targeted sequencing and protein arrays and are clinically annotated. This exhaustive live tissue resource includes PDX from 57 samples resistant to targeted therapy, 61 samples from responders and non-responders to immune checkpoint blockade, and 31 samples from brain metastasis. Uveal, mucosal, and acral subtypes are represented as well. We show examples of pre-clinical trials that highlight how the PDX collection can be used to develop and optimize precision therapies, biomarkers of response, and the targeting of rare genetic subgroups.

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

4.8
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