Cancer treatments utilizing biologic or cytotoxic drugs compose the frontline of therapy, and though gains in treatment efficacy have been persistent in recent decades, much work remains in understanding cancer progression and treatment. Compounding this situation is the low rate of success when translating preclinical drug candidates to the clinic, which raises costs and development timelines. This underperformance is due in part to the poor recapitulation of the tumor microenvironment, a critical component of cancer biology, in cancer model systems. New technologies capable of both accurately observing and manipulating the tumor microenvironment are needed to effectively model cancer response to treatment. In this review, conventional cancer models are summarized, and a primer on emerging techniques for monitoring and modulating the tumor microenvironment is presented and discussed.
WongCHSiahKWLoAW. Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters.Biostatistics2019;20:273–86
4.
PrasadV. Do cancer drugs improve survival or quality of life?BMJ2017;359:4528
5.
BalkwillFRCapassoMHagemannT. The tumor microenvironment at a glance.J Cell Sci2012;125:5591–6
6.
HanahanDWeinbergRA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.Cell2011;144:646–74
7.
HanahanDCoussensLM. Accessories to the crime: functions of cells recruited to the tumor microenvironment.Cancer Cell2012;21:309–22
8.
SleemanJSteegPS. Cancer metastasis as a therapeutic target.Eur J Cancer2010;46:1177–80
9.
GandalovičováARoselDFernandesMVeselýPHenebergPČermákVPetruželkaLKumarSSanz-MorenoVBrábekJ. Migrastatics—anti-metastatic and anti-invasion drugs: promises and challenges.Trends Cancer2017;3:391–406
10.
RoselDFernandesMSanz-MorenoVBrábekJ. Migrastatics: redirecting R&D in solid cancer towards metastasis?Trends Cancer2019;5:755–6
11.
ChafferCLWeinbergRA. A perspective on cancer cell metastasis.Science2011;331:1559–64
12.
DillekåsHRogersMSStraumeO. Are 90% of deaths from cancer caused by metastases?Cancer Med2019;8:5574–6
13.
SeyfriedTNHuysentruytLC. On the origin of cancer metastasis.Crit Rev Oncog2013;18:43–73
14.
BeaverJAKluetzPGPazdurR. Metastasis-free survival—a new end point in prostate cancer trials.N Engl J Med2018;378:2458–60
15.
KattMEPlaconeALWongADXuZSSearsonPC. In vitro tumor models: advantages, disadvantages, variables, and selecting the right platform.Front Bioeng Biotechnol2016;4:12
16.
MakIWYEvaniewNGhertM. Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment.Am J Transl Res2014;6:114–8
17.
LeventalKRYuHKassLLakinsJNEgebladMErlerJTFongSFTCsiszarKGiacciaAWeningerWYamauchiMGasserDLWeaverVM. Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin crosslinking.Cell2009;139:891–906
18.
PijuanJBarcelóCMorenoDFMaiquesOSisóPMartiRMMaciàAPanosaA. In vitro cell migration, invasion, and adhesion assays: from cell imaging to data analysis.Front Cell Dev Biol2019;7:107
19.
GilletJPCalcagnoAMVarmaSMarinoMGreenLJVoraMIPatelCOrinaJNEliseevaTASingalVPadmanabhanRDavidsonBGanapathiRSoodAKRuedaBRAmbudkarSVGottesmanMM. Redefining the relevance of established cancer cell lines to the study of mechanisms of clinical anti-cancer drug resistance.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2011;108:18708–13
20.
GengenbacherNSinghalMAugustinHG. Preclinical mouse solid tumour models: status quo, challenges and perspectives.Nat Rev Cancer2017;17:751–65
21.
KunnumakkaraABBordoloiDSailoBLRoyNKThakurKKBanikKShakibaeiMGuptaSCAggarwalBB. Cancer drug development: the missing links.Exp Biol Med2019;244:663–89
22.
HamSLJoshiRThakuriPSTavanaH. Liquid-based three-dimensional tumor models for cancer research and drug discovery.Exp Biol Med2016;241:939–54
23.
CostaECMoreiraAFde Melo-DiogoDGasparVMCarvalhoMPCorreiaIJ. 3D tumor spheroids: an overview on the tools and techniques used for their analysis.Biotechnol Adv2016;34:1427–41
24.
WeiswaldLBBelletDDangles-MarieV. Spherical cancer models in tumor biology.Neoplasia2015;17:1–15
25.
IshiguroTOhataHSatoAYamawakiKEnomotoTOkamotoK. Tumor-derived spheroids: relevance to cancer stem cells and clinical applications.Cancer Sci2017;108:283–9
26.
SutherlandRM. Cell and environment interactions in tumor microregions: the multicell spheroid model.Science1988;240:177–84
27.
