Patient-Derived Orthotopic Xenograft (PDOX)
Materials Required
Principle
Patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) modeling implants fresh patient tumor tissue or patient-derived tumor cells into the anatomically corresponding organ or tissue site of immunodeficient mice, usually by surgical orthotopic implantation, to preserve patient tumor histology, local microenvironmental context, invasion, metastatic behavior, and treatment-response features better than subcutaneous implantation[1][2][3][4].
PDOX readouts include tumor engraftment, orthotopic tumor growth, local invasion, metastasis, recurrence after resection, histologic similarity to the donor tumor, biomarker retention, molecular concordance, survival, and response or resistance to therapy[2][3][4][5][6]. PDOX models are used for preclinical drug testing and individualized therapy evaluation, but engraftment success varies by tumor type and specimen quality[5][6].
MCE has not independently verified the accuracy of these methods. They are for reference only.
Experimental Materials
Reagents and chemicals
• Use fresh surgical tumor tissue, sterile transport medium or physiological buffer, sterile PBS, surgical antiseptic, anesthesia, analgesia, and euthanasia reagents approved by the animal protocol[2][3][4][6].• Use drug vehicles and treatment agents only when a therapy-testing endpoint is included[5][6][7].
Antibodies, probes, dyes, or kits
• Use histology stains and immunohistochemistry antibodies to compare donor tumor and xenograft morphology and biomarker expression, such as HER2 staining in cervical cancer PDOX or p53, p16, HER2/neu, and EGFR assessment in gastroesophageal junction PDOX[3][4].• Use sequencing, RNA-seq, or targeted molecular assays when molecular concordance between patient tumor and PDOX is an endpoint[4][6].
Equipment and instruments
• Required equipment includes biosafety equipment for human tissue handling, sterile surgical instruments, anesthesia and warming systems, microsurgical or small-animal surgical tools, calipers or imaging equipment for tumor monitoring, histology equipment, and pathology microscopy[2][3][4][6].• MRI, fluorescence imaging, confocal microscopy, or bioluminescence imaging may be used when tumor location, fluorescent stroma, metastasis, or internal tumor burden requires noninvasive or ex vivo imaging[4][8].
Experimental Procedure
Preparation Steps
• Obtain patient tumor tissue under approved consent and institutional protocols, keep tissue viable during transfer, and process it promptly into small viable fragments or cell preparations before implantation[2][3][4][6].• Remove necrotic or non-tumor material when identifiable, and reserve matched material for baseline histology, immunohistochemistry, molecular profiling, or cryopreservation when supported by the study design[3][4][6].
• Select immunodeficient recipient mice and the orthotopic implantation site according to tumor origin, such as cervix for cervical cancer, biceps femoris or quadriceps muscle for rhabdomyosarcoma, pancreatic tail for pancreatic cancer, skull base for meningioma, liver for colorectal liver metastasis, uterus for endometrial cancer, or tibia for osteosarcoma[2][3][5][6][7][9].
• Include a subcutaneous comparison group only when the study question specifically tests orthotopic versus ectopic behavior[2][3].
Operation Steps
• Step 1: Anesthetize the mouse and expose the target organ or tissue under aseptic surgical conditions[2][3][4][6].• Step 2: Implant a viable patient-derived tumor fragment or tumor-cell preparation into the corresponding orthotopic site using the published procedure for that cancer type[2][3][4][6].
• Step 3: Close the surgical site and monitor animals after recovery according to the approved animal-care protocol[2][3][4].
• Step 4: Monitor engraftment and tumor growth by caliper measurement when tumors are externally accessible or by imaging when tumors are internal, as reported for gastroesophageal junction PDOX using MRI and for fluorescent sarcoma PDOX using fluorescence imaging[4][8].
• Step 5: Passage tumors orthotopically or through an intermediate subcutaneous expansion step only when supported by the tumor-type-specific study design, because several PDOX studies first expanded patient tumors subcutaneously before orthotopic implantation, while others used direct orthotopic implantation[4][5][7][9].
• Step 6: When therapy testing is planned, randomize mice after tumor establishment or at a defined tumor-volume threshold; published PDOX drug studies used predefined tumor-volume thresholds such as 80 mm3 or 100 mm3 before randomization in breast carcinoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, and soft-tissue sarcoma models[5][7][10].
• Step 7: Treat groups with vehicle control and selected therapeutic agents, measure tumor volume and body weight during treatment, and collect tumors and relevant organs at endpoint for histology, biomarker analysis, and metastasis assessment[5][7][10].
Data Acquisition and Analysis
• Confirm PDOX establishment by demonstrating orthotopic tumor growth and by comparing xenograft histology with the original patient tumor[2][3][4][6].• When clinically relevant biomarkers are part of the model, confirm retention of expression patterns, such as HER2 staining in cervical cancer PDOX or molecular and immunohistochemical features in gastroesophageal junction PDOX[3][4].
• Assess metastasis or invasion by gross pathology, histology, ex vivo organ imaging, fluorescence imaging, MRI, or molecular analysis depending on the model[3][4][8].
