This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Correction Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Becher, O. J. Articles by Burger, A. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Becher, O. J. Articles by Burger, A. M. Related Collections Tumor Biology Tumor Biology: Model Organisms and Imaging

Genetically Engineered Models Have Advantages over Xenografts for Preclinical Studies

Departments of ¹ Cancer Biology and Genetics, ² Surgery (Neurosurgery) and Neurology, and ³ Pediatrics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

Requests for reprints: Eric C. Holland, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021. Fax: 646-422-2062; E-mail: hollande{at}mskcc.org.

Abstract

Mouse models of human cancer are valuable tools for cancer research. Although xenografts and genetically engineered models (GEMs) possess limitations as well as advantages, each system plays a significant role in preclinical testing. Tumor xenografts are easy to use, relatively inexpensive, and reproducible. The main drawback of xenografts is that the genetics and histology of the tumors are frequently not representative of the respective human tumor and, thus far, these models have not been as predictive of therapeutic success as one would like. By contrast, GEMs are histologically and genetically accurate models of human cancer but have disadvantages of heterogeneity with regard to frequency, latency, and growth. These disadvantages are reminiscent of the variable behavior of actual human tumors. Recently, these shortcomings have been partly overcome with the development of anatomic and molecular in vivo imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging and bioluminescence imaging. These new technologies will hopefully support the use of GEMs in preclinical trials and help determine if trials in GEMs are more predicative than xenografts of human responses. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(7): 3355-9)

Edward A. Sausville and Angelika M. Burger

Marlene and Stewart Greenebaum Cancer Center, Department of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Hynes, K. M. Huang, and E. H. Huang REVIEW PAPER: Implications of the "Cancer Stem Cell" Hypothesis on Murine Models of Colon Cancer and Colitis-associated Cancer Vet. Pathol., September 1, 2009; 46(5): 819 - 835. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Amornphimoltham, K. Leelahavanichkul, A. Molinolo, V. Patel, and J. S. Gutkind Inhibition of Mammalian Target of Rapamycin by Rapamycin Causes the Regression of Carcinogen-Induced Skin Tumor Lesions Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2008; 14(24): 8094 - 8101. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Francia, U. Emmenegger, C. R. Lee, Y. Shaked, C. Folkins, M. Mossoba, J. A. Medin, S. Man, Z. Zhu, L. Witte, et al. Long-term progression and therapeutic response of visceral metastatic disease non-invasively monitored in mouse urine using {beta}-human choriogonadotropin secreting tumor cell lines Mol. Cancer Ther., October 1, 2008; 7(10): 3452 - 3459. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. R. Walkley, R. Qudsi, V. G. Sankaran, J. A. Perry, M. Gostissa, S. I. Roth, S. J. Rodda, E. Snay, P. Dunning, F. H. Fahey, et al. Conditional mouse osteosarcoma, dependent on p53 loss and potentiated by loss of Rb, mimics the human disease Genes & Dev., June 15, 2008; 22(12): 1662 - 1676. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. R. Shoemaker, M. J. Mitten, J. Adickes, S. Ackler, M. Refici, D. Ferguson, A. Oleksijew, J. M. O'Connor, B. Wang, D. J. Frost, et al. Activity of the Bcl-2 Family Inhibitor ABT-263 in a Panel of Small Cell Lung Cancer Xenograft Models Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2008; 14(11): 3268 - 3277. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. R. Tseng, K. W. Kang, M. Dandekar, S. Yaghoubi, J. H. Lee, J. G. Christensen, S. Muir, P. W. Vincent, N. R. Michaud, and S. S. Gambhir Preclinical Efficacy of the c-Met Inhibitor CE-355621 in a U87 MG Mouse Xenograft Model Evaluated by 18F-FDG Small-Animal PET J. Nucl. Med., January 1, 2008; 49(1): 129 - 134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Talmadge, R. K. Singh, I. J. Fidler, and A. Raz Murine Models to Evaluate Novel and Conventional Therapeutic Strategies for Cancer Am. J. Pathol., March 1, 2007; 170(3): 793 - 804. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Singh and L. Johnson Using genetically engineered mouse models of cancer to aid drug development: an industry perspective. Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2006; 12(18): 5312 - 5328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Advantages of GEMs over Xenografts Cancer Res., September 1, 2006; 66(17): 8925 - 8925. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Advantages of GEMs over Xenografts Cancer Res., May 15, 2006; 66(10): 5526 - 5526. [Full Text] [PDF]