Advancement of Scaffold-Based 3D Cellular Models in Cancer Tissue Engineering: An Update

Abstract

The lack of traditional cancer treatments has resulted in an increased need for new clinical techniques. Standard two-dimensional (2D) models used to validate drug efficacy and screening have a low in vitro-in vivo translation potential. Recreating the in vivo tumor microenvironment at the three-dimensional (3D) level is essential to resolve these limitations in the 2D culture and improve therapy results. The physical and mechanical environments of 3D culture allow cancer cells to expand in a heterogeneous manner, adopt different phenotypes, gene and protein profiles, and develop metastatic potential and drug resistance similar to human tumors. The current application of 3D scaffold culture systems based on synthetic polymers or selected extracellular matrix components promotes signalling, survival, and cancer cell proliferation. This review will focus on the recent advancement of numerous 3D-based scaffold models for cancer tissue engineering, which will increase the predictive ability of preclinical studies and significantly improve clinical translation.

When Mechanical Stress Matters: Generation of Polyploid Giant Cancer Cells in Tumor-like Microcapsules

“…2D surfaces represent the most traditional platforms employed to culture cancer cells, while 3D milieus exemplify the new technical alternatives used to study the behavior of malignant cells in vitro. [23,[45][46][47] Concerning the use of soft 2D hydrogels to pre-condition cancer cells, since these have a similar elasticity to the tumor-like microcapsules (23 ± 3.0 kPa or 21 ± 2.0 kPa respectively; Figures 1B and 1C), this strategy was utilized to discern the respective (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved.…”

Human SMILE-Derived Stromal Lenticule Scaffold for Regenerative Therapy: Review and Perspectives

“…Decellularization aims to eliminate cellular and antigenic molecules, including genetic materials while preserving the structural, biochemical, and biomechanical properties of the matrix scaffold [ 46 , 58 , 59 ]. In the context of tissue engineering, a decellularized scaffold provides a native-like ECM environment with high bioactivity and compatibility for cell–ECM interaction, and this promotes subsequent cell adhesion, proliferation, and survival [ 60 , 61 ]. In addition, it offers the advantage of a remarkable similarity with the tissue to be replaced.…”

Patient-derived cancer models: Valuable platforms for anticancer drug testing

“…Multiple synthetic and biological materials have been used to develop scaffolds to support the generation of 3D cultures, mimicking ECM. Examples include hydroxyapatite-graphene (116), polyethylene glycol oxide (117), chitosan alginate (118)(119)(120), collagen (76,121) and matrigel (117,122). Different materials present specific advantages but also limitations.…”

“…Different materials present specific advantages but also limitations. As an example hydrogels are highly biocompatible and recapitulate the biochemical composition of original matrix but offer low mechanical resistance (122). To include original immune populations different 3D models have been developed (123).…”