If patient-derived xenograft orthotopic models are superior to patient-derived xenograft subcutaneous mouse models, why does the industry still rely so heavily on subcutaneous PDX models?

While PDX orthotopic models have gained prominence in basic and translational oncology research over the last decade, industry continues to rely heavily on subcutaneous PDX mouse models because they are easier to implant and tumors are readily accessible for manual caliper measurement.¹ However, manual measurement is inherently prone to variability and inconsistencies introduced by analyst technique and skill. That subjectivity can dramatically influence scientific conclusions.^{2 3}

At Certis, we believe the stakes of preclinical drug development warrant the most clinically relevant models and most precise measurements. That is why we champion the use of orthotopic PDX models for pivotal pharmacology studies and murine-scale MRI for tumor volume measurements.

1 Lai Y, Wei X, Lin S, Qin L, Cheng L, Li P. Current Status and Perspectives of Patient-Derived Xenograft Models in Cancer Research. J Hematol Oncol. 2017;10(1):106.
2 Kersemans V, Cornelissen B, Allen PD, Beech JS, Smart SC. Subcutaneous Tumor Volume Measurement in the Awake, Manually Restrained Mouse Using MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(6):1499-1504.
3 Ayers GD, McKinley ET, Zhao P, et al. Volume of Preclinical Xenograft Tumors is More Accurately Assessed by Ultrasound Imaging than Manual Caliper Measurements. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29(6):891-901.