Article:Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: genes, therapies and models. (5894937)

From ScienceSource
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is the ScienceSource HTML version of the scholarly article described at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q52625303. Its title is Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: genes, therapies and models. and the publication date was 2018-02-26. The initial author is Kenta Kawasaki.

Fuller metadata can be found in the Wikidata link, which lists all authors, and may have detailed items for some or all of them. There is further information on the article in the footer below. This page is a reference version, and is protected against editing.



Converted JATS paper:

Journal Information

Title: Disease Models & Mechanisms

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: genes, therapies and models

  • Kenta Kawasaki
  • Masayuki Fujii
  • Toshiro Sato

[1]Department of Gastroenterology

[2]Department of Surgical Oncology

Publication date (ppub): 2/2018

Publication date (pmc-release): 2/2018

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) refer to a group of heterogeneous cancers of neuroendocrine cell phenotype that mainly fall into one of two subtypes: gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs; well differentiated) or gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (GEP-NECs; poorly differentiated). Although originally defined as orphan cancers, their steadily increasing incidence highlights the need to better understand their etiology. Accumulating epidemiological and clinical data have shed light on the pathological characteristics of these diseases. However, the relatively low number of patients has hampered conducting large-scale clinical trials and hence the development of novel treatment strategies. To overcome this limitation, tractable disease models that faithfully reflect clinical features of these diseases are needed. In this Review, we summarize the current understanding of the genetics and biology of these diseases based on conventional disease models, such as genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs) and cell lines, and discuss the phenotypic differences between the models and affected humans. We also highlight the emerging disease models derived from human clinical samples, including patient-derived xenograft models and organoids, which may provide biological and therapeutic insights into GEP-NENs.

Precis

Summary: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms have been an understudied entity with limited treatment options. We discuss the disease models, including emerging organoids, that may provide biological and therapeutic insight into these diseases.

Paper

Introduction

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) were originally identified as rare diseases occurring in the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas and displaying distinctive histopathological features from those of conventional gastroenteropancreatic epithelial cancers ([13]). Unlike the more common gastroenteropancreatic cancers characterized by gland-forming carcinomas, GEP-NENs are characterized by the loss of epithelial tubular gland structures, and by their diffuse expression of neuroendocrine markers (see Box 1 for a glossary of terms). GEP-NENs are broadly classified into two histopathological subtypes: gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) and gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (GEP-NECs) (Table 1) ([13]; [71]).

Box 1. Glossary

Chronic atrophic gastritis: chronic inflammation of the gastric mucosa usually associated with a persistent Helicobacter pylori infection.

Complete response (CR): the state of a patient whose cancer disappears because of the treatment.

Gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma: gastrointestinal-derived malignant tumor of differentiated, mucus-secreting glands.

Hypergastrinemia: elevated levels of the digestive hormone gastrin, which induces gastric acid secretion (gastrin is released by G cells in the antrum of the stomach).

Median survival: the length of time from either the date of diagnosis or the start of treatment for a disease to when half of the patients are still alive.

Neuroendocrine marker: an immunoreactive marker indicating the neuroendocrine differentiation of a tissue. Chromogranin A, synaptophysin and CD56 are used as neuroendocrine markers for GEP-NENs. Chromogranin A is a neuroendocrine secretory protein, synaptophysin is a synaptic vesicle glycoprotein present in neuroendocrine cells and CD56 is a neural cell adhesion molecule.

Refractory: recurrence of disease after treatment.

Resectable: a tumor or lesion that can be treated surgically, often because it is localized.

Response rate (RR): percentage of patients whose cancer shrinks or disappears because of treatment.

Unresectable: a tumor or lesion that cannot be removed surgically, as in the case of metastatic cancer.

Table 1.

Characteristics of GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs

The annual worldwide incidence of GEP-NENs has increased, with a fivefold increase over the past 30 years in the United States – from 1.09 to 5.25 cases per 100,000 persons – possibly due to improvements in endoscopic cancer screening ([140]; [65]). This increase in the incidence of GEP-NENs has resulted in greater attention being paid to these diseases ([140]; [78]). GEP-NENs originate from various different gastrointestinal tissues, including the stomach, duodenum, jejunum/ileum, pancreas, colon and rectum ([140]). The global incidence of GEP-NENs in each organ is comparable, with 0.3–0.6 cases of GEP-NETs per 100,000 persons and 0.04–0.14 cases of GEP-NECs per 100,000 persons ([140]; [65]).

GEP-NETs are characterized by slow proliferation and initially occur as a localized disease. But treatment delays can result in the tumor's metastatic progression and death ([140]). GEP-NETs are usually asymptomatic until they metastasize, but tumor subtypes producing specific hormones such as insulin (termed insulinoma) and glucagon (termed glucagonoma) often present with hormone-associated symptoms during the localized stages of disease. In contrast, GEP-NECs often progress rapidly and are accompanied by multiple synchronous distant metastases upon diagnosis, leading to a poor prognosis, with patients having only one-sixth of the overall survival rate of those with GEP-NETs ([140]). Radical surgical treatments, including metastasectomy (resection of the metastasis), have been found to improve the prognosis of patients with resectable (Box 1) GEP-NETs, but not that of GEP-NEC patients ([54]). Although several molecular targeted therapies for GEP-NETs and cytotoxic chemotherapies for GEP-NECs have been introduced as standard treatments, the 5-year overall survival of patients with unresectable (Box 1) GEP-NENs has not improved and the treatment options remain limited ([140]).

Disease models are often used to gain new insights into the etiology and biology of human neoplasms and to develop novel treatments. These models include genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), cell lines and patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. However, despite recent efforts, the establishment and application of GEP-NEN disease models have been limited, primarily due to the relatively small number of individuals affected by GEP-NENs. Considering the recent rise in incidence and the poor prognosis of these diseases, it is important to develop GEP-NEN disease models that more accurately reflect the biology of human GEP-NEN tissues in terms of diagnostic criteria and genetic alterations.

In this Review, we provide an overview of the hallmark clinical features, diagnostic criteria, genetic background and currently available models of GEP-NENs. We also highlight the extent to which these models recapitulate human tumor biology and the major insights that have been gleaned from recent studies. We further discuss how emerging organoid models could provide a useful new platform for GEP-NEN disease modeling.

Diagnostic criteria for GEP-NENs

As mentioned, GEP-NENs are largely divided into GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs, according to the classification criteria defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) ([13]; [71]). A GEP-NENs diagnosis is based on the loss of epithelial tubular gland structures, the diffuse expression of neuroendocrine markers (particularly of chromogranin A, synaptophysin and CD56) and the proliferative cell rate, as represented by the Ki67 index and the mitotic count ([13]; [71]). Ki67 is a marker of proliferating cells and, through this index, GEP-NENs are sub-classified into three groups according to the 2010 WHO classification ([13]): NET G1, NET G2 and NEC. NET G1 cells are well-differentiated and have a Ki67 index of <2 and a mitotic count of <2 per 10 high-power fields (HPF). This indicates that less than 2 proliferative cells are observed in 10 HPF. NET G2 cells have a Ki67 index of 3–20% and a mitotic count of 2–20 per 10 HPF. Poorly differentiated GEP-NECs are defined as NEC. These cells have a Ki67 index of >20% and a mitotic count of >20 per 10 HPF. Recently, a patient population that does not fit into the classification of typical GEP-NECs was reported ([115]) and, accordingly, the WHO classification of pancreatic NENs has been updated. In this revision, pancreatic NECs in the former classification have been divided into two disease subsets on the basis of the Ki67 index and histological morphology. These subsets are called pancreatic NET G3 and pancreatic NEC G3 ([71]). Pancreatic NET G3 has a Ki67 index ranging from 20 to 55% with well-differentiated morphology, and patients have a significantly longer survival time compared to individuals affected by typical pancreatic NECs ([115]). Pancreatic NEC G3 has a Ki67 index >55% with poorly-differentiated morphology, and is characterized by a poor prognosis.

The use of the Ki67 index as a disease marker, however, requires caution since it might not reflect the biology and the heterogeneity of the disease. The Ki67 index is highly influenced by the surrounding tumor microenvironment and by therapeutic interventions. Thus, it might reflect these biasing factors rather than the intrinsic properties of the tumor cells ([115]; [113]). Even in the same patient, metastatic tumors tend to have a higher Ki67 index than do primary tumor cells ([50]; [26]). To overcome these limitations of the Ki67 index, genetic abnormalities of GEP-NENs have been introduced into the revised WHO classification, which we discuss in the next section ([71]). Currently, these classification changes are limited to pancreatic NENs; their application to gastrointestinal NENs remains to be established.

Genetics of GEP-NENs

Revealing the mutational landscape of GEP-NENs is important for deepening our understanding of the biology of these diseases. Among recent insights, several mutations in cell-cycle-related genes have been discovered in GEP-NENs through advances in targeted gene sequencing.

Genetically, GEP-NETs can be categorized as being familial in origin (where individuals inherit a predisposing mutation) or sporadic (where an inherited susceptibility allele is not found). To date, at least four familial GEP-NET syndromes have been reported: multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1), tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), Von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) and neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) ([23]). MEN1 is an autosomal dominant syndrome, the most common among the four, and causes pancreatic NETs through an inactivating mutation in MEN1, which encodes menin ([56]). The function of menin is unknown, but the loss of this protein causes cell cycle progression through the downregulation of CDKN2C and CDKN1B, which both negatively regulate the cell cycle ([59]). TSC is caused by mutations in TSC1 and TSC2, which encode the proteins tuberous sclerosis complex 1 and 2, respectively. These mutations cause defects in the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)–AKT pathway, which also regulates the cell cycle ([106]). VHL is caused by loss-of-function mutations in the VHL tumor suppressor gene. And, NF1 is caused by loss-of-function mutations in NF1, which encodes neurofibromin, a protein that functions as a tumor suppressor through repressing the RAS pathway ([95]). Recently, two novel familial NETs have been reported. One is characterized by loss-of-function mutations in ATP4A, which encodes a proton pump ([14]), and the other is characterized by loss-of-function mutations in IPMK, which encodes a member of the inositol phosphokinase family involved in regulation of p53-mediated apoptosis ([108]).

