Title |
Glioma Surgical Aspirate: A Viable Source of Tumor Tissue for Experimental Research
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cancers, April 2013
|
DOI | 10.3390/cancers5020357 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Bryan W. Day, Brett W. Stringer, John Wilson, Rosalind L. Jeffree, Paul R. Jamieson, Kathleen S. Ensbey, Zara C. Bruce, Po Inglis, Suzanne Allan, Craig Winter, Gert Tollesson, Scott Campbell, Peter Lucas, Wendy Findlay, David Kadrian, David Johnson, Thomas Robertson, Terrance G. Johns, Perry F. Bartlett, Geoffrey W. Osborne, Andrew W. Boyd |
Abstract |
Brain cancer research has been hampered by a paucity of viable clinical tissue of sufficient quality and quantity for experimental research. This has driven researchers to rely heavily on long term cultured cells which no longer represent the cancers from which they were derived. Resection of brain tumors, particularly at the interface between normal and tumorigenic tissue, can be carried out using an ultrasonic surgical aspirator (CUSA) that deposits liquid (blood and irrigation fluid) and resected tissue into a sterile bottle for disposal. To determine the utility of CUSA-derived glioma tissue for experimental research, we collected 48 CUSA specimen bottles from glioma patients and analyzed both the solid tissue fragments and dissociated tumor cells suspended in the liquid waste fraction. We investigated if these fractions would be useful for analyzing tumor heterogeneity, using IHC and multi-parameter flow cytometry; we also assessed culture generation and orthotopic xenograft potential. Both cell sources proved to be an abundant, highly viable source of live tumor cells for cytometric analysis, animal studies and in-vitro studies. Our findings demonstrate that CUSA tissue represents an abundant viable source to conduct experimental research and to carry out diagnostic analyses by flow cytometry or other molecular diagnostic procedures. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Australia | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
Researcher | 8 | 15% |
Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 6% |
Other | 10 | 19% |
Unknown | 8 | 15% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 21% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 19% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 15% |
Chemistry | 4 | 8% |
Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
Other | 6 | 12% |
Unknown | 10 | 19% |