Nora M. Navone

For over a century, early researchers sought to study biological organisms in a laboratory setting, leading to the generation of both in vitro and in vivo model systems. Patient-derived models of cancer (PDMCs) have more recently come to the forefront of preclinical cancer models and are even finding their way into clinical practice as part of functional precision medicine programs. The PDMC Consortium, supported by the Division of Cancer Biology in the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, seeks to understand the biological principles that govern the various PDMC behaviors, particularly in response to perturbagens, such as cancer therapeutics. Based on collective experience from the consortium groups, we provide insight regarding PDMCs established both in vitro and in vivo, with a focus on practical matters related to developing and maintaining key cancer models through a series of vignettes. Although every model has the potential to offer valuable insights, the choice of the right model should be guided by the research question. However, recognizing the inherent constraints in each model is crucial. Our objective here is to delineate the strengths and limitations of each model as established by individual vignettes. Further advances in PDMCs and the development of novel model systems will enable us to better understand human biology and improve the study of human pathology in the lab.

Purpose: Develop and deploy a robust discovery platform that encompasses heterogeneity, clinical annotation, and molecular characterization and overcomes the limited availability of prostate cancer models. This initiative builds on the rich MD Anderson (MDA) prostate cancer (PCa) patient-derived xenograft (PDX) resource to complement existing publicly available databases by addressing gaps in clinically annotated models reflecting the heterogeneity of potentially lethal and lethal prostate cancer. Experimental Design: We performed whole-genome, targeted, and RNA sequencing in representative samples of the same tumor from 44 PDXs derived from 38 patients linked to donor tumor metadata and corresponding organoids. The cohort includes models derived from different morphologic groups, disease states, and involved organ sites (including circulating tumor cells), as well as paired samples representing heterogeneity or stages before and after therapy. Results: The cohort recapitulates clinically reported alterations in prostate cancer genes, providing a data resource for clinical and molecular interrogation of suitable experimental models. Paired samples displayed conserved molecular alteration profiles, suggesting the relevance of other regulatory mechanisms (e.g., epigenomic) influenced by the microenvironment and/or treatment. Transcriptomically, models were grouped on the basis of morphologic classification. DNA damage response–associated mechanisms emerged as differentially regulated between adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine prostate cancer in a cross-interrogation of PDX/patient datasets. Conclusions: We addressed the gap in clinically relevant prostate cancer models through comprehensive molecular characterization of MDA PCa PDXs, providing a discovery platform that integrates with patient data and benchmarked to therapeutically relevant consensus clinical groupings. This unique resource supports robust hypothesis generation and testing from basic, translational, and clinical perspectives.