2021
DOI: 10.1002/path.5820
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Mouse‐INtraDuctal (MIND): an in vivo model for studying the underlying mechanisms of DCIS malignancy

Abstract: On behalf of the Grand Challenge PRECISION Consortium'.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 80 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…MIND Py230 tumors were characterized as having a phenotype more comparable to ‘pushing’ border human breast cancers ( Figure 2 D,F). These data are consistent with previously published work demonstrating that tumors that arise from intraductal human breast cancer cell delivery more closely reflect human breast cancer histology than tumors derived from mammary fat pad injections [ 26 , 27 , 31 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…MIND Py230 tumors were characterized as having a phenotype more comparable to ‘pushing’ border human breast cancers ( Figure 2 D,F). These data are consistent with previously published work demonstrating that tumors that arise from intraductal human breast cancer cell delivery more closely reflect human breast cancer histology than tumors derived from mammary fat pad injections [ 26 , 27 , 31 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…MIND models permit assessment of early interactions between intraductal cancer cells, normal mammary epithelium, and the myoepithelium, as well as the underlying basement membrane. Previous studies using human breast cancer cell lines demonstrate that intraductal injection results in human tumor cell incorporation into the ductal epithelium [ 20 ], followed by the development of robust DCIS-like lesions with relatively long latency to invasive cancer [ 25 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. Of note, these MIND models most frequently use invasive human breast cancer cell lines as opposed to pre-cancerous cell lines, yet robustly develop stable DCIS lesions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous studies using cell lines such as MCF10DCIS.com and SUM225 or small collections of DCIS xenografts have not led to reliable biomarkers for DCIS progression, mainly because cell lines only model ER − DCIS and because the small number of available xenografts did not account for the heterogeneity of the disease. 13 , 33 , 34 Here, we report the generation of a large biobank of 115 orthotopic DCIS-MIND models recapitulating the molecular and histological heterogeneity of the patient population. 35 , 36 Monitoring of the natural progression of DCIS of our biobank showed that 46% of DCIS cases progress into invasive disease, suggesting that around half of the DCIS lesions in patients would stay indolent if left untreated.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 9 , 10 This method results in DCIS lesions retaining the sample-specific estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 expression, and can be used to follow the progression of DCIS lesions over time. 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 49 The higher the grade, the higher the risk of invasive breast cancer (IBC), 50 , 51 although the prognostic estimation is not accurate. Recent basic research using lineage tracing, genomics, and transcriptomics has provided evidence that multiple independent clones derived from DCIS evolve into IBC, although the molecular mechanisms of progression from DCIS to IBC remain elusive 52 , 53 (Figure 1 ). Inhibition of DCIS progression to IBC is an important preventive therapeutic strategy against breast cancer.…”
Section: Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (Dcis) and Current Therapies Agains...mentioning
confidence: 99%