Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 139–147 | Cite as

Appendiceal Cancer Patient-Specific Tumor Organoid Model for Predicting Chemotherapy Efficacy Prior to Initiation of Treatment: A Feasibility Study

  • Konstantinos I. VotanopoulosEmail author
  • Andrea Mazzocchi
  • Hemamylammal Sivakumar
  • Steven Forsythe
  • Julio Aleman
  • Edward A. Levine
  • Aleksander SkardalEmail author
Peritoneal Surface Malignancy

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.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors thank Libby McWilliams (Procurement Manager), Kathleen Cummings (Protocol and Data Manager) and the Wake Forest Advanced Tumor Bank Shared Resource.

Funding

AS acknowledges funding through the Wake Forest Clinical and Translational Science Institute Open Pilot Program. AS and KV acknowledge funding through the Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Clinical Research Associate Director Pilot Funds.

Disclosure

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Mazzocchi AR, Rajan SAP, Votanopoulos KI, Hall AR, Skardal A. In vitro patient-derived 3D mesothelioma tumor organoids facilitate patient-centric therapeutic screening. Sci Rep. 2018;8:2886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mazzocchi A, Soker S, Skardal A. Biofabrication technologies for developing in vitro tumor models. In: Soker S, Skardal A (eds). Tumor organoids. Cancer Drug Discovery and Development. Cham: Humana Press; 2018. pp. 51–70.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Skardal A, Devarasetty M, Forsythe S, Atala A, Soker SA. Reductionist metastasis-on-a-chip platform for in vitro tumor progression modeling and drug screening. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2016;113:2020–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skardal A, Devarasetty M, Kang HW, Mead I, Bishop C, Shupe T, et al. A hydrogel bioink toolkit for mimicking native tissue biochemical and mechanical properties in bioprinted tissue constructs. Acta Biomater. 2015;25:24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Skardal A, Devarasetty M, Soker S, Hall AR. In situ patterned micro 3D liver constructs for parallel toxicology testing in a fluidic device. Biofabrication. 2015;7:031001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Skardal A. Extracellular matrix-like hydrogels for applications in regenerative medicine. In: Connon CJ, Hamley IW (eds). Hydrogels in cell-based therapies. London: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2014.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Skardal A, Murphy SV, Crowell K, Mack D, Atala A, Soker S. A tunable hydrogel system for long-term release of cell-secreted cytokines and bioprinted in situ wound cell delivery. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2016;105(7):1986–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skardal A, Smith L, Bharadwaj S, Atala A, Soker S, Zhang Y. Tissue specific synthetic ECM hydrogels for 3-D in vitro maintenance of hepatocyte function. Biomaterials. 2012;33:4565–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Skardal A, Zhang J, McCoard L, Xu X, Oottamasathien S, Prestwich GD. Photocrosslinkable hyaluronan-gelatin hydrogels for two-step bioprinting. Tissue Eng Part A. 2010;16:2675–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Skardal A, Zhang J, Prestwich GD. Bioprinting vessel-like constructs using hyaluronan hydrogels crosslinked with tetrahedral polyethylene glycol tetracrylates. Biomaterials. 2010;31:6173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Skardal A, Murphy SV, Devarasetty M, Mead I, Kang HW, Seol YJ, et al. Multi-tissue interactions in an integrated three-tissue organ-on-a-chip platform. Sci Rep. 2017;7:8837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Devarasetty M, Skardal A, Cowdrick K, Marini F, Soker S. Bioengineered submucosal organoids for in vitro modeling of colorectal cancer. Tissue Eng Part A. 2017;23:1026–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spaeth EL, Labaff AM, Toole BP, Klopp A, Andreeff M, Marini FC. Mesenchymal CD44 expression contributes to the acquisition of an activated fibroblast phenotype via TWIST activation in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Res. 2013;73:5347–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levine EA, Blazer DG, Kim MK, Shen P, Stewart JH, Guy C, et al. Gene expression profiling of peritoneal metastases from appendiceal and colon cancer demonstrates unique biologic signatures and predicts patient outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214:599–606 (discussion 6067).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vlachogiannis G, Hedayat S, Vatsiou A, Jamin Y, Fernández-Mateos J, Khan K, et al. Patient-derived organoids model treatment response of metastatic gastrointestinal cancers. Science. 2018;359:920–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Votanopoulos KI, Russell G, Randle RW, Shen P, Stewart JH, Levine EA. Peritoneal surface disease (PSD) from appendiceal cancer treated with cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): overview of 481 cases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1274–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hidalgo M, Amant F, Biankin AV, Budinská E, Byrne AT, Caldas C, et al. Patient-derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:998–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantinos I. Votanopoulos
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Andrea Mazzocchi
    • 3
    • 4
  • Hemamylammal Sivakumar
    • 3
  • Steven Forsythe
    • 3
    • 5
  • Julio Aleman
    • 3
  • Edward A. Levine
    • 1
    • 2
  • Aleksander Skardal
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Surgery – OncologyWake Forest Baptist Medical CenterWinston-SalemUSA
  2. 2.Comprehensive Cancer Center at Wake Forest Baptist MedicalWinston-SalemUSA
  3. 3.Wake Forest Institute for Regenerative MedicineWake Forest School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA
  4. 4.Virginia Tech-Wake Forest School of Biomedical Engineering and SciencesWake Forest School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA
  5. 5.Department of Cancer BiologyWake Forest School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations