Ce Yuan1, Xianda Zhao1, Dechen Wangmo1,2, Travis J. Gates1,2, and Subbaya Subramanian1,2,3 1Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA 2Department of Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA 3Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in the world and the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths in the United States (Siegel et al. 2018). Currently, over 1 in 3 people with CRC will not live past five‐year, and the standard‐of‐care chemotherapies were developed more than 50 years ago. With the promising prospect of immunotherapies in treating various cancers, it is imperative to properly select preclinical animal models to study tumor immune response to better understand the resistance mechanisms. The recent developments in cancer immunotherapy have been highly effective for a portion of CRC patients and have significantly improved the overall survival of these patients (Le et al. 2015). These immunotherapy‐responding patients represent approximately 15% of all CRC patients and are characterized as having deficiencies in the DNA mismatch repair pathways. Because of these deficiencies, tumors from these patients have higher levels of immune cell infiltration, which is a prerequisite for immunotherapy to be effective. Unfortunately, however, the other 85% of CRC patients still resort to older chemotherapy and targeted therapies. Recently, several studies using mouse models have found that intestinal bacteria are responsible for the effectiveness of immunotherapy in treating several types of cancers, including CRC (Gopalakrishnan et al. 2018; Matson et al. 2018; Routy et al. 2018; Sivan et al. 2015; Vétizou et al. 2015). While the microbiota discoveries opened up new opportunities in CRC research, they also added another layer of complexity. For these reasons, it is imperative to develop and use the appropriate mouse models to decipher the mechanisms of CRC and to evaluate novel treatment options that can benefit CRC patients. In this chapter, we discuss the use of orthotopic mouse models of CRC and imaging techniques that are used to assess tumor growth and immune response. We discuss the immunological characteristics, how they are used in studying human CRC, and their advantages and limitations. Orthotopic cancer models are now becoming popular for testing antitumor drug efficacy (Hackl et al. 2013; Day et al. 2015; Hoffman 1999). Compared with the subcutaneous tumors, the biggest advantage of the orthotopic model is that the tumors are grown at the “correct” anatomical site. Implantation of tumor cells into the organ of origin (orthotopic) allows disease‐specific interactions between tumor cells and surrounding stroma (Devaud et al. 2014). It has been shown that orthotopic tumors have different growth, differentiation, metastasis, and drug sensitivity compared with the subcutaneous tumors established by the same tumor cell line (Zhao et al. 2017; Hoffman 2015, 1999; Manzotti et al. 1993). In the past few decades, several orthotopic CRC models have been established and reported (Zhao et al. 2017; Fu et al. 1991; Rashidi et al. 2000; Hiroshima et al. 2014; Zhao et al. 2021; Westcott et al. 2021). However, due to the technical difficulty and a lack of consistency in the model establishment, only the surgical tumor implantation in the cecum and endoscopy‐guided intra‐colon wall tumor cell injection are well studied and used by different investigators. Establishing a surgical orthotopic CRC model is technically challenging because the colon in a mouse is a relatively deep organ with an extremely thin muscularis layer. Unlike the human cecum, which is only a very small portion of the large intestine, the cecum in a mouse represents up to one‐third of the large intestine (Figure 5.1a,b). The mouse cecum is a large, thinly walled, blind, and pouch‐shaped organ that connects the ileum and colon. Compared with the distant mouse colon, the dilated, pouch‐shaped cecum has a larger surface area and lower tension. The separable serosa layer of the cecum provides a relatively isolated space for tumor implantation. The dense network of capillaries on the surface of the cecum provides plenty of blood supply to support tumor growth. These features make the cecum an ideal space for implanting tumor tissues or inoculating tumor cells. For those reasons, this model is technically challenging for researchers who are not well versed in small animal surgery. Before the development of endoscopy‐guided intra‐colon wall tumor cell injection, the cecum model was almost the only widely used orthotopic CRC mouse model (Rajput et al. 2008; Céspedes et al. 2007; Lupu et al. 2006). In the labs that are not equipped with small animal endoscopy, the cecum model is still the first choice. Using a small animal endoscopy provides a more technically feasible and less invasive method to perform the orthotopic tumor cell injection as well as to perform post‐surgery monitoring and to obtain biopsies of the mouse colon (Figure 5.1c). In recent years, orthotopic injection of tumor cells into the colorectal wall by endoscopy has been standardized (Zhao et al. 2017, 2021; Westcott et al. 2021). The detailed procedures were reported in our previous publications (Zhao et al. 2017, 2021). By taking advantage of high‐resolution digital imaging, endoscopy provides an enlarged colorectal lumen image. A live feed through the endoscopic camera helps locate the best tumor cell injection site and guides the injection process to ensure successful injection. Based on our experience, with proper training and practice, an experienced researcher can achieve over 70% success rate in the orthotopic tumor cell injection. Comparison of the endoscopy‐guided intra‐colon wall tumor cell injection and surgical cecum tumor implantation reveals the specific features of each model. The cecum model has the largest area for implantation of tumor tissue chunks, which have the original tumor microenvironment. Meanwhile, because the cecum is a relatively isolated part of the intestine, partial resection of the cecum with a tumor is easy and does not require end‐to‐end anastomosis. Compared with the cecum model, the endoscopy‐guided intra‐colon wall tumor