• Compare therapy response using tumor volume, tumor weight, regression, survival, recurrence, metastasis, histologic necrosis, biomarker modulation, and mouse body weight as a toxicity-related endpoint when reported[5][7][10].
• Report patient tumor type, specimen source, implantation site, mouse strain, implantation method, passage number, engraftment rate, tumor-monitoring method, randomization rule, treatment schedule, endpoint timing, histologic concordance, molecular validation, biological replicate number, and statistical analysis[2][3][4][5][6][7].
• Interpret PDOX data as preclinical evidence requiring clinical validation, not as proof of patient benefit by itself[1][5].
Troubleshooting
Problem: PDOX engraftment is low or absent.
• Possible Cause: Engraftment success varies by tumor type and specimen; meningioma PDOX modeling succeeded only for selected aggressive molecular Type C tumors in one study, while cryopreserved primary cells from that case could reliably regenerate tumors[6].• Literature-supported Solution: Preserve viable primary material when possible, document engraftment rate by tumor type, and avoid assuming that every patient specimen will establish a model[6].
Problem: The model grows but does not metastasize.
• Possible Cause: Subcutaneous implantation can grow primary tumors without reproducing patient-like metastasis, whereas orthotopic implantation better preserves organ-site context and metastatic behavior in several PDOX reports[1][3].• Literature-supported Solution: Implant tumor tissue at the anatomically corresponding site and verify metastasis by organ imaging, histology, or necropsy[1][3][8].
Problem: Orthotopic tumor burden is difficult to measure by calipers.
• Possible Cause: Internal PDOX tumors cannot always be measured externally.• Literature-supported Solution: Use validated imaging such as MRI for internal gastroesophageal junction PDOX tumors or fluorescence imaging when the tumor or stroma is fluorescently labeled[4][8].
Problem: Drug-response data are difficult to interpret because tumor sizes differ at treatment start.
• Possible Cause: Unequal baseline tumor burden can bias treatment-response analysis.• Literature-supported Solution: Randomize mice at a predefined tumor-volume threshold, as reported in PDOX treatment studies using thresholds such as 80 mm3 or 100 mm3[5][7][10].
References:
- [1]. Hoffman RM. Patient-derived orthotopic xenografts: better mimic of metastasis than subcutaneous xenografts. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015;15(8):451-452. [Content Brief]
- [2]. Igarashi K, Kawaguchi K, Kiyuna T, Murakami T, Miwa S, Nelson SD, et al. Patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) mouse model of adult rhabdomyosarcoma invades and recurs after resection in contrast to the subcutaneous ectopic model. Cell Cycle. 2017;16(1):91-94. [Content Brief]
- [3]. Hiroshima Y, Zhang Y, Zhang N, Maawy AA, Mii S, Yamamoto M, et al. Establishment of a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) model of HER-2-positive cervical cancer expressing the clinical metastatic pattern. PLoS One. 2015;10(2):e0117417. [Content Brief]
- [4]. Veeranki OL, Tong Z, Mejia A, Verma A, Katkhuda R, Bassett R, et al. A novel patient-derived orthotopic xenograft model of esophageal adenocarcinoma provides a platform for translational discoveries. Dis Model Mech. 2019;12(12):dmm041004. [Content Brief]
- [5]. Igarashi K, Kawaguchi K, Kiyuna T, Murakami T, Miwa S, Nelson SD, et al. Temozolomide combined with irinotecan caused regression in an adult pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcoma patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) nude-mouse model. Oncotarget. 2017;8(44):75874-75880. [Content Brief]
- [6]. Zhang H, Qi L, Du Y, Huang LF, Braun FK, Kogiso M, et al. Patient-derived orthotopic xenograft (PDOX) mouse models of primary and recurrent meningioma. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(6):1478. [Content Brief]
- [7]. Kawaguchi K, Miyake K, Han Q, Li S, Tan Y, Igarashi K, et al. Targeting altered cancer methionine metabolism with recombinant methioninase overcomes partial gemcitabine-resistance and regresses a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft nude mouse model of pancreatic cancer. Cell Cycle. 2018;17(7):868-873. [Content Brief]
- [8]. Kiyuna T, Murakami T, Tome Y, Igarashi K, Kawaguchi K, Russell T, et al. Labeling the stroma of a patient-derived orthotopic xenograft mouse model of undifferentiated pleomorphic soft-tissue sarcoma with red fluorescent protein for rapid non-invasive imaging for drug screening. J Cell Biochem. 2017;118(2):361-365. [Content Brief]
- [9]. Wu NF, et al. A novel procedure for orthotopic tibia implantation for establishment of a more clinical osteosarcoma PDOX mouse model. In Vivo. 2021;35(1):105-109. [Content Brief]
- [10]. Yamamoto J, Murata T, Tashiro Y, Higuchi T, Sugisawa N, Nishino H, et al. A triple-negative matrix-producing breast carcinoma patient-derived orthotopic xenograft mouse model is sensitive to bevacizumab and vinorelbine, regressed by eribulin and resistant to olaparib. Anticancer Res. 2020;40(5):2509-2514. [Content Brief]