TY - JOUR
T1 - Tumor Xenografts of Human Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma But Not Corresponding Cell Lines Recapitulate Clinical Response to Sunitinib
T2 - Feasibility of Using Biopsy Samples
AU - Dong, Yiyu
AU - Manley, Brandon J.
AU - Becerra, Maria F.
AU - Redzematovic, Almedina
AU - Casuscelli, Jozefina
AU - Tennenbaum, Daniel M.
AU - Reznik, Ed
AU - Han, Song
AU - Benfante, Nicole
AU - Chen, Ying Bei
AU - Arcila, Maria E.
AU - Aras, Omer
AU - Voss, Martin H.
AU - Feldman, Darren R.
AU - Motzer, Robert J.
AU - Fabbri, Nicola
AU - Healey, John H.
AU - Boland, Patrick J.
AU - Chawla, Mohit
AU - Durack, Jeremy C.
AU - Lee, Chung Han
AU - Coleman, Jonathan A.
AU - Russo, Paul
AU - Hakimi, A. Ari
AU - Cheng, Emily H.
AU - Hsieh, James J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 European Association of Urology
PY - 2017/12
Y1 - 2017/12
N2 - Background: Parallel development of preclinical models that recapitulate treatment response observed in patients is central to the advancement of personalized medicine. Objective: To evaluate the use of biopsy specimens to develop patient-derived xenografts and the use of corresponding cell lines from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors for the assessment of histopathology, genomics, and treatment response. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 74 tumor specimens from 66 patients with RCC were implanted into immunocompromised NOD-SCID IL2Rg−/− mice. Four cell lines generated from patients’ specimens with clear cell pathology were used for comparative studies. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Preclinical models were established and assessed. Engraftment rates were analyzed using chi-square testing. Analysis of variance (two-way analysis of variance) was conducted to assess tumor growth. Results and limitations: Overall, 33 RCC mouse xenograft models were generated with an overall engraftment rate of 45% (33 of 74). Tumor biopsies engrafted comparably with surgically resected tumors (58% vs 41%; p = 0.3). Xenograft tumors and their original tumors showed high fidelity in regard to histology, mutation status, copy number change, and targeted therapy response. Engraftment rates from metastatic tumors were higher but not more significant than primary tumors (54% vs 34%; p = 0.091). Our engraftment rate using metastases or biopsies was comparable with recent reports using resected primary tumors. In stark contrast to corresponding cell lines, all tested xenografts recapitulated patients’ clinical response to sunitinib. Conclusions: Patient-derived xenograft models can be effectively established from tumor biopsies. Preclinical xenograft models but not matched cell lines reflected clinical responses to sunitinib. Patient summary: Matched patient-derived clear cell renal cell carcinoma xenografts and cell lines from responsive and refractory patients treated with sunitinib were established and evaluated for pharmacologic response to anti–vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Both models accurately reflected the genetic characteristics of original tumors, but only xenografts recapitulated drug responses observed in patients. These models could serve as a powerful platform for precision medicine. Patient-derived xenograft models can be effectively established from tumor biopsies. Preclinical xenograft models but not matched cell lines reflected clinical responses to sunitinib.
AB - Background: Parallel development of preclinical models that recapitulate treatment response observed in patients is central to the advancement of personalized medicine. Objective: To evaluate the use of biopsy specimens to develop patient-derived xenografts and the use of corresponding cell lines from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors for the assessment of histopathology, genomics, and treatment response. Design, setting, and participants: A total of 74 tumor specimens from 66 patients with RCC were implanted into immunocompromised NOD-SCID IL2Rg−/− mice. Four cell lines generated from patients’ specimens with clear cell pathology were used for comparative studies. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Preclinical models were established and assessed. Engraftment rates were analyzed using chi-square testing. Analysis of variance (two-way analysis of variance) was conducted to assess tumor growth. Results and limitations: Overall, 33 RCC mouse xenograft models were generated with an overall engraftment rate of 45% (33 of 74). Tumor biopsies engrafted comparably with surgically resected tumors (58% vs 41%; p = 0.3). Xenograft tumors and their original tumors showed high fidelity in regard to histology, mutation status, copy number change, and targeted therapy response. Engraftment rates from metastatic tumors were higher but not more significant than primary tumors (54% vs 34%; p = 0.091). Our engraftment rate using metastases or biopsies was comparable with recent reports using resected primary tumors. In stark contrast to corresponding cell lines, all tested xenografts recapitulated patients’ clinical response to sunitinib. Conclusions: Patient-derived xenograft models can be effectively established from tumor biopsies. Preclinical xenograft models but not matched cell lines reflected clinical responses to sunitinib. Patient summary: Matched patient-derived clear cell renal cell carcinoma xenografts and cell lines from responsive and refractory patients treated with sunitinib were established and evaluated for pharmacologic response to anti–vascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Both models accurately reflected the genetic characteristics of original tumors, but only xenografts recapitulated drug responses observed in patients. These models could serve as a powerful platform for precision medicine. Patient-derived xenograft models can be effectively established from tumor biopsies. Preclinical xenograft models but not matched cell lines reflected clinical responses to sunitinib.
KW - Biopsy
KW - Cancer cell lines
KW - Patient-derived xenografts
KW - Precision medicine
KW - Preclinical studies
KW - Renal cell carcinoma
KW - Sunitinib
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994229331&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.euf.2016.08.005
DO - 10.1016/j.euf.2016.08.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 28753786
AN - SCOPUS:84994229331
SN - 2405-4569
VL - 3
SP - 590
EP - 598
JO - European Urology Focus
JF - European Urology Focus
IS - 6
ER -