Adi F Gazdar1, Fred R Hirsch2, John D Minna3. 1. Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: adi.gazdar@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology and Department of Pathology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Denver, CO, USA. 3. Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research, Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and Departments of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies of preclinical models are essential for determining the biology of lung cancers and testing new and novel therapeutic approaches. We review the commonly used preclinical models for lung cancers and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed using combinations of the following medical subject headings: lung cancer; animal models, mice; cell line, tumor; cell culture, mice; transgenic, mice; SCID, transplantation; heterologous; and genetic engineering. We reviewed the relevant published articles. RESULTS: Multiple examples of the three major preclinical models-tumor cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, and genetically engineered mouse models-exist and have been used by investigators worldwide, with more than 15,000 relevant publications. Each model has its strengths and actual or potential weaknesses. In addition, newer forms of these models have been proposed or are in use as potential improvements over the conventional models. CONCLUSIONS: A large number and variety of models have been developed and extensively used for the study of all major types of lung cancer. While they remain the cornerstone of preclinical studies, each model has its individual strengths and weaknesses. These must be carefully evaluated and applied to the proposed studies to obtain the maximum usefulness from the models.
INTRODUCTION: Studies of preclinical models are essential for determining the biology of lung cancers and testing new and novel therapeutic approaches. We review the commonly used preclinical models for lung cancers and evaluate their strengths and weaknesses. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database via PubMed using combinations of the following medical subject headings: lung cancer; animal models, mice; cell line, tumor; cell culture, mice; transgenic, mice; SCID, transplantation; heterologous; and genetic engineering. We reviewed the relevant published articles. RESULTS: Multiple examples of the three major preclinical models-tumor cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, and genetically engineered mouse models-exist and have been used by investigators worldwide, with more than 15,000 relevant publications. Each model has its strengths and actual or potential weaknesses. In addition, newer forms of these models have been proposed or are in use as potential improvements over the conventional models. CONCLUSIONS: A large number and variety of models have been developed and extensively used for the study of all major types of lung cancer. While they remain the cornerstone of preclinical studies, each model has its individual strengths and weaknesses. These must be carefully evaluated and applied to the proposed studies to obtain the maximum usefulness from the models.
Authors: Peter S Hammerman; Martin L Sos; Alex H Ramos; Chunxiao Xu; Amit Dutt; Wenjun Zhou; Lear E Brace; Brittany A Woods; Wenchu Lin; Jianming Zhang; Xianming Deng; Sang Min Lim; Stefanie Heynck; Martin Peifer; Jeffrey R Simard; Michael S Lawrence; Robert C Onofrio; Helga B Salvesen; Danila Seidel; Thomas Zander; Johannes M Heuckmann; Alex Soltermann; Holger Moch; Mirjam Koker; Frauke Leenders; Franziska Gabler; Silvia Querings; Sascha Ansén; Elisabeth Brambilla; Christian Brambilla; Philippe Lorimier; Odd Terje Brustugun; Aslaug Helland; Iver Petersen; Joachim H Clement; Harry Groen; Wim Timens; Hannie Sietsma; Erich Stoelben; Jürgen Wolf; David G Beer; Ming Sound Tsao; Megan Hanna; Charles Hatton; Michael J Eck; Pasi A Janne; Bruce E Johnson; Wendy Winckler; Heidi Greulich; Adam J Bass; Jeonghee Cho; Daniel Rauh; Nathanael S Gray; Kwok-Kin Wong; Eric B Haura; Roman K Thomas; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: M M Nau; B J Brooks; J Battey; E Sausville; A F Gazdar; I R Kirsch; O W McBride; V Bertness; G F Hollis; J D Minna Journal: Nature Date: 1985 Nov 7-13 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Nagako Akeno; Alisa L Reece; Melissa Callahan; Ashley L Miller; Rebecca G Kim; Diana He; Adam Lane; Jonathan S Moulton; Kathryn A Wikenheiser-Brokamp Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Guetchyn Millien; Yuxia Cao; Carl J O'Hara; Jean-Bosco Tagne; Anne Hinds; Mary C Williams; Maria I Ramirez; Hasmeena Kathuria Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2018-06-16 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Wei Zhang; Luc Girard; Yu-An Zhang; Tomohiro Haruki; Mahboubeh Papari-Zareei; Victor Stastny; Hans K Ghayee; Karel Pacak; Trudy G Oliver; John D Minna; Adi F Gazdar Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2018-02