Tumor Biology

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 2219–2230 | Cite as

“The development tumor model” to study and monitor the entire progression of both primary and metastatic tumors

Research Article

Abstract

Glioblastoma multiforme and other malignant cancers resulting in solid tumors continue to be devastating diseases. In order to find more effective treatments, it is necessary to cultivate a better understanding of the dynamics of tumor development in relation to both primary and secondary tumors. Although hand-held or digital caliper methods can measure tumor growth in subcutaneous xenograft models, to date, the only way to follow and monitor the progression of growing tumors in orthotopic animal models is imaging. This is not enough. To improve our knowledge of the biological characteristics that take place during tumor progression at both primary and metastatic sites, it is indispensable to develop an in vivo model which enables us to reproduce, from the beginning to the end of the cancer's natural history, what really happens in a patient affected by a solid tumor. The ideal tumor model must allow us to monitor all the stages of the tumor's development, both in the primary bulk and in secondary locations, by obtaining cells, biopsies as well as performing stainings on sections. In this paper, “the development tumor model”, already proposed by the author to monitor the whole progression of the glioblastoma, is also applied to the study of all solid malignancies. It is a xenogeneic orthotopic transplantation model using human tumor-derived cells from the pre-hypoxic phase as transplanted material, which will be cultured in a neurobasal serum-free medium. By transplanting the same material at the same time (time zero) into a number of immunodeficient and genetically identical mice or rats, the model can be used to create a pool of twin animal transplant candidates under the same testing conditions. By sacrificing one animal a week (or choosing other intervals as needed) and performing multiple biopsies and stainings on sections, we can monitor the entire development of both the primary and secondary tumors. This may shed light on which specific cells and particular markers need to be focused on in order to develop innovative, valid therapeutic strategies.

