From: The progressive trend of modeling and drug screening systems of breast cancer bone metastasis
In vitro models of bone metastasis | Advantages | Disadvantage |
---|---|---|
Multicellular tumor spheroids | Simple, long-term culture, coculture, patient specific | Low throughput, high shear force, necrotic cells in the center of the cellular sphere, simple architecture |
Organotypic multicellular spheroids | Preserve original tumor tissue's cellular interactions and body's physiological environment | More expensive, complicated, and time-consuming |
Organoids | Biologically stable, high- throughput, simultaneously simulate the structure and function of healthy and tumor tissues, patient specific | Lacke vascularization and immune system complexity |
3D hydrogels or scaffolds models | Simulate TME mechanical, structural, chemical, and physical signals, cells can migrate in three dimensions and interact with other cells, high-throughput screening, reasonable cost | Lack of accurate position of cells, vascular structures, and un-uniform distribution of cells |
Bioreactor-based models | Adjustable and controllable, stimuli mechanical signals, cell–cell, and cell-ECM interactions | High space and cost for dynamic cell culture |
Microcarrier-based models | Enhance cellular activity, improves drug resistance, Stimulates cell–cell and cell-ECM interactions | Simple structure, low vascular potential |
Bioprinting | Automatic and accurate control of cell distribution, large-scale structures, high-efficiency, reproducibility, integration of permeable vascular networks, complex architecture, Custom made architecture, co culture | Expensive, difficult to be adopted to high-throughput screening |
Metastasis-on-a-chip systems | Invivo-like structure, chemical gradient, and precise spatio-temporal control of TME | Expensive, difficult to be adopted to high-throughput screening |
2D models | Simple and low cost | Few cell–cell and cell-ECM interaction, do not reproduce cellular complexity |