Transplanted Tumor Models for Preclinical Drug Testing and the Potential Benefit of Genetically Engineered Mouse Models

  • Melinda Hollingshead
  • Michelle Ahalt
  • Sergio Alcoser


Tumor models in rodents have historically served a key role in preclinical anticancer screening programs to evaluate biological activity and to optimize antitumor activity for new compounds. While the role of mouse tumor models in drug development programs has evolved and its predictive capabilities for humans continue to be debated, it is important to note that correlative drug responses have, and continue to demonstrate activity in preclinical mouse models for a majority of the clinically approved chemotherapeutic agents. However, the need for new technologies, strategies, and data analyses that provide greater efficiency in selecting compounds for development, and better predict clinical outcomes, cannot be overstated. Currently, it is predicted that approximately 1.5 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer annually (American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures, 2008). Therefore, discovery of effective treatment strategies is paramount. Advances in the development of novel molecularly targeted agents, more effective use of traditional transplant models, and greater use of genetically engineered mice is expected to improve the accuracy of identifying therapeutic targets and effective compounds (alone or in combination) in the preclinical screening process. This will allow therapeutic agents to be more quickly and safely transitioned into human patients to improve their longevity and quality of life.


Human Clinical Trial Athymic Nude Mouse Human Tumor Xenograft Immunocompromised Mouse Genetically Engineer Mouse 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alley MC, Hollingshead MG et al (2004) Human tumor xenograft models in NCI drug development. In: Teicher BA, Andrews PA (eds) Anticancer drug development guide: preclinical screening, clinical trials, and approval, 2nd edn. Humana, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. American Cancer Society (2008) Cancer facts and figures. Accessed 25 Aug 2008
  3. Barrett MK (1940) The influence of genetic constitution upon the induction of resistance to transplantable mouse tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 1:387–393Google Scholar
  4. Beck JA, Lloyd S et al (2000) Genealogies of mouse inbred strains. Nat Genet 24:23–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bibby MC (2004) Orthotopic models of cancer for preclinical drug evaluation: advantages and disadvantages. Eur J Cancer 40:852–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biological Testing Branch (2008) Accessed 25 Aug 2008
  7. Bittner JJ (1934) Linkage in transplantable tumours. J Genet 29(1):17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgel SD, Carter JP et al (2003) The impact of tumor location on the activity of 17-DMAG (NSC 707545), a water soluble geldanamycin analog. Clin Cancer Res 9(16):6215SGoogle Scholar
  9. Bosma GC, Custer RP, Bosma MJ (1983) A severe combined immunodeficiency mutation in the mouse. Nature 301(5900):527–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown JM (1997) NCI’s anticancer drug screening program may not be selecting for clinically active compounds. Oncol Res 9:213–215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Burchill SA (2006) What do, can and should we learn from models to evaluate potential anticancer agents? Future Med 2(2):201–211Google Scholar
  12. Carruthers C, Suntzeff V (1944) Chemical studies on the transformation of mouse epidermis by methylcholanthrene to squamous cell carcinoma. J Biol Chem 155(2):459–464Google Scholar
  13. Céspedes MV, Casanova I et al (2006) Mouse models in oncogenesis and cancer therapy. Clin Transl Oncol 8(5):318–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cloudman AM (1946) A study of the organophilic tendencies of 2 transplantable mouse tumors. Cancer Res 6(9):503Google Scholar
  15. Corbett TH, Valeriote FA, Baker LH (1987) Is the P388 murine tumor model no longer adequate as a drug discovery model? Invest New Drugs 5:3–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Croy BA, Chapeau C (1990) Evaluation of the pregnancy immunotrophism hypothesis by assessment of the reproductive performance of young adult mice of genotype scid/ J Reprod Fertil 88(1):231–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiMasi JA, Hansen RW, Grabowski HG (2003) The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ 22(20):151–185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Driscoll JS (1984) The preclinical new drug research program of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer Treat Rep 68(1)Google Scholar
  19. Dudkin L, Dilling MB et al (2001) Biochemical correlates of mTOR inhibition by the rapamycin ester CCI-779 and tumor growth inhibition. Clin Cancer Res 7(6):1758–1764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Eaton GJ, Outzen HC et al (1975) Husbandry of the “Nude” mouse in conventional and germ-free environments. Lab Anim Sci 5:309–314Google Scholar
  21. Fancy Mouse Breeders Club (2008) Accessed 25 Aug 2008
  22. Fidler IJ, Wilmanns C et al (1994) Modulation of tumor cell response to chemotherapy by the organ environment. Cancer Metastasis Rev 13(2):209–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flaherty KT, O’Dwyer PJ (2004) Conventional design and novel strategies in the era of targeted therapies. In: Teicher BA, Andrews PA (eds) Anticancer drug development guide: preclinical screening, clinical trials, and approval, 2nd edn. Humana, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  24. Flanagan SP (1966) ‘Nude’, a new hairless gene with pleiotropic effects in the mouse. Genet Res 8:295–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frei E III (1982) The national cancer chemotherapy program. Science 217:600–606PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gershwin ME (1977) DiGeorge syndrome: congenital thymic hypoplasia. Animal model: congenitally athymic (nude) mouse. Am J Pathol 89(3):809–812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Giovanella BC, Stehlin JS Jr et al (1983) Correlation between response to chemotherapy of human tumors in patients and in nude mice. Cancer 52(7):1146–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldin A, Venditti JM, Carter SK (1977) Screening at the National Cancer Institute. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 45:37–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldin A, Venditti JM et al (1981) Current results of the screening program at the Division of Cancer Treatment, National Cancer Institute. Eur J Cancer 17:129–142PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene HSN, Murphy ED (1945) The heterologous transplantation of mouse and rat tumors. Cancer Res 5(5):269–282Google Scholar
  31. Guflino PM, Ediger RD et al (1976) Guide for the care and use of the nude (thymus deficient) mouse in biomedical research. ILAR News 19:M3–M20Google Scholar
  32. Hammett FS (1936) Effect of cystine disulfoxide on spontaneous tumors of the mouse. Science 83:108–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hollingshead MG (2008) Antitumor efficacy testing in rodents. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(21):1500–1510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Houghton PJ, Morton CL et al (2007) The pediatric preclinical testing program: description of models and early testing results. Pediatr Blood Cancer 49:928–940PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnson JI, Decker S et al (2001) Relationships between drug activity in NCI preclinical in vitro and in vivo models and early clinical trials. Br J Cancer 84(10):1424–1431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kamel-Reid BA, Dick JE (1988) Engraftment of immune-deficient mice with human hematopoietic stem cells. Science 242(4886):1706–1709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelland LR (2004) “Of mice and men:” values and liabilities of the athymic nude mouse model in anticancer drug development. Eur J Cancer 40:827–836PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kerbel RS (2003) Human tumor xenografts as predictive preclinical models for anticancer drug activity in humans: getter than commonly perceived – but they can be improved. Cancer Biol Ther 2(4):S134–S139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Killion JJ, Radinsky R, Fidler IJ (1998) Orthotopic models are necessary to predict therapy of transplantable tumors in mice. Cancer Metastasis Rev 17(3):279–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kinders R, Parchment RE et al (2007) Phase 0 clinical trials in cancer drug development: from FDA guidance to clinical practice. Mol Interv 7(6):325–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kung AL (2007) Practices and pitfalls of mouse cancer models in drug discovery. Adv Cancer Res 96:191–212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Liu CN, Lambert JM et al (1996) Cure of multidrug-resistant human B-cell lymphoma xenografts by combinations of anti-B4-blocked ricin and chemotherapeutic drugs. Blood 87(9):3892–3898PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Lozzio BB, Lozzi CB, Machado E (1976) Human myelogenous (Ph+) leukemia cell line: transplantation into athymic mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 56(3):627–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ludford RJ (1933) Differences in the growth of transplantable tumours in plasma and serum culture media. Proc R Soc Lond B 112(776):250–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Manning DD, Reed ND, Shaffer CF (1973) Maintenance of skin xenografts of widely divergent phylogenetic origin on congenitally athymic (nude) mice. J Exp Med 138(2):488–494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCampbell EF (1909) Malignant tumors in mice with a report of a spontaneous adeno-carcinoma in a house mouse (mus musculus). J Med Res 20(113):261–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Monks A, Scudiero D et al (1991) Feasibility of a high-flux anticancer drug screen using a diverse panel of cultured human tumor cell lines. J Natl Cancer Inst 83(11):757–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mouse Models of Human Cancer Consortium (2008) Accessed 25 Aug 2008
  49. Murphy JB, Maisin J, Sturm E (1923) Local resistance to spontaneous mouse cancer induced by X-rays. J Exp Med 38:45–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Naito S, Giavazzi R et al (1987) Growth and Metastatic behavior of human tumor cells implanted into nude and beige nude mice. Clin Exp Metastasis 5(2):135–146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nettleship A (1943) Study of a spontaneous mouse rhabdomyosarcoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 3(5):563–568Google Scholar
  52. Osieka R (1984) Primary and acquired resistance to antineoplastic chemotherapy. A preclinical and clinical study. Cancer 54(6):1168–1174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Osieka R, Houchens DP et al (1977) Chemotherapy of human colon cancer xenografts in athymic nude mice. Cancer 40(5):2640–2650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Plowman J, Dykes DJ et al (1997) Human tumor xenograft models in NCI drug development. In: Teicher BA (ed) Anticancer drug development guide: preclinical screening, clinical trials, and approval, 1st edn. Humana, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  55. Povlsen CO, Visfeldt J et al (1975) Growth patterns and chromosome constitutions of human malignant tumours after long-term serial transplantation in nude mice. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 83(6):709–716Google Scholar
  56. Prochazka M, Gaskins HR et al (1992) The nonobese diabetic scid mouse: model for spontaneous thymomagenesis associated with immunodeficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89(8):3290–3294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rygaard J (1969) Immunobiology of the mouse mutant “Nude”. Preliminary investigations. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 77(4):761–762PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rygaard J, Povlsen CO (1969) Heterotransplantation of a human malignant tumour to “Nude” mice. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand 77(4):758–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sausville EA, Hollingshead MG (2004) Mouse models in cancer drug discovery and development. In: Figg WD, McLeod HL (eds) Handbook of anticancer pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Humana, Totowa, NJGoogle Scholar
  60. Schein PS, Scheffler B (2006) Barriers to efficient development of cancer therapeutics. Clin Cancer Res 12:3243–3248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schepartz SA (1977) Antitumor screening procedures of the National Cancer Institute. Jpn J Antibiot 30:35–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Schmidtwolf IGH, Negrin RS et al (1991) Use of a SCID mouse human lymphoma model to evaluate cytokine-induced killer-cells with potent antitumor cell-activity. J Exp Med 174(1):139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schold SC Jr, Bigner DD (1983) Treatment of five subcutaneous human glioma tumor lines in athymic mice with carmustine, procarbazine, and mithramycin. Cancer Treat Rep 67(9):811–819PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Schuh JC (2004) Trials, tribulations, and trends in tumor modeling in mice. Toxicol Pathol 32:53–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sharpless NE, Depinho RA (2006) The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5(9):741–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Shimosato Y, Kameya T et al (1976) Transplantation of human tumors in nude mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 56(6):1251–1260PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Shultz LD, Lang PA et al (2000) NOD/LtSz-Rag1null mice: an immunodeficient and radioresistant model for engraftment of human hematolymphoid cells, HIV infection, and adoptive transfer of NOD mouse diabetogenic T cells. J Immunol 164(5):2496–2507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Singh SK, Hawkins C et al (2004) Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature 432(7015):396–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Slye M (1915) The incidence and inheritability of spontaneous cancer in mice (third report). J Med Res 32(1):159–200PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Staats J (1966) The laboratory mouse. In: Green EL (ed) Biology of the laboratory mouse. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Staquet MJ, Byar DP et al (1983) Clinical predictivity of transplantable tumor system in the selection of new drugs for solid tumors: rationale for a three-stage strategy. Cancer Treat Rep 67(9):753–765PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Stephenson RA, Dinney CP et al (1992) Metastatic model for human prostate cancer using orthotopic implantation in nude mice. J Natl Cancer Inst 84(12):951–957PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stinson SF, Alley MC et al (1992) Morphological and immunocytochemical characteristics of human tumor cell lines for use in a disease-oriented anticancer drug screen. Anticancer Res 12(4):1035–1053PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Strong LC (1927) Studies on the effect of potassium alum-hydrochloric acid solutions on the growth and fate of neoplastic tissue. 1. Effect on a slow growing adeno carcinoma of the mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 13:141–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Suggitt M, Bibby MC (2005) 50 years of preclinical anticancer drug screening: empirical to target-driven approaches. Clin Cancer Res 11:971–981PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Talmadge JE, Singh RK et al (2007) Murine models to evaluate novel and conventional therapeutic strategies for cancer. Am J Pathol 170(3):793–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Teicher BA (2006) Tumor models for efficacy determination. Mol Cancer Ther 5(10):2435–2443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Varticovski L, Hollingshead MG et al (2007) Accelerated preclinical testing using transplanted tumors from genetically engineered mouse breast cancer models. Clin Cancer Res 13(7):2168–2177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Venditti JM (1981) Preclinical drug development: rationale and methods. Semin Oncol 8:349–361PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Voskoglou-Nomikos T, Pater JL, Seymour L (2003) Clinical predictive value of the in vitro cell line, human xenograft and mouse allograft preclinical cancer models. Clin Cancer Res 9:4227–4239PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Weiss B, Shannon K (2004) Preclinical trials in mouse cancer models. In: Holland EC (ed) Mouse models of human cancer. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  82. Winograd B, Boven E et al (1987) Human tumor xenografts in the nude mouse and their value as test models in anticancer drug development (review). In Vivo 1(1):1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melinda Hollingshead
    • 1
  • Michelle Ahalt
    • 1
  • Sergio Alcoser
    • 1
  1. 1.Developmental Therapeutics ProgramNCI-FrederickFrederickUSA

Personalised recommendations