Three-dimensional culture models: emerging platforms for screening the antitumoral efficacy of nanomedicines

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 71(3), 209–249 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2. Zhong S, Jeong JH, Chen Z et al. Targeting tumor microenvironment by small-molecule inhibitors. Transl. Oncol. 13(1), 57–69 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Yeini E, Ofek P, Albeck N et al. Targeting glioblastoma: advances in drug delivery and novel therapeutic approaches. Adv. Ther. 4, 2000124 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 4. Wu J. The enhanced permeability and retention (EPR) effect: the significance of the concept and methods to enhance its application. J. Pers. Med. 11(8), 771–778 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Francia V, Montizaan D, Salvati A. Interactions at the cell membrane and pathways of internalization of nano-sized materials for nanomedicine. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 11, 338–353 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Luiz MT, Delello Di Filippo L, Tofani LB et al. Highlights in targeted nanoparticles as a delivery strategy for glioma treatment. Int. J. Pharm. 604, 120758 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Ratemi E, Sultana Shaik A, Al Faraj A, Halwani R. Alternative approaches for the treatment of airway diseases: focus on nanoparticle medicine. Clin. Exp. Allergy 46(8), 1033–1042 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8. Bharti C, Gulati N, Nagaich U, Pal A. Mesoporous silica nanoparticles in target drug delivery system: a review. Int. J. Pharm. Investig. 5(3), 124 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9. Vega-Vásquez P, Mosier NS, Irudayaraj J. Nanoscale drug delivery systems: from medicine to agriculture. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 1–16 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Salehipour M, Rezaei S, Mosafer J et al. Recent advances in polymer-coated iron oxide nanoparticles as magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents. J. Nanoparticle Res. 23(2), 1–35 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 11. Bonilla AM, Gonzalez PH. Hybrid polymeric-magnetic nanoparticles in cancer treatments. Curr. Pharm. Des. 23(35), 5392–5402 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Milligan JJ, Saha S. A nanoparticle's journey to the tumor: strategies to overcome first-pass metabolism and their limitations. Cancers (Basel). 14(7), 1741–1757 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Roma-Rodrigues C, Rivas-García L, Baptista PV, Fernandes AR. Gene therapy in cancer treatment: why go nano? Pharmaceutics 12(3), 1–35 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 14. Bayón-Cordero L, Alkorta I, Arana L. Application of solid lipid nanoparticles to improve the efficiency of anticancer drugs. Nanomaterials 9(3), 474–494 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Pammolli F, Magazzini L, Riccaboni M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10(6), 428–438 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Amiri-Kordestani L, Pazdur R. Oncology approvals in 2020: a year of firsts in the midst of a pandemic. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 18(3), 129–130 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Basavaraj S, Betageri GV. Can formulation and drug delivery reduce attrition during drug discovery and development – review of feasibility, benefits and challenges. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 4(1), 3–17 (2014).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. Krüger A, Gonçalves Maltarollo V, Wrenger C, Kronenberger T. ADME profiling in drug discovery and a new path paved on silica. In: Drug Discovery and Development - New Advances. IntechOpen, London, UK (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 19. Fontoura JC, Viezzer C, dos Santos FG et al. Comparison of 2D and 3D cell culture models for cell growth, gene expression and drug resistance. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 107, 110264 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20. Junod SW. FDA and clinical drug trials: a short history, Food and Drug Administration, United States (2013). www.fda.gov
  Google Scholar
• 21. Shoemaker RH. The NCI60 human tumour cell line anticancer drug screen. Nat. Rev. Cancer 6(10), 813–823 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Barretina J, Caponigro G, Stransky N et al. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity. Nature 483(7391), 603–607 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Ghandi M, Huang FW, Jané-Valbuena J et al. Next-generation characterization of the cancer cell line encyclopedia. Nature 569(7757), 503–508 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Rustamov V, Keller F, Klicks J, Hafner M, Rudolf R. Bone sialoprotein shows enhanced expression in early, high-proliferation stages of three-dimensional spheroid cell cultures of breast cancer cell line MDA-MB-231. Front. Oncol. 9 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25. Fischbach C, Chen R, Matsumoto T et al. Engineering tumors with 3D scaffolds. Nat. Methods 4(10), 855–860 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Pampaloni F, Reynaud EG, Stelzer EHK. The third dimension bridges the gap between cell culture and live tissue. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 8(10), 839–845 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Duval K, Grover H, Han L-H et al. Modeling physiological events in 2D vs. 3D cell culture. Physiology 32(4), 266–277 (2017). • Provides an overview of traditional 2D and 3D cell culture models, as well as the challenges, differences, implications, advantages and limitations of each model.
