Development of Patient Derived Xenograft Models of Overt Spontaneous Breast Cancer Metastasis: A Cautionary Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several approaches are being evaluated to improve the historically limited value of studying transplanted primary tumors derived by injection of cells from established cell lines for predicting subsequent cancer therapy outcomes in patients and clinical trials. These approaches include use of genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) of spontaneous tumors, or patient tumor tissue derived xenografts (PDXs). Almost all such therapy studies utilizing such models involve treatment of established primary tumors. An alternative approach we have developed involves transplanted human tumor xenografts derived from established cell lines to treat mice with overt visceral metastases after primary tumor resection. The rationale is to mimic the more challenging circumstance of treating patients with late stage metastatic disease. These metastatic models entail prior in vivo selection of heritable, phenotypically stable variants with increased aggressiveness for spontaneous metastasis; they were derived by orthotopic injection of tumor cells followed by primary tumor resection and serial selection of distant spontaneous metastases, from which variant cell lines having a more aggressive heritable metastatic phenotype were established. We attempted to adopt this strategy for breast cancer PDXs. We studied five breast cancer PDXs, with the emphasis on two, called HCI-001 and HCI-002, both derived from triple negative breast cancer patients. However significant technical obstacles were encountered. These include the inherent slow growth rates of PDXs, the rarity of overt spontaneous metastases (detected in only 3 of 144 mice), very high rates of tumor regrowths at the primary tumor resection site, the failure of the few human PDX metastases isolated to manifest a more aggressive metastatic phenotype upon re-transplantation into new hosts, and the formation of metastases which were derived from de novo mouse thymomas arising in aged SCID mice that we used for the experiments. We discuss several possible strategies that may be employed to overcome these limitations. Uncovering the basis of the failure to detect a high rate of overt spontaneous distant metastases having a heritable phenotype in PDX models may reveal new insights into the biology and treatment of advanced metastatic disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".