Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 463–481 | Cite as

Chemoprotection Across the Tumor Border: Cancer Cell Response to Doxorubicin Depends on Stromal Fibroblast Ratios and Interstitial Therapeutic Transport

  • Daniel K. Logsdon
  • Garrett F. Beeghly
  • Jennifer M. MunsonEmail author



Increasing evidence suggests that the tumor microenvironment reduces therapeutic delivery and may lead to chemotherapeutic resistance. At tumor borders, drug is convectively transported across a unique microenvironment composed of inverse gradients of stromal and tumor cells. These regions are particularly important to overall survival, as they are often missed through surgical intervention and contain many invading cells, often responsible for metastatic spread. An understanding of how cells in this tumor-border region respond to chemotherapy could begin to elucidate the role of transport and intercellular interactions in relation to chemoresistance. Here we examine the contribution of drug transport and stromal fibroblasts to breast cancer response to doxorubicin using in silico and in vitro models of the tumor-stroma interface.


2D culture systems were utilized to determine the effects of modulated ratios of fibroblasts and cancer cells on overall cancer cell viability. A homogenous breast mimetic in vitro 3D collagen I-based hydrogel system, with drug delivered via pressure driven flow (0.5 µm/s), was developed to determine the effects of transport and fibroblasts on doxorubicin treatment efficacy. Using a novel layered tumor bulk-to-stroma transition in vitro 3D hydrogel model, ratios of MDA-MB-231s and fibroblasts were seeded in successive layers creating cellular gradients, yielding insight into region specific cancer cell viability at the tumor border. In silico models, utilizing concentration profiles developed in COMSOL Multiphysics, were optimized for time dependent viability prediction and confirmation of in vitro findings.


In general, the addition of fibroblasts increased viability of cancer cells exposed to doxorubicin, indicating a protective effect of co-culture. More specifically, however, modulating ratios of cancer cells (MDA-MB-231):fibroblasts in 2D co-cultures, to mimic the tumor-stroma transition, resulted in a linear decrease in cancer cell viability from 77% (4:1) to 44% (1:4). Similar trends were seen in the breast-mimetic in vitro 3D collagen I-based homogenous hydrogel system. Our in vitro and in silico tumor border models indicate that MDA-MB-231s at the top of the gel, indicative of the tumor bulk, receive the greatest concentration of drug for the longest time, yet cellular death is lowest in this region. This trend is reversed for MDA-MB-231s alone.


Together, our data indicate that fibroblasts are chemoprotective at lower density, resulting in less tumor death in regions of higher chemotherapy concentration. Additionally, chemotherapeutic agent transport properties can modulate this effect.


Tumor microenvironment Drug delivery Doxorubicin Fibroblasts Breast cancer Interstitial flow 3D cell culture 



Human breast triple negative adenocarcinoma cell line (luminal)


Human breast triple negative invasive ductal carcinoma cell line (luminal)


Human breast ER+/PR+ adenocarcinoma cell line (basal)


Human dermal fibroblast


Tumor cell




Agent-based model


Tumor microenvironment


Tumor to stroma transition model


Interstitial fluid pressure





The researchers would like to acknowledge Lynette Sequeira for her technical laboratory assistance, Charles Calderwood for statistical assistance. We also thank RC Cornelison, RP Pompano, SM Peirce-Cottler, and SS Blemker for helpful discussion. We would also like to acknowledge the Janes Lab at UVa for initial contribution of cell lines, the Advanced Microscopy Facility and the Biorepository and Tissue Research Facility. This research was funded in part through funding to JM Munson from the UVa Cancer Center through the NCI Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA44579 and support from the Snell Endowment Fund and Commonwealth of VA, the School of Medicine, and funding to GF Beeghly from the Harrison Undergraduate Research Awards Center at UVa.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All human samples were acquired according to the ethical standards. No animal studies were performed in this work.

Supplementary material

12195_2017_498_MOESM1_ESM.mp4 (11.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (MP4 11738 kb)
12195_2017_498_MOESM2_ESM.gif (20.8 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (GIF 21303 kb)
12195_2017_498_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 1077 kb)
12195_2017_498_MOESM4_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOC 23 kb)


