Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster session 15

1964P - Biomimetics of three-dimensional (3D) osteosarcoma (OS) models: A scoping review

Date

21 Oct 2023

Session

Poster session 15

Topics

Tumour Site

Bone Sarcomas

Presenters

Vinesh Sandhu

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2023) 34 (suppl_2): S1032-S1061. 10.1016/S0923-7534(23)01925-7

Authors

V. Sandhu, D. Bakkalci, U. Cheema

Author affiliations

  • Ucl Centre Of 3d Models Health And Disease, Division Of Surgery And Interventional Sciences, Charles Bell House, London, Uk, UCL - University College London, WC1E 6BT - London/GB

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 1964P

Background

Three-dimensional (3D) cell culture models can recapitulate the native tumour microenvironment (TME) of cancers. However, data on the biomimicry of 3D osteosarcoma (OS) models is unclear. This scoping review (SR) aims to assess how the biomimicry of 3D OS models changes depending on the engineered features of the model. Biomimicry was determined by studying multiple parameters, including cell behaviour and drug resistance.

Methods

The scoping review followed the PRISMA-ScR guidelines and included studies with 3D culture models using osteosarcoma cells. The systematic search, which involved five databases (January 2012-December 2022), identified 293 studies; 70 studies were selected for final analysis: 40 involved drug screening, and 21 included the addition of stromal cells into the model.

Results

Overall, 64% of 3D OS models were scaffold-based compared to self-generated spheroid models. Native scaffolds (42%) comprising mainly collagen/hydroxyapatite predominated, followed by composite scaffolds (22%). For drug screening, both scaffold-based and scaffold-free models were used equally. Thirteen of 15 studies comparing 3D versus 2D drug sensitivity showed decreased sensitivity in 3D models, with several studies showing upregulated resistance genes in 3D models. Furthermore, the use of ECM-mimetic scaffolds and native biomaterials enhanced resistance by OS cells. These suggest biomimetic 3D OS models better recapitulate in vivo TME for drug screening. Co-cultures of OS/stroma cells enhanced biomimicry of 3D models and contributed towards osteogenic differentiation, ECM remodelling, mineralisation, angiogenesis, and OS-stromal cells’ crosstalk. Seven studies demonstrated selective toxicity of chemotherapeutics towards OS cells while sparing stromal cells, providing helpful evidence for novel therapies development.

Conclusions

This SR highlights the biomimicry of 3D OS models in recapitulating in vivo TME. Future work should explore innovative 3D biomimetic models, biomaterials, and advancements in personalised medicine.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.