Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25622895›Full record

ReviewNeoplasia (New York, N.Y.)2015

Spherical cancer models in tumor biology.

Louis-Bastien Weiswald, Dominique Bellet, Virginie Dangles-Marie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 612 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
612citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

612 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Magnetic-Based Human Tissue 3D Cell Culture: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Beyond DNA damage: 3D tumor models and the integrin mechanobiology of radioresistance.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

552 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Louis-Bastien WeiswaldDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Michael Smith Genome Sciences Center, British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Laboratoire d'Oncobiologie, Hôpital René Huguenin, Institut Curie, St Cloud, France; Université Paris Descartes, Faculté de Pharmacie de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. Electronic address: lweiswald@bcgsc.ca.
Dominique BelletLaboratoire d'Oncobiologie, Hôpital René Huguenin, Institut Curie, St Cloud, France; Université Paris Descartes, Faculté des Sciences Pharmaceutiques et Biologiques, UMR 8151 CNRS-U1022 Inserm, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Virginie Dangles-MarieUniversité Paris Descartes, Faculté de Pharmacie de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France; Département de Recherche Translationnelle, Research Center, Institut Curie, Paris, France. Electronic address: virginie.dangles-marie@curie.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) in vitro models have been used in cancer research as an intermediate model between in vitro cancer cell line cultures and in vivo tumor. Spherical cancer models represent major 3D in vitro models that have been described over the past 4 decades. These models have gained popularity in cancer stem cell research using tumorospheres. Thus, it is crucial to define and clarify the different spherical cancer models thus far described. Here, we focus on in vitro multicellular spheres used in cancer research. All these spherelike structures are characterized by their well-rounded shape, the presence of cancer cells, and their capacity to be maintained as free-floating cultures. We propose a rational classification of the four most commonly used spherical cancer models in cancer research based on culture methods for obtaining them and on subsequent differences in sphere biology: the multicellular tumor spheroid model, first described in the early 70s and obtained by culture of cancer cell lines under nonadherent conditions; tumorospheres, a model of cancer stem cell expansion established in a serum-free medium supplemented with growth factors; tissue-derived tumor spheres and organotypic multicellular spheroids, obtained by tumor tissue mechanical dissociation and cutting. In addition, we describe their applications to and interest in cancer research; in particular, we describe their contribution to chemoresistance, radioresistance, tumorigenicity, and invasion and migration studies. Although these models share a common 3D conformation, each displays its own intrinsic properties. Therefore, the most relevant spherical cancer model must be carefully selected, as a function of the study aim and cancer type.

Indexed as

Tumor Cells, CulturedAnimalsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorHumansIn Vitro TechniquesNeoplasmsNeoplastic Stem CellsRadiation ToleranceSpheroids, CellularTissue Culture Techniques

Identifiers

PMID25622895
PMCPMC4309685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.