Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2022;7(22):e158060. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.158060.
Abstract
BACKGROUND A patient-derived organoid (PDO) platform may serve as a promising tool for translational cancer research. In this study, we evaluated PDO’s ability to predict clinical response to gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.METHODS We generated PDOs from primary and metastatic lesions of patients with GI cancers, including pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, colorectal adenocarcinoma, and cholangiocarcinoma. We compared PDO response with the observed clinical response for donor patients to the same treatments.RESULTS We report an approximately 80% concordance rate between PDO and donor tumor response. Importantly, we found a profound influence of culture media on PDO phenotype, where we showed a significant difference in response to standard-of-care chemotherapies, distinct morphologies, and transcriptomes between media within the same PDO cultures.CONCLUSION While we demonstrate a high concordance rate between donor tumor and PDO, these studies also showed the important role of culture media when using PDOs to inform treatment selection and predict response across a spectrum of GI cancers.TRIAL REGISTRATION Not applicable.FUNDING The Joan F. & Richard A. Abdoo Family Fund in Colorectal Cancer Research, GI Cancer program of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, Mayo Clinic SPORE in Pancreatic Cancer, Center of Individualized Medicine (Mayo Clinic), Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology (Mayo Clinic), Incyte Pharmaceuticals and Mayo Clinic Hepatobiliary SPORE, University of Minnesota-Mayo Clinic Partnership, and the Early Therapeutic program (Department of Oncology, Mayo Clinic).
Authors
Tara L. Hogenson, Hao Xie, William J. Phillips, Merih D. Toruner, Jenny J. Li, Isaac P. Horn, Devin J. Kennedy, Luciana L. Almada, David L. Marks, Ryan M. Carr, Murat Toruner, Ashley N. Sigafoos, Amanda N. Koenig-Kappes, Rachel L.O. Olson, Ezequiel J. Tolosa, Cheng Zhang, Hu Li, Jason D. Doles, Jonathan Bleeker, Michael T. Barrett, James H. Boyum, Benjamin R. Kipp, Amit Mahipal, Joleen M. Hubbard, Temperance J. Scheffler Hanson, Gloria M. Petersen, Surendra Dasari, Ann L. Oberg, Mark J. Truty, Rondell P. Graham, Michael J. Levy, Mojun Zhu, Daniel D. Billadeau, Alex A. Adjei, Nelson Dusetti, Juan L. Iovanna, Tanios S. Bekaii-Saab, Wen Wee Ma, Martin E. Fernandez-Zapico
Usage data is cumulative from October 2022 through February 2023.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 7,110 | 30 |
| 1,296 | 3 | |
| Figure | 237 | 0 |
| Table | 40 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 303 | 3 |
| Citation downloads | 82 | 0 |
| Totals | 9,068 | 36 |
| Total Views | 9,104 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
