Cited by 1683D Printing in Biomedical ResearchHydrogels: synthesis, properties, applicationsCancer Cells and Metastasis

Microfluidics Enabled Bottom-Up Engineering of 3D Vascularized Tumor for Drug Discovery

Open access
Agarwal, Pranay, Wang, Hai, Sun, Mingrui, Xu, Jiangsheng, Zhao, Shuting, Liu, Zhenguo, Gooch, Keith J., Zhao, Yi +2 more·2017·ACS Nano

Abstract

Development of high-fidelity three-dimensional (3D) models to recapitulate the tumor microenvironment is essential for studying tumor biology and discovering anticancer drugs. Here we report a method to engineer the 3D microenvironment of human tumors, by encapsulating cancer cells in the core of microcapsules with a hydrogel shell for miniaturized 3D culture to obtain avascular microtumors first. The microtumors are then used as the building blocks for assembling with endothelial cells and other stromal cells to create macroscale 3D vascularized tumor. Cells in the engineered 3D microenvironment can yield significantly larger tumors in vivo than 2D-cultured cancer cells. Furthermore, the 3D vascularized tumors are 4.7 and 139.5 times more resistant to doxorubicin hydrochloride (a commonly used chemotherapy drug) than avascular microtumors and 2D-cultured cancer cells, respectively. Moreover, this high drug resistance of the 3D vascularized tumors can be overcome by using nanoparticle-mediated drug delivery. The high-fidelity 3D tumor model may be valuable for studying the effect of microenvironment on tumor progression, invasion, and metastasis and for developing effective therapeutic strategy to fight against cancer.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acsnano.7b00824

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The cancer cells within vascularized 3D-tumors were more resistant to DOX when compared to avascular microtumors and to 2D-cultured cancer cell monolayers (4.7- to 140-fold, respectively).

    “The cancer cells within vascularized 3D-tumors were also more resistant to DOX when compared to avascular microtumors and to 2D-cultured cancer cell monolayers (4.7- to 140-fold, respectively).”

    From The Tumor-on-Chip: Recent Advances in the Development of Microfluidic Systems to Recapitulate the Physiology of Solid Tumors (2019) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Results and Discussion section reports that vascularized 3D tumors had a DOX IC50 4.7 times that of avascular microtumors and 139.5 times that of 2D-cultured MCF-7 cells. However, the vascularized-tumor IC50 was measured across all three cell types in the model, not cancer cells alone, so the fold changes are not established specifically for the cancer cells. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Agarwal et al. found that cells could produce significantly larger cell aggregates in these 3D microenvironments than in 2D-culture systems.

    “Agarwal et al. found that cells could produce significantly larger cell aggregates in these 3D microenvironments than in 2D-culture systems.”

    From The Tumor-on-Chip: Recent Advances in the Development of Microfluidic Systems to Recapitulate the Physiology of Solid Tumors (2019) · cites this paper as [57]

    In Results and Discussion, “Fabrication and characterization of avascular μtumors” (page unavailable), the paper reports that MCF-7 cells formed aggregates during 3D culture. It does not report that those aggregates were significantly larger than aggregates in 2D culture; its 3D-versus-2D comparisons concern other outcomes, including in vivo tumorigenicity and blood-vessel size. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 3D culture systems more closely recapitulate the architecture and physiology of human solid tumors than traditional 2D systems.

    “An extensive body of experimental evidence has established that 3D culture systems more closely recapitulate the architecture and the physiology of human solid tumors when compared with traditional 2D systems.”
  • Relevant features of cancer progression and the effectiveness of anticancer pharmaceutical compounds cannot be properly recapitulated in 2D cell culture systems.

    “While 2D systems were the first workhorses in cancer research, a vast body of experimental evidence confirms that the relevant features of the cancer progression, and the effectiveness of anticancer pharmaceutical compounds, cannot be properly recapitulated in 2D cell culture systems [8,57,93].”
  • The presence of vascularization is one of the landmarks of tumor environments.

    “The presence of vascularization is one of the landmarks of tumor environments [57,180].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Agarwal, P., Wang, H., Sun, M., Xu, J., Zhao, S., Liu, Z., Gooch, K. J., Zhao, Y., Lu, X., & He, X.
Affiliations
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
He, Xiaoming
Venue
ACS Nano
Published
2017-06-19
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
6691-6702
ISSN
  • 1936-0851 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-086X
OpenAlex
W2626777224
Cited by
168
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 2
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Nano (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R01 CA206366)
  • American Cancer Society (120936-RSG-11-109-01-CDD)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Medicine › Hydrogels: synthesis, properties, applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
Keywords
3D tumor models, tumor microenvironment, microfluidics, microcapsules, vascularized tumors, endothelial cells, doxorubicin resistance, anticancer drug discovery, nanoparticle drug delivery, chemoresistance
MeSH terms
Animals, Antineoplastic Agents, Drug Screening Assays, Antitumor, Female, Humans, Mice, Nude, Neoplasms, Neovascularization, Pathologic, Cell Culture Techniques, Drug Discovery, Lab-On-A-Chip Devices, Tumor Microenvironment, Human Umbilical Vein Endothelial Cells, MCF-7 Cells

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review