The genetic mutations found in sporadic GEP-NETs also alter cell cycle regulatory pathways, with the most common mutations occurring in MEN1 ([105]). Recent genetic mutation analyses have also uncovered recurrent mutations in CDKN1B, which encodes a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, and in genes that negatively regulate the mTOR–AKT pathway, including in DEPDC5 (encoding a suppressor of the mTOR–AKT pathway, GATOR1 complex), PTEN (encoding a tumor suppressor, phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate 3-phosphatase), TSC1 and TSC2 ([56]; [4]; [34]; [105]). Mutations in cell cycle regulatory pathway genes are also found in GEP-NECs; specifically, recurrent mutations in TP53, which encodes p53, a transcription factor and regulator of apoptosis ([110]), and in RB (retinoblastoma), which encodes a key tumor suppressor that regulates the cell cycle ([134]). In contrast to GEP-NETs, for which only 3% of tumor samples present with TP53 mutations, GEP-NECs harbor TP53 mutations in 90–95% of cases ([37]; [136]). Additionally, RB mutations occur in 60–75% of all GEP-NECs ([94]).

These data suggest that cell cycle dysfunction is the fundamental cause of GEP-NENs, and that the differences in the clinical features and malignancy of these neoplasms arise from their different pathway mutations; mTOR pathway mutations in GEP-NETs, and TP53 and RB pathway mutations in GEP-NECs. The high incidence of TP53 and RB mutations in GEP-NECs could provide a more accurate means of differentiating GEP-NETs from GEP-NECs, as reflected in the recently revised WHO classification for pancreatic NENs ([71]). In this new classification, pancreatic NET G3s have a high Ki67 index (which is indicative of a pancreatic NEC) but do not have TP53 or RB mutations. Further biological investigations are warranted to clarify how other genetic mutations distinguish GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs by affecting their distinct clinical behavior, in order to optimize the diagnostic and treatment strategies for these diseases.

Current treatment strategies for GEP-NENs

Treatment strategies for GEP-NENs are largely divided according to whether tumors are resectable or unresectable. For resectable disease, the main treatment strategy is surgery. For unresectable disease, prognosis and treatment strategies will depend on whether the disease is classified as being GEP-NETs or GEP-NECs, based on the Ki67 index.

Treating GEP-NETs

The systemic administration of several different drugs, such as streptozocin, somatostatin analogs (such as octreotide and lanreotide), peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), everolimus and sunitinib, has been reported to improve the survival of patients with unresectable GEP-NETs ([81]; [100]; [16]; [119]; [141], [142]; [96]). Streptozocin is a classic cytotoxic agent that shows islet-cell-specific toxicity in rodent models ([7]). It is selectively transported into pancreatic islet cells via GLUT2 transporters and it has been used since the 1980s to treat islet-cell tumors (such as GEP-NETs, according to the WHO classification) ([81]). Somatostatin analogs mimic endogenous somatostatin and bind with high affinity to somatostatin receptor 2, which mediates anti-proliferative signals via the MAPK/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) pathway; as such, somatostatin analogs have been used to control and mitigate symptoms associated with GEP-NETs ([121]). In a further development, somatostatin analogs have been radiolabeled with lutetium-177 (177Lu–Dotatate) – a treatment strategy called PRRT ([119]). This targeted radiotherapy delivers radionuclides to all tumor cells expressing somatostatin receptors. Everolimus is an mTOR inhibitor targeting mTOR–AKT pathway signals, which are constitutively active as a result of the genetic mutations previously discussed ([105]). Sunitinib is a multi-target receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Its targets include the platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) and the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), which both contribute to tumor cell proliferation via angiogenesis ([20]).

The response rates (RRs; Box 1) for these treatments are below 30%, highlighting the considerable need for the development of biomarkers for these tumors to achieve improved drug response ([98]).

Treating GEP-NECs

The setting up of clinical trials to improve the therapeutic strategies available for patients with GEP-NECs is hampered by the low number of patients with this disease. Nevertheless, GEP-NECs have been treated using the treatment guidelines developed for small-cell lung cancer based on the histological similarities between these cancers. These strategies include using a combination chemotherapy regimen consisting of cisplatin or carboplatin with etoposide or irinotecan ([118]). In several studies, this combination has shown a good RR of 40–60%. But, eventually, most cases become refractory (Box 1), and the median survival (Box 1) of these GEP-NEC patients is only 15–19 months ([82]; [76]). Furthermore, no evidence-based second-line chemotherapy has been established, and the reported RR of second-line therapies, such as topotecan, temozolomide, paclitaxel, docetaxel, vinorelbine and gemcitabine, are low at approximately 0–20% ([118]; [54]; [132]; [133]). GEP-NECs are more radiosensitive than are GEP-NETs due to their vigorous proliferation ([18]), but the efficacy of the radiation therapy is low, with little potential for a complete response (CR; Box 1) due to refractory disease. The development of novel treatment strategies, through the identification of suitable biomarkers that have been validated in preclinical disease models, is required to achieve better patient outcomes. The current preclinical disease models are discussed in the next section.

Current disease models of GEP-NENs

Establishing experimental models that recapitulate GEP-NENs is important to increase our understanding of the biology of these diseases and to develop novel targeted therapies to treat them. Several disease models of GEP-NENs have been reported, and have contributed to drug development of the current standard of care. However, these disease models are limited by their insufficiency to recapitulate the genetic mutations and diagnostic features of the human neoplasms. An appropriate preclinical disease model would be one that mimics the genetic alterations that feature in GEP-NENs and fulfills the diagnostic criteria that can be applied for GEP-NEN drug screening and development. Here, we provide an overview of the current disease models for GEP-NENs, including emerging organoid models, and highlight their advantages and limitations, and some of the insights that have been gained from their characterization (Table 2). Table 2.

Advantages and limitations of disease models

Genetically engineered mouse models

GEMMs are a key tool in cancer research as they enable tumors to be evaluated in the presence of an intact immune system, and allow the causal relationship between genetic mutations and phenotypes to be explored. GEMMs can also be used in a variety of ways, such as for drug target validation and for testing novel therapies, for biomarker discovery, and for evaluating treatment toxicity ([109]).

GEMMs for GEP-NETs include genetic knockout models and simian virus 40 (SV40)-large T antigen (Tag)-based transgenic models. Genetic knockout models have been generated by engineering germline mutations in mouse strains (Table 3). Whereas the homozygous knockout of Men1 causes embryonic lethality at E11.5–E12.5, Men1 heterozygous knockout mice develop tumors in multiple organs and develop certain features found in patients with MEN1 ([21]). GEMMs that carry an Atp4a mutation that has been found in patients with familial gastric NETs recapitulate hypergastrinemia (Box 1) and develop gastric NETs ([15]; [122]). The tumors in Men1 and Atp4a knockout mouse models display a Ki67 index of less than 20% and fulfill the histopathological criteria for GEP-NETs, underscoring their suitability for modeling GEP-NETs ([111]; [15]). But these genetic knockout models have been mainly characterized and validated to study the causal relationship between genetic mutations and phenotypes rather than to screen novel therapeutic options, based on their characteristics as hereditary diseases. Table 3.

GEMMs of GEP-NENs

The rat insulin promoter (RIP)-Tag mouse model is a representative model for SV40-Tag-based transgenic models, in which the RIP drives the expression of Tag specifically in islet cells, and β-cells become highly proliferative in response to SV40-Tag expression ([47]). The RIP-Tag mouse has been widely used as a model for GEP-NETs (particularly of the insulinoma tumor subtype) and has been used to evaluate the therapeutic potential of everolimus and sunitinib ([17]). The promising preclinical results obtained were subsequently validated in human clinical trials ([142]; [96]). Although Tag-based transgenic models have also been generated to recapitulate other GEP-NETs, such as glucagonoma (in the preproglucagon promoter-driven Tag mouse) and colonic NET (using the same Tag model strategy) ([28]; [2]), they have not been used as much as the RIP-Tag model to evaluate drug responses (Table 3).

GEMMs for GEP-NECs are scarce, probably due to the lack of biological understanding of the disease; additionally, efforts have focused on modeling neuroendocrine cancers in other organs, such as the models for small-cell lung cancer and prostate neuroendocrine cancer. Comprehensive genomic sequencing of small-cell lung cancer has identified recurrent loss-of-function mutations in TP53 and RB1 ([42]). GEMMs harboring these same mutations recapitulate the histological traits of small-cell lung cancer ([75]). Genetic mutations in TP53 and RB1 have also been found in prostate neuroendocrine cancer. Recently, the development of murine prostate neuroendocrine cancer that closely resembles human prostate neuroendocrine cancer was reported in TP53 and RB1 knockout GEMMs ([67]; [85]). This model has allowed the study of how therapeutic resistance develops in prostate cancer through lineage plasticity with TP53 and RB1 mutations, and overexpression of SOX2 and EZH2. Just as in human patients undergoing androgen therapy, these mutations reproduced the phenotypic changes observed in sequential periods where androgen-receptor-dependent luminal cells seem to turn into androgen-receptor-independent basal cells. This phenomenon might reflect an adaptive response to treatment, through biological selective pressure. Although this might be different in the development of GEP-NECs, this observation gives us an important insight into the progression of the disease ([97]). Interestingly, Parisi et al. have reported that TP53 and RB1 knockout mice develop not only prostate and female reproductive tract neuroendocrine cancers, but also conventional colon adenocarcinoma instead of colon NECs ([89]). Other knockout mouse models of TP53 and RB1 have not been evaluated as disease models of GEP-NECs with respect to their expression of neuroendocrine markers and Ki67 index; as such, the extent to which these models resemble these human neoplasms remains unknown ([48]; [43]). Although difficult to conclude given the limited number of reports, it remains possible that additional factors, other than the TP53 and RB1 mutations, might be needed to recapitulate the features of GEP-NECs.

Aside from the obvious biological differences between mice and humans, GEMMs present other limitations, such as the latency in tumor development and growth. In addition, most GEP-NETs are not familial, and it remains to be confirmed whether the findings obtained from GEMMs that harbor germline mutations can be generalized to sporadic GEP-NETs. For the SV40-Tag-based transgenic model, it should also be noted that this model might not reconstitute the precise biology of GEP-NETs. Although the validity of the RIP-Tag mouse model has been supported by clinical response, a recent report has revealed that a fraction of pancreatic tumors in this mouse model exhibit a Ki67 index of over 80%, which suggests that tumors in this model are heterogeneous and consist of both GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs ([52]). A mixture of GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs has not as yet been reported in human tumor samples, suggesting that this neoplasm mixture is unique to this mouse model. The RIP-Tag mouse model was validated as a model of insulinoma on the basis of insulin expression in the tumor. Thus, it remains unknown whether this GEMM recapitulates the genetic background of human GEP-NETs and their diagnostic histological traits, such as the Ki67 index. Additionally, Tag promotes the inactivation of the target genes, such as Tp53 and Rb1, by forming a specific complex in a non-physiological manner ([70]; [25]); thus, it may be modeling GEP-NECs instead of GEP-NETs ([19]; [80]). Indeed, it has been suggested that SV40-Tag expression under the control of the intestinal trefoil factor (ITF) promoter could be used to generate a mouse model of colon cancer that closely resembles small cell carcinoma, although the Ki67 index of this model remains to be evaluated ([44]). These examples highlight the need for GEMMs to be carefully evaluated, both genetically and histologically, before they are used to model a particular GEP-NEN.