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 28. Imamura Y, Mukohara T, Shimono Y et al. Comparison of 2D- and 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in breast cancer. Oncol. Rep. 33(4), 1837–1843 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Jensen C, Teng Y. Is it time to start transitioning from 2D to 3D cell culture? Front. Mol. Biosci. 7 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 30. Yakavets I, Francois A, Benoit A et al. Advanced co-culture 3D breast cancer model for investigation of fibrosis induced by external stimuli: optimization study. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 21273 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Carvalho S, Silveira MJ, Domingues M et al. Multicellular quadruple colorectal cancer spheroids as an in vitro tool for antiangiogenic potential evaluation of nanoparticles. Adv. Ther. 2200282, 1–11 (2023).
  Google Scholar
• 32. Melissaridou S, Wiechec E, Magan M et al. The effect of 2D and 3D cell cultures on treatment response, EMT profile and stem cell features in head and neck cancer. Cancer Cell Int. 19(1), 1–10 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 33. Goswami S, Sahai E, Wyckoff JB et al. Erratum: macrophages promote the invasion of breast carcinoma cells via a colony-stimulating factor-1/epidermal growth factor paracrine loop. Cancer Res. 65(15), 7031 (2005).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Xin X, Yang H, Zhang F, Yang ST. 3D cell coculture tumor model: a promising approach for future cancer drug discovery. Process Biochem. 78, 148–160 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 35. Lis R, Touboul C, Mirshahi P et al. Tumor associated mesenchymal stem cells protects ovarian cancer cells from hyperthermia through CXCL12. Int. J. Cancer 128(3), 715–725 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36. Huang B, Gao J. Application of 3D cultured multicellular spheroid tumor models in tumor-targeted drug delivery system research. J. Control. Rel. 270, 246–259 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37. Cheng J, Li L, Liu Y et al. Interleukin-1α induces immunosuppression by mesenchymal stem cells promoting the growth of prostate cancer cells. Mol. Med. Rep. 6(5), 955–960 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Costa EC, Moreira AF, de Melo-Diogo D et al. 3D tumor spheroids: an overview on the tools and techniques used for their analysis. Biotechnol. Adv. 34(8), 1427–1441 (2016).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39. Gunti S, Hoke ATK, Vu KP, London NR. Organoid and spheroid tumor models: techniques and applications. Cancers (Basel) 13(4), 1–18 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 40. Alzeeb G, Metges JP, Corcos L, Le Jossic-Corcos C. Three-dimensional culture systems in gastric cancer research. Cancers (Basel) 12(10), 1–20 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 41. Souza AG, Silva IBB, Campos-Fernandez E et al. Comparative assay of 2D and 3D cell culture models: proliferation, gene expression and anticancer drug response. Curr. Pharm. Des. 24(15), 1689–1694 (2018). •• A comparative study between 2D and 3D cell culture to determine the most suitable model for preclinical in vitro drug testing. Evaluates the proliferation, genetic expression and chemoresistance of prostate tumor cell lines, PC-3, LNCaP and DU145 after treatment with antineoplastic drugs (paclitaxel and docetaxel), demonstrating the similar behavior of the 3D cell culture models tested with in vivo systems and their promising use as a more reliable tool for drug development.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Luiz MT, Viegas JSR, Abriata JP et al. Docetaxel-loaded folate-modified TPGS-transfersomes for glioblastoma multiforme treatment. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 124, 112033 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Chen X, Yuan M, Zhang Q et al. Synergistic combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel delivered by blood brain barrier and glioma cells dual targeting liposomes for chemotherapy of brain glioma. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 17(7), 636–650 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 44. Arora D, Bhunia BK, Janani G, Mandal BB. Bioactive three-dimensional silk composite in vitro tumoroid model for high throughput screening of anticancer drugs. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 589, 438–452 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Ferreira LP, Gaspar VM, Monteiro MV et al. Screening of dual chemo-photothermal cellular nanotherapies in organotypic breast cancer 3D spheroids. J. Control. Rel. 331, 85–102 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46. Miranda MA, Silva LB, Carvalho IPS et al. Targeted uptake of folic acid-functionalized polymeric nanoparticles loading glycoalkaloidic extract in vitro and in vivo assays. Colloids Surfaces B Biointerfaces 192, 111106 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47. Oner E, Kotmakci M, Baird AM et al. Development of EphA2 siRNA-loaded lipid nanoparticles and combination with a small‐molecule histone demethylase inhibitor in prostate cancer cells and tumor spheroids. J. Nanobiotechnol. 