TABLE 1.
Comparison of the current preclinical models for cancer research.
| 2D tumor cell lines | Patient‐derived xenografts | Tumoroids | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Success rate of establishment | Generally high (but some special tumor types are low) | Relatively low | Relatively high |
| Maintenance | The easiest | Little difficult | Easy |
| Genetic manipulation | Able | Unable | Able |
| Genome‐wide screening | Able | Unable | Able |
| Relative cost | Low | High | Relatively high |
| High‐throughput assay | Able | Unable | Able |
| Expansion | Quick | Relatively low | Quick |
| Reproducibility | High | Moderate | Relatively low |
| Ability to recapitulate tumor development biology | Low | Low | High |
| Tumor immune microenvironment | Unable to recapitulate | Partial recapitulation | Partial recapitulation |
| Tumor heterogeneity | Unable to recapitulate | Retain, (but heterogeneity may be lost partly in long‐term culture) | Retain parental tumor heterogeneity |
| Ability of personalized treatment | Low | Moderate | High |
| Complexity | Low complexity | High complexity (enable to reproduce the cell types and the tumor cell–stroma cell interactions of the primary tumor and can be used to study metastasis) | High complexity (recapitulate histological and genetical features of primary tumors) |