KelmJMTimminsNEBrownCJFusseneggerMNielsenLK. Method for generation of homogeneous multicellular tumor spheroids applicable to a wide variety of cell types.Biotechnol Bioeng2003;83:173–80
28.
UnnikrishnanKThomasLVRam KumarRM. Advancement of scaffold-based 3D cellular models in cancer tissue engineering: an update.Front Oncol2021;11:733652
29.
JensenCTengY. Is it time to start transitioning from 2D to 3D cell culture?Front Mol Biosci2020;7:33
30.
BelgodereJAKingCTBursavichJBBurowMEMartinECJungJP. Engineering breast cancer microenvironments and 3D bioprinting.Front Bioeng Biotechnol2018;6:66
31.
AnnabiNNicholJWZhongXJiCKoshySKhademhosseiniADehghaniF. Controlling the porosity and microarchitecture of hydrogels for tissue engineering.Tissue Eng Part B Rev2010;16:371–83
32.
BahceciogluGBasaraGEllisBWRenXZorlutunaP. Breast cancer models: engineering the tumor microenvironment.Acta Biomater2020;106:1–21
33.
MortonJJBirdGRefaeliYJimenoA. Humanized mouse xenograft models: narrowing the tumor-microenvironment gap.Cancer Res2016;76:6153–8
34.
DayCPMerlinoGVan DykeT. Preclinical mouse cancer models: a maze of opportunities and challenges.Cell2015;163:39–53
35.
LiuYYinTFengYConaMMHuangGLiuJSongSJiangYXiaQSwinnenJVBormansGHimmelreichUOyenRNiY. Mammalian models of chemically induced primary malignancies exploitable for imaging-based preclinical theragnostic research.Quant Imaging Med Surg2015;5:708–29
36.
CekanovaMRathoreK. Animal models and therapeutic molecular targets of cancer: utility and limitations.Drug Des Devel Ther2014;8:1911–21
37.
MapanaoAKVolianiV. Three-dimensional tumor models: promoting breakthroughs in nanotheranostics translational research.Appl Mater Today2020;19:100552
38.
BarriusoJNagarajuRHurlstoneA. Zebrafish: a new companion for translational research in oncology.Clin Cancer Res2015;21:969–75
39.
HanSJKwonSKimKS. Challenges of applying multicellular tumor spheroids in preclinical phase.Cancer Cell Int2021;21:152
40.
AstashkinaAGraingerDW. Critical analysis of 3-D organoid in vitro cell culture models for high-throughput drug candidate toxicity assessments.Adv Drug Deliv Rev2014;69–70:1–18
41.
ShangMSoonRHLimCTKhooBLHanJ. Microfluidic modelling of the tumor microenvironment for anti-cancer drug development.Lab Chip2019;19:369–86
42.
RijalGLiW. 3D scaffolds in breast cancer research.Biomaterials2016;81:135–56
43.
BreslinSO’DriscollL. Three-dimensional cell culture: the missing link in drug discovery.Drug Discov Today2013;18:240–9
44.
BooijTHPriceLSDanenEHJ. 3D cell-based assays for drug screens: challenges in imaging, image analysis, and high-content analysis.SLAS Discov2019;24:615–27
45.
AsgharWEl AssalRShafieeHPitteriSPaulmuruganRDemirciU. Engineering cancer microenvironments for in vitro 3-D tumor models.Mater Today2015;18:539–53
46.
HoWJPhamEAKimJWNgCWKimJHKameiDTWuBM. Incorporation of multicellular spheroids into 3-D polymeric scaffolds provides an improved tumor model for screening anticancer drugs.Cancer Sci2010;101:2637–43
47.
ShamirEREwaldAJ. Three-dimensional organotypic culture: experimental models of mammalian biology and disease.Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol2014;15:647–64
48.
GirdaEHuangECLeiserowitzGSSmithLH. The use of endometrial cancer patient-derived organoid culture for drug sensitivity testing is feasible.Int J Gynecol Cancer2017;27:1701–7
49.
ThomaCRZimmermannMAgarkovaIKelmJMKrekW. 3D cell culture systems modeling tumor growth determinants in cancer target discovery.Adv Drug Deliv Rev2014;69–70:29–41
HalldorssonSLucumiEGómez-SjöbergRFlemingRMT. Advantages and challenges of microfluidic cell culture in polydimethylsiloxane devices.Biosens Bioelectron2015;63:218–31
52.
Gomez-CuadradoLTraceyNMaRQianBBruntonVG. Mouse models of metastasis: progress and prospects.Dis Model Mech2017;10:1061–74
53.
ZhangFWangWLongYLiuHChengJGuoLLiRMengCYuSZhaoQLuSWangLWangHWenD. Characterization of drug responses of mini patient-derived xenografts in mice for predicting cancer patient clinical therapeutic response.Cancer Commun2018;38:60
54.
MortonJJAlzofonNJimenoA. The humanized mouse: emerging translational potential.Mol Carcinog2020;59:830–8
55.
GuaragnellaNPalermoVGalliAMoroLMazzoniCGiannattasioS. The expanding role of yeast in cancer research and diagnosis: insights into the function of the oncosuppressors p53 and BRCA1/2.FEMS Yeast Res2014;14:2–16
56.
PuauxA-LOngLCJinYTehIHongMChowPKHGolayXAbastadoJ-P. A comparison of imaging techniques to monitor tumor growth and cancer progression in living animals.Int J Mol Imaging2011;2011:321538
57.
CosteAOktayMHCondeelisJSEntenbergD. Intravital imaging techniques for biomedical and clinical research.Cytometry A2020;97:448–57
58.
CuiFZhouZZhouHS. Review—measurement and analysis of cancer biomarkers based on electrochemical biosensors.J Electrochem Soc2020;167:037525
59.
McHughCIBlockerSJViola-VillegasNShieldsAF. Cancer imaging in preclinical models. In: AzmiAMohammadR (eds) Animal models in cancer drug discovery. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp.373–400
60.
JamesMLGambhirSS. A molecular imaging primer: modalities, imaging agents, and applications.Physiol Rev2012;92:897–965
61.
PerrinLBayarmagnaiBGligorijevicB. Frontiers in intravital multiphoton microscopy of cancer.Cancer Rep2020;3:e1192
62.
WyckoffJGligorijevicBEntenbergDSegallJCondeelisJ. High-resolution multiphoton imaging of tumors in vivo.Cold Spring Harb Protoc2011;6:1167–84
63.
SzulczewskiJMInmanDREntenbergDPonikSMAguirre-GhisoJCastracaneJCondeelisJEliceiriKWKeelyPJ. In vivo visualization of stromal macrophages via label-free FLIM-based metabolite imaging.Sci Rep2016;6:25086
64.
KedrinDGligorijevicBWyckoffJVerkhushaVVCondeelisJSegallJEvan RheenenJ. Intravital imaging of metastatic behavior through a mammary imaging window.Nat Methods2008;5:1019–21
65.
GerdesMJSevinskyCJSoodAAdakSBelloMOBordwellACanACorwinADinnSFilkinsRJHollmanDKamathVKaanumalleSKennyKLarsenMLazareMLiQLowesCMcCullochCCMcDonoughEMontaltoMCPangZRittscherJSantamaria-PangASarachanBDSeelMLSeppoAShaikhKSuiYZhangJGintyF. Highly multiplexed single-cell analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cancer tissue.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2013;110:11982–7
66.
TanWCCNerurkarSNCaiHYNgHHMWuDWeeYTFLimJCTYeongJLimTKH. Overview of multiplex immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence techniques in the era of cancer immunotherapy.Cancer Commun2020;40:135–53
67.
LiWGermainRNGernerMY. Multiplex, quantitative cellular analysis in large tissue volumes with clearing-enhanced 3D microscopy (Ce3D).Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2017;114:E7321–30
68.
LiWGermainRNGernerMY. High-dimensional cell-level analysis of tissues with Ce3D multiplex volume imaging.Nat Protoc2019;14:1708–33
69.
ChenYShenQWhiteSLGokmen-PolarYBadveSGoodmanLJ. Three-dimensional imaging and quantitative analysis in CLARITY processed breast cancer tissues.Sci Rep2019;9:5624
70.
JainRKMunnLLFukumuraD. Measuring interstitial diffusion, convection, and binding parameters in mouse tumors.Cold Spring Harb Protoc2013;8:678–80
71.
WuYZhangWLiJZhangY. Optical imaging of tumor microenvironment.Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging2013;3:1–15
72.
GammonSTLiuTWPiwnica-WormsD. Interrogating cellular communication in cancer with genetically encoded imaging reporters.Radiol Imaging Cancer2020;2:e190053
73.
CondeelisJWeisslederR. In vivo imaging in cancer.Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol2010;2:a003848
74.
ZhouZLuZ. Molecular imaging of the tumor microenvironment.Adv Drug Deliv Rev2017;113:24–48
75.
LeeHWGangadaranPKalimuthuSAhnB. Advances in molecular imaging strategies for in vivo tracking of immune cells.Biomed Res Int2016;2016:1946585
76.
StapletonSAllenCPintilieMJaffrayDA. Tumor perfusion imaging predicts the intra-tumoral accumulation of liposomes.J Control Release2013;172:351–7
77.
AnemoneAConsolinoLArenaFCapozzaMLongoDL. Imaging tumor acidosis: a survey of the available techniques for mapping in vivo tumor pH.Cancer Metastasis Rev2019;38:25–49
78.
AnemoneAConsolinoLContiLIrreraPHsuMYVillanoDDastrùWPorporatoPECavalloFLongoDL. Tumour acidosis evaluated in vivo by MRI-CEST pH imaging reveals breast cancer metastatic potential.Br J Cancer2020;124:207–16
79.
SkalaMCFontanellaANLanLIzattJADewhirstMW. Longitudinal optical imaging of tumor metabolism and hemodynamics.J Biomed Opt2010;15:011112
80.
MiPKokuryoDCabralHWuHTeradaYSagaTAokiINishiyamaNKataokaK. A pH-activatable nanoparticle with signal-amplification capabilities for non-invasive imaging of tumour malignancy.Nat Nanotechnol2016;11:724–30
81.
ZhengXWangXMaoHWuWLiuBJiangX. Hypoxia-specific ultrasensitive detection of tumours and cancer cells in vivo.Nat Commun2015;6:5834
82.
AndersonCFCuiH. Protease-sensitive nanomaterials for cancer therapeutics and imaging.Ind Eng Chem Res2017;56:5761–77
83.
MaTHouYZengJLiuCZhangPJingLShangguanDGaoM. Dual-ratiometric target-triggered fluorescent probe for simultaneous quantitative visualization of tumor microenvironment protease activity and pH in vivo.J Am Chem Soc2018;140:211–8
84.
ShabatDGnaimSScomparinADasSBlauRSatchi-FainaroR. Direct real-time monitoring of prodrug activation by chemiluminescence.Angew Chem Int Ed2018;57:9033–7
85.
Di NardoFChiarelloMCavaleraSBaggianiCAnfossiL. Ten years of lateral flow immunoassay technique applications: trends, challenges and future perspectives.Sensors2021;21:5185
86.
GremelGGrannasKSuttonLAPonténFZiebaA. In situ protein detection for companion diagnostics.Front Oncol2013;3:271
87.
BoellnerSBeckerK-F. Reverse phase protein arrays—quantitative assessment of multiple biomarkers in biopsies for clinical use.Microarrays2015;4:98–114
88.
MendozaATorrisiDMSellSCadyNCLawrenceDA. Grating coupled SPR microarray analysis of proteins and cells in blood from mice with breast cancer.Analyst2016;141:704–12
89.
BekmurzayevaAAshikbayevaZMyrkhiyevaZNugmanovaAShaimerdenovaMAyupovaTTosiD. Label-free fiber-optic spherical tip biosensor to enable picomolar-level detection of CD44 protein.Sci Rep2021;11:19583
90.
ZhaoQDuanRYuanJQuanYYangHXiM. A reusable localized surface plasmon resonance biosensor for quantitative detection of serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen in cervical cancer patients based on silver nanoparticles array.Int J Nanomedicine2014;9:1097–104
91.
LawWCYongKTBaevAPrasadPN. Sensitivity improved surface plasmon resonance biosensor for cancer biomarker detection based on plasmonic enhancement.ACS Nano2011;5:4858–64
RenQQWuJZhangWCWangCQinXLiuGCLiZXYuY. Real-time in vitro detection of cellular H2O2 under camptothecin stress using horseradish peroxidase, ionic liquid, and carbon nanotube-modified carbon fiber ultramicroelectrode.Sens Actuators B Chem2017;245:615–21
94.
LeiKFLinBYTsangNM. Real-time and label-free impedimetric analysis of the formation and drug testing of tumor spheroids formed via the liquid overlay technique.RSC Adv2017;7:13939–46
95.
ShaibaniPMEtayashHNaickerSKaurK. Metabolic study of cancer cells using a pH sensitive hydrogel nanofiber light addressable potentiometric sensor.ACS Sens2017;2:151–6
96.
StrattonDLangeSKholiaSJorfiSAntwi-BaffourSInalJ. Label-free real-time acoustic sensing of microvesicle release from prostate cancer (PC3) cells using a Quartz Crystal Microbalance.Biochem Biophys Res Commun2014;453:619–24
97.
EtayashHJiangKAzmiSThundatTKaurK. Real-time detection of breast cancer cells using peptide-functionalized microcantilever arrays.Sci Rep2015;5:13967
98.
ZhangYGuoXFanLZhangQSangS. A novel magnetoelastic immunosensor for ultrasensitively detecting carcinoembryonic antigen.Nanoscale Res Lett2018;13:258
UppalRMedarovaZFarrarCTDaiGMooreACaravanP. Molecular imaging of fibrin in a breast cancer xenograft mouse model.Invest Radiol2012;47:553–8
101.
StarmansLWEvan MourikTRossinRVerelmINicolayKGruH. Noninvasive visualization of tumoral fibrin deposition using a peptidic fibrin-binding single photon emission computed tomography tracer.Mol Pharmacerutics2015;12:1921–8
MohammadSBariIReisLGNestorovaGG. Calorimetric sandwich-type immunosensor for quantification of TNF-α.Biosens Bioelectron2019;126:82–7
104.
MisunPMRotheJSchmidYRFHierlemannAFreyO. Multi-analyte biosensor interface for real-time monitoring of 3D microtissue spheroids in hanging-drop networks.Microsyst Nanoeng2016;2:16022
105.
SuLZouLFongCWongWWeiFWongK-YWuRSSYangM. Detection of cancer biomarkers by piezoelectric biosensor using PZT ceramic resonator as the transducer.Biosens Bioelectron2013;46:155–61
106.
NareshVLeeN. A review on biosensors and recent development of nanostructured materials-enabled biosensors.Sensors2021;21:1109
107.
MehrotraP. Biosensors and their applications—a review.J Oral Biol Craniofac Res2016;6:153–9
108.
DengXXiongFLiXXiangBLiZWuXGuoCLiXLiYLiGXiongWZengZ. Application of atomic force microscopy in cancer research.J Nanobiotechnology2018;16:102
109.
OgataGIshiiYAsaiKSanoYNinFYoshidaTHiguchiTSawamuraSOtaTHoriKMaedaKKomuneSDoiKTakaiMFindlayIKusuharaHEinagaYHibinoH. A microsensing system for the in vivo real-time detection of local drug kinetics.Nat Biomed Eng2017;1:654–66
110.
MaoYSunQWangXOuyangQHanLJiangLHanD. In vivo nanomechanical imaging of blood-vessel tissues directly in living mammals using atomic force microscopy.Appl Phys Lett2009;95:013704
111.
BartlettDWWuALiXKrausMWangHKindtE. Development of an in vivo retrodialysis calibration method using stable isotope labeling to monitor metabolic pathways in the tumor microenvironment via microdialysis.J Pharm Sci2019;108:3124–9
112.
FatouBSaudemontPLeblancEVinatierDMesdagVWisztorskiMFocsaCSalzetMZiskindMFournierI. In vivo real-time mass spectrometry for guided surgery application.Sci Rep2016;6:25919
113.
ZhangJRectorJLinJQYoungJHSansMKattaNGieseNYuWNagiCSuliburkJLiuJBensussanADeHoogRJGarzaKYLudolphBSoraceAGSyedAZahedivashAMilnerTEEberlinLS. Nondestructive tissue analysis for ex vivo and in vivo cancer diagnosis using a handheld mass spectrometry system.Sci Transl Med2017;9:eaan3968
114.
SongSHKimABrownMJungCKoSZiaieB. An implantable wireless interstitial pressure sensor with integrated guyton chamber: in vivo study in solid tumors.IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2016;63:2273–7
115.
VassiliouCCLiuVHCimaMJ. Miniaturized, biopsy-implantable chemical sensor with wireless, magnetic resonance readout.Lab Chip2015;15:3465–72
116.
PeltomaaRGlahn-MartinezBBenito-PeñaEMoreno-BondiMC. Optical biosensors for label-free detection of small molecules.Sensor2018;18:4126
117.
IversonNMHofferberEMStapletonJA. Nitric oxide sensors for biological applications.Chemosensors2018;6:8
118.
WuYTilleyRDGoodingJJ. Challenges and solutions in developing ultrasensitive biosensors.J Am Chem Soc2019;141:1162–70
119.
KieningerJTamariYEnderleBJobstGSandvikJAPettersenEOUrbanGA. Sensor access to the cellular microenvironment using the sensing cell culture flask.Biosensors2018;8:44
120.
LeeJChoHRChaGDSeoHLeeSParkCKimJWQiaoSWangLKangDKangTIchikawaTKimJLeeHLeeWKimSLeeSLuNHyeonTChoiSHKimD. Flexible, sticky, and biodegradable wireless device for drug delivery to brain tumors.Nat Commun2019;10:5205
121.
ZugazagoitiaJGuedesCPonceSFerrerIMolina-pineloSPaz-AresL. Current challenges in cancer treatment.Clin Ther2016;38:1551–66
122.
PadmaVV. An overview of targeted cancer therapy.BioMedicine2015;5:19
123.
YangMLiJGuPFanX. The application of nanoparticles in cancer immunotherapy: targeting tumor microenvironment.Bioact Mater2021;6:1973–87
124.
SaeedMGaoJShiYLammersTYuH. Engineering nanoparticles to reprogram the tumor immune microenvironment for improved cancer immunotherapy.Theranostics2019;9:7981–8000
125.
GerettiELeonardSCDumontNLeeHZhengJDe SouzaRGaddyDFEspelinCWJaffrayDAMoyoVNielsenUBWickhamTJHendriksBS. Cyclophosphamide-mediated tumor priming for enhanced delivery and antitumor activity of HER2-targeted liposomal doxorubicin (MM-302).Mol Cancer Ther2015;14:2060–71
126.
ChoiJY. Treatment of bone metastasis with bone-targeting radiopharmaceuticals.Nucl Med Mol Imaging2018;52:200–7
127.
JainRKStylianopoulosT. Delivering nanomedicine to solid tumors.Nat Rev Clin Oncol2010;7:653–64
128.
ChoiMRStanton-MaxeyKJStanleyJKLevinCSBardhanRAkinDBadveSSturgisJRobinsonJPBashirRHalasNJClareSE. A cellular trojan horse for delivery of therapeutic nanoparticles into tumors.Nano Lett2007;7:3759–65
129.
ChoiMRBardhanRStanton-MaxeyKJBadveSNakshatriHStantzKMCaoNHalasNJClareSE. Delivery of nanoparticles to brain metastases of breast cancer using a cellular Trojan horse.Cancer Nanotechnol2012;3:47–54
130.
QiYYanXXiaTLiuS. Use of macrophage as a Trojan horse for cancer nanotheranostics.Mater Des2021;198:109388
131.
ShahK. Encapsulated stem cells for cancer therapy.Biomatter2013;3:e24278
132.
LiuXZhaoY. CRISPR / Cas9 genome editing: fueling the revolution in cancer immunotherapy.Curr Res Transl Med2018;66:39–42
133.
GhobadiA. Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Curr Res Transl Med2018;66:43–9
134.
RoybalKTRuppLJMorsutLWalkerWJMcNallyKAParkJSLimWA. Precision tumor recognition by T cells with combinatorial antigen-sensing circuits.Cell2016;164:770–9
135.
StadtmauerEAFraiettaJADavisMMCohenADWeberKLLancasterEManganPAKulikovskayaIGuptaMChenFTianLGonzalezVEXuJJungI-YMelenhorstJJPlesaGSheaJMatlawskiTCerviniAGaymonALDesjardinsSLamontagneASalas-MckeeJFesnakASiegelDLLevineBLJadlowskyJKYoungRMChewAHwangW-THexnerEOCarrenoBMNoblesCLBushmanFDParkerKRQiYSatpathyATChangHYZhaoYLaceySFJuneCH. CRISPR-engineered T cells in patients with refractory cancer.Science2020;367:eaba7365
136.
PoorebrahimMMeliefJPicodeCoañaYWickströmSLCid-ArreguiAKiesslingR. Counteracting CAR T cell dysfunction.Oncogene2021;40:421–35
137.
PapadopoulosKPGoelSBeeramMWongADesaiKHaigentzMManiSLalaniASSarantopoulosJMiliaMIL. A phase 1 open-label, accelerated dose-escalation study of the hypoxia-activated prodrug AQ4N in patients with advanced malignancies.Clin Cancer Res2008;14:7110–5
138.
LiYZhaoLLiX. Targeting hypoxia: hypoxia-activated prodrugs in cancer therapy.Front Oncol2021;11:700407
139.
ZhangYDangMTianYZhuYLiuWTianWSuYNiQXuCLuNTaoJLiYZhaoSZhaoYYangZSunLTengZLuG. Tumor acidic microenvironment targeted drug delivery based on pHLIP-modified mesoporous organosilica nanoparticles.ACS Appl Mater Interfaces2017;9:30543–52
140.
WangBZhaoQZhangYLiuZZhengZLiuSMengLXinYJiangX. Targeting hypoxia in the tumor microenvironment: a potential strategy to improve cancer immunotherapy.J Exp Clin Cancer Res2021;40:24
141.
DanhierFFeronOPréatV. To exploit the tumor microenvironment: passive and active tumor targeting of nanocarriers for anti-cancer drug delivery.J Control Release2010;148:135–46
142.
HansenAEPetersenALHenriksenJRBoerresenBRasmussenPElemaDRRosenschoeldPMKristensenATKjærAAndresenTL. Positron emission tomography based elucidation of the enhanced permeability and retention effect in dogs with cancer using copper-64 liposomes.ACS Nano2015;9:6985–95
143.
LeeHHoangBFongeHReillyRMAllenC. In vivo distribution of polymeric nanoparticles at the whole-body, tumor, and cellular levels.Pharm Res2010;27:2343–55
144.
LiHDuJLiuJDuXShenSZhuYWangXYeXNieSWangJ. Smart superstructures with ultrahigh pH-sensitivity for targeting acidic tumor microenvironment: instantaneous size switching and improved tumor penetration.ACS Nano2016;10:6753–61
145.
LiHDuJDuXXuCSunCWangHCaoZYangX-ZZhuY-HNieSWangJ. Stimuli-responsive clustered nanoparticles for improved tumor penetration and therapeutic efficacy.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2016;113:4164–9
146.
HeYLiXMaJNiGYangGZhouS. Programmable codelivery of doxorubicin and apatinib using an implantable hierarchical-structured fiber device for overcoming cancer multidrug resistance.Small2019;15:e1804397
147.
KaragiannisGSPastorizaJMWangYAllisonSEntenbergDPignatelliJSharmaVPXueEAChengEAlfonsoTMDJonesJGAnampaJThomasESparanoJACondeelisJSOktayMH. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy induces breast cancer metastasis through a TMEM-mediated mechanism.Sci Transl Med2017;9:eaan0026
148.
OverchukMZhengG. Biomaterials overcoming obstacles in the tumor microenvironment: recent advancements in nanoparticle delivery for cancer theranostics.Biomaterials2018;156:217–37
149.
CassereauLMiroshnikovaYAOuGLakinsJWeaverVM. A 3D tension bioreactor platform to study the interplay between ECM stiffness and tumor phenotype.J Biotechnol2015;193:66–9
150.
EnríquezÁLibringSFieldTCJimenezJLeeTParkHSatoskiDWendtMKCalveSTepoleABSolorioLLeeH. High-throughput magnetic actuation platform for evaluating the effect of mechanical force on 3D tumor microenvironment.Adv Funct Mater2020;31:2005021
151.
ReidJAMollicaPABrunoRDSachsPC. Consistent and reproducible cultures of large-scale 3D mammary epithelial structures using an accessible bioprinting platform.Breast Cancer Res2018;20:122
152.
PathakAKumarS. Independent regulation of tumor cell migration by matrix stiffness and confinement.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2012;109: 10334–9
153.
DattaPDeyMAtaieZUnutmazDOzbolatIT. 3D bioprinting for reconstituting the cancer microenvironment.NPJ Precis Oncol2020;4:18
154.
RodenhizerDDeanTXuBCojocariDMcGuiganAP. A three-dimensional engineered heterogeneous tumor model for assessing cellular environment and response.Nat Protoc2018;13:1917–57
155.
RodenhizerDCojocariDWoutersBGMcGuiganAP. Development of TRACER: tissue roll for analysis of cellular environment and response.Biofabrication2016;8:045008
156.
EschMBKingTLShulerML. The role of body-on-a-chip devices in drug and toxicity studies.Annu Rev Biomed Eng2011;13:55–72
157.
SungKEYangNPehlkeCKeelyPJEliceiriKWFriedlABeebeDJ. Transition to invasion in breast cancer: a microfluidic in vitro model enables examination of spatial and temporal effects.Integr Biol2011;3:439–50
158.
ShirureVSBiYCurtisMBLeziaAGoedegebuureMMGoedegebuureSPAftRFieldsRCGeorgeSC. Tumor-on-a-chip platform to investigate progression and drug sensitivity in cell lines and patient-derived organoids.Lab Chip2018;18:3687–702
159.
ChoiYHyunESeoJBlundellCKimHCLeeELeeSHMoonAMoonWKHuhD. A microengineered pathophysiological model of early-stage breast cancer.Lab Chip2015;15:3350–7
160.
AcostaMAJiangXHuangP-KCutlerKBGrantCSWalkerGMGamcsikMP. A microfluidic device to study cancer metastasis under chronic and intermittent hypoxia.Biomicrofluidics2014;8:054117
161.
Sontheimer-PhelpsAHassellBAIngberDE. Modelling cancer in microfluidic human organs-on-chips.Nat Rev Cancer2019;19:65–81
162.
SungJHSrinivasanBEschMBMcLambWTBernabiniCShulerMLHickmanJJ. Using PBPK guided “body-on-a-chip” systems to predict mammalian response to drug and chemical exposure.Exp Biol Med2014;239:1225–39
163.
SungJHWangYISriramNNJacksonMLongCHickmanJJShulerML. Recent advances in body-on-a-chip systems.Anal Chem2019;91:330–51
164.
JonasOLandryHMFullerJESantiniJrJTBaselgaJTepperRICimaMJLangerR. An implantable microdevice to perform high-throughput in vivo drug sensitivity testing in tumors.Sci Transl Med2015;7:284ra57
165.
SasikalaARKUnnithanARYunYParkCHKimCS. An implantable smart magnetic nanofiber device for endoscopic hyperthermia treatment and tumor-triggered controlled drug release.Acta Biomater2016;31:122–33
166.
WilliamsJKEntenbergDWangYAvivar-ValderasAPadgenMClarkAAguirre-GhisoJACastracaneJCondeelisJS. Validation of a device for the active manipulation of the tumor microenvironment during intravital imaging.Intravital2016;5:e1182271
167.
XingWKShaoCQiZYYangCWangZ. The role of Gliadel wafers in the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM: a meta-analysis.Drug Des Devel Ther2015;9:3341–8
168.
