Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering 3D Models of Tumors and Bone to Understand Tumor-Induced Bone Disease and Improve Treatments

  • Cancer-induced Musculoskeletal Diseases (M Reagan and E Keller, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Osteoporosis Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Bone is a structurally unique microenvironment that presents many challenges for the development of 3D models for studying bone physiology and diseases, including cancer. As researchers continue to investigate the interactions within the bone microenvironment, the development of 3D models of bone has become critical.

Recent Findings

3D models have been developed that replicate some properties of bone, but have not fully reproduced the complex structural and cellular composition of the bone microenvironment. This review will discuss 3D models including polyurethane, silk, and collagen scaffolds that have been developed to study tumor-induced bone disease. In addition, we discuss 3D printing techniques used to better replicate the structure of bone.

Summary

3D models that better replicate the bone microenvironment will help researchers better understand the dynamic interactions between tumors and the bone microenvironment, ultimately leading to better models for testing therapeutics and predicting patient outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Ma XH, Piao S, Wang D, Mcafee QW, Nathanson KL, Lum JJ, et al. Measurements of tumor cell autophagy predict invasiveness, resistance to chemotherapy, and survival in melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:3478–89.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Lee JM, Mhawech-Fauceglia P, Lee N, Parsanian LC, Lin YG, Gayther SA, et al. A three-dimensional microenvironment alters protein expression and chemosensitivity of epithelial ovarian cancer cells in vitro. Lab Investig. 2013;93:528–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Imamura Y, Mukohara T, Shimono Y, Funakoshi Y, Chayahara N, Toyoda M, et al. Comparison of 2D- and 3D-culture models as drug-testing platforms in breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2015;33:1837–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Vantangoli MM, Madnick SJ, Huse SM, Weston P, Boekelheide K. MCF-7 human breast cancer cells form differentiated microtissues in scaffold-free hydrogels. PLoS One. 2015;10:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Härmä V, Virtanen J, Mäkelä R, Happonen A, Mpindi JP, Knuuttila M, et al. A comprehensive panel of three-dimensional models for studies of prostate cancer growth, invasion and drug responses. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10431.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cichon MA, Gainullin VG, Zhang Y, Radisky DC. Growth of lung cancer cells in three-dimensional microenvironments reveals key features of tumor malignancy. Integr Biol. 2012;4:440–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Luca AC, Mersch S, Deenen R, Schmidt S, Messner I, Schäfer KL, et al. Impact of the 3D microenvironment on phenotype, gene expression, and EGFR inhibition of colorectal cancer cell lines. PLoS One. 2013;8:e59689.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Sokol ES, Miller DH, Breggia A, Spencer KC, Arendt LM, Gupta PB. Growth of human breast tissues from patient cells in 3D hydrogel scaffolds. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Xu X, Gurski LA, Zhang C, Harrington DA, Farach-Carson MC, Jia X. Recreating the tumor microenvironment in a bilayer, hyaluronic acid hydrogel construct for the growth of prostate cancer spheroids. Biomaterials. 2012;33:9049–60.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Szot CS, Buchanan CF, Freeman JW, Rylander MN. 3D in vitro bioengineered tumors based on collagen I hydrogels. Biomaterials. 2011;32:7905–12.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Riching KM, Cox BL, Salick MR, Pehlke C, Riching AS, Ponik SM, et al. 3D collagen alignment limits protrusions to enhance breast cancer cell persistence. Biophys J. 2014;107:2546–58.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kleinman HK, Martin GR. Matrigel: basement membrane matrix with biological activity. Semin Cancer Biol. 2005;15:378–86.