19, 71 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48. Amaral RLF, Miranda M, Marcato PD, Swiech K. Comparative analysis of 3D bladder tumor spheroids obtained by forced floating and hanging drop methods for drug screening. Front. Physiol. 22, 8 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 49. Ware MJ, Colbert K, Keshishian V et al. Generation of homogenous three-dimensional pancreatic cancer cell spheroids using an improved hanging drop technique. Tissue Eng. C Methods 22(4), 312–321 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50. Badea MA, Balas M, Dinischiotu A. Biological properties and development of hypoxia in a breast cancer 3D model generated by hanging drop technique. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 80(1), 63–73 (2021).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 51. Cavo M, Delle Cave D, D'Amone E et al. A synergic approach to enhance long-term culture and manipulation of MiaPaCa-2 pancreatic cancer spheroids. Sci. Rep. 10(1), 1–11 (2020).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 52. Yakavets I, Yankovsky I, Millard M et al. The alteration of temoporfin distribution in multicellular tumor spheroids by β-cyclodextrins. Int. J. Pharm. 529(1–2), 568–575 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53. Santos JM, Camões SP, Filipe E et al. Three-dimensional spheroid cell culture of umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells leads to enhanced paracrine induction of wound healing. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 6(1), 1–19 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 54. Türker E, Demirçak N, Arslan-Yildiz A. Scaffold-free three-dimensional cell culturing using magnetic levitation. Biomater. Sci. 6(7), 1745–1753 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 55. Rijal G, Bathula C, Li W. Application of synthetic polymeric scaffolds in breast cancer 3D tissue cultures and animal tumor models. Int. J. Biomater. 2017, 1-9 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 56. Miranda MA, Marcato PD, Mondal A et al. Cytotoxic and chemosensitizing effects of glycoalkaloidic extract on 2D and 3D models using RT4 and patient derived xenografts bladder cancer cells. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 119, 111460 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57. Jia W, Jiang X, Liu W et al. Effects of three-dimensional collagen scaffolds on the expression profiles and biological functions of glioma cells. Int. J. Oncol. 52(6), 1787–1800 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 58. Herreros-Pomares A, Zhou X, Calabuig-Fariñas S et al. 3D printing novel in vitro cancer cell culture model systems for lung cancer stem cell study. Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 122, 111914 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 59. Khot MI, Perry SL, Maisey T et al. Inhibiting ABCG2 could potentially enhance the efficacy of hypericin-mediated photodynamic therapy in spheroidal cell models of colorectal cancer. Photodiagnosis Photodyn. Ther. 23, 221–229 (2018).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60. Berger Fridman I, Ugolini GS, Vandelinder V et al. High throughput microfluidic system with multiple oxygen levels for the study of hypoxia in tumor spheroids. Biofabrication 13, 0350 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 61. Liu W, Liu D, Hu R et al. An integrated microfluidic 3D tumor system for parallel and high-throughput chemotherapy evaluation. Analyst 145(20), 6447–6455 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62. Lazzari G, Couvreur P, Mura S. Multicellular tumor spheroids: a relevant 3D model for the: in vitro preclinical investigation of polymer nanomedicines. Polym. Chem. 8(34), 4947–4969 (2017).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 63. Kamatar A, Gunay G, Acar H. Natural and synthetic biomaterials for engineering multicellular tumor spheroids. Polymers (Basel) 12(11), 1–23 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 64. Wang A, Madden LA, Paunov VN. Advanced biomedical applications based on emerging 3D cell culturing platforms. J. Mater. Chem. B 8(46), 10487–10501 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 65. Pinto B, Henriques AC, Silva PMA, Bousbaa H. Three-dimensional spheroids as in vitro preclinical models for cancer research. Pharmaceutics 12, 1186 (2020). • A comprehensive overview of 3D tumor systems and how they can be obtained, focusing in their applicability in cancer field as tool to evaluation of therapeutic nanomedicine. Provides important features about the 3D culture cancer cells can better replicate the in vivo tumor environment and how these cultures are emerging as preclinical anticancer screening and accurate low-cost cancer models for preclinical drug screening.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66. Shen H, Cai S, Wu C et al. Recent advances in three-dimensional multicellular spheroid culture and future development. Micromachines 12(1), 1–21 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 67. Mohammad-Hadi L, MacRobert AJ, Loizidou M, Yaghini E. Photodynamic therapy in 3D cancer models and the utilisation of nanodelivery systems. Nanoscale 10(4), 1570–1581 (2018). •• The review presents recent advances of use 3D model as tool to evaluate photodynamic therapy and nanodelivery systems as cancer therapy.