Cassandra Ringuette-Goulet1,2,3, Stéphane Bolduc1,2, Frédéric Pouliot4,5. 1. Centre de recherche en organogénèse expérimentale/LOEX, Regenerative Medicine Division, CHU de Québec Research Center, Quebec, QC, Canada. 2. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada. 3. Oncology Division, CHU de Québec Research Center, Quebec, QC, Canada. 4. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada. frederic.pouliot@fmed.ulaval.ca. 5. Oncology Division, CHU de Québec Research Center, Quebec, QC, Canada. frederic.pouliot@fmed.ulaval.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bladder cancer is a major public health concern and the treatment options available are unable to significantly prevent disease recurrence and progression. The need for experimental tumor models to efficiently reproduce the pathology of human cancers has prompted researchers to attempt various approaches. METHODS: A PubMed search combining the MeSH bladder cancer and models was executed in March 2017. RESULTS: We review the advantages and limitations of currently available in vitro 2D and 3D bladder cancer models as well as in vivo rodent models. To date, despite the description of a variety of animal models (including transplantable, carcinogen-induced and genetically engineered models), the establishment of reliable, simple, practicable and reproducible animal models remains an ongoing challenge. Recently, sophisticated 3D culture systems have been designed to better recapitulate the phenotypic and cellular heterogeneity as well as microenvironmental aspects of in vivo tumor growth, while being more flexible to conduct repeated experiments. CONCLUSION: Selecting the most appropriate model for a specific application will maximize the conversion of potential therapies from the laboratory to clinical practice and requires an understanding of the various models available.
INTRODUCTION:Bladder cancer is a major public health concern and the treatment options available are unable to significantly prevent disease recurrence and progression. The need for experimental tumor models to efficiently reproduce the pathology of humancancers has prompted researchers to attempt various approaches. METHODS: A PubMed search combining the MeSH bladder cancer and models was executed in March 2017. RESULTS: We review the advantages and limitations of currently available in vitro 2D and 3D bladder cancer models as well as in vivo rodent models. To date, despite the description of a variety of animal models (including transplantable, carcinogen-induced and genetically engineered models), the establishment of reliable, simple, practicable and reproducible animal models remains an ongoing challenge. Recently, sophisticated 3D culture systems have been designed to better recapitulate the phenotypic and cellular heterogeneity as well as microenvironmental aspects of in vivo tumor growth, while being more flexible to conduct repeated experiments. CONCLUSION: Selecting the most appropriate model for a specific application will maximize the conversion of potential therapies from the laboratory to clinical practice and requires an understanding of the various models available.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D models; Animal models; Bladder cancer
Authors: Pasquale Cirone; Catharine J Andresen; Jeetendra R Eswaraka; Patrick B Lappin; Cedo M Bagi Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2014-01-19 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: Maria Vinci; Sharon Gowan; Frances Boxall; Lisa Patterson; Miriam Zimmermann; William Court; Cara Lomas; Marta Mendiola; David Hardisson; Suzanne A Eccles Journal: BMC Biol Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 7.431
Authors: Mikhail G Dozmorov; Kimberly D Kyker; Ricardo Saban; Nicholas Knowlton; Igor Dozmorov; Michael B Centola; Robert E Hurst Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2006-01-13 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Sarah Minkler; Fabrice Lucien; Michael J Kimber; Dipak K Sahoo; Agnes Bourgois-Mochel; Margaret Musser; Chad Johannes; Igor Frank; John Cheville; Karin Allenspach; Jonathan P Mochel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 6.639