Cell-based models of GEP-NENs

Cell lines are frequently used to model cancer, and have made a considerable contribution to cancer research over recent decades. The advantages of using cell lines as disease models include their ease of manipulation and low cost, which also facilitates their use in drug screening.

To date, several different GEP-NEN cell lines have been established, including nine GEP-NET and six GEP-NEC human cell lines, and six rodent GEP-NEN cell lines (Table 4). The human GEP-NET cell lines, BON1 and GOT1, develop into tumors with neuroendocrine characteristics when introduced as xenografts into immunocompromised mice ([31]). The genome of the BON1 cell line has been sequenced to reveal that these cells carry mutations in TP53, TSC2 and NRAS ([128]; [12]). These cell lines have also been used to develop drugs to treat GEP-NETs. BON1 has been used to test somatostatin analogs and everolimus ([145]; [62]). The KRJ-I cell line, derived from a patient's small-intestinal NET, has been used to test somatostatin analogs ([31]; [53]). The cell line GOT1 has also been used successfully to test 177Lu–Dotatate ([88]). The responses of these cell lines to these drugs have been evaluated based on cell growth inhibition and apoptosis induction, and the results have been consistent with the clinical responses (tumor shrinkage) seen in GEP-NET patients. With further assessment of their histology, drug responses and genetic mutations, these cell lines could be developed as appropriate GEP-NET models. Table 4.

GEP-NEN human cell lines and PDX models

Recently, a new method for culturing primary pancreatic NET cells using bovine extracellular matrix has been reported ([83], [84]) and used to establish 30 pancreatic NET lines. This culturing method can maintain cells that have neuroendocrine characteristics, allowing for the assessment of their genomic mutations and drug responses (to somatostatin analogs and everolimus) ([83], [84]). One of these pancreatic lines has a high Ki67 index of 90% and should therefore be considered a pancreatic NEC line. In addition, 16 pancreatic NET primary cell culture lines, including two pancreatic NEC lines that respond to everolimus, have been established by another laboratory ([32]). The creation of these pancreatic NEN cell lines provides new preclinical models for researchers to use and are therefore expected to contribute significantly to advancing research into GEP-NENs. The three GEP-NEC cell lines (NEC-DUE1, NEC-DUE2 and A99) have been evaluated for their expression of neuroendocrine markers and for their high Ki67 index using xenograft models ([135]; [66]). These NEC cell lines fulfill the current classification of GEP-NECs and can be considered as appropriate models to use. Although the response of NEC-DUE1 and NEC-DUE2 to existing drugs has been evaluated ([66]), these NEC cell lines have yet to contribute to new drug development.

Cell lines carry with them intrinsic limitations, such as the occurrence of genetic changes over time in culture, or their reduced establishment efficiency, but, especially for GEP-NEN cell lines, the updated WHO classification may mean they need to be re-cataloged (for example as NET G3). CNDT2 is a cell line derived from a liver metastasis of a patient with a primary ileal NET. When initially transplanted into mice, this cell line developed as a tumor resembling the patient's tumor histology ([127]). However, a subsequent study reported that the tumors formed by transplanted CNDT2 cells lacked secretory granules and neuroendocrine characteristics, such as chromogranin A staining – a hallmark of GEP-NETs – and that the tumor cells had gene expression patterns that were different from those of GEP-NETs ([127]; [30]). Disease heterogeneity or the occurrence of genetic changes over time in culture might explain these results, highlighting a need for caution when using any GEP-NEN cell line. The efficiency with which cell lines from GEP-NENs can be established is presumably low, and may indicate the artificial selection of the few tumor cells that can adapt to standard culture conditions, highlighting the need for caution when interpreting results from current GEP-NEN cell line studies. However, the low establishment efficiency may also be due to small amounts of available starting material and low mitotic rates ([101]; [79]; [60]). In addition, cell lines validated as models of GEP-NENs according to the past WHO classifications for these diseases may no longer meet the criteria of the updated WHO guidelines, requiring extra caution and biological confirmation of the cell lines before their use.

Patient-derived xenograft models

PDX models offer an alternative research tool to cell models of GEP-NENs. PDX models are made by transplanting primary human tumor cells into an animal. These models have the advantage of retaining the histological and genetic characteristics of the primary tumor and provide valuable disease-modeling platforms that are amenable to various in vivo applications, such as drug screening (including high-throughput screening), based on their relevance to patients' tumors, including stromal conservation ([91]; [38]). Recently, an approach called co-clinical trials has been proposed that enables a new agent to be studied in parallel in human patients and in a PDX model derived from a patient's primary tumor. This approach offers a personalized medical approach to treat these tumors ([51]). Seven GEP-NET PDX models and two GEP-NEC PDX models that form tumors resembling the original patient's tumors have been successfully established in mice (Table 4) ([125]; [55]; [139]). One gastric NEC model, GA0087, evaluated for its drug responses has shown extended survival relative to untreated controls in response to treatment with cisplatin, which is concordant with clinical results ([55]). Thus, GEP-NEN PDX models can also be considered to be appropriate models to use for drug screening and biological evaluation. However, GEP-NENs have an engraftment success rate of less than 10% ([139]). Some of the PDX models of GEP-NETs exhibit a Ki67 index of 70–90%, and thus more closely match GEP-NECs under the current diagnostic criteria ([139]). In addition, there has been insufficient genetic evaluation of PDX models of GEP-NETs, although their histology resembles that of human tumors. The recent evaluation of copy number alterations in PDX models revealed the selection of minor clones, causing discrepancies with patient tumors ([6]). Thus, even for established GEP-NET PDX models, careful evaluation is required before they are used.

Other rodent models of GEP-NENs

Animal models in which GEP-NETs have developed incidentally or spontaneously are also used as tools for investigating these tumors. One example of such a model is a transgenic rat that was originally developed as a model of hepatocarcinogenesis and unexpectedly developed pancreatic NETs ([45], [46]). This rat expressed SV40 under the control of a phosphoenolpyruvate carboxikinase (PEPCK) promoter ([45]). This model remains to be histologically evaluated for its Ki67 index and for neuroendocrine marker expression. Furthermore, the mechanism of NET formation in the rat remains unknown, and they suffer from the same limitations as the RIP-Tag mouse model, due to the expression of SV40.

The Natal multimammate mouse (Mastomys natalensis) is an African rodent that tends to develop multi-centric gastric NETs as it ages ([114]). It has been used as an experimental model of chronic atrophic gastritis (Box 1), since the development of gastric NETs in it can be enhanced by inducing hypergastrinemia using histamine receptor blockers and proton pump inhibitors ([87]). Hypergastrinemia has also been studied in spontaneous hypergastrinemic cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) and in a Mongolian gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus) model of gastric NETs induced by high doses of proton pump inhibitors ([33]; [126]). These models are good candidates to use for investigating the development and treatment of GEP-NETs; however, their use is limited by our poor understanding of these species, including their genomics. Extensive efforts for the development of disease models have led to non-rodent animal models – zebrafish – to be introduced.

Zebrafish models of GEP-NENs

The zebrafish (Danio rerio) has been used to study genetics and development for over three decades ([117]). Given its highly conserved endocrine system, similar to that of humans ([130]), it is now a new research tool for studying neuroendocrine neoplasms. The advantages of this model include its short generation cycle, high reproductivity and genetic tractability. A transgenic zebrafish model of a pancreatic NEC has been generated by targeted expression of the human MYCN oncogene in pancreatic islet cells under the control of the z-myod or core-zmyod promoter ([138]). Additionally, two GEP-NET xenotransplantation models have also been generated using cell lines developed from primary human tumor samples ([39]). However, these GEP-NEN models need to undergo an in-depth evaluation, including a histological analysis to measure the Ki67 index of tumors and an assessment of neuroendocrine marker expression. In addition, zebrafish models of GEP-NENs cannot recapitulate the tissue niche or cancer microenvironment associated with human tumors ([144]). The zebrafish models have their limitations, but should be regarded as another tool that may help us grow our biological understanding of GEP-NENs.

Modeling GEP-NENs in organoids

An organoid is a three-dimensional tissue grown in culture that resembles a particular organ in its morphology and cell lineage characterization. Organoids are generated in vitro, often from adult stem cells, using a basement membrane matrix (such as Matrigel) for cells to adhere to, and various growth factors to stimulate differentiation ([102]). The advent of the organoid culture system, which artificially reproduces stem cell niche environments in a dish, has facilitated the in vitro expansion of primary epithelial cells derived from a variety of tissues ([24]). Although each tissue depends on a unique combination of niche factors for organoid culture, most organoids require three essential niche factors: Wnt/R-spondin-1, the BMP inhibitor Noggin and epidermal growth factor (EGF) ([102]). Two additional niche factors, an activin receptor kinase inhibitor and a p38 MAP kinase inhibitor, enable human colon epithelial cells to develop as organoids in culture ([103]). Organoids can be passaged for years while retaining genetic and phenotypic stability ([11]). Importantly, the organoid culture technique can be used to create organoids from diseased epithelia obtained from patients.

Recently, two research groups (including our own) have developed a colon cancer organoid biobank, which contains a diverse range of human colorectal tumor subtypes ([129]; [36]). We generated a library called the colorectal tumor organoid library (CTOL), which includes two colorectal NECs (which have a Ki67 index of 60 and 100%) ([36]). Upon xenografting to immunocompromised mice, these organoids formed tumors that histologically resembled the colorectal NECs of the original patient, including synaptophysin and chromogranin expression. But, given our lack of knowledge about the common gene expression signature of colorectal NEC tissues, the extent to which the profile in our NEC organoids resembles that of primary colorectal NECs remains to be determined. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the gene signatures of NEC organoids were distinct from other colorectal tumors, with endocrine markers, such as chromogranin and synaptophysin, being highly expressed ([36]). TP53 mutations were found in both NEC organoids, and mutations in several genes associated with colorectal adenocarcinoma, such as APC, BRAF and KRAS, were also found in one of the two NEC organoids ([36]). There is hope that, once several different lines of GEP-NEN organoids are established, they can be used to conduct ‘in vitro clinical trials’ with compounds that have been approved for use in the treatment of other types of cancer. Indeed, high-throughput drug screening systems have already been developed for organoid cultures for other types of cancers, including sporadic colorectal cancer ([129]; [107]; [90]) (Fig. 1). Fig. 1.

