Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29346265›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2018

Halfway between 2D and Animal Models: Are 3D Cultures the Ideal Tool to Study Cancer-Microenvironment Interactions?

Jessica Hoarau-Véchot, Arash Rafii, Cyril Touboul, Jennifer Pasquier

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 225 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
225citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. TheMaterials today. Bio · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

165 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

4 authors.

Jessica Hoarau-VéchotStem Cell and Microenvironment Laboratory, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, Qatar Foundation, Education City, Doha 24144, Qatar. jeh2036@qatar-med.cornell.edu.
Arash RafiiStem Cell and Microenvironment Laboratory, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, Qatar Foundation, Education City, Doha 24144, Qatar. jat2021@qatar-med.cornell.edu.
Cyril TouboulUMR INSERM U965, Angiogenèse et Recherche Translationnelle, Hôpital Lariboisière, 49 bd de la Chapelle, 75010 Paris, France. cyril.touboul@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9149-1663
Jennifer PasquierStem Cell and Microenvironment Laboratory, Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, Qatar Foundation, Education City, Doha 24144, Qatar. jep2026@qatar-med.cornell.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An area that has come to be of tremendous interest in tumor research in the last decade is the role of the microenvironment in the biology of neoplastic diseases. The tumor microenvironment (TME) comprises various cells that are collectively important for normal tissue homeostasis as well as tumor progression or regression. Seminal studies have demonstrated the role of the dialogue between cancer cells (at many sites) and the cellular component of the microenvironment in tumor progression, metastasis, and resistance to treatment. Using an appropriate system of microenvironment and tumor culture is the first step towards a better understanding of the complex interaction between cancer cells and their surroundings. Three-dimensional (3D) models have been widely described recently. However, while it is claimed that they can bridge the gap between in vitro and in vivo, it is sometimes hard to decipher their advantage or limitation compared to classical two-dimensional (2D) cultures, especially given the broad number of techniques used. We present here a comprehensive review of the different 3D methods developed recently, and, secondly, we discuss the pros and cons of 3D culture compared to 2D when studying interactions between cancer cells and their microenvironment.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalTumor MicroenvironmentAnimalsBioprintingCell Culture TechniquesCell MovementCell ProliferationHydrogelsMicrofluidicsSpheroids, CellularHydrogels2D culture3D anchorage independent culture3D culturechemoresistancetumor microenvironmenttumor migrationtumor proliferation

Identifiers

PMID29346265
PMCPMC5796130

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.