Translational pancreatic cancer research: A comparative study on patient-derived xenograft models

Table 1 Demographic characteristics and anatomopathological diagnosis

Code	Sex/Age (yr)	Localization	Surgery	Histology	T	N	M	Stage	Histological grade	Perineural invasion	Neoadjuvant therapy	Subcutaneous engraftment	Intraperitoneal engraftment	Pancreatic engraftment
H1	F/75	Ph	PC	DAC	4	X	1	IV	G2	NO	NO	NO	NO	YES
H2	F/77	Ph	PC	Periampullary adenocarcinoma	4	0	0	III	G2	YES	NO	YES	YES	YES
H3	M/57	Ph	PC	DAC	3	0	0	IIA	G2	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO
H4	F/71	Ph and periaortic node	PC	DAC	X	1	1	IV	G2	NO	YES	YES	NO	NO
											(nab + paclitaxel + gemcitabine)
H5	M/71	Ph	PC	DAC	3	1	0	IIB	G2	NO	NO	YES	NO	NO
H6	F/73	Ph	PC	DAC	3	1	0	IIB	G2	YES	NO	NO	NO	NO
H7	M/50	Ph	PC	DAC	3	0	0	IIA	G2	YES	NO	NO	NO	NO
H8	M/70	Ph	PC	Periampullary adenocarcinoma	3	1	0	IIB	G2	NO	NO	YES	YES	NO
H9	M/81	Pt	DP	DAC	3	0	0	IIA	G2	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO
H10	F/78	Ph	PC	DAC	3	1	0	IIB	G2	NO	NO	NO	NO	NO

TNM classification according to the 2010 American Joint Committee on Cancer classification for pancreatic cancer stratification[18]. Histological grade: G1, well differentiated; G2, moderately differentiated; G3, poorly differentiated. PC: Pancreatic cancer; Ph: Pancreas head; Pb: Pancreas body; Pt: Pancreas tail; PD: Pancreatoduodenectomy; DP: Distal pancreatectomy; DAC: Ductal adenocarcinoma.

Table 2 Impact of clinical characteristics on the engraftment of the first generation (F1) xenograft in mice n (%)

Variables	Number of patients	Number of F1 tumours produced	Impact of clinical characteristics on tumour take rate (P1 value)
Age (yr)
< 70	2	0 (0)	0.444
≥ 70	8	5 (62.5)
Gender
Male	5	2 (40)	0.999
Female	5	3 (60)
Histology
ADCP	9	3 (33.3)	0.180
Ampulloma	2	2 (100)
Differentiation
G1	0	0	<0.001
G2 + G3	10	5 (50)
Staging
≤ II (I or II)	7	2 (28.6)	0.160
> II (III or IV)	3	3 (100)
Tumour origin
Head	9	4 (50)	Not available
Tail	1	0 (0)
Body	0	0
Metastases	1	1 (100)
Perineural invasion
Yes	3	1 (33.3)	0.999
No	7	4 (57.1)
Lymph node metastasis
Yes	6	3 (50)	0.999
No	4	2 (50)
Distant metastases
Yes	2	1 (50)	0.999
No	8	4 (50)

¹Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher’s test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Table 3 Impact of histology on experimental models n (%)

	Human (n = 11)	Subcutaneous (n = 23)	Intraperitoneal (n = 17)	Pancreas (n = 16)	P1 value
Impact of differentiation
Differentiated	2 (18.2)	7 (30.4)	5 (29.4)	3 (18.8)	0.205
Moderately differentiated	8 (72.7)	7 (30.4)	4 (23.5)	8 (50)
Undifferentiated	1 (9.1)	9 (39.1)	8 (47.1)	5 (31.3)
Impact of fibrosis
Mild	4 (36.3)	12 (52.1)	6 (35.2)	6 (37.5)	0.044
Moderate	3 (27.2)	5 (21.7)	9 (52.9)	3 (18.8)
High	0 (0)	4 (17.3)	2 (11.7)	5 (31.3)
Very high	4 (36.3)	2 (8.6)	0 (0)	2 (12.5)

¹Statistical analyses were performed by the χ² exact test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Table 4 Impact of immunohistochemistry on experimental models n (%)

	Human (n = 11)	Subcutaneous (n = 23)	Intraperitoneal (n = 17)	Pancreas (n = 16)	P1 value
Impact of cell proliferation (Ki67)
Mild	4 (36.4)	13 (56.5)	10 (58.8)	8 (50)	0.650
High	7 (63.3)	10 (43.5)	7 (41.2)	8 (50)
Impact of fibrogenesis (α-SMA)
Mild	0 (0)	16 (69.6)	11 (64.7)	14 (87.5)	< 0.001
High	11 (100)	7 (30.4)	6 (35.3)	2 (12.5)
Impact of angiogenesis (CD31)
Mild	2 (18.2)	15 (65.2)	11 (64.7)	14 (87.5)	< 0.001
High	9 (81.8)	8 (34.8)	6 (35.3)	2 (12.5)
Impact of apoptosis (TUNEL)
Mild	3 (27.3)	16 (69.6)	14 (82.4)	15 (93.8)	< 0.001
High	8 (72.7)	7 (30.4)	3 (17.6)	1 (6.3)

¹Statistical analyses were performed by the χ² exact test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. The Bonferroni correction was applied for post hoc analysis. The impact of the immunohistochemistry was assessed by Ki67 expression (cell proliferation), α-SMA expression (fibrogenesis), CD31 expression (angiogenesis) and TUNEL expression (apoptosis).