cell injection is a minimally invasive procedure that will not stimulate the regional and systemic immune response, which avoids the potential compounding effect of surgeries on antitumor immunity. However, successful orthotopic injection must place the tumor in between the mucosa and muscularis layers. Shallow implantation (closer to the mucosa) can cause the tumor cells to leak out into the lumen, while deep implantation (closer to the muscularis layer) can potentially perforate the colon and cause the animal to die. This model thus requires extensive training and practice. Different organs have diverse regional immunity and therefore will influence the antitumor immune responses. Our previous study has compared the antitumor immune response in orthotopic CRC models and subcutaneous CRC models (Zhao et al. 2017, 2021). To avoid the surgical effects on antitumor immunity, we performed the endoscopy‐guided intra‐colon wall tumor cells injection to establish an orthotopic tumor in the colon. The same mouse cell line was used to establish a subcutaneous model. We noticed that orthotopic tumors are more immunogenic than subcutaneous tumors. Specifically, more T‐cells, natural killer cells, and fewer myeloid‐derived suppressor cells are observed in orthotopic tumors than in subcutaneous tumors. The concentration of key cytokines, such as granzyme B, IL‐2, and interferon‐γ is higher in orthotopic tumors as well. Due to the different immunological features, the two models showed distinct sensitivity to immune checkpoints inhibitors. This study indicated that the orthotopic tumor models have different biological characters from subcutaneous models. For those reasons, we think the subcutaneous CRC model is more likely to mimic human diseases with poor immune cell infiltration, whereas the orthotopic model is more similar to human tumors with stronger basal immunity. The subcutaneous connective tissue is a relatively isolated compartment from the deep organs. CRC cell lines, both human‐ and mouse‐derived, are unlikely to form metastasis when injected into the subcutaneous tissue. However, when the same cell line is used to establish the cecum orthotopic model, extensive metastases are observed (Fu et al. 1991; Rashidi et al. 2000; Rajput et al. 2008; Céspedes et al. 2007). With tumor progression, the tumor‐draining lymph nodes become positive of tumor cells. The tumors that break through the barrier of the cecum wall can seed to the abdominal cavity and form extensive peritoneal metastasis. Metastases in the liver and spleen are also reported (Fu et al. 1991; Rashidi et al. 2000; Rajput et al. 2008; Céspedes et al. 2007). Human CRC treatment is largely dependent on the stage of the disease. Early‐stage diseases without metastases have a great chance to be cured by surgical resection. However, for advanced diseases with extensive metastases, the current treatments are very limited. The metastatic potential of cecum‐based CRC models, therefore, provides a powerful tool to study preclinical treatments for advanced CRC. The orthotopic CRC models provide a valuable platform to study cancer progression and tumor response to novel treatments. Placing the tumor in its native environment eliminates many variables, while also adding the proper microenvironment, including the microbiota for CRC. Situated in their native environment, the orthotopic tumors exhibit many similarities with human tumors, thus making this model more realistic to study human disease. However, as discussed earlier, this model is difficult to establish, requiring either specialized equipment (small animal endoscopy) or technical expertise in rodent surgery. The biological characteristics of orthotopic tumors are largely determined by the tumor implanted. Recent developments in tumor organoids provide another option for establishing orthotopic CRC models (Westcott et al. 2021; O’Rourke et al. 2017; Roper et al. 2017; Drost and Clevers 2018; Crespo et al. 2017). The implanted tumor organoids that are derived from spontaneous mouse CRC recruit a tumor microenvironment from the surrounding cecum or colon tissue and form tumors that mimic human cancer genomic, anatomic, and histological features (Westcott et al. 2021; O’Rourke et al. 2017; Roper et al. 2017; Drost and Clevers 2018; Crespo et al. 2017). The orthotopic implantation of tumor organoids is better for preclinical study than the germline genetic model since the implantation ensures that all mice in the same experiment have the same number and similar volume of tumors. Those advantages will make the organoid‐based orthotopic CRC model the most attractive and valuable model for future preclinical studies. Imaging techniques of mouse models of CRC are of great importance to assess tumor initiation, tumor size, locate metastases, and evaluate tumor response to the treatment. Models that generate tumors situated in the colon are difficult to assess in a live animal (Zigmond et al. 2011). Endoscopy and bioluminescent imaging (BLI) is the traditional and most common techniques used for preclinical imaging of mouse models. Other imaging techniques include optical imaging, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET), and ultrasound (US), and fluorescence imaging (FLI). The main advantage of these techniques is that they are considered noninvasive; thus, help evaluate the tumor parameters without killing the animal, which reduces the number of animals used for experiments (Prescher and Contag 2012). Based on the imaging technique used, the information gathered from the image can provide anatomical, molecular, or cellular insights (Prescher and Contag 2012). Due to the difficulty of obtaining all the needed information from one imaging method, several imaging methods can be combined (Lyons 2005
5
Orthotopic Mouse Models of Colorectal Cancer and Imaging Techniques
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Orthotopic Model
5.2.1 Model Establishment
5.2.2 Surgical Tumor Implantation in the Cecum
5.2.3 Endoscopy‐Guided Intra‐colon Wall Tumor Cell Injection
5.2.4 Immune Features
5.2.5 Metastasis Features
5.2.6 Advantages and Limitations
5.3 Imaging Techniques
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel