Collagen I but not Matrigel matrices provide an MMP-dependent barrier to ovarian cancer cell penetration

Abstract Background The invasive potential of cancer cells is usually assessed in vitro using Matrigel as a surrogate basement membrane. Yet cancer cell interaction with collagen I matrices is critical, particularly for the peritoneal metastatic route undertaken by several cancer types including ovarian. Matrix metalloprotease (MMP) activity is important to enable cells to overcome the barrier constraints imposed by basement membranes and stromal matrices in vivo. Our objective was to compare matrices reconstituted from collagen I and Matrigel as representative barriers for ovarian cancer cell invasion. Methods The requirement of MMP activity for ovarian cancer cell penetration of Matrigel and collagen matrices was assessed in 2D transwell and 3D spheroid culture systems. Results The broad range MMP inhibitor GM6001 completely prevented cell perforation of polymerised collagen I-coated transwell membranes. In contrast, GM6001 decreased ES-2 cell penetration of Matrigel by only ~30% and had no effect on HEY cell Matrigel penetration. In 3D culture, ovarian cancer cells grown as spheroids also migrated into surrounding Matrigel matrices despite MMP blockade. In contrast, MMP activity was required for invasion into 3D matrices of collagen I reconstituted from acid-soluble rat-tail collagen I, but not from pepsin-extracted collagen I (Vitrogen/Purecol), which lacks telopeptide regions. Conclusion Matrigel does not form representative barriers to ovarian cancer cells in either 2D or 3D culture systems. Our findings support the use of collagen I rather than Matrigel as a matrix barrier for invasion studies to better approximate critical interactions and events associated with peritoneal metastasis

Ethical issues in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in advanced breast cancer: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: An effectiveness assessment on ASCT in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer identified serious ethical issues associated with this intervention. Our objective was to systematically review these aspects by means of a literature analysis. METHODS: We chose the reflexive Socratic approach as the review method using Hofmann's question list, conducted a comprehensive literature search in biomedical, psychological and ethics bibliographic databases and screened the resulting hits in a 2-step selection process. Relevant arguments were assembled from the included articles, and were assessed and assigned to the question list. Hofmann's questions were addressed by synthesizing these arguments. RESULTS: Of the identified 879 documents 102 included arguments related to one or more questions from Hofmann's question list. The most important ethical issues were the implementation of ASCT in clinical practice on the basis of phase-II trials in the 1990s and the publication of falsified data in the first randomized controlled trials (Bezwoda fraud), which caused significant negative effects on recruiting patients for further clinical trials and the doctor-patient relationship. Recent meta-analyses report a marginal effect in prolonging disease-free survival, accompanied by severe harms, including death. ASCT in breast cancer remains a stigmatized technology. Reported health-related-quality-of-life data are often at high risk of bias in favor of the survivors. Furthermore little attention has been paid to those patients who were dying. CONCLUSIONS: The questions were addressed in different degrees of completeness. All arguments were assignable to the questions. The central ethical dimensions of ASCT could be discussed by reviewing the published literature