Disease modeling of GEP-NENs using organoids. (A) Organoids are constructed in culture medium, and patient-specific organoids can be derived from a patient's primary tissue (shown in the inset; scale bar: 100 µm). This schematic shows biopsies being taken from a human intestine, the upper biopsy contains neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) and the lower biopsy contains normal intestinal tissue. Organoids are derived from both biopsies to generate NEC organoids and normal intestinal organoids. (B) The NEC organoids can be transplanted into rodent models to create xenograft models. The histology of a xenograft model, reconstituting the patient's histology as determined by H&E staining, is shown. Scale bar: 100 µm. (C) Organoids can also be used for drug screening, and (D) disease modeling. In disease modeling, artificial NEC organoids can be constructed by using genome editing to introduce specific genetic mutations into normal colon organoids.

Organoid models of cancer can also be useful for understanding how genetic alterations affect tumorigenesis. In particular, organoid technology has the potential to reveal the biological origin of GEP-NENs, including the involvement of underlying cancer stem cell populations ([98]). Two tumorigenic pathways have been proposed to explain the etiology of GEP-NECs, of which the progression from conventional adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma–NEC sequence) is currently regarded as the dominant route over the de novo pathway (Fig. 2) ([131]; [61]). This theory stems from the oncogenesis model of conventional gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas (Box 1), represented by a multistep oncogenesis process, such as the adenoma–carcinoma sequence in colorectal cancer. Clinically, some colorectal NECs coexists with adenoma or adenocarcinoma, and tumors comprising adenocarcinomas and gastrointestinal NECs are defined as mixed adeno-neuroendocrine carcinomas (MANECs) in the WHO classification ([13]). Gastrointestinal NECs and conventional gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas share similar genetic mutation patterns, supporting the notion that colorectal NECs originate from adenocarcinomas ([36]; [63]; [104]). Conversely, the co-existence of colorectal NECs and colorectal NETs has not been reported, and, given the commonality of the genetic characteristics between colorectal NECs and adenocarcinomas, well-differentiated colorectal NETs might be less likely to progress into poorly differentiated colorectal NECs ([49]; [97]; [124]). However, this theory was derived from retrospective observations, and prospective validation is warranted to further understand the molecular road map of GEP-NENs to improve prognosis and treatment outcomes. The combination of organoid technology and genome editing technology might help to elucidate the molecular etiology of these diseases. The feasibility of this approach has recently been demonstrated by the sequential introduction of mutations in tumor suppressor genes and oncogenes into normal colon organoids, providing a proof of principle for the genetic reconstruction of human colorectal tumorigenesis from normal colon epithelium ex vivo ([74]; [27]). The generation of GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs using this approach could provide a definitive clue as to the cell of origin of GEP-NENs and shed new light on the interrelationship between GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs. Fig. 2.

Hypothetical model of GEP-NECs. Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinomas (GEP-NECs) are considered to arise from two possible pathways. (A) A de novo pathway, in which GEP-NECs form directly from normal intestinal tissue and (B) from adenocarcinomas via several steps. This latter pathway stems from the multistep oncogenesis model of conventional colon cancer, which suggests a progression from normal colon epithelium to adenocarcinoma via adenoma. The adenocarcinoma–NEC sequence is currently regarded as the dominant route.

Although organoids open up new avenues for GEP-NEN research, their limitations should also be noted. First, organoids lack a native microenvironment that includes the tumor stroma, the vasculature and the immune system. Thus, organoids may not be suitable for evaluating tumor cell interactions with these non-epithelial elements in the native cancer environment. Second, as organoids are generally derived from limited amounts of biopsy or surgical samples, they are oligoclonal and might not represent the heterogeneous nature of a cancer. Third, only two GEP-NEN organoid lines (both from colorectal NECs) have been derived to date, and the lack of GEP-NET organoids renders the current culture system insufficient for modeling GEP-NENs.

Conclusion

GEP-NENs are heterogeneous diseases that have been understudied for several decades due to the small number of patients who develop these diseases. However, their increasing incidence, poor prognosis and limited treatment options has focused attention on these diseases, stimulating research in this field. Technological advances in clinical diagnosis and genetic analysis have furthered our understanding of the biology of these diseases in recent years. Data suggest that cell cycle dysfunction underlies the etiology of GEP-NENs and that different tumor subtypes feature different pathway mutations: mTOR pathway mutations in GEP-NETs, and TP53 and RB pathway mutations in GEP-NECs. These mutational differences might cause the different clinical features of these tumor subtypes and might influence the resulting treatment options, such as molecular targeted therapy for GEP-NETs and cytotoxic treatment for GEP-NECs. The establishment of these current standard therapies has arisen from studies conducted in GEP-NEN animal models, which were developed through extensive efforts. However, due to the small number of individuals affected by GEP-NENs, and the low success rates in the development of the disease models, the number of animal models remains limited. Additionally, some of the current animal models were validated under the previous WHO classification for GEP-NENs, when the role of genetic mutations was unknown and the terminology for GEP-NETs and GEP-NECs was less clear. Thus, very few of the existing GEP-NEN models have been confirmed clinically and genetically as being informative and accurate. Additional models of GEP-NENs are thus needed to advance this field and to gain new biological insights into the cellular and molecular etiology of these diseases. Modeling GEP-NENs in organoids could provide a new platform for this field and could also enable the reconstruction of the oncogenic steps that lead to GEP-NEN development through genetic engineering. Organoid models have the potential to contribute to the ongoing development of novel treatments and to the identification of the GEP-NEN stem cell of origin, which could lead to the eventual eradication of these diseases. Disease models that faithfully recapitulate GEP-NENs are indispensable for the translation of animal-model-based research to the clinic, to help overcome the limited treatment strategies for these diseases.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

We thank the laboratory members, especially Dr Satoko Kaneko, for their support. We also thank Kyle Stokes (University of Windsor) for critical reading and English editing.