Keywords

The development tumor model Cancer stem cells Entire progression Tumor dormancy Future treatments 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Brognaro E. A theory and a model to understand glioblastoma development both in the bulk and in the microinfiltrated brain parenchyma. Neurochem Res. 2011;36:2145–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brognaro E. How to understand the entire development of the glioblastoma: a theory and an in vivo model. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(suppl 6):vi160, Abstracts from the 17th SNO Meeting.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vaupel P. The role of hypoxia-induced factors in tumor progression. Oncologist. 2004;9 Suppl 5:10–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vaupel P. Hypoxia and aggressive tumor phenotype: implications for therapy and prognosis. Oncologist. 2008;13 suppl 3:21–6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griguer CE, Oliva CR, Gobin E, et al. CD133 is a marker of bioenergetic stress in human glioma. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(11):e3655.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Griguer CE, Oliva C, Gillepsie GY. Glucose metabolism heterogeneity in human and mouse malignant glioma cell lines. J Neurooncol. 2005;74:123–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li Z, Bao S, Wu Q, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factors regulate tumorigenic capacity of glioma stem cells. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:501–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seidel S, Garvalov BK, Wirta V, et al. A hypoxic niche regulates glioblastoma stem cells through hypoxia inducible factor 2α. Brain. 2010;133:983–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turcotte ML, Parliamnet M, Franko A, et al. Variation in mithocondrial function in hypoxia-sensitive and hypoxia-tolerant human glioma cells. Br J Cancer. 2002;86:619–24.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McCord AM, Jamal M, Shankavarum UT, et al. Physiologic oxygen concentration enhances the stem-like properties of CD133+ human glioblastoma cells in vitro. Mol Cancer Res. 2009;7:489–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evans SM, Judy KD, Dunphy D, et al. Comparative measurements of hypoxia in human brain tumors using needle electrodes and EF5 binding. Cancer Res. 2004;64:1886–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huszthy PC, Daphu I, Niclou SP, et al. In vivo models of primary brain tumors: pitfalls and perspectives. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(8):979–93.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heijstek MW, Kranenburg O, Borel Inkes IH. Mouse models of colorectal cancer and liver metastases. Dig Surg. 2005;22:16–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosenberg DW, Giardina C, Tanaka T. Mouse models for the study of colon carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 2009;30(2):183–96.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzales FJ, Kimura S. Understanding the role of xenobiotic-metabolism in chemical carcinogenesis using gene knockout mice. Mutat Res. 2001;477:79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holland EC, Celestino J, Dai C, et al. Combined activation of Ras and Akt in neural progenitors induces glioblastoma formation in mice. Nat Genet. 2000;25(1):55–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charles N, Holland EC. The perivascular niche microenvironment in brain tumor progression. Cell Cycle. 2010;9(15):3012–21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Khanna C, Hunter K. Modeling metastasis in vivo. Carcinogenesis. 2005;26(3):513–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirkness EF, Bafna V, Halpern AL, et al. The dog genome: survey sequencing and comparative analysis. Science. 2003;301:1898–903.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glickman LT, Domanski LM, Maguire TG, et al. Mesothelioma in pet dogs associated with exposure of their owners to asbestos. Environ Res. 1983;32:305–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pennisi E. Canine evolution. A shaggy dog history. Science. 2002;298:1540–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown K, Buchmann A, Balmain A. Carcinogen-induced mutations in the mouse c-Ha-ras gene provide evidence of multiple pathways for tumor progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:538–42.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    De Wever O, Marel M. Role of tissue stroma in cancer cell invasion. J Pathol. 2003;200:429–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee J, Kotliarova S, Kotliarov Y, et al. Tumor stem cells derived from glioblastomas cultured in bFGF and EGF more closely mirror the phenotype and genotype of primary tumors than do serum-cultured cell lines. Cancer Cell. 2006;9(5):391–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clark MJ, Homer N, O'Connor BD, et al. U87MG decoded: the genomic sequence of a cytogenetically aberrant human cancer cell line. PLoS Genet. 2010;6(1):e1000832.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bigner SH, Schold SC, Friedman HS. Chromosomal composition of malignant human gliomas through serial subcutaneous transplantation in athymic mice. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1989;40(1):111–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sing SK, Hawkins C, Clarke ID, et al. Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature. 2004;432:396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beier D, Hau P, Proescholdt M, et al. CD133+ and CD133- glioblastoma-derived cancer stem cells show differential growth characteristics and molecular profiles. Cancer Res. 2007;67:4010–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ricci-Vitiani L, Lombardi DG, Pilozzi E, et al. Identification and expansion of human colon-cancer-initiating cells. Nature. 2007;445:111–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vermeulen L, Todaro M, De Sousa MF, et al. Single-cell cloning of colon cancer stem cells reveals a multi-lineage differentiation capacity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105(36):13427–32.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Al-Hajj M, Wicha MS, Benito-Hernandez A, et al. Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(7):3983–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim CF, Jackson EL, Woolfenden AE, et al. Identification of bronchioalveolar stem cells in normal lung and lung cancer. Cell. 2005;121:823–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Collins AT, Berry PA, Hyde C, et al. Prospective identification of tumorigenic prostate cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. 2005;65(23):10946–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    O'Brien CA, Pollett A, Gallinger S, et al. A human colon cancer cell capable of initiating tumour growth in immunodeficient mice. Nature. 2007;445:106–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Li C, Heidt DG, Dalerba P, et al. Identification of pancreatic cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67:1030–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ho MM, Ng AV, Lam S, et al. Side population in human lung cancer cell lines and tumors is enriched with stem-like cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67(10):4827–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hansemann D. Über asymmetrisce Zelltheilung in Epithelkrebsen und deren biologische Bedeutung. Virchows Arch Pathol Anat. 1890;119:229–326.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boveri T. Zur Frage der Entstehung maligner Tumoren. Gustav Fischer Verlag: Jena; 1914.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bonnet D, Dick JE. Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997;3(7):730–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Günther HS, Schmidt NO, Phillips HS, et al. Glioblastoma-derived stem cell-enriched cultures form distinct subgroups according to molecular and phenotypic criteria. Oncogene. 2008;27:2897–909.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wakimoto H, Mohapatra G, Kanai R. Maintenance of primary tumor phenotype and genotype in glioblastoma stem cells. Neuro Oncol. 2011;14:132–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kang Y. Analysis of cancer stem cell metastasis in xenograft animal models. Cancer stem cells, methods in molecular biology, vol. 568, chap. 2. Humana Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Harris MA, Yang H, Low BE, et al. Cancer stem cells are enriched in the side population cells in a mouse model of glioma. Cancer Res. 2008;68(24):10051–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Niclou SP, Danzeisen C, Eikesdal HP, et al. A novel eGFP-expressing immunodeficient mouse model to study tumor–host interactions. FASEB J. 2008;22(9):3120–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Close DM, Hahn RE, Patterson SS, et al. Comparison of human optimized bacterial luciferase, firefly luciferase and green fluorescent protein for continuous imaging of cell culture and animal models. J Biomed Opt. 2011;16(4):47003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sakariassen PØ, Prestegarden L, Wang J, et al. Angiogenesis-independent tumor growth mediated by stem-like cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(44):16466–71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fidler IJ. Metastasis quantitative analysis of distribution and fate of tumor emboli labeled with 125 I-5-iodo-2'-deoxyuridine. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1970;45:773–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. 1889. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 1989;8:98–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Auerbach R, Lu WC, Pardon E, et al. Specificity of adhesion between murine tumor cells and capillary endothelium: an in vitro correlate of preferential metastasis in vivo. Cancer Res. 1987;47:1492–6.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Langley RR, Fidler IJ. The seed and soil hypothesis revisited-The role of tumor-stroma interactions in metastasis to different organs. Int J Cancer. 2011;128:2527–35.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Spano D, Zollo M. Tumor microenvironment: a main actor in the metastasis process. Clin Exp Metastasis. 2012;29:381–95.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hermann PC, Huber SL, Herrler T. Distinct populations of cancer stem cells determine tumor growth and metastatic activity in human pancreatic cancer. Cell Stem Cell. 2007;1:313–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pang R, Law WL, Chu ACY, et al. A subpopulation of CD26+ cancer stem cells with metastatic capacity in human colorectal cancer. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;6:603–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lawson JC, Blatch GL, Edkins AL. Cancer stem cells in breast cancer and metatstasis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;118:241–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Udagawa T. Tumor dormancy of primary and secondary cancers. APMIS. 2008;116:615–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Bao S, Wu Q, McLendon RE, et al. Glioma stem cells promote radioresistance by preferential activation of the DNA damage response. Nature. 2006;444:756–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Phillips TM, McBride WH, Pajonk F. The response of CD24(−/low)/CD44+ breast cancer-initiating cells to radiation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(24):1777–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryS. Maria della Misericordia HospitalRovigoItaly

Personalised recommendations