Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Biomaterials (CRIB), University of Napoli Federico II, P.le Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy.
Center for Advanced Biomaterials for Health Care@CRIB, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Largo Barsanti e Matteucci 53, 80125 Napoli, Italy.
Acta Biomater. 2018 Jul 15;75:200-212. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2018.05.055. Epub 2018 Jun 1.
The use of 3D cancer models will have both ethical and economic impact in drug screening and development, to promote the reduction of the animals employed in preclinical studies. Nevertheless, to be effective, such cancer surrogates must preserve the physiological relevance of the in vivo models in order to provide realistic information on drugs' efficacy. To figure out the role of the architecture and composition of 3D cancer models on their tumor-mimicking capability, here we studied the efficacy of doxorubicin (DOX), a well-known anticancer molecule in two different 3D cancer models: our 3D breast cancer microtissue (3D-μTP) versus the golden standard represented by spheroid model (sph). Both models were obtained by using cancer associated fibroblast (CAF) and breast cancer cells (MCF-7) as cellular component. Unlike spheroid model, 3D-μTP was engineered in order to induce the production of endogenous extracellular matrix by CAF. 3D-μTP have been compared to spheroid in mono- (MCF-7 alone) and co-culture (MCF-7/CAF), after the treatment with DOX in order to study cytotoxicity effect, diffusional transport and expression of proteins related to cancer progression. Compared to the spheroid model, 3D-μTP showed higher diffusion coefficient of DOX and lower cell viability. Also, the expression of some tumoral biomarkers related to cell junctions were different in the two models.
Cancer biology has made progress in unraveling the mechanism of cancer progression, anyway the most of the results are still obtained by 2D cell cultures or animal models, that do not faithfully copycat the tumor microenvironment. The lack of correlation between preclinical models and in vivo organisms negatively influences the clinical efficacy of chemotherapeutic drugs. Consequently, even if a huge amount of new drugs has been developed in the last decades, still people are dying because of cancer. Pharmaceutical companies are interested in 3D tumor model as valid alternative in drug screening in preclinical studies. However, a 3D tumor model that completely mimics tumor heterogeneity is still far to achieve. In our work we compare 3D human breast cancer microtissues and spheroids in terms of response to doxorubicin and drug diffusion. We believe that our results are interesting because they highlight the potential role of the proposed tumor model in the attempts to improve efficacy tests.
在药物筛选和开发中使用 3D 癌症模型将对伦理和经济产生影响,以促进减少临床前研究中使用的动物。然而,为了有效,这种癌症替代物必须保持体内模型的生理相关性,以便为药物疗效提供现实信息。为了了解 3D 癌症模型的结构和组成对其肿瘤模拟能力的影响,我们在这里研究了 doxorubicin(DOX)在两种不同的 3D 癌症模型中的疗效:我们的 3D 乳腺癌微组织(3D-μTP)与由球体模型(sph)代表的金标准。这两种模型均由癌症相关成纤维细胞(CAF)和乳腺癌细胞(MCF-7)作为细胞成分获得。与球体模型不同,3D-μTP 的设计目的是通过 CAF 诱导内源性细胞外基质的产生。在使用 DOX 处理后,将 3D-μTP 与球体在单培养(仅 MCF-7)和共培养(MCF-7/CAF)中进行比较,以研究细胞毒性作用、扩散传输和与癌症进展相关的蛋白质的表达。与球体模型相比,3D-μTP 显示出更高的 DOX 扩散系数和更低的细胞活力。此外,两种模型中与细胞连接相关的一些肿瘤生物标志物的表达也不同。
癌症生物学在揭示癌症进展机制方面取得了进展,但是大多数结果仍然是通过 2D 细胞培养或动物模型获得的,这些模型不能真实地复制肿瘤微环境。临床前模型与体内生物体之间缺乏相关性会对化疗药物的临床疗效产生负面影响。因此,尽管过去几十年开发了大量新药,但仍有人因癌症而死亡。制药公司对 3D 肿瘤模型作为临床前研究中药物筛选的有效替代方法感兴趣。然而,完全模拟肿瘤异质性的 3D 肿瘤模型仍然遥不可及。在我们的工作中,我们比较了 3D 人乳腺癌微组织和球体在 DOX 反应和药物扩散方面的差异。我们认为我们的结果很有趣,因为它们突出了所提出的肿瘤模型在试图提高疗效测试方面的潜在作用。