References

  1. S. Alliouachene, R. L. Tuttle, S. Boumard, T. Lapointe, S. Berissi, S. Germain, F. Jaubert, D. Tosh, M. J. Birnbaum and M. Pende (2008). Constitutively active Akt1 expression in mouse pancreas requires S6 kinase 1 for insulinoma formation. J. Clin. Invest118, 3629-3638. 10.1172/JCI3523718846252
  2. S. L. Asa, Y. C. Lee and D. J. Drucker (1996). Development of colonic and pancreatic endocrine tumours in mice expressing a glucagon-SV40 T antigen transgene. Virchows Arch.427, 595-606. 10.1007/BF002028918605571
  3. S. Azzopardi, S. Pang, D. S. Klimstra and Y.-C. N. Du (2016). p53 and p16Ink4a/p19Arf Loss Promotes Different Pancreatic Tumor Types from PyMT-Expressing Progenitor Cells. Neoplasia18, 610-617. 10.1016/j.neo.2016.08.00327664376
  4. M. S. Banck, R. Kanwar, A. A. Kulkarni, G. K. Boora, F. Metge, B. R. Kipp, L. Zhang, E. C. Thorland, K. T. Minn, R. Tentuet al. (2013). The genomic landscape of small intestine neuroendocrine tumors. J. Clin. Invest.123, 2502-2508. 10.1172/JCI6796323676460
  5. M. G. Baroni, M. G. Cavallo, M. Mark, L. Monetini, B. Stoehrer and P. Pozzilli (1999). Beta-cell gene expression and functional characterisation of the human insulinoma cell line CM. J. Endocrinol.161, 59-68. 10.1677/joe.0.161005910194529
  6. U. Ben-David, G. Ha, Y. Y. Tseng, N. F. Greenwald, C. Oh, J. Shih, J. M. McFarland, B. Wong, J. S. Boehm, R. Beroukhimet al. (2017). Patient-derived xenografts undergo mouse-specific tumor evolution. Nat. Genet.49, 1567-1575. 10.1038/ng.396728991255
  7. R. A. Bennett and A. E. Pegg (1981). Alkylation of DNA in rat tissues following administration of streptozotocin. Cancer Res.41, 2786-2790.6454479
  8. P. Bertolino, W.-M. Tong, D. Galendo, Z.-Q. Wang and C.-X. Zhang (2003a). Heterozygous Men1 mutant mice develop a range of endocrine tumors mimicking multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Mol. Endocrinol.17, 1880-1892. 10.1210/me.2003-015412819299
  9. P. Bertolino, W. M. Tong, P. L. Herrera, H. Casse, C. X. Zhang and Z. Q. Wang (2003b). Pancreatic beta-cell-specific ablation of the multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) gene causes full penetrance of insulinoma development in mice. Cancer Res.63, 4836-4841.12941803
  10. C. A. Biondi, M. G. Gartside, P. Waring, K. A. Loffler, M. S. Stark, M. A. Magnuson, G. F. Kay and N. K. Hayward (2004). Conditional inactivation of the MEN1 gene leads to pancreatic and pituitary tumorigenesis but does not affect normal development of these tissues. Mol. Cell Biol.24, 3125-3131. 10.1128/MCB.24.8.3125-3131.200415060136
  11. F. Blokzijl, J. de Ligt, M. Jager, V. Sasselli, S. Roerink, N. Sasaki, M. Huch, S. Boymans, E. Kuijk, P. Prinset al. (2016). Tissue-specific mutation accumulation in human adult stem cells during life. Nature538, 260-264. 10.1038/nature1976827698416
  12. G. K. Boora, R. Kanwar, A. A. Kulkarni, J. Pleticha, M. Ames, G. Schroth, A. S. Beutler and M. S. Banck (2015). Exome-level comparison of primary well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors and their cell lines. Cancer Genet208, 374-381. 10.1016/j.cancergen.2015.04.00226087898
  13. F. T. Bosman, F. Carneiro, R. H. Hruban & N. D. Theise (2010). WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System, Vol. 3, 4th ednLyon, France: IARC Press.
  14. O. Calvete, J. Reyes, S. Zuñiga, B. Paumard-Hernández, V. Fernandez, L. Bujanda, M. S. Rodriguez-Pinilla, J. Palacios, D. Heine-Suñer, S. Bankaet al. (2015). Exome sequencing identifies ATP4A gene as responsible of an atypical familial type I gastric neuroendocrine tumour. Hum. Mol. Genet.24, 2914-2922. 10.1093/hmg/ddv05425678551
  15. O. Calvete, A. Varro, D. M. Pritchard, A. Barroso, M. Oteo, M. A. Morcillo, P. Vargiu, S. Dodd, M. Garcia, J. Reyeset al. (2016). A knockin mouse model for human ATP4aR703C mutation identified in familial gastric neuroendocrine tumors recapitulates the premalignant condition of the human disease and suggests new therapeutic strategies. Dis. Model Mech.9, 975-984. 10.1242/dmm.02589027491072
  16. M. E. Caplin, M. Pavel, J. B. Ćwikła, A. T. Phan, M. Raderer, E. Sedláčková, G. Cadiot, E. M. Wolin, J. Capdevila, L. Wallet al. (2014). Lanreotide in metastatic enteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N. Engl. J. Med.371, 224-233. 10.1056/NEJMoa131615825014687
  17. O. Casanovas, D. J. Hicklin, G. Bergers and D. Hanahan (2005). Drug resistance by evasion of antiangiogenic targeting of VEGF signaling in late-stage pancreatic islet tumors. Cancer Cell8, 299-309. 10.1016/j.ccr.2005.09.00516226705
  18. F. Casas, F. Ferrer, B. Farrús, J. Casals and A. Biete (1997). Primary small cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a review of the literature with emphasis on therapy and prognosis. Cancer80, 1366-1372. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19971015)80:8<1366::AID-CNCR2>3.0.CO;2-D9338459
  19. C. Chandrasekaran, C. M. Coopersmith and J. I. Gordon (1996). Use of normal and transgenic mice to examine the relationship between terminal differentiation of intestinal epithelial cells and accumulation of their cell cycle regulators. J. Biol. Chem.271, 28414-28421. 10.1074/jbc.271.45.284148910466
  20. A. Couvelard, D. O'Toole, H. Turley, R. Leek, A. Sauvanet, C. Degott, P. Ruszniewski, J. Belghiti, A. L. Harris, K. Gatteret al. (2005). Microvascular density and hypoxia-inducible factor pathway in pancreatic endocrine tumours: negative correlation of microvascular density and VEGF expression with tumour progression. Br. J. Cancer92, 94-101. 10.1038/sj.bjc.660224515558070
  21. J. S. Crabtree, P. C. Scacheri, J. M. Ward, L. Garrett-Beal, M. R. Emmert-Buck, K. A. Edgemon, D. Lorang, S. K. Libutti, S. C. Chandrasekharappa, S. J. Marxet al. (2001). A mouse model of multiple endocrine neoplasia, type 1, develops multiple endocrine tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA98, 1118-1123. 10.1073/pnas.98.3.111811158604
  22. J. S. Crabtree, P. C. Scacheri, J. M. Ward, S. R. McNally, G. P. Swain, C. Montagna, J. H. Hager, D. Hanahan, H. Edlund, M. A. Magnusonet al. (2003). Of mice and MEN1: insulinomas in a conditional mouse knockout. Mol. Cell. Biol.23, 6075-6085. 10.1128/MCB.23.17.6075-6085.200312917331
  23. J. Crona and B. Skogseid (2016). GEP- NETS UPDATE: genetics of neuroendocrine tumors. Eur. J. Endocrinol.174, R275-R290. 10.1530/EJE-15-097227165966
  24. S. Date and T. Sato (2015). Mini-gut organoids: reconstitution of the stem cell niche. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol.31, 269-289. 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100814-12521826436704
  25. J. A. DeCaprio, J. W. Ludlow, J. Figge, J. Y. Shew, C. M. Huang, W. H. Lee, E. Marsilio, E. Paucha and D. M. Livingston (1988). SV40 large tumor antigen forms a specific complex with the product of the retinoblastoma susceptibility gene. Cell54, 275-283. 10.1016/0092-8674(88)90559-42839300
  26. V. V. Delektorskaya, N. A. Kozlov and G. Y. Chemeris (2013). Clinico-morphological analysis of the neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gastroenteropancreatic system. Klin Lab Diagn48-50, 10-13.
  27. J. Drost, R. H. van Jaarsveld, B. Ponsioen, C. Zimberlin, R. van Boxtel, A. Buijs, N. Sachs, R. M. Overmeer, G. J. Offerhaus, H. Begthelet al. (2015). Sequential cancer mutations in cultured human intestinal stem cells. Nature521, 43-47. 10.1038/nature1441525924068
  28. S. Efrat, G. Teitelman, M. Anwar, D. Ruggiero and D. Hanahan (1988). Glucagon gene regulatory region directs oncoprotein expression to neurons and pancreatic alpha cells. Neuron1, 605-613. 10.1016/0896-6273(88)90110-92483103
  29. S. Efrat, M. Surana and N. Fleischer (1991). Glucose induces insulin gene transcription in a murine pancreatic beta-cell line. J. Biol. Chem.266, 11141-11143.1710218
  30. L. M. Ellis, S. Samuel and E. Sceusi (2010). Varying opinions on the authenticity of a human midgut carcinoid cell line--letter. Clin. Cancer Res.16, 5365-5366. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-255020959409
  31. B. M. Evers, C. M. Townsend Jr, J. R. Upp, E. Allen, S. C. Hurlbut, S. W. Kim, S. Rajaraman, P. Singh, J. C. Reubi and J. C. Thompson (1991). Establishment and characterization of a human carcinoid in nude mice and effect of various agents on tumor growth. Gastroenterology101, 303-311. 10.1016/0016-5085(91)90004-51712329
  32. S. Falletta, S. Partelli, C. Rubini, D. Nann, A. Doria, I. Marinoni, V. Polenta, C. Di Pasquale, E. degli Uberti, A. Perrenet al. (2016). mTOR inhibitors response and mTOR pathway in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Relat Cancer23, 883-891. 10.1530/ERC-16-032927697900
  33. R. Fossmark, T. C. Martinsen, K. E. Bakkelund, S. Kawase and H. L. Waldum (2004). ECL-cell derived gastric cancer in male cotton rats dosed with the H2-blocker loxtidine. Cancer Res.64, 3687-3693. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-364715150129
  34. J. M. Francis, A. Kiezun, A. H. Ramos, S. Serra, C. S. Pedamallu, Z. R. Qian, M. S. Banck, R. Kanwar, A. A. Kulkarni, A. Karpathakiset al. (2013). Somatic mutation of CDKN1B in small intestine neuroendocrine tumors. Nat. Genet.45, 1483-1486. 10.1038/ng.282124185511
  35. M. Frödin, N. Sekine, E. Roche, C. Filloux, M. Prentki, C. B. Wollheim and E. Van Obberghen (1995). Glucose, other secretagogues, and nerve growth factor stimulate mitogen-activated protein kinase in the insulin-secreting beta-cell line, INS-1. J. Biol. Chem.270, 7882-7889. 10.1074/jbc.270.14.78827713882
  36. M. Fujii, M. Shimokawa, S. Date, A. Takano, M. Matano, K. Nanki, Y. Ohta, K. Toshimitsu, Y. Nakazato, K. Kawasakiet al. (2016). A colorectal tumor organoid library demonstrates progressive loss of niche factor requirements during tumorigenesis. Cell Stem Cell18, 827-838. 10.1016/j.stem.2016.04.00327212702
  37. D. Furlan, B. Bernasconi, S. Uccella, R. Cerutti, I. Carnevali and C. Capella (2005). Allelotypes and fluorescence in situ hybridization profiles of poorly differentiated endocrine carcinomas of different sites. Clin. Cancer Res.11, 1765-1775. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-173215755998
  38. H. Gao, J. M. Korn, S. Ferretti, J. E. Monahan, Y. Wang, M. Singh, C. Zhang, C. Schnell, G. Yang, Y. Zhanget al. (2015). High-throughput screening using patient-derived tumor xenografts to predict clinical trial drug response. Nat. Med.21, 1318-1325. 10.1038/nm.395426479923
  39. G. Gaudenzi, M. Albertelli, A. Dicitore, R. Würth, F. Gatto, F. Barbieri, F. Cotelli, T. Florio, D. Ferone, L. Persaniet al. (2017). Patient-derived xenograft in zebrafish embryos: a new platform for translational research in neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrine57, 214-219. 10.1007/s12020-016-1048-927481363
  40. P. Gaur, E. L. Sceusi, S. Samuel, L. Xia, F. Fan, Y. Zhou, J. Lu, F. Tozzi, G. Lopez-Berestein, P. Vivas-Mejiaet al. (2011). Identification of cancer stem cells in human gastrointestinal carcinoid and neuroendocrine tumors. Gastroenterology141, 1728-1737. 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.07.03721806944
  41. A. F. Gazdar, W. L. Chick, H. K. Oie, H. L. Sims, D. L. King, G. C. Weir and V. Lauris (1980). Continuous, clonal, insulin- and somatostatin-secreting cell lines established from a transplantable rat islet cell tumor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA77, 3519-3523. 10.1073/pnas.77.6.35196106192
  42. J. George, J. S. Lim, S. J. Jang, Y. Cun, L. Ozretić, G. Kong, F. Leenders, X. Lu, L. Fernández-Cuesta, G. Boscoet al. (2015). Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer. Nature524, 47-53. 10.1038/nature1466426168399
  43. S. T. Glenn, C. A. Jones, S. Sexton, C. M. LeVea, S. M. Caraker, G. Hajduczok and K. W. Gross (2014). Conditional deletion of p53 and Rb in the renin-expressing compartment of the pancreas leads to a highly penetrant metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. Oncogene33, 5706-5715. 10.1038/onc.2013.51424292676
  44. J. R. Gum Jr, J. W. Hicks, S. C. Crawley, S. C. Yang, A. D. Borowsky, C. M. Dahl, S. Kakar, D. H. Kim, R. D. Cardiff and Y. S. Kim (2004). Mice expressing SV40 T antigen directed by the intestinal trefoil factor promoter develop tumors resembling human small cell carcinoma of the colon. Mol. Cancer Res.2, 504-513.15383629
  45. M. J. Haas, Y. P. Dragan, H. Hikita, R. Shimel, K. Takimoto, S. Heath, J. Vaughan and H. C. Pitot (1999). Transgene expression and repression in transgenic rats bearing the phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase-simian virus 40 T antigen or the phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase-transforming growth factor-alpha constructs. Am. J. Pathol.155, 183-192. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)65112-710393850
  46. M. J. Haas, C. A. Sattler, Y. P. Dragan, W. L. Gast and H. C. Pitot (2000). Multiple polypeptide hormone expression in pancreatic islet cell carcinomas derived from phosphoenolpyruvatecarboxykinase-SV40 T antigen transgenic rats. Pancreas20, 206-214. 10.1097/00006676-200003000-0001510707938
  47. D. Hanahan (1985). Heritable formation of pancreatic beta-cell tumours in transgenic mice expressing recombinant insulin/simian virus 40 oncogenes. Nature315, 115-122. 10.1038/315115a02986015
  48. M. Harvey, H. Vogel, E. Y. Lee, A. Bradley and L. A. Donehower (1995). Mice deficient in both p53 and Rb develop tumors primarily of endocrine origin. Cancer Res.55, 1146-1151.7867001
  49. B. Helpap and J. Kollermann (2001). Immunohistochemical analysis of the proliferative activity of neuroendocrine tumors from various organs. Are there indications for a neuroendocrine tumor-carcinoma sequence?Virchows Arch438, 86-91. 10.1007/s00428000033711213840
  50. O. Hentic, A. Couvelard, V. Rebours, M. Zappa, S. Dokmak, P. Hammel, F. Maire, D. O'Toole, P. Levy, A. Sauvanetet al. (2011). Ki-67 index, tumor differentiation, and extent of liver involvement are independent prognostic factors in patients with liver metastases of digestive endocrine carcinomas. Endocr. Relat. Cancer18, 51-59. 10.1677/ERC-09-031920959440
  51. M. Hidalgo, F. Amant, A. V. Biankin, E. Budinska, A. T. Byrne, C. Caldas, R. B. Clarke, S. de Jong, J. Jonkers, G. M. Maelandsmoet al. (2014). Patient-derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Discov.4, 998-1013. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-000125185190
  52. K. E. Hunter, M. L. Quick, A. Sadanandam, D. Hanahan and J. A. Joyce (2013). Identification and characterization of poorly differentiated invasive carcinomas in a mouse model of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumorigenesis. PLoS ONE8, e6447210.1371/journal.pone.006447223691228
  53. J. Ishizuka, R. D. Beauchamp, B. M. Evers, C. M. Townsend Jr and J. C. Thompson (1992). Unexpected growth-stimulatory effect of somatostatin analogue on cultured human pancreatic carcinoid cells. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun.185, 577-581. 10.1016/0006-291X(92)91663-B1351720
  54. E. T. Janson, H. Sorbye, S. Welin, B. Federspiel, H. Gronbaek, P. Hellman, M. Ladekarl, S. W. Langer, J. Mortensen, C. Schalin-Jänttiet al. (2014). Nordic guidelines 2014 for diagnosis and treatment of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. Acta Oncol.53, 1284-1297. 10.3109/0284186X.2014.94199925140861
  55. J. Jiang, D. D. Wang, M. Yang, D. Chen, L. Pang, S. Guo, J. Cai, J. P. Wery, L. Li, H. Q. Liet al. (2015). Comprehensive characterization of chemotherapeutic efficacy on metastases in the established gastric neuroendocrine cancer patient derived xenograft model. Oncotarget6, 15639-15651. 10.18632/oncotarget.371225909226
  56. Y. Jiao, C. Shi, B. H. Edil, R. F. de Wilde, D. S. Klimstra, A. Maitra, R. D. Schulick, L. H. Tang, C. L. Wolfgang, M. A. Chotiet al. (2011). DAXX/ATRX, MEN1, and mTOR pathway genes are frequently altered in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Science331, 1199-1203. 10.1126/science.120060921252315
  57. H. B. Jones, J. Reens, S. R. Brocklehurst, C. J. Betts, S. Bickerton, A. L. Bigley, R. P. Jenkins, N. M. Whalley, D. Morgan and D. M. Smith (2014). Islets of Langerhans from prohormone convertase-2 knockout mice show alpha-cell hyperplasia and tumorigenesis with elevated alpha-cell neogenesis. Int. J. Exp. Pathol.95, 29-48. 10.1111/iep.1206624456331
  58. M. Kaku, T. Nishiyama, K. Yagawa and M. Abe (1980). Establishment of a carcinoembryonic antigen-producing cell line from human pancreatic carcinoma. Gan71, 596-601.7227711
  59. S. K. Karnik, C. M. Hughes, X. Gu, O. Rozenblatt-Rosen, G. W. McLean, Y. Xiong, M. Meyerson and S. K. Kim (2005). Menin regulates pancreatic islet growth by promoting histone methylation and expression of genes encoding p27Kip1 and p18INK4c. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA102, 14659-14664. 10.1073/pnas.050348410216195383
  60. F. Kasai, N. Hirayama, M. Ozawa, M. Iemura and A. Kohara (2016). Changes of heterogeneous cell populations in the Ishikawa cell line during long-term culture: proposal for an in vitro clonal evolution model of tumor cells. Genomics107, 259-266. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2016.04.00327107655
  61. K. Kawasaki, Y. Hamamoto, T. Suzuki, K. Hirata, Y. Sukawa, A. Kasuga, Y. Hayashi, H. Takaishi, K. Kameyama and T. Kanai (2017). Benefit of rebiopsy for deciding treatment strategy in rectal cancer: A case report. Oncol. Lett.14, 3697-3700. 10.3892/ol.2017.660128927133
  62. M. Kidd, G. N. Eick, I. M. Modlin, R. Pfragner, M. C. Champaneria and J. Murren (2007). Further delineation of the continuous human neoplastic enterochromaffin cell line, KRJ-I, and the inhibitory effects of lanreotide and rapamycin. J. Mol. Endocrinol.38, 181-192. 10.1677/jme.1.0203717242179
  63. K.-M. Kim, M.-J. Kim, B.-K. Cho, S.-W. Choi and M.-G. Rhyu (2002). Genetic evidence for the multi-step progression of mixed glandular-neuroendocrine gastric carcinomas. Virchows Arch440, 85-93. 10.1007/s00428010054011942581
  64. L. Kölby, P. Bernhardt, H. Ahlman, B. Wängberg, V. Johanson, A. Wigander, E. Forssell-Aronsson, S. Karlsson, B. Ahrén, G. Stenmanet al. (2001). A transplantable human carcinoid as model for somatostatin receptor-mediated and amine transporter-mediated radionuclide uptake. Am. J. Pathol.158, 745-755. 10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64017-511159212
  65. C. M. Korse, B. G. Taal, M.-L. F. van Velthuysen and O. Visser (2013). Incidence and survival of neuroendocrine tumours in the Netherlands according to histological grade: experience of two decades of cancer registry. Eur. J. Cancer49, 1975-1983. 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.02223352435
  66. A. Krieg, S. Mersch, I. Boeck, L. Dizdar, E. Weihe, Z. Hilal, M. Krausch, B. Möhlendick, S. A. Topp, R. P. Piekorzet al. (2014). New model for gastroenteropancreatic large-cell neuroendocrine carcinoma: establishment of two clinically relevant cell lines. PLoS ONE9, e8871310.1371/journal.pone.008871324551139
  67. S. Y. Ku, S. Rosario, Y. Wang, P. Mu, M. Seshadri, Z. W. Goodrich, M. M. Goodrich, D. P. Labbé, E. C. Gomez, J. Wanget al. (2017). Rb1 and Trp53 cooperate to suppress prostate cancer lineage plasticity, metastasis, and antiandrogen resistance. Science355, 78-83. 10.1126/science.aah419928059767
  68. Y. C. Lee, S. L. Asa and D. J. Drucker (1992). Glucagon gene 5'-flanking sequences direct expression of simian virus 40 large T antigen to the intestine, producing carcinoma of the large bowel in transgenic mice. J. Biol. Chem.267, 10705-10708.1587847
  69. K. E. Lines, R. P. Vas Nunes, M. Frost, C. J. Yates, M. Stevenson and R. V. Thakker (2017). A MEN1 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour mouse model under temporal control. Endocr. Connect6, 232-242. 10.1530/EC-17-004028420716
  70. D. I. H. Linzer and A. J. Levine (1979). Characterization of a 54K dalton cellular SV40 tumor antigen present in SV40-transformed cells and uninfected embryonal carcinoma cells. Cell17, 43-52. 10.1016/0092-8674(79)90293-9222475
  71. R. V. Lloyd, R. Y. Osamura, G. Kloppel and J. Rosai (2017). WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, 4th EdnLyon, France: IARC Press.
  72. J. Lu, P. L. Herrera, C. Carreira, R. Bonnavion, C. Seigne, A. Calender, P. Bertolino and C. X. Zhang (2010). Alpha cell-specific Men1 ablation triggers the transdifferentiation of glucagon-expressing cells and insulinoma development. Gastroenterology138, 1954-1965. 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.01.04620138042
  73. M. Lundqvist, J. Mark, K. Funa, N.-E. Heldin, G. Morstyn, B. Wedell, J. Layton and K. Öberg (1991). Characterisation of a cell line (LCC-18) from a cultured human neuroendocrine-differentiated colonic carcinoma. Eur. J. Cancer27, 1663-1668. 10.1016/0277-5379(91)90441-F1782079
  74. M. Matano, S. Date, M. Shimokawa, A. Takano, M. Fujii, Y. Ohta, T. Watanabe, T. Kanai and T. Sato (2015). Modeling colorectal cancer using CRISPR-Cas9-mediated engineering of human intestinal organoids. Nat. Med.21, 256-262. 10.1038/nm.380225706875
  75. R. Meuwissen, S. C. Linn, R. I. Linnoila, J. Zevenhoven, W. J. Mooi and A. Berns (2003). Induction of small cell lung cancer by somatic inactivation of both Trp53 and Rb1 in a conditional mouse model. Cancer Cell4, 181-189. 10.1016/S1535-6108(03)00220-414522252
  76. E. Mitry, E. Baudin, M. Ducreux, J.-C. Sabourin, P. Rufié, T. Aparicio, T. Aparicio, P. Lasser, D. Elias, P. Duvillardet al. (1999). Treatment of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumours with etoposide and cisplatin. Br. J. Cancer81, 1351-1355. 10.1038/sj.bjc.669032510604732
  77. J. Miyazaki, K. Araki, E. Yamato, H. Ikegami, T. Asano, Y. Shibasaki, Y. Oka and K. Yamamura (1990). Establishment of a pancreatic beta cell line that retains glucose-inducible insulin secretion: special reference to expression of glucose transporter isoforms. Endocrinology127, 126-132. 10.1210/endo-127-1-1262163307
  78. I. M. Modlin, K. D. Lye and M. Kidd (2003). A 5-decade analysis of 13,715 carcinoid tumors. Cancer97, 934-959. 10.1002/cncr.1110512569593
  79. I. M. Modlin, M. Kidd, I. Latich, M. N. Zikusoka and M. D. Shapiro (2005). Current status of gastrointestinal carcinoids. Gastroenterology128, 1717-1751. 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.03.03815887161
  80. I. M. Modlin, K. Oberg, D. C. Chung, R. T. Jensen, W. W. de Herder, R. V. Thakker, M. Caplin, G. Delle Fave, G. A. Kaltsas, E. P. Krenninget al. (2008). Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Lancet Oncol.9, 61-72. 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70410-218177818
  81. C. G. Moertel, J. A. Hanley and L. A. Johnson (1980). Streptozocin alone compared with streptozocin plus fluorouracil in the treatment of advanced islet-cell carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med.303, 1189-1194. 10.1056/NEJM1980112030321016252466
  82. C. G. Moertel, L. K. Kvols, M. J. O'Connell and J. Rubin (1991). Treatment of neuroendocrine carcinomas with combined etoposide and cisplatin. Evidence of major therapeutic activity in the anaplastic variants of these neoplasms. Cancer68, 227-232. 10.1002/1097-0142(19910715)68:2<227::AID-CNCR2820680202>3.0.CO;2-I1712661
  83. A. Mohamed, M.-P. Blanchard, M. Albertelli, F. Barbieri, T. Brue, P. Niccoli, J.-R. Delpero, G. Monges, S. Garcia, D. Feroneet al. (2014). Pasireotide and octreotide antiproliferative effects and sst2 trafficking in human pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor cultures. Endocr. Relat. Cancer21, 691-704. 10.1530/ERC-14-008625012983
  84. A. Mohamed, D. Romano, A. Saveanu, C. Roche, M. Albertelli, F. Barbieri, T. Brue, P. Niccoli, J.-R. Delpero, S. Garciaet al. (2017). Anti-proliferative and anti-secretory effects of everolimus on human pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors primary cultures: is there any benefit from combination with somatostatin analogs?Oncotarget8, 41044-41063. 10.18632/oncotarget.1700828454119
  85. P. Mu, Z. Zhang, M. Benelli, W. R. Karthaus, E. Hoover, C.-C. Chen, J. Wongvipat, S.-Y. Ku, D. Gao, Z. Caoet al. (2017). SOX2 promotes lineage plasticity and antiandrogen resistance in TP53- and RB1-deficient prostate cancer. Science355, 84-88. 10.1126/science.aah430728059768
  86. D. Murphy, A. Bishop, G. Rindi, M. N. Murphy, G. W. Stamp, J. Hanson, J. M. Polak and B. Hogan (1987). Mice transgenic for a vasopressin-SV40 hybrid oncogene develop tumors of the endocrine pancreas and the anterior pituitary. A possible model for human multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Am. J. Pathol.129, 552-566.2827490
  87. O. Nilsson, B. Wangberg, L. Johansson, I. M. Modlin and H. Ahlman (1992). Praomys (Mastomys) natalensis: a model for gastric carcinoid formation. Yale J. Biol. Med.65, 741-751.1341076
  88. O. Nilsson, L. Kölby, P. Bernhardt, E. Forssell-Aronsson, V. Johanson and H. Ahlman (2004). GOT1 xenografted to nude mice: a unique model for in vivo studies on SSTR-mediated radiation therapy of carcinoid tumors. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1014, 275-279. 10.1196/annals.1294.03115153445
  89. T. Parisi, R. T. Bronson and J. A. Lees (2015). Inactivation of the retinoblastoma gene yields a mouse model of malignant colorectal cancer. Oncogene34, 5890-5899. 10.1038/onc.2015.3025745996
  90. C. Pauli, B. D. Hopkins, D. Prandi, R. Shaw, T. Fedrizzi, A. Sboner, V. Sailer, M. Augello, L. Puca, R. Rosatiet al. (2017). Personalized In Vitro and In Vivo Cancer Models to Guide Precision Medicine. Cancer Discov.7, 462-477. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-115428331002
  91. S. Peng, C. J. Creighton, Y. Zhang, B. Sen, T. Mazumdar, J. N. Myers, S. Y. Lai, A. Woolfson, M. V. Lorenzi, D. Bellet al. (2013). Tumor grafts derived from patients with head and neck squamous carcinoma authentically maintain the molecular and histologic characteristics of human cancers. J. Transl. Med.11, 19810.1186/1479-5876-11-19823981300
  92. R. Pfragner, G. Wirnsberger, B. Niederle, A. Behmel, I. Rinner, A. Mandl, F. Wawrina, J. Luo, D. Adamiker, H. Hogeret al. (1996). Establishment of a continuous cell line from a human carcinoid of the small intestine (KRJ-I). Int. J. Oncol.8, 513-520. 10.3892/ijo.8.3.51321544390
  93. R. Pfragner, A. Behmel, H. Hoger, A. Beham, E. Ingolic, I. Stelzer, B. Svejda, V. A. Moser, A. C. Obenauf, V. Sieglet al. (2009). Establishment and characterization of three novel cell lines - P-STS, L-STS, H-STS - derived from a human metastatic midgut carcinoid. Anticancer Res.29, 1951-1961.19528452
  94. S. Pizzi, C. Azzoni, D. Bassi, L. Bottarelli, M. Milione and C. Bordi (2003). Genetic alterations in poorly differentiated endocrine carcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract. Cancer98, 1273-1282. 10.1002/cncr.1162112973852
  95. E. Rad and A. R. Tee (2016). Neurofibromatosis type 1: fundamental insights into cell signalling and cancer. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol.52, 39-46. 10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.02.00726860753
  96. E. Raymond, L. Dahan, J.-L. Raoul, Y.-J. Bang, I. Borbath, C. Lombard-Bohas, J. Valle, P. Metrakos, D. Smith, A. Viniket al. (2011). Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N. Engl. J. Med.364, 501-513. 10.1056/NEJMoa100382521306237
  97. D. S. Rickman, H. Beltran, F. Demichelis and M. A. Rubin (2017). Biology and evolution of poorly differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Nat. Med.23, 1-10. 10.1038/nm.4341
  98. G. Rindi and B. Wiedenmann (2012). Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gut and pancreas: new insights. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol.8, 54-64. 10.1038/nrendo.2011.120
  99. G. Rindi, S. G. Grant, Y. Yiangou, M. A. Ghatei, S. R. Bloom, V. L. Bautch, E. Solcia and J. M. Polak (1990). Development of neuroendocrine tumors in the gastrointestinal tract of transgenic mice. Heterogeneity of hormone expression. Am. J. Pathol.136, 1349-1363.2162628
  100. A. Rinke, H.-H. Müller, C. Schade-Brittinger, K.-J. Klose, P. Barth, M. Wied, C. Mayer, B. Aminossadati, U.-F. Pape, M. Bläkeret al. (2009). Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID Study Group. J. Clin. Oncol.27, 4656-4663. 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.851019704057
  101. S. Rockwell (1980). In vivo-in vitro tumour cell lines: characteristics and limitations as models for human cancer. Br. J. Cancer Suppl.4, 118-122.6932914
  102. T. Sato, R. G. Vries, H. J. Snippert, M. van de Wetering, N. Barker, D. E. Stange, J. H. van Es, A. Abo, P. Kujala, P. J. Peterset al. (2009). Single Lgr5 stem cells build crypt-villus structures in vitro without a mesenchymal niche. Nature459, 262-265. 10.1038/nature0793519329995
  103. T. Sato, D. E. Stange, M. Ferrante, R. G. J. Vries, J. H. Van Es, S. Van den Brink, W. J. Van Houdt, A. Pronk, J. Van Gorp, P. D. Siersemaet al. (2011). Long-term expansion of epithelial organoids from human colon, adenoma, adenocarcinoma, and Barrett's epithelium. Gastroenterology141, 1762-1772. 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.07.05021889923
  104. M. Scardoni, E. Vittoria, M. Volante, B. Rusev, S. Bersani, A. Mafficini, M. Gottardi, V. Giandomenico, G. Malleo, G. Butturiniet al. (2014). Mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract: targeted next-generation sequencing suggests a monoclonal origin of the two components. Neuroendocrinology100, 310-316. 10.1159/00036907125342539
  105. A. Scarpa, D. K. Chang, K. Nones, V. Corbo, A. M. Patch, P. Bailey, R. T. Lawlor, A. L. Johns, D. K. Miller, A. Mafficiniet al. (2017). Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours. Nature543, 65-71. 10.1038/nature2106328199314
  106. T. Schmelzle and M. N. Hall (2000). TOR, a central controller of cell growth. Cell103, 253-262. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00117-311057898
  107. M. Schütte, T. Risch, N. Abdavi-Azar, K. Boehnke, D. Schumacher, M. Keil, R. Yildiriman, C. Jandrasits, T. Borodina, V. Amstislavskiyet al. (2017). Molecular dissection of colorectal cancer in pre-clinical models identifies biomarkers predicting sensitivity to EGFR inhibitors. Nat. Commun.8, 1426210.1038/ncomms1426228186126
  108. Y. Sei, X. Zhao, J. Forbes, S. Szymczak, Q. Li, A. Trivedi, M. Voellinger, G. Joy, J. Feng, M. Whatleyet al. (2015). A hereditary form of small intestinal carcinoid associated with a germline mutation in inositol polyphosphate multikinase. Gastroenterology149, 67-78. 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.00825865046
  109. N. E. Sharpless and R. A. DePinho (2006). The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.5, 741-754. 10.1038/nrd211016915232
  110. P. Shaw, R. Bovey, S. Tardy, R. Sahli, B. Sordat and J. Costa (1992). Induction of apoptosis by wild-type p53 in a human colon tumor-derived cell line. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA89, 4495-4499. 10.1073/pnas.89.10.44951584781
  111. H.-C. J. Shen, M. He, A. Powell, A. Adem, D. Lorang, C. Heller, A. C. Grover, K. Ylaya, S. M. Hewitt, S. J. Marxet al. (2009). Recapitulation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in human multiple endocrine neoplasia type I syndrome via Pdx1-directed inactivation of Men1. Cancer Res.69, 1858-1866. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-366219208834
  112. H.-C. J. Shen, K. Ylaya, K. Pechhold, A. Wilson, A. Adem, S. M. Hewitt and S. K. Libutti (2010). Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 deletion in pancreatic alpha-cells leads to development of insulinomas in mice. Endocrinology151, 4024-4030. 10.1210/en.2009-125120555035
  113. S. Singh, J. Hallet, C. Rowsell and C. H. L. Law (2014). Variability of Ki67 labeling index in multiple neuroendocrine tumors specimens over the course of the disease. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol.40, 1517-1522. 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.06.01625088936
  114. K. C. Snell and H. L. Stewart (1969). Malignant argyrophilic gastric carcinoids of Praomys (Mastomys) natalensis. Science163, 47010.1126/science.163.3866.4705303997
  115. H. Sorbye, S. Welin, S. W. Langer, L. W. Vestermark, N. Holt, P. Osterlund, S. Dueland, E. Hofsli, M. G. Guren, K. Ohrlinget al. (2013). Predictive and prognostic factors for treatment and survival in 305 patients with advanced gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (WHO G3): the NORDIC NEC study. Ann. Oncol.24, 152-160. 10.1093/annonc/mds27622967994
  116. G. A. Stilling, H. Zhang, K. H. Ruebel, A. A. Leontovich, L. Jin, Y. Tanizaki, S. Zhang, L. A. Erickson, T. Hobday and R. V. Lloyd (2007). Characterization of the functional and growth properties of cell lines established from ileal and rectal carcinoid tumors. Endocr. Pathol.18, 223-232. 10.1007/s12022-007-9001-318247165
  117. G. Streisinger, C. Walker, N. Dower, D. Knauber and F. Singer (1981). Production of clones of homozygous diploid zebra fish (Brachydanio rerio). Nature291, 293-296. 10.1038/291293a07248006
  118. J. R. Strosberg, D. Coppola, D. S. Klimstra, A. T. Phan, M. H. Kulke, G. A. Wiseman and L. K. Kvols (2010). The NANETS consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of poorly differentiated (high-grade) extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinomas. Pancreas39, 799-800. 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181ebb56f20664477
  119. J. Strosberg, G. El-Haddad, E. Wolin, A. Hendifar, J. Yao, B. Chasen, E. Mittra, P. L. Kunz, M. H. Kulke, H. Jaceneet al. (2017). Phase 3 Trial of 177Lu-Dotatate for Midgut Neuroendocrine Tumors. N. Engl. J. Med.376, 125-135. 10.1056/NEJMoa160742728076709
  120. S. Sundaresan, A. J. Kang, M. M. Hayes, E.-Y. K. Choi and J. L. Merchant (2017). Deletion of Men1 and somatostatin induces hypergastrinemia and gastric carcinoids. Gut66, 1012-1021. 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-31092826860771
  121. C. Susini and L. Buscail (2006). Rationale for the use of somatostatin analogs as antitumor agents. Ann. Oncol.17, 1733-1742. 10.1093/annonc/mdl10516801334
  122. A. J. Syder, S. M. Karam, J. C. Mills, J. E. Ippolito, H. R. Ansari, V. Farook and J. I. Gordon (2004). A transgenic mouse model of metastatic carcinoma involving transdifferentiation of a gastric epithelial lineage progenitor to a neuroendocrine phenotype. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA101, 4471-4476. 10.1073/pnas.030798310115070742
  123. Y. Takahashi, M. Onda, N. Tanaka and T. Seya (2000). Establishment and characterization of two new rectal neuroendocrine cell carcinoma cell lines. Digestion62, 262-270. 10.1159/00000782511070410
  124. N. Takizawa, Y. Ohishi, M. Hirahashi, S. Takahashi, K. Nakamura, M. Tanaka, E. Oki, R. Takayanagi and Y. Oda (2015). Molecular characteristics of colorectal neuroendocrine carcinoma; similarities with adenocarcinoma rather than neuroendocrine tumor. Hum. Pathol.46, 1890-1900. 10.1016/j.humpath.2015.08.00626434631
  125. N. Tanaka, M. Onda, T. Seya, Y. Kanazawa, Z. Naito, G. Asano and T. Oguro (1999). Establishment and characterization of a human rectal neuroendocrine carcinoma xenograft into nude mice. Digestion60, 117-124. 10.1159/00000763610095152
  126. H. Tsukamoto, T. Mizoshita, M. Sasaki, T. Mizushima, S. Tanida, K. Ozeki, Y. Hirata, T. Shimura, H. Kataoka, T. Kamiyaet al. (2011). Long-term high-dose proton pump inhibitor administration to Helicobacter pylori-infected Mongolian gerbils enhances neuroendocrine tumor development in the glandular stomach. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev.12, 1049-1054.21790250
  127. G. Van Buren II, A. Rashid, A. D. Yang, E. K. Abdalla, M. J. Gray, W. Liu, R. Somcio, F. Fan, E. R. Camp, J. C. Yaoet al. (2007). The development and characterization of a human midgut carcinoid cell line. Clin. Cancer Res.13, 4704-4712. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-272317699847
  128. T. Vandamme, M. Peeters, F. Dogan, P. Pauwels, E. Van Assche, M. Beyens, G. Mortier, G. Vandeweyer, W. de Herder, G. Van Campet al. (2015). Whole-exome characterization of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor cell lines BON-1 and QGP-1. J. Mol. Endocrinol.54, 137-147. 10.1530/JME-14-030425612765
  129. M. van de Wetering, H. E. Francies, J. M. Francis, G. Bounova, F. Iorio, A. Pronk, W. van Houdt, J. van Gorp, A. Taylor-Weiner, L. Kesteret al. (2015). Prospective derivation of a living organoid biobank of colorectal cancer patients. Cell161, 933-945. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.05325957691
  130. G. Vitale, G. Gaudenzi, A. Dicitore, F. Cotelli, D. Ferone and L. Persani (2014). Zebrafish as an innovative model for neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr. Relat. Cancer21, R67-R83. 10.1530/ERC-13-038824292602
  131. A. O. Vortmeyer, I. A. Lubensky, M. J. Merino, C. Y. Wang, T. Pham, E. E. Furth and Z. Zhuang (1997). Concordance of genetic alterations in poorly differentiated colorectal neuroendocrine carcinomas and associated adenocarcinomas. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.89, 1448-1453. 10.1093/jnci/89.19.14489326914
  132. A. M. E. Walenkamp, G. S. Sonke and D. T. Sleijfer (2009). Clinical and therapeutic aspects of extrapulmonary small cell carcinoma. Cancer Treat. Rev.35, 228-236. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2008.10.00719068273
  133. S. Welin, H. Sorbye, S. Sebjornsen, S. Knappskog, C. Busch and K. Öberg (2011). Clinical effect of temozolomide-based chemotherapy in poorly differentiated endocrine carcinoma after progression on first-line chemotherapy. Cancer117, 4617-4622. 10.1002/cncr.2612421456005
  134. P. Whyte, K. J. Buchkovich, J. M. Horowitz, S. H. Friend, M. Raybuck, R. A. Weinberg and E. Harlow (1988). Association between an oncogene and an anti-oncogene: the adenovirus E1A proteins bind to the retinoblastoma gene product. Nature334, 124-129. 10.1038/334124a02968522
  135. S. Yachida, Y. Zhong, R. Patrascu, M. B. Davis, L. A. Morsberger, C. A. Griffin, R. H. Hruban, D. Laheru and C. A. Iacobuzio-Donahue (2011). Establishment and characterization of a new cell line, A99, from a primary small cell carcinoma of the pancreas. Pancreas40, 905-910. 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3182207a5821768923
  136. S. Yachida, E. Vakiani, C. M. White, Y. Zhong, T. Saunders, R. Morgan, R. F. de Wilde, A. Maitra, J. Hicks, A. M. Demarzoet al. (2012). Small cell and large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas of the pancreas are genetically similar and distinct from well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.36, 173-184. 10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182417d3622251937
  137. T. Yamada, M. Onda and N. Tanaka (2001). Establishment and characterization of a human rectal neuroendocrine cell carcinoma in vitro. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res.20, 561-567.11876552
  138. H. W. Yang, J. L. Kutok, N. H. Lee, H. Y. Piao, C. D. M. Fletcher, J. P. Kanki and A. T. Look (2004). Targeted expression of human MYCN selectively causes pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in transgenic zebrafish. Cancer Res.64, 7256-7262. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-093115492244
  139. Z. Yang, L. Zhang, S. Serra, C. Law, A. Wei, T. L. Stockley, S. Ezzat and S. L. Asa (2016). Establishment and Characterization of a Human Neuroendocrine Tumor Xenograft. Endocr. Pathol.27, 97-103. 10.1007/s12022-016-9429-427067082
  140. J. C. Yao, M. Hassan, A. Phan, C. Dagohoy, C. Leary, J. E. Mares, E. K. Abdalla, J. B. Fleming, J.-N. Vauthey, A. Rashidet al. (2008). One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J. Clin. Oncol.26, 3063-3072. 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.437718565894
  141. J. C. Yao, M. H. Shah, T. Ito, C. L. Bohas, E. M. Wolin, E. Van Cutsem, T. J. Hobday, T. Okusaka, J. Capdevila, E. G. E. de Vrieset al. (2011). Everolimus for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. N. Engl. J. Med.364, 514-523. 10.1056/NEJMoa100929021306238
  142. J. C. Yao, N. Fazio, S. Singh, R. Buzzoni, C. Carnaghi, E. Wolin, J. Tomasek, M. Raderer, H. Lahner, M. Voiet al. (2016). Everolimus for the treatment of advanced, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract (RADIANT-4): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet387, 968-977. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00817-X26703889
  143. R. Yu, D. Dhall, N. N. Nissen, C. Zhou and S.-G. Ren (2011). Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in glucagon receptor-deficient mice. PLoS ONE6, e2339710.1371/journal.pone.002339721853126
  144. B. Zhang, C. Xuan, Y. Ji, W. Zhang and D. Wang (2015). Zebrafish xenotransplantation as a tool for in vivo cancer study. Fam. Cancer14, 487-493. 10.1007/s10689-015-9802-325860646
  145. K. Zitzmann, E. N. De Toni, S. Brand, B. Göke, J. Meinecke, G. Spöttl, H. H. D. Meyer and C. J. Auernhammer (2007). The novel mTOR inhibitor RAD001 (everolimus) induces antiproliferative effects in human pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor cells. Neuroendocrinology85, 54-60. 10.1159/00010005717310129
The underlying source XML for this text is taken from https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5894937/fullTextXML. The license for the article is Creative Commons Attribution. The main subject has been identified as neuroendocrine tumor.