Primary debulking surgery before initiation of chemotherapy has been the standard of care for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. We randomly assigned patients with stage IIIC or IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma, fallopian-tube carcinoma, or primary peritoneal carcinoma to primary debulking surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy or to neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy followed by debulking surgery (so-called interval debulking surgery). Of the 670 patients randomly assigned to a study treatment, 632 (94.3%) were eligible and started the treatment. The majority of these patients had extensive stage IIIC or IV disease at primary debulking surgery (metastatic lesions that were larger than 5 cm in diameter in 74.5% of patients and larger than 10 cm in 61.6%). The largest residual tumor was 1 cm or less in diameter in 41.6% of patients after primary debulking and in 80.6% of patients after interval debulking. Postoperative rates of adverse effects and mortality tended to be higher after primary debulking than after interval debulking. The hazard ratio for death (intention-to-treat analysis) in the group assigned to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking, as compared with the group assigned to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy, was 0.98 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.13; P=0.01 for noninferiority), and the hazard ratio for progressive disease was 1.01 (90% CI, 0.89 to 1.15). Complete resection of all macroscopic disease (at primary or interval surgery) was the strongest independent variable in predicting overall survival. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery was not inferior to primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy as a treatment option for patients with bulky stage IIIC or IV ovarian carcinoma in this study. Complete resection of all macroscopic disease, whether performed as primary treatment or after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, remains the objective whenever cytoreductive surgery is performed. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003636.)

Recently, there has been an increasing interest in the development and characterization of patient-derived tumor xenograft (PDX) models for cancer research. PDX models mostly retain the principal histologic and genetic characteristics of their donor tumor and remain stable across passages. These models have been shown to be predictive of clinical outcomes and are being used for preclinical drug evaluation, biomarker identification, biologic studies, and personalized medicine strategies. This article summarizes the current state of the art in this field, including methodologic issues, available collections, practical applications, challenges and shortcomings, and future directions, and introduces a European consortium of PDX models. Significance: PDX models are increasingly used in translational cancer research. These models are useful for drug screening, biomarker development, and the preclinical evaluation of personalized medicine strategies. This review provides a timely overview of the key characteristics of PDX models and a detailed discussion of future directions in the field. Cancer Discov; 4(9); 998–1013. ©2014 AACR.

Patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) have emerged as an important platform to elucidate new treatments and biomarkers in oncology. PDX models are used to address clinically relevant questions, including the contribution of tumour heterogeneity to therapeutic responsiveness, the patterns of cancer evolutionary dynamics during tumour progression and under drug pressure, and the mechanisms of resistance to treatment. The ability of PDX models to predict clinical outcomes is being improved through mouse humanization strategies and the implementation of co-clinical trials, within which patients and PDXs reciprocally inform therapeutic decisions. This Opinion article discusses aspects of PDX modelling that are relevant to these questions and highlights the merits of shared PDX resources to advance cancer medicine from the perspective of EurOPDX, an international initiative devoted to PDX-based research.

The endometrium, which is of crucial importance for reproduction, undergoes dynamic cyclic tissue remodeling. Knowledge of its molecular and cellular regulation is poor, primarily owing to a lack of study models. Here, we have established a novel and promising organoid model from both mouse and human endometrium. Dissociated endometrial tissue, embedded in Matrigel under WNT-activating conditions, swiftly formed organoid structures that showed long-term expansion capacity, and reproduced the molecular and histological phenotype of the tissue's epithelium. The supplemented WNT level determined the type of mouse endometrial organoids obtained: high WNT yielded cystic organoids displaying a more differentiated phenotype than the dense organoids obtained in low WNT. The organoids phenocopied physiological responses of endometrial epithelium to hormones, including increased cell proliferation under estrogen and maturation upon progesterone. Moreover, the human endometrial organoids replicated the menstrual cycle under hormonal treatment at both the morpho-histological and molecular levels. Together, we established an organoid culture system for endometrium, reproducing tissue epithelium physiology and allowing long-term expansion. This novel model provides a powerful tool for studying mechanisms underlying the biology as well as the pathology of this key reproductive organ.

Purpose: The third-generation nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are increasingly used as adjuvant and first-line advanced therapy for postmenopausal, hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer. Because many patients subsequently experience progression or relapse, it is important to identify agents with efficacy after AI failure. Materials and Methods: Evaluation of Faslodex versus Exemestane Clinical Trial (EFECT) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, multicenter phase III trial of fulvestrant versus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR+ advanced breast cancer (ABC) progressing or recurring after nonsteroidal AI. The primary end point was time to progression (TTP). A fulvestrant loading-dose (LD) regimen was used: 500 mg intramuscularly on day 0, 250 mg on days 14, 28, and 250 mg every 28 days thereafter. Exemestane 25 mg orally was administered once daily. Results: A total of 693 women were randomly assigned to fulvestrant (n = 351) or exemestane (n = 342). Approximately 60% of patients had received at least two prior endocrine therapies. Median TTP was 3.7 months in both groups (hazard ratio = 0.963; 95% CI, 0.819 to 1.133; P = .6531). The overall response rate (7.4% v 6.7%; P = .736) and clinical benefit rate (32.2% v 31.5%; P = .853) were similar between fulvestrant and exemestane respectively. Median duration of clinical benefit was 9.3 and 8.3 months, respectively. Both treatments were well tolerated, with no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events or quality of life. Pharmacokinetic data confirm that steady-state was reached within 1 month with the LD schedule of fulvestrant. Conclusion: Fulvestrant LD and exemestane are equally active and well-tolerated in a meaningful proportion of postmenopausal women with ABC who have experienced progression or recurrence during treatment with a nonsteroidal AI.