BACKGROUND: Organotypic cultures derived from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) termed pancreatic ductal cancer organoids (PDOs) recapitulate the primary cancer and can be derived from primary or metastatic biopsies. Although isolation and culture of patient-derived pancreatic organoids were established several years ago, pros and cons for individualized medicine have not been comprehensively investigated to date. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study, systematically comparing head-to-head patient-derived xenograft tumor (PDX) and PDX-derived organoids by rigorous immunohistochemical and molecular characterization. Subsequently, a drug testing platform was set up and validated in vivo. Patient-derived organoids were investigated as well. RESULTS: First, PDOs faithfully recapitulated the morphology and marker protein expression patterns of the PDXs. Second, quantitative proteomes from the PDX as well as from corresponding organoid cultures showed high concordance. Third, genomic alterations, as assessed by array-based comparative genomic hybridization, revealed similar results in both groups. Fourth, we established a small-scale pharmacotyping platform adjusted to operate in parallel considering potential obstacles such as culture conditions, timing, drug dosing, and interpretation of the results. In vitro predictions were successfully validated in an in vivo xenograft trial. Translational proof-of-concept is exemplified in a patient with PDAC receiving palliative chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Small-scale drug screening in organoids appears to be a feasible, robust and easy-to-handle disease modeling method to allow response predictions in parallel to daily clinical routine. Therefore, our fast and cost-efficient assay is a reasonable approach in a predictive clinical setting.
BACKGROUND: Organotypic cultures derived from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) termed pancreatic ductal cancer organoids (PDOs) recapitulate the primary cancer and can be derived from primary or metastatic biopsies. Although isolation and culture of patient-derived pancreatic organoids were established several years ago, pros and cons for individualized medicine have not been comprehensively investigated to date. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility study, systematically comparing head-to-head patient-derived xenograft tumor (PDX) and PDX-derived organoids by rigorous immunohistochemical and molecular characterization. Subsequently, a drug testing platform was set up and validated in vivo. Patient-derived organoids were investigated as well. RESULTS: First, PDOs faithfully recapitulated the morphology and marker protein expression patterns of the PDXs. Second, quantitative proteomes from the PDX as well as from corresponding organoid cultures showed high concordance. Third, genomic alterations, as assessed by array-based comparative genomic hybridization, revealed similar results in both groups. Fourth, we established a small-scale pharmacotyping platform adjusted to operate in parallel considering potential obstacles such as culture conditions, timing, drug dosing, and interpretation of the results. In vitro predictions were successfully validated in an in vivo xenograft trial. Translational proof-of-concept is exemplified in a patient with PDAC receiving palliative chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Small-scale drug screening in organoids appears to be a feasible, robust and easy-to-handle disease modeling method to allow response predictions in parallel to daily clinical routine. Therefore, our fast and cost-efficient assay is a reasonable approach in a predictive clinical setting.
Entities:
Keywords:
PDAC; drug response prediction; organoids
Authors: T Seufferlein; M Porzner; T Becker; V Budach; G Ceyhan; I Esposito; R Fietkau; M Follmann; H Friess; P Galle; M Geissler; M Glanemann; T Gress; V Heinemann; W Hohenberger; U Hopt; J Izbicki; E Klar; J Kleeff; I Kopp; F Kullmann; T Langer; J Langrehr; M Lerch; M Löhr; J Lüttges; M Lutz; J Mayerle; P Michl; P Möller; M Molls; M Münter; M Nothacker; H Oettle; S Post; A Reinacher-Schick; C Röcken; E Roeb; H Saeger; R Schmid; W Schmiegel; M Schoenberg; J Siveke; M Stuschke; A Tannapfel; W Uhl; S Unverzagt; B van Oorschot; Y Vashist; J Werner; E Yekebas Journal: Z Gastroenterol Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Meike Hohwieler; Lukas Perkhofer; Stefan Liebau; Thomas Seufferlein; Martin Müller; Anett Illing; Alexander Kleger Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Sylvia F Boj; Chang-Il Hwang; Lindsey A Baker; Iok In Christine Chio; Dannielle D Engle; Vincenzo Corbo; Myrthe Jager; Mariano Ponz-Sarvise; Hervé Tiriac; Mona S Spector; Ana Gracanin; Tobiloba Oni; Kenneth H Yu; Ruben van Boxtel; Meritxell Huch; Keith D Rivera; John P Wilson; Michael E Feigin; Daniel Öhlund; Abram Handly-Santana; Christine M Ardito-Abraham; Michael Ludwig; Ela Elyada; Brinda Alagesan; Giulia Biffi; Georgi N Yordanov; Bethany Delcuze; Brianna Creighton; Kevin Wright; Youngkyu Park; Folkert H M Morsink; I Quintus Molenaar; Inne H Borel Rinkes; Edwin Cuppen; Yuan Hao; Ying Jin; Isaac J Nijman; Christine Iacobuzio-Donahue; Steven D Leach; Darryl J Pappin; Molly Hammell; David S Klimstra; Olca Basturk; Ralph H Hruban; George Johan Offerhaus; Robert G J Vries; Hans Clevers; David A Tuveson Journal: Cell Date: 2014-12-31 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Isabel Romero-Calvo; Christopher R Weber; Mohana Ray; Miguel Brown; Kori Kirby; Rajib K Nandi; Tiha M Long; Samantha M Sparrow; Andrey Ugolkov; Wenan Qiang; Yilin Zhang; Tonya Brunetti; Hedy Kindler; Jeremy P Segal; Andrey Rzhetsky; Andrew P Mazar; Mary M Buschmann; Ralph Weichselbaum; Kevin Roggin; Kevin P White Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-31 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: E Izumchenko; K Paz; D Ciznadija; I Sloma; A Katz; D Vasquez-Dunddel; I Ben-Zvi; J Stebbing; W McGuire; W Harris; R Maki; A Gaya; A Bedi; S Zacharoulis; R Ravi; L H Wexler; M O Hoque; C Rodriguez-Galindo; H Pass; N Peled; A Davies; R Morris; M Hidalgo; D Sidransky Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Karolin Walter; Kanishka Tiwary; Marija Trajkovic-Arsic; Ana Hidalgo-Sastre; Laura Dierichs; Sven T Liffers; Jiangning Gu; Johann Gout; Lucas-Alexander Schulte; Jan Münch; Thomas Seufferlein; Bruno Sainz; Jens T Siveke; Eva Rodriguez-Aznar; Patrick C Hermann Journal: Stem Cells Int Date: 2019-06-02 Impact factor: 5.443
Authors: Ronan Russell; Lukas Perkhofer; Stefan Liebau; Qiong Lin; André Lechel; Fenja M Feld; Elisabeth Hessmann; Jochen Gaedcke; Melanie Güthle; Martin Zenke; Daniel Hartmann; Guido von Figura; Stephanie E Weissinger; Karl-Lenhard Rudolph; Peter Möller; Jochen K Lennerz; Thomas Seufferlein; Martin Wagner; Alexander Kleger Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2015-07-29 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Michael Karl Melzer; Frank Arnold; Katja Stifter; Friedemann Zengerling; Ninel Azoitei; Thomas Seufferlein; Christian Bolenz; Alexander Kleger Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Sandra Wiedenmann; Markus Breunig; Jessica Merkle; Christine von Toerne; Tihomir Georgiev; Michel Moussus; Lucas Schulte; Thomas Seufferlein; Michael Sterr; Heiko Lickert; Stephanie Ellen Weissinger; Peter Möller; Stefanie M Hauck; Meike Hohwieler; Alexander Kleger; Matthias Meier Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 25.671