Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35454909›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

An Osteosarcoma Model by 3D Printed Polyurethane Scaffold and In Vitro Generated Bone Extracellular Matrix.

Nicola Contessi Negrini, Claudio Ricci, Federica Bongiorni, Luisa Trombi, Delfo D'Alessandro, Serena Danti, Silvia Farè

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Exploring bone-tumor interactions through 3DJournal of bone oncology · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Developing a 3D bone model of osteosarcoma to investigate cancer mechanisms and evaluate treatments.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Biomechanical Aspects in Bone Tumor Engineering.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nicola Contessi NegriniDepartment of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering "G. Natta", Politecnico di Milano, 20131 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3719-8869
Claudio RicciDepartment of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, 56122 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0110-8836
Federica BongiorniDepartment of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering "G. Natta", Politecnico di Milano, 20131 Milan, Italy.
Luisa TrombiDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.
Delfo D'AlessandroDepartment of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology, University of Pisa, 56126 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6448-4815
Serena DantiDepartment of Civil and Industrial Engineering, University of Pisa, 56122 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8155-8537
Silvia FarèDepartment of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering "G. Natta", Politecnico di Milano, 20131 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0303-1131
University of Pisa · ITPolitecnico di Milano · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteosarcoma is a primary bone tumor characterized by a dismal prognosis, especially in the case of recurrent disease or metastases. Therefore, tools to understand in-depth osteosarcoma progression and ultimately develop new therapeutics are urgently required. 3D in vitro models can provide an optimal option, as they are highly reproducible, yet sufficiently complex, thus reliable alternatives to 2D in vitro and in vivo models. Here, we describe 3D in vitro osteosarcoma models prepared by printing polyurethane (PU) by fused deposition modeling, further enriched with human mesenchymal stromal cell (hMSC)-secreted biomolecules. We printed scaffolds with different morphologies by changing their design (i.e., the distance between printed filaments and printed patterns) to obtain different pore geometry, size, and distribution. The printed PU scaffolds were stable during in vitro cultures, showed adequate porosity (55-67%) and tunable mechanical properties (Young's modulus ranging in 0.5-4.0 MPa), and resulted in cytocompatible. We developed the in vitro model by seeding SAOS-2 cells on the optimal PU scaffold (i.e., 0.7 mm inter-filament distance, 60° pattern), by testing different pre-conditioning factors: none, undifferentiated hMSC-secreted, and osteo-differentiated hMSC-secreted extracellular matrix (ECM), which were obtained by cell lysis before SAOS-2 seeding. Scaffolds pre-cultured with osteo-differentiated hMSCs, subsequently lysed, and seeded with SAOS-2 cells showed optimal colonization, thus disclosing a suitable biomimetic microenvironment for osteosarcoma cells, which can be useful both in tumor biology study and, possibly, treatment.

Indexed as

bone cancerbone matrixcancer tissue engineeringfused deposition modelingin vitro modelmechanical propertiesmesenchymal stromal celltumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID35454909
PMCPMC9025808
OpenAlexW4224082958

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.