IshiharaJIshiharaASasakiKLeeSS-YWillifordJ-MYasuiMAbeHPotinLHosseinchiPFukunagaKRaczyMMGrayLTMansurovAKatsumataKFukayamaMKronSJSwartzMAHubbellJA. Targeted antibody and cytokine cancer immunotherapies through collagen affinity.Sci Transl Med2019;11:eaau3259
169.
MominNMehtaNKBennettNRMaLPalermiJRChinnMMLutzEAKangBIrvineDJSprangerSWittrupKD. Anchoring of intratumorally administered cytokines to collagen safely potentiates systemic cancer immunotherapy.Sci Transl Med2019;11:eaaw2614
170.
AkimotoJUNNakayamaMTakagiSOkanoT. Improved in vivo subcutaneous tumor generation by cancer cell sheet transplantation.Anticancer Res2018;38:671–6
171.
ChinALJiangSJangENiuLLiLJiaXTongR. Implantable optical fibers for immunotherapeutics delivery and tumor impedance measurement.Nat Commun2021;12:5138
172.
RajaWKGligorijevicBWyckoffJCondeelisJSCastracaneJ. A new chemotaxis device for cell migration studies.Integr Biol2010;2:696–706
173.
RajaWKPadgenMRWilliamsJKGertlerFBWyckoffJBCondeelisJSCastracaneJ. Development path and current status of the NANIVID: a new device for cancer cell studies.J Micro Nanolithogr MEMS MOEMS2012;11:013013
174.
WilliamsJKPadgenMRWangYEntenbergDGertlerFCondeelisJSCastracaneJ. Probing the tumor microenvironment: collection and induction.Microfluid BioMEMS Med Microsyst X2012;8251:41–7
175.
ButtLEntenbergDHemachandraLPMStrohmayerMKeelyPAguirre-GhisoJCondeelisJSCastracaneJ. Development of microfluidic-based cell collection devices for in vitro and in vivo use.Prog Biomed Opt Imaging: Proc SPIE2016;9705:1–6
176.
JacqueminGBenavente-DiazMDjaberSBoreADangles-MarieVSurdezDTajbakhshSFreSLloyd-LewisB. Longitudinal high-resolution imaging through a flexible intravital imaging window.Sci Adv2021;7:eabg7663
177.
HeadTTokranovaNCadyNC. Lithographically patterned micro-nozzles for controlling fluid flow profiles for drug delivery and in vitro imaging applications.MRS Commun2021;11:584–9
178.
ZhanTRindtorNBetgeJEbertMPBoutrosM. CRISPR/Cas9 for cancer research and therapy.Semin Cancer Biol2019;55:106–19
179.
TakedaHKataokaSNakayamaMAliMAEOshimaHYamamotoDParkJWTakegamiYAnTJenkinsNACopelandNGOshimaM. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene knockout in intestinal tumor organoids provides functional validation for colorectal cancer driver genes.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2019;116:15635–44
180.
KlinghammerKWaltherWHoffmannJ. Choosing wisely—preclinical test models in the era of precision medicine.Cancer Treat Rev2017;55:36–45
181.
NgSRRideoutWMAkama-GarrenEHBhutkarAMercerKLSchenkelJMBronsonRTJacksT. CRISPR-mediated modeling and functional validation of candidate tumor suppressor genes in small cell lung cancer.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2020;117:513–21
182.
WeberJRadR. Engineering CRISPR mouse models of cancer.Curr Opin Genet Dev2019;54:88–96
183.
GaudelliNMKomorACReesHAPackerMSBadranAHBrysonDILiuDR. Programmable base editing of T to G C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage.Nature2017;551:464–71
184.
AnzaloneAVRandolphPBDavisJRSousaAAKoblanLWLevyJMChenPJWilsonCNewbyGARaguramALiuDR. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA.Nature2019;576:149–57
185.
LiuXSWuHJiXStelzerYWuXCzaudernaSShuJDadonDYoungRAJaenischR. Editing DNA methylation in the mammalian genome.Cell2016;167:233–47.e17
186.
GjaltemaRAFRotsMG. Advances of epigenetic editing.Curr Opin Chem Biol2020;57:75–81
187.
BarataPSoodAKHongDS. RNA-targeted therapeutics in cancer clinical trials: current status and future directions.Cancer Treat Rev2016;50:35–47
188.
LaVanDAMcGuireTLangerR. Small-scale systems for in vivo drug delivery.Nat Biotechnol2003;21:1184–91
189.
LinZLuoGDuWKongTLiuCLiuZ. Recent advances in microfluidic platforms applied in cancer metastasis: circulating tumor cells’ (CTCs) isolation and tumor-on-a-chip.Small2020;16:e1903899
190.
ChiuDTDeMelloAJCarloDDi DoylePSHansenCMaceiczykRMWoottonRCR. Small but perfectly formed? Successes, challenges, and opportunities for microfluidics in the chemical and biological sciences.Chem2017;2:201–23
