Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26904541›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2016

In Vitro Tumor Models: Advantages, Disadvantages, Variables, and Selecting the Right Platform.

Moriah E Katt, Amanda L Placone, Andrew D Wong, Zinnia S Xu, Peter C Searson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 384 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
384citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Study of Cytotoxicity of Pyrrolo[3,4-International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

324 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

5 authors.

Moriah E KattInstitute for Nanobiotechnology (INBT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Amanda L PlaconeInstitute for Nanobiotechnology (INBT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Andrew D WongInstitute for Nanobiotechnology (INBT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Zinnia S XuInstitute for Nanobiotechnology (INBT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Peter C SearsonInstitute for Nanobiotechnology (INBT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA; Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

An engineered platform for the study of metastasis (PQ #24)R01CA170629 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SEARSON, PETER C · 2012 to 2015
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA170629
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vitro tumor models have provided important tools for cancer research and serve as low-cost screening platforms for drug therapies; however, cancer recurrence remains largely unchecked due to metastasis, which is the cause of the majority of cancer-related deaths. The need for an improved understanding of the progression and treatment of cancer has pushed for increased accuracy and physiological relevance of in vitro tumor models. As a result, in vitro tumor models have concurrently increased in complexity and their output parameters further diversified, since these models have progressed beyond simple proliferation, invasion, and cytotoxicity screens and have begun recapitulating critical steps in the metastatic cascade, such as intravasation, extravasation, angiogenesis, matrix remodeling, and tumor cell dormancy. Advances in tumor cell biology, 3D cell culture, tissue engineering, biomaterials, microfabrication, and microfluidics have enabled rapid development of new in vitro tumor models that often incorporate multiple cell types, extracellular matrix materials, and spatial and temporal introduction of soluble factors. Other innovations include the incorporation of perfusable microvessels to simulate the tumor vasculature and model intravasation and extravasation. The drive toward precision medicine has increased interest in adapting in vitro tumor models for patient-specific therapies, clinical management, and assessment of metastatic potential. Here, we review the wide range of current in vitro tumor models and summarize their advantages, disadvantages, and suitability in modeling specific aspects of the metastatic cascade and drug treatment.

Indexed as

metastasismicrovessel modelsspheroidstranswell assaytumor models

Identifiers

PMID26904541
PMCPMC4751256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.