Konstantinos I Votanopoulos1,2, Andrea Mazzocchi3,4, Hemamylammal Sivakumar3, Steven Forsythe3,5, Julio Aleman3, Edward A Levine6,7, Aleksander Skardal8,9,10,11. 1. Department of Surgery - Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. kvotanop@wakehealth.edu. 2. Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest Baptist Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. kvotanop@wakehealth.edu. 3. Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 4. Virginia Tech-Wake Forest School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 5. Department of Cancer Biology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 6. Department of Surgery - Oncology, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 7. Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest Baptist Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. 8. Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest Baptist Medical, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. askardal@wakehealth.edu. 9. Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. askardal@wakehealth.edu. 10. Virginia Tech-Wake Forest School of Biomedical Engineering and Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. askardal@wakehealth.edu. 11. Department of Cancer Biology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA. askardal@wakehealth.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We have hypothesized that biofabrication of appendiceal tumor organoids allows for a more personalized clinical approach and facilitates research in a rare disease. METHODS: Appendiceal cancer specimens obtained during cytoreduction with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy procedures (CRS/HIPEC) were dissociated and incorporated into an extracellular matrix-based hydrogel system as three-dimensional (3D), patient-specific tumor organoids. Cells were not sorted, preserving tumor heterogeneity, including stroma and immune cell components. Following establishment of organoid sets, chemotherapy drugs were screened in parallel. Live/dead staining and quantitative metabolism assays recorded which chemotherapies were most effective in killing cancer cells for a specific patient. Maintenance of cancer phenotypes were confirmed by using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Biospecimens from 12 patients were applied for organoid development between November 2016 and May 2018. Successful establishment rate of viable organoid sets was 75% (9/12). Average time from organoid development to chemotherapy testing was 7 days. These tumors included three high-grade appendiceal (HGA) and nine low-grade appendiceal (LGA) primaries obtained from sites of peritoneal metastasis. All tumor organoids were tested with chemotherapeutic agents exhibited responses that were either similar to the patient response or within the variability of the expected clinical response. More specifically, HGA tumor organoids derived from different patients demonstrated variable chemotherapy tumor-killing responses, whereas LGA organoids tested with the same regimens showed no response to chemotherapy. One LGA set of organoids was immune-enhanced with cells from a patient-matched lymph node to demonstrate feasibility of a symbiotic 3D reconstruction of a patient matched tumor and immune system component. CONCLUSIONS: Development of 3D appendiceal tumor organoids is feasible even in low cellularity LGA tumors, allowing for individual patient tumors to remain viable for research and personalized drug screening.
INTRODUCTION: We have hypothesized that biofabrication of appendiceal tumor organoids allows for a more personalized clinical approach and facilitates research in a rare disease. METHODS:Appendiceal cancer specimens obtained during cytoreduction with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy procedures (CRS/HIPEC) were dissociated and incorporated into an extracellular matrix-based hydrogel system as three-dimensional (3D), patient-specific tumor organoids. Cells were not sorted, preserving tumor heterogeneity, including stroma and immune cell components. Following establishment of organoid sets, chemotherapy drugs were screened in parallel. Live/dead staining and quantitative metabolism assays recorded which chemotherapies were most effective in killing cancer cells for a specific patient. Maintenance of cancer phenotypes were confirmed by using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Biospecimens from 12 patients were applied for organoid development between November 2016 and May 2018. Successful establishment rate of viable organoid sets was 75% (9/12). Average time from organoid development to chemotherapy testing was 7 days. These tumors included three high-grade appendiceal (HGA) and nine low-grade appendiceal (LGA) primaries obtained from sites of peritoneal metastasis. All tumor organoids were tested with chemotherapeutic agents exhibited responses that were either similar to the patient response or within the variability of the expected clinical response. More specifically, HGA tumor organoids derived from different patients demonstrated variable chemotherapy tumor-killing responses, whereas LGA organoids tested with the same regimens showed no response to chemotherapy. One LGA set of organoids was immune-enhanced with cells from a patient-matched lymph node to demonstrate feasibility of a symbiotic 3D reconstruction of a patient matched tumor and immune system component. CONCLUSIONS: Development of 3D appendiceal tumor organoids is feasible even in low cellularity LGA tumors, allowing for individual patienttumors to remain viable for research and personalized drug screening.
Authors: Konstantinos I Votanopoulos; Greg Russell; Reese W Randle; Perry Shen; John H Stewart; Edward A Levine Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Aleksander Skardal; Jianxing Zhang; Lindsi McCoard; Xiaoyu Xu; Siam Oottamasathien; Glenn D Prestwich Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.845
Authors: Erika L Spaeth; Adam M Labaff; Bryan P Toole; Ann Klopp; Michael Andreeff; Frank C Marini Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2013-07-09 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Manuel Hidalgo; Frederic Amant; Andrew V Biankin; Eva Budinská; Annette T Byrne; Carlos Caldas; Robert B Clarke; Steven de Jong; Jos Jonkers; Gunhild Mari Mælandsmo; Sergio Roman-Roman; Joan Seoane; Livio Trusolino; Alberto Villanueva Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Aleksander Skardal; Sean V Murphy; Kathryn Crowell; David Mack; Anthony Atala; Shay Soker Journal: J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Andrea R Mazzocchi; Shiny A P Rajan; Konstantinos I Votanopoulos; Adam R Hall; Aleksander Skardal Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Aleksander Skardal; Mahesh Devarasetty; Hyun-Wook Kang; Ivy Mead; Colin Bishop; Thomas Shupe; Sang Jin Lee; John Jackson; James Yoo; Shay Soker; Anthony Atala Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Julio Aleman; Sunil K George; Samuel Herberg; Mahesh Devarasetty; Christopher D Porada; Aleksander Skardal; Graça Almeida-Porada Journal: Small Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 13.281
Authors: Anthony Dominijanni; Andrea Mazzocchi; Ethan Shelkey; Steven Forsythe; Mahesh Devarsetty; Shay Soker Journal: Curr Opin Biomed Eng Date: 2020-04-01
Authors: Michael Flood; Vignesh Narasimhan; Kasmira Wilson; Wei Mou Lim; Robert Ramsay; Michael Michael; Alexander Heriot Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Aditi Bhatt; Kurt Van Der Speeten; Martin Hubner; Shigeki Kusamura; Olivier Glehen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-06-04 Impact factor: 5.344