Table 1.
General advantages/disadvantages of the CAM assay
| Advantages | Disadvantages | |
|---|---|---|
| Technical | Short experimental duration | Short observation period |
|
| ||
| Easy handling | Risk of angiogenesis induced by technical errors (eggshell pieces) | |
|
| ||
| Inexpensive | ||
|
| ||
| Allows high throughput screening [Zhou et al., 2013; Dünker and Jendrossek, 2019 | ||
|
| ||
| Allows multiple tests per individual CAM [Bertossi et al., 1999; Deryugina, 2016] | ||
|
| ||
| High reproducibility | ||
|
| ||
| Allows continuous/direct visualization | ||
|
| ||
| In vivo imaging available | ||
|
| ||
| Animals need not to be restrained or narcotized | ||
|
| ||
| Biological | Naturally immunodeficient | Unable to examine tumor-immune cell interaction Non-specific inflammatory reaction after chick immune system development |
|
| ||
| Highly vascularized environment for tumor growth | Difficult in distinguishing neovascularization and existing vessels | |
|
| ||
| Closed system | Sensitive to environmental factors (e.g., changes in pH, osmolarity and oxygen level) | |
|
| ||
| High feasibility on primary human cell lines | Limited antibodies and cytokines for chicken tissue characterization | |
|
| ||
| Well-known biology and physiology | Differences in drug metabolism and immune system with mammals | |
|
| ||
| Various drug treatment routes | Oral route cannot be tested | |
|
| ||
| Ethical | No administration concent needed | |