Cited by 7543D Printing in Biomedical ResearchCancer Cells and MetastasisCellular Mechanics and Interactions

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

Open access
Katt, Moriah E., Placone, Amanda L., Wong, Andrew D., Xu, Zinnia S., Searson, Peter C.·2016·Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology

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.

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 · 10.3389/fbioe.2016.00012

Cites

141 of 141 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?

  • Conventional in vitro 3D cancer models are static systems (not based on microfluidics).

    “The conventional in vitro 3D cancer models are static systems (i.e., they are not based on microfluidics) [102], but they do provide a valuable alternative to animal models and have enabled important advances in cancer research in the last two decades [5,103].”

    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 [102]

    The Spheroid Formation section describes conventional, non-microfluidic ways to grow 3D spheroids, such as liquid overlay and hanging drops. But it also describes techniques that use microfluidic devices, and the Summary and Future Prospects section says these devices are increasingly used to form spheroids. The source therefore supports the distinction as a generalization, not as a categorical claim that 3D cancer models are non-microfluidic. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Obtaining concordance between animal models and clinical trials remains challenging, with an average rate of concordant results that barely reaches 8%.

    “Seymour and Ghert et al. demonstrated that obtaining concordance between animal models and clinical trials remains challenging, with an average rate of concordant results that barely reaches 8%21,39,40.”

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
Katt, M. E., Placone, A. L., Wong, A. D., Xu, Z. S., & Searson, P. C.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Searson, Peter C.
Venue
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
Published
2016-02-12
Volume
4
Pages
12-12
ISSN
2296-4185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2275816640
Cited by
754
References
141
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 99 · 2020: 111 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 10
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01CA170629)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › 3D Printing in Biomedical Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Cells and Metastasis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Cellular Mechanics and Interactions
Keywords
in vitro tumor model, metastasis, metastatic cascade, 3D cell culture, microfluidics, intravasation, extravasation, angiogenesis, extracellular matrix remodeling, tumor dormancy, precision medicine, drug screening

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