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lovitt CJ, Shelper TB, Avery VM. Evaluation of chemotherapeutics in a three-dimensional breast cancer model. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2015;141:951–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hughes CS, Postovit LM, Lajoie GA. Matrigel: a complex protein mixture required for optimal growth of cell culture. Proteomics. 2010;10:1886–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chung IM, Enemchukwu NO, Khaja SD, Murthy N, Mantalaris A, García AJ. Bioadhesive hydrogel microenvironments to modulate epithelial morphogenesis. Biomaterials. 2008;29:2637–45.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Gurski LA, Petrelli NJ, Jia X, Farach-Carson MC. 3D matrices for anti-cancer drug testing and development. Oncol Issues. 2010;25:20–5.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gill BJ, Gibbons DL, Roudsari LC, Saik JE, Rizvi ZH, Roybal JD, et al. A synthetic matrix with independently tunable biochemistry and mechanical properties to study epithelial morphogenesis and EMT in a lung adenocarcinoma model. Cancer Res. 2012;72:6013–23.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Del Bufalo F, Manzo T, Hoyos V, Yagyu S, Caruana I, Jacot J, et al. 3D modeling of human cancer: a PEG-fibrin hydrogel system to study the role of tumor microenvironment and recapitulate the in vivo effect of oncolytic adenovirus. Biomaterials. 2016;84:76–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pradhan S, Hassani I, Seeto WJ, Lipke EA. PEG-fibrinogen hydrogels for three-dimensional breast cancer cell culture. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2017;105:236–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Feder-Mengus C, Ghosh S, Reschner A, Martin I, Spagnoli GC. New dimensions in tumor immunology: what does 3D culture reveal? Trends Mol Med. 2008;14:333–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zanoni M, Piccinini F, Arienti C, Zamagni A, Santi S, Polico R, et al. 3D tumor spheroid models for in vitro therapeutic screening: a systematic approach to enhance the biological relevance of data obtained. Sci Rep. 2016;6:19103.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Vinci M, Gowan S, Boxall F, Patterson L, Zimmermann M, Court W, et al. Advances in establishment and analysis of three-dimensional tumor spheroid-based functional assays for target validation and drug evaluation. BMC Biol. 2012;10:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Breslin S, O’Driscoll L. Three-dimensional cell culture: the missing link in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:240–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yip D, Cho CH. A multicellular 3D heterospheroid model of liver tumor and stromal cells in collagen gel for anti-cancer drug testing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2013;433:327–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tung Y-C, Hsiao AY, Allen SG, Torisawa Y, Ho M, Takayama S. High-throughput 3D spheroid culture and drug testing using a 384 hanging drop array. Analyst. 2011;136:473–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Amann A, Zwierzina M, Gamerith G, Bitsche M, Huber JM, Vogel GF, et al. Development of an innovative 3D cell culture system to study tumour—stroma interactions in non-small cell lung cancer cells. PLoS One. 2014;9:e92511.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Raghavan S, Ward MR, Rowley KR, Wold RM, Takayama S, Buckanovich RJ, et al. Formation of stable small cell number three-dimensional ovarian cancer spheroids using hanging drop arrays for preclinical drug sensitivity assays. Gynecol Oncol. 2015;138:181–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Raghavan S, Mehta P, Horst EN, Ward MR, Rowley KR, Mehta G. Comparative analysis of tumor spheroid generation techniques for differential in vitro drug toxicity. Oncotarget. 2016;7:16948–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Aboulafia AJ, Levine AM, Schmidt D, Aboulafia D. Surgical therapy of bone metastases. Semin Oncol. 2007;34:206–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson RW, Schipani E, Giaccia AJ. HIF targets in bone remodeling and metastatic disease. Pharmacol Ther. 2015;150:169–77.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Guelcher SA, Sterling JA. Contribution of bone tissue modulus to breast cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer Microenviron. 2011;4:247–59.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Page JM, Merkel AR, Ruppender NS, Guo R, Dadwal UC, Cannonier SA, et al. Matrix rigidity regulates the transition of tumor cells to a bone-destructive phenotype through integrin β3 and TGF-β receptor type II. Biomaterials. 2015;64:33–44.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. García-Alvarez R, Izquierdo-Barba I, Vallet-Regí M. 3D scaffold with effective multidrug sequential release against bacteria biofilm. Acta Biomater. 2016;49:113–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sundelacruz S, Li C, Choi YJ, Levin M, Kaplan DL. Bioelectric modulation of wound healing in a 3D invitro model of tissue-engineered bone. Biomaterials. 2013;34:6695–705.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Lee JH, Gu Y, Wang H, Lee WY. Microfluidic 3D bone tissue model for high-throughput evaluation of wound-healing and infection-preventing biomaterials. Biomaterials. 2012;33:999–1006.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chatterjee K, Lin-Gibson S, Wallace WE, Parekh SH, Lee YJ, Cicerone MT, et al. The effect of 3D hydrogel scaffold modulus on osteoblast differentiation and mineralization revealed by combinatorial screening. Biomaterials. 2010;31:5051–62.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Guo R, Lu S, Page JM, Merkel AR, Basu S, Sterling JA, et al. Fabrication of 3D scaffolds with precisely controlled substrate modulus and pore size by templated-fused deposition modeling to direct osteogenic differentiation. Adv Healthc Mater. 2015;4:1826–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sun L, Parker ST, Syoji D, Wang X, Lewis JA, Kaplan DL. Direct-write assembly of 3D silk/hydroxyapatite scaffolds for bone co-cultures. Adv Healthc Mater. 2012;1:729–35.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Bidan CM, Kommareddy KP, Rumpler M, Kollmannsberger P, Fratzl P, Dunlop JWC. Geometry as a factor for tissue growth: towards shape optimization of tissue engineering scaffolds. Adv Healthc Mater. 2013;2:186–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Gamsjager E, Bidan CM, Fischer FD, Fratzl P, Dunlop JWC. Modelling the role of surface stress on the kinetics of tissue growth in confined geometries. Acta Biomater. 2013;9:5531–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sterling JA, Guelcher SA. Bone structural components regulating sites of tumor metastasis. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2011;9:89–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Yamada KM, Cukierman E. Modeling tissue morphogenesis and cancer in 3D. Cell. 2007;130:601–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fischbach C, Chen R, Matsumoto T, Schmelzle T, Brugge JS, Polverini PJ, et al. Engineering tumors with 3D scaffolds. Nat Methods. 2007;4:855–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schuessler TK, Chan XY, Chen HJ, Ji K, Park KM, Roshan-Ghias A, et al. Biomimetic tissue-engineered systems for advancing cancer research: NCI strategic workshop report. Cancer Res. 2014;74:5359–63.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Temple JP, Hutton DL, Hung BP, Huri PY, Cook CA, Kondragunta R, et al. Engineering anatomically shaped vascularized bone grafts with hASCs and 3D-printed PCL scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res Part A. 2014;102:4317–25.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Williams JM, Adewunmi A, Schek RM, Flanagan CL, Krebsbach PH, Feinberg SE, et al. Bone tissue engineering using polycaprolactone scaffolds fabricated via selective laser sintering. Biomaterials. 2005;26:4817–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Petrie Aronin CE, Cooper JA, Sefcik LS, Tholpady SS, Ogle RC, Botchwey EA. Osteogenic differentiation of dura mater stem cells cultured in vitro on three-dimensional porous scaffolds of poly(epsilon-caprolactone) fabricated via co-extrusion and gas foaming. Acta Biomater. 2008;4:1187–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Guillaume O, Geven MA, Sprecher CM, Stadelmann VA, Grijpma DW, Tang TT, et al. Surface-enrichment with hydroxyapatite nanoparticles in stereolithography-fabricated composite polymer scaffolds promotes bone repair. Acta Biomater. 2017;54:386–98.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Gay S, Arostegui S, Lemaitre J. Preparation and characterization of dense nanohydroxyapatite/PLLA composites. Mater Sci Eng C. 2009;29:172–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Grinberg O, Binderman I, Bahar H, Zilberman M. Highly porous bioresorbable scaffolds with controlled release of bioactive agents for tissue-regeneration applications. Acta Biomater Acta Materialia Inc. 2010;6:1278–87.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Horning JL, Sahoo SK, Vijayaraghavalu S, Dimitrijevic S, Vasir JK, Jain TK, et al. 3-D tumor model for in vitro evaluation of anticancer drugs. Mol Pharm. 2008;5:849–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang P, Wu H, Wu H, Lù Z, Deng C, Hong Z, et al. RGD-conjugated copolymer incorporated into composite of poly(lactide-co-glycotide) and poly(L-lactide)-grafted nanohydroxyapatite for bone tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules. 2011;12:2667–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Guelcher SA. Biodegradable polyurethanes: synthesis and applications in regenerative medicine. Tissue Eng Part B Rev. 2008;14:3–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Temenoff JS, Mikos AG. Injectable biodegradable materials for orthopedic tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2000;21:2405–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kim K, Dean D, Mikos AG, Fisher JP. Effect of initial cell seeding density on early osteogenic signal expression of rat bone marrow stromal cells cultured on cross-linked poly(propylene fumarate) disks. Biomacromolecules. 2009;10:1810–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Clarke B. Normal bone anatomy and physiology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008;3:S131–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Chattopadhyay S, Raines RT. Collagen-based biomaterials for wound healing. Biopolymers. 2015;101:821–33.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Reagan MR, Mishima Y, Glavey SV, Zhang Y, Manier S, Lu ZN, et al. Investigating osteogenic differentiation in multiple myeloma using a novel 3D bone marrow niche model. Blood. 2014;124:3250–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Vepari C, Kaplan DL. Silk as a biomaterial. Prog Polym Sci. 2007;32:991–1007.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Kwon H, Kim HJ, Rice WL, Subramanian B, Park S, Georgakoudi I, et al. Development of an in vitro model to study the impact of BMP-2 on metastasis to bone. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2010;4:590–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Mastro AM, Vogler EA. A three-dimensional osteogenic tissue model for the study of metastatic tumor cell interactions with bone. Cancer Res. 2009;69:4097–100.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Thein-Han W, Xu HHK. Prevascularization of a gas-foaming macroporous calcium phosphate cement scaffold via coculture of human umbilical vein endothelial cells and osteoblasts. Tissue Eng Part A. 2013;19:1675–85.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Annabi N, Fathi A, Mithieux SM, Martens P, Weiss AS, Dehghani F. The effect of elastin on chondrocyte adhesion and proliferation on poly (epsilon-caprolactone)/elastin composites. Biomaterials Elsevier Ltd. 2011;32:1517–25.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Akar B, Jiang B, Somo SI, Appel AA, Larson JC, Tichauer KM, et al. Biomaterials with persistent growth factor gradients in vivo accelerate vascularized tissue formation. Biomaterials. 2015;72:61–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhang J, Zhou H, Yang K, Yuan Y, Liu C. RhBMP-2-loaded calcium silicate/calcium phosphate cement scaffold with hierarchically porous structure for enhanced bone tissue regeneration. Biomaterials. 2013;34:9381–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Fereshteh Z, Fathi M, Bagri A, Boccaccini AR. Preparation and characterization of aligned porous PCL/zein scaffolds as drug delivery systems via improved unidirectional freeze-drying method. Mater Sci Eng C. 2016;68:613–22.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Vanderburgh J, Sterling JA, Guelcher SA. 3D printing of tissue engineered constructs for in vitro modeling of disease progression and drug screening. Ann Biomed Eng. 2016;1–16.

  68. Hutmacher DW, Schantz T, Zein I, Ng KW, Teoh SH, Tan KC. Mechanical properties and cell cultural response of polycaprolactone scaffolds designed and fabricated via fused deposition modeling. J Biomed Mater Res. 2001;55:203–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Guo R, Merkel AR, Sterling JA, Davidson JM, Guelcher SA. Substrate modulus of 3D-printed scaffolds regulates the regenerative response in subcutaneous implants through the macrophage phenotype and Wnt signaling. Biomaterials. 2015;73:85–95.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Lee S-J, Nowicki M, Harris B, Zhang LG. Fabrication of a highly aligned neural scaffold via a table top stereolithography 3D printing and electrospinning. Tissue Eng Part A. 2017;

  71. Li G, Cuidi L, Fangping C, Changsheng L. Fabrication and characterization of toughness-enhanced scaffolds comprising beta-TCP/POC using the freeform fabrication system with micro-droplet jetting. Biomed Mater. 2015;10:35009.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Kundu J, Shim JH, Jang J, Kim SW, Cho DW. An additive manufacturing-based PCL-alginate-chondrocyte bioprinted scaffold for cartilage tissue engineering. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2015;9:1286–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kang HW, Lee SJ, Ko IK, Kengla C, Yoo JJ, Atala A. A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:312–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Bancroft GN, Sikavitsas VI, van den Dolder J, Sheffield TL, Ambrose CG, Jansen JA, et al. Fluid flow increases mineralized matrix deposition in 3D perfusion culture of marrow stromal osteoblasts in a dose-dependent manner. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:12600–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. • Krishnan V, Vogler EA, Mastro AM. Three-dimensional in vitro model to study osteobiology and osteopathology. J Cell Biochem. 2015;116:2715–23. This study uses a 3D bioreactor tri-culture model to demonstrate that tumor cells migrate towards sites of active bone remodeling which results in further degradation of osteoid matrix.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Talukdar S, Nguyen QT, Chen AC, Sah RL, Kundu SC. Effect of initial cell seeding density on 3D-engineered silk fibroin scaffolds for articular cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials. 2011;32:8927–37.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Talukdar S, Kundu SC. Engineered 3D silk-based metastasis models: interactions between human breast adenocarcinoma, mesenchymal stem cells and osteoblast-like cells. Adv Funct Mater. 2013;23:5249–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Mastro AM, Gay CV, Welch DR, Donahue HJ, Jewell J, Mercer R, et al. Breast cancer cells induce osteoblast apoptosis: a possible contributor to bone degradation. J Cell Biochem. 2004;91:265–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. • Subia B, Dey T, Sharma S, Kundu SC. Target specific delivery of anticancer drug in silk fibroin based 3D distribution model of bone–breast cancer cells. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2015;7:2269–79. This study reports that the viability, invasiveness, and angiogenic potential of cancer cells co-cultured with osteoblasts on silk scaffolds significantly decreases after nanoparticle-targeted delivery of doxorubicin; osteoblasts were mostly unaffected by treatment.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. • Lynch ME, Chiou AE, Lee MJ, Marcott SC, Polamraju PV, Lee Y, et al. Three-dimensional mechanical loading modulates the osteogenic response of mesenchymal stem cells to tumor-derived soluble signals. Tissue Eng Part A. 2016;22:1006–15. This paper emphasizes the important role that mechanical stress plays on osteogenic cells cultured on HA-containing scaffolds in the presence of tumor-conditioned media.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. • Zhu W, Holmes B, Glazer RI, Zhang LG. 3D printed nanocomposite matrix for the study of breast cancer bone metastasis. Nanomedicine Nanotechnol Biol Med. 2016;12:69–79. This study utilizes a novel stereolithography-based 3D printer to fabricate nanohydroxyapatite scaffolds that promote tumor spheroid formation, proliferation, and migration; tumor cells also exhibit more chemoresistance on 3D scaffolds.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Wang Y, Pivonka P, Buenzli PR, Smith DW, Dunstan CR. Computational modeling of interactions between multiple myeloma and the bone microenvironment. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27494.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Araujo A, Cook LM, Lynch CC, Basanta D. An integrated computational model of the bone microenvironment in bone-metastatic prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 2014;14:2391–401.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by 1I01BX001957 (JAS), 1R01CA163499 (SAG/JAS), 5R01 AR064772 (SAG), and 5T32CA009592 (KAK).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Kristin A. Kwakwa and Joseph P. Vanderburgh contributed equally to the writing of this review.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, 37212, USA

    Kristin A. Kwakwa, Joseph P. Vanderburgh & Julie A. Sterling

  2. Vanderbilt Center for Bone Biology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2215B Garland Ave, 1235 MRBIV, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Kristin A. Kwakwa, Joseph P. Vanderburgh, Scott A. Guelcher & Julie A. Sterling

  3. Department of Cancer Biology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Kristin A. Kwakwa & Julie A. Sterling

  4. Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA

    Joseph P. Vanderburgh & Scott A. Guelcher

  5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, 37235, USA

    Scott A. Guelcher & Julie A. Sterling

  6. Department of Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA

    Scott A. Guelcher & Julie A. Sterling

Authors
  1. Kristin A. Kwakwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph P. Vanderburgh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Scott A. Guelcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julie A. Sterling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie A. Sterling.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Kristin Kwakwa, Joseph Vanderburgh, Julie Sterling, and Scott Guelcher declare no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cancer-induced Musculoskeletal Diseases

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kwakwa, K.A., Vanderburgh, J.P., Guelcher, S.A. et al. Engineering 3D Models of Tumors and Bone to Understand Tumor-Induced Bone Disease and Improve Treatments. Curr Osteoporos Rep 15, 247–254 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-017-0385-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11914-017-0385-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation