Modeling chemical effects on breast cancer: the importance of the microenvironment in vitro
Morgan MM., Schuler LA., Ciciliano JC., Johnson BP., Alarid ET., Beebe DJ.
Narrative Review, published in Integr Biol (Camb) (2020) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Integr Biol (Camb) (2020)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 32118264
- PMCID
- PMC7060306
- DOI
- 10.1093/intbio/zyaa002
- Citations
- 10
Abstract (original English)
Accumulating evidence suggests that our ability to predict chemical effects on breast cancer is limited by a lack of physiologically relevant in vitro models; the typical in vitro breast cancer model consists of the cancer cell and excludes the mammary microenvironment. As the effects of the microenvironment on cancer cell behavior becomes more understood, researchers have called for the integration of the microenvironment into in vitro chemical testing systems. However, given the complexity of the microenvironment and the variety of platforms to choose from, identifying the essential parameters to include in a chemical testing platform is challenging. This review discusses the need for more complex in vitro breast cancer models and outlines different approaches used to model breast cancer in vitro. We provide examples of the microenvironment modulating breast cancer cell responses to chemicals and discuss strategies to help pinpoint what components should be included in a model.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.