Murine tumor models have proven to be useful for our understanding of biological processes that take place during tumor growth, and for the preclinical development of antitumor therapies. However, the limitations of these models are too frequently overlooked. As a result, numerous anti-tumor drugs that were shown to be efficient in mice ended up being unusable against human tumors. Even if such a major failure has already been discussed, this problem still needs to be examined in depth. A large part of this review will be devoted to comparing the properties of spontaneous (SP) and transplanted (TP) tumors. We will take advantage of two models (a mammary tumor and a melanoma), in which TP and SP tumors can be obtained with isogenic tumor cells. This comparison will be made for the first time by taking into account global structural and functional points of view. Structural features are those that affect the tumor architecture, which is largely dependent on the pre-existence of an epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). For the functional analysis in TP and SP tumors, we examine a series of key tumor features: vascularization, growth rate, immune infiltrate and inflammation, tumor metabolism, and influence of tumor-derived TGFβ. We evaluate the influence of these features on spontaneous growth rate and, most importantly, on the sensitivity of tumors to various treatments, as summarized in Table 1.

The fact that different tumor models may not be equivalent is an issue that was first recognized a long time ago. One of the first to address this problem was Francis Peyton Rous, well before the Nobel prize that he obtained in 1966 for his work on virus-induced tumors. In 1914, FP Rous examined the extent to which the mouse diet could influence tumor growth rate in SP and TP tumors (Rous, 1914). He concluded that starvation slows down tumor growth, by affecting both the tumor and its stroma. Importantly, he pointed out that results obtained in these SP and TP systems differ and that 'generalizations from work with transplanted tumors as regards the effects of diet on spontaneous growths are unwarranted’.

Since then, the specific features of different tumor models have been discussed in several reviews (Sharpless and Depinho, 2006; Talmadge et al., 2007; Coffelt and de Visser, 2015; Olson et al., 2018), often with a focused scope, such as a comparison between the different types of genetically engineered mice models (GEMM) designed to develop so-called ‘spontaneous’ tumors. Before starting the comparison between TP and SP tumors, it is necessary to have a global vision of the wide variety of murine tumor models.

The diversity of TP tumors stems from the origin and the type of cells that are implanted, their abundance and their site of implantation (subcutaneous or orthotopic). These tumor cells may be established cell lines, primary tumor cells freshly dissociated from spontaneous tumors, or fragments of tumors transferred from donor to host animals. In the latter two cases, transplanted cells include different cell types present in the tumor microenvironment. In the two isogenic models that are examined in this review, the TP tumors developed after implantation of a tumor cell line in one case (the melanoma), whereas TP tumors in the PyMT mammary model developed after transplantation of dissociated SP tumors.

Even if this review is devoted to the analysis of murine tumor models, it is worth remembering that other tumor models could also deserve consideration (Box 1). SP tumors may develop with aging in some strains of non-transgenic laboratory animals that have been selected for being cancer-prone. They constitute a first type of SP or autochthonous tumors. This is the case, for instance, for one-year- old C3H female mice, which often develop one or two mammary tumors (Waxler et al., 1953).

Amongst different strains of laboratory mice, a negative correlation has been established between the probability of developing such tumors and the efficacy of the immune system. This efficacy was