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68. Saydé T, Hamoui O El, Alies B et al. Biomaterials for three-dimensional cell culture: from applications in oncology to nanotechnology. Nanomaterials 11(2), 1–29 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 69. Tomás-Bort E, Kieler M, Sharma S et al. 3D approaches to model the tumor microenvironment of pancreatic cancer. Theranostics 10(11), 5074–5089 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 70. Van Zundert I, Fortuni B, Rocha S. From 2D to 3D cancer cell models – the enigmas of drug delivery research. Nanomaterials 10(11), 1–30 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 71. Pitingolo G, Nizard P, Riaud A, Taly V. Beyond the on/off chip trade-off: a reversibly sealed microfluidic platform for 3D tumor microtissue analysis. Sensors Actuators B Chem. 274, 393–401 (2018).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 72. Shang M, Soon RH, Lim CT et al. Microfluidic modelling of the tumor microenvironment for anti-cancer drug development. Lab Chip 19(3), 369–386 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 73. Feiner-Gracia N, Glinkowska Mares A, Buzhor M et al. Real-time ratiometric imaging of micelles assembly state in a microfluidic cancer-on-a-chip. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 4(1), 669–681 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 74. Agarwal P, Wang H, Sun M et al. Microfluidics enabled bottom-up engineering of 3D vascularized tumor for drug discovery. ACS Nano 11(7), 6691–6702 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75. Bidan N, Lores S, Vanhecke A et al. Before in vivo studies: in vitro screening of sphingomyelin nanosystems using a relevant 3D multicellular pancreatic tumor spheroid model. Int. J. Pharm. 617, 121577 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 76. Heinrich MA, Mostafa AMRH, Morton JP et al. Translating complexity and heterogeneity of pancreatic tumor: 3D in vitro to in vivo models. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 174, 265–293 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77. Vaidya B, Parvathaneni V, Kulkarni NS et al. Cyclodextrin modified erlotinib loaded PLGA nanoparticles for improved therapeutic efficacy against non-small-cell lung cancer. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 122, 338–347 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 78. Yu Q, Tang X, Zhao W et al. Mild hyperthermia promotes immune checkpoint blockade-based immunotherapy against metastatic pancreatic cancer using size-adjustable nanoparticles. Acta Biomater. 133, 244–256 (2021).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 79. Abdolahinia ED, Nadri S, Rahbarghazi R et al. Enhanced penetration and cytotoxicity of metformin and collagenase conjugated gold nanoparticles in breast cancer spheroids. Life Sci. 231, 116545 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 80. Dhanwal V, Katoch A, Singh A et al. Self-assembled organic nanoparticles of benzimidazole analogue exhibit enhanced uptake in 3D tumor spheroids and oxidative stress induced cytotoxicity in breast cancer. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 97, 467–478 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81. Rozhina E, Batasheva S, Gomzikova M et al. Multicellular spheroids formation: the synergistic effects of halloysite nanoclay and cationic magnetic nanoparticles. Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp. 565, 16–24 (2019).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 82. Stocke NA, Sethi P, Jyoti A et al. Toxicity evaluation of magnetic hyperthermia induced by remote actuation of magnetic nanoparticles in 3D micrometastasic tumor tissue analogs for triple negative breast cancer. Biomaterials 120, 115–125 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 83. Evans JC, Malhotra M, Sweeney K et al. Folate-targeted amphiphilic cyclodextrin nanoparticles incorporating a fusogenic peptide deliver therapeutic siRNA and inhibit the invasive capacity of 3D prostate cancer tumours. Int. J. Pharm. 532(1), 511–518 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 84. Fitzgerald KA, Guo J, Raftery RM et al. Nanoparticle-mediated siRNA delivery assessed in a 3D co-culture model simulating prostate cancer bone metastasis. Int. J. Pharm. 511(2), 1058–1069 (2016).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 85. Elberskirch L, Knoll T, Königsmark R et al. Microfluidic 3D intestine tumor spheroid model for efficient in vitro investigation of nanoparticular formulations. J. Food Compos. Anal. 63, 103307 (2019). • The authors generated a combination of static and microfluidic chip 3D culture to mimic the 3D gastrointestinal tract to evaluate and characterize the muco-adhering and muco-permeating properties of nanoparticles with surface modification muco-adhesive proved by Carbopol® or the muco-permeating Pluronic® F127.
  Google Scholar