  1. 1.
    Bandyopadhyay, A., et al. Doxorubicin in combination with a small TGFβ inhibitor: a potential novel therapy for metastatic breast cancer in mouse models. PLoS One 5:10365, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brennen, W. N., D. M. Rosen, H. Wang, J. T. Isaacs, and S. R. Denmeade. Targeting carcinoma-associated fibroblasts within the tumor stroma with a fibroblast activation protein-activated prodrug. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 104:1320–1334, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carey, L. A., et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin. Cancer Res. 13(8):2329–2334, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, A. A., G. H. Underhill, and S. N. Bhatia. Multiplexed, high-throughput analysis of 3D microtissue suspensions. Integr. Biol. 2:517, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conze, D., et al. Autocrine production of interleukin 6 causes multidrug resistance in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res. 61(24):8851–8858, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dean, M., T. Fojo, and S. Bates. Tumour stem cells and drug resistance. Nat. Rev. Cancer 5:275–284, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deisboeck, T. S., L. Zhang, J. Yoon, and J. Costa. In silico cancer modeling: is it ready for prime time? Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 6:34–42, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dekker, T. J. A., et al. Prognostic significance of the tumor-stroma ratio: validation study in node-negative premenopausal breast cancer patients from the EORTC perioperative chemotherapy (POP) trial (10854). Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 139:371–379, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Falkenberg, N., et al. Three-dimensional microtissues essentially contribute to preclinical validations of therapeutic targets in breast cancer. Cancer Med. 5:703–710, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fang, W. B., M. Yao, and N. Cheng. Priming cancer cells for drug resistance: role of the fibroblast niche. Front. Biol. 9:114–126, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farmer, P., et al. A stroma-related gene signature predicts resistance to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Nat. Med. 15:68–74, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Friedl, P., and S. Alexander. Cancer invasion and the microenvironment: plasticity and reciprocity. Cell 147:992–1009, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fukuda, J., et al. Micropatterned cell co-cultures using layer-by-layer deposition of extracellular matrix components. Biomaterials 27:1479–1486, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gao, M.-Q., et al. Stromal fibroblasts from the interface zone of human breast carcinomas induce an epithelial-mesenchymal transition-like state in breast cancer cells in vitro. J. Cell Sci. 123:3507–3514, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gattazzo, F., A. Urciuolo, and P. Bonaldo. Extracellular matrix: a dynamic microenvironment for stem cell niche. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2506–2519:2014, 1840.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gottesman, M. M., T. Fojo, and S. E. Bates. Multidrug resistance in cancer: role of ATP-dependent transporters. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2:48–58, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Griffith, L. G., and M. A. Swartz. Capturing complex 3D tissue physiology in vitro. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 7:211–224, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gritsenko, P. G., O. Ilina, and P. Friedl. Interstitial guidance of cancer invasion. J. Pathol. 226:185–199, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Haessler, U., J. C. M. Teo, D. Foretay, P. Renaud, and M. A. Swartz. Migration dynamics of breast cancer cells in a tunable 3D interstitial flow chamber. Integr. Biol. 4:401, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hazlehurst, L. A., J. S. Damiano, I. Buyuksal, W. J. Pledger, and W. S. Dalton. Adhesion to fibronectin via beta1 integrins regulates p27kip1 levels and contributes to cell adhesion mediated drug resistance (CAM-DR). Oncogene 19:4319–4327, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heldin, C.-H., K. Rubin, K. Pietras, and A. Ostman. High interstitial fluid pressure—an obstacle in cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 4:806–813, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hennequin, E., C. Delvincourt, C. Pourny, and J. C. Jardillier. Expression of MDR1 gene in human breast primary tumors and metastases. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 26:267–274, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huber, S., et al. Breast tumors: computer-assisted quantitative assessment with color Doppler US. Radiology 192:797–801, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jain, R. K. Transport of molecules in the tumor interstitium: a review. Cancer Res. 47:3039–3051, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jain, R. K. Transport of molecules, particles, and cells in solid tumors. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 1:241–263, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jain, R. K., and L. T. Baxter. Mechanisms of heterogeneous distribution of monoclonal antibodies and other macromolecules in tumors: significance of elevated interstitial pressure. Cancer Res. 48:7022–7032, 1988.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jain, R. K., R. T. Tong, and L. L. Munn. Effect of vascular normalization by antiangiogenic therapy on interstitial hypertension, peritumor edema, and lymphatic metastasis: insights from a mathematical model. Cancer Res. 67:2729–2735, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Jang, S. H., M. G. Wientjes, D. Lu, and J. L. S. Au. Drug delivery and transport to solid tumors. Pharm. Res. 20:1337–1350, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kalluri, R., and M. Zeisberg. Fibroblasts in cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6:392–401, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kingsmore, K. M., et al. Interstitial flow differentially increases patient-derived glioblastoma stem cell invasion via CXCR4, CXCL12, and CD44-mediated mechanisms. Integr. Biol. 8(12):1246–1260, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Knowlton, S., S. Onal, C. H. Yu, J. J. Zhao, and S. Tasoglu. Bioprinting for cancer research. Trends Biotechnol. 33:504–513, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lankelma, J., et al. Doxorubicin gradients in human breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 5:1703–1707, 1999.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    LeBedis, C., K. Chen, L. Fallavollita, T. Boutros, and P. Brodt. Peripheral lymph node stromal cells can promote growth and tumorigenicity of breast carcinoma cells through the release of IGF-I and EGF. Int. J. Cancer 100:2–8, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liu, W., et al. Magnetically controllable 3D microtissues based on magnetic microcryogels. Lab Chip 14:2614, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ljungkvist, A. S. E., J. Bussink, P. F. J. W. Rijken, J. H. A. M. Kaanders, A. J. Van der Kogel, and J. Denekamp. Vascular architecture, hypoxia, and proliferation in first-generation xenografts of human head-and-neck squamous cell carcinomas. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 54:215–228, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Loeffler, M., J. A. Krüger, A. G. Niethammer, and R. A. Reisfeld. Targeting tumor-associated fibroblasts improves cancer chemotherapy by increasing intratumoral drug uptake. J. Clin. Invest. 116:1955–1962, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Loessner, D., K. S. Stok, M. P. Lutolf, D. W. Hutmacher, J. A. Clements, and S. C. Rizzi. Bioengineered 3D platform to explore cell–ECM interactions and drug resistance of epithelial ovarian cancer cells. Biomaterials 31:8494–8506, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lotti, F., et al. Chemotherapy activates cancer-associated fibroblasts to maintain colorectal cancer-initiating cells by IL-17A. J. Exp. Med. 210(13):2851–2872, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Martin, K. S., S. S. Blemker, and S. M. Peirce. Agent-based computational model investigates muscle-specific responses to disuse-induced atrophy. J. Appl. Physiol. 118:1299–1309, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marusyk, A., et al. Spatial proximity to fibroblasts impacts molecular features and therapeutic sensitivity of breast cancer cells influencing clinical outcomes. Cancer Res. 76:6495–6506, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moorman, A. M., R. Vink, H. J. Heijmans, J. van der Palen, and E. A. Kouwenhoven. The prognostic value of tumour-stroma ratio in triple-negative breast cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 38:307–313, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Morrison, B. J., et al. Breast cancer stem cells: implications for therapy of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 10:210, 2008.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Munson, J. M., and A. C. Shieh. Interstitial fluid flow in cancer: implications for disease progression and treatment. Cancer Manag. Res. 6:317–328, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Munson, J. M., et al. Anti-invasive adjuvant therapy with imipramine blue enhances chemotherapeutic efficacy against glioma. Sci. Transl. Med. 4:127ra36, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Munson, J. M., R. V. Bellamkonda, and M. A. Swartz. Interstitial flow in a 3d microenvironment increases glioma invasion by a cxcr4-dependent mechanism. Cancer Res. 73:1536–1546, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Navalitloha, Y., E. S. Schwartz, E. N. Groothuis, C. V. Allen, R. M. Levy, and D. R. Groothuis. Therapeutic implications of tumor interstitial fluid pressure in subcutaneous RG-2 tumors. Neuro. Oncol. 8:227–233, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Netti, P. A., D. A. Berk, M. A. Swartz, A. J. Grodzinsky, and R. K. Jain. Role of extracellular matrix assembly in interstitial transport in solid tumors. Cancer Res. 60:2497–2503, 2000.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Olsen, M. M., and H. T. Siegelmann. multiscale agent-based model of tumor angiogenesis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 18:1016–1025, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pietras, K., and A. Östman. Hallmarks of cancer: Interactions with the tumor stroma. Exp. Cell Res. 316:1324–1331, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Provenzano, P. P., and S. R. Hingorani. Hyaluronan, fluid pressure, and stromal resistance in pancreas cancer. Br. J. Cancer 108:1–8, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Provenzano, P. P., C. Cuevas, A. E. Chang, V. K. Goel, D. D. Von Hoff, and S. R. Hingorani. Enzymatic targeting of the stroma ablates physical barriers to treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell 21:418–429, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Raghunand, N., et al. Enhancement of chemotherapy by manipulation of tumour pH. Br. J. Cancer 80:1005–1011, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ramanujan, S., A. Pluen, T. D. McKee, E. B. Brown, Y. Boucher, and R. K. Jain. Diffusion and convection in collagen gels: implications for transport in the tumor interstitium. Biophys. J. 83:1650–1660, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Rouzier, R., et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 11(16):5678–5685, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sethi, T., et al. Extracellular matrix proteins protect small cell lung cancer cells against apoptosis: a mechanism for small cell lung cancer growth and drug resistance in vivo. Nat. Med. 5:662–668, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Shain, K. H., and W. S. Dalton. Cell adhesion is a key determinant in de novo multidrug resistance (MDR): new targets for the prevention of acquired MDR. Mol. Cancer Ther. 1:69–78, 2001.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Shannon, A. M., D. J. Bouchier-Hayes, C. M. Condron, and D. Toomey. Tumour hypoxia, chemotherapeutic resistance and hypoxia-related therapies. Cancer Treat. Rev. 29:297–307, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Shen, F., et al. Quantitation of doxorubicin uptake, efflux, and modulation of multidrug resistance (MDR) in MDR human cancer cells. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 324:95–102, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shen, K., et al. Resolving cancer–stroma interfacial signalling and interventions with micropatterned tumour–stromal assays. Nat. Commun. 5:5662, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shieh, A. C. Biomechanical forces shape the tumor microenvironment. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 39:1379–1389, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shieh, A. C., H. A. Rozansky, B. Hinz, and M. A. Swartz. Tumor cell invasion is promoted by interstitial flow-induced matrix priming by stromal fibroblasts. Cancer Res. 71:790–800, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Shieh, A. C., H. A. Rozansky, B. Hinz, and M. A. Swartz. Tumor cell invasion is promoted by interstitial flow-induced matrix priming by stromal fibroblasts. Cancer Res. 71:790–800, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Shields, J. D., M. E. Fleury, C. Yong, A. A. Tomei, G. J. Randolph, and M. A. Swartz. Autologous chemotaxis as a mechanism of tumor cell homing to lymphatics via interstitial flow and autocrine CCR7 signaling. Cancer Cell 11:526–538, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Subik, K., et al. The expression patterns of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6, EGFR, Ki-67 and AR by immunohistochemical analysis in breast cancer cell lines. Breast Cancer (Auckl.) 4:35–41, 2010.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Tasoglu, S., and U. Demirci. Bioprinting for stem cell research. Trends Biotechnol. 31:10–19, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Tchou, J., and J. Conejo-Garcia. Targeting the tumor stroma as a novel treatment strategy for breast cancer: shifting from the neoplastic cell-centric to a stroma-centric paradigm. Adv. Pharmacol. 65:45–61, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Trédan, O., C. M. Galmarini, K. Patel, and I. F. Tannock. Drug resistance and the solid tumor microenvironment. JNCI J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99:1441–1454, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ueda, K., C. Cardarelli, M. M. Gottesman, and I. Pastan. Expression of a full-length cDNA for the human “MDR1” gene confers resistance to colchicine, doxorubicin, and vinblastine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 84:3004–3008, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Walpole, J., J. C. Chappell, J. G. Cluceru, F. Mac Gabhann, V. L. Bautch, and S. M. Peirce. Agent-based model of angiogenesis simulates capillary sprout initiation in multicellular networks. Integr. Biol. (Camb.) 7:987–997, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Weinstein, R. S., et al. Relationship of the expression of the multidrug resistance gene product (P-glycoprotein) in human colon carcinoma to local tumor aggressiveness and lymph node metastasis. Cancer Res. 51:2720–2726, 1991.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Whiteside, T. L. The tumor microenvironment and its role in promoting tumor growth. Oncogene 27:5904–5912, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wong, H. L., R. Bendayan, A. M. Rauth, H. Y. Xue, and K. Babakhanian. A mechanistic study of enhanced doxorubicin uptake and retention in multidrug resistant breast cancer cells using a polymer-lipid hybrid nanoparticle system. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 317:1372–1381, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Zhang, L., C. G. Strouthos, Z. Wang, and T. S. Deisboeck. Simulating brain tumor heterogeneity with a multiscale agent-based model: linking molecular signatures, phenotypes and expansion rate. Math. Comput. Model. 49:307–319, 2009.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Zhang, L., Z. Wang, J. A. Sagotsky, and T. S. Deisboeck. Multiscale agent-based cancer modeling. J. Math. Biol. 58:545–559, 2009.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zhao, Y., et al. Three-dimensional printing of Hela cells for cervical tumor model in vitro. Biofabrication 6:35001, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel K. Logsdon
    • 1
  • Garrett F. Beeghly
    • 1
  • Jennifer M. Munson
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical EngineeringUniversity of Virginia School of MedicineCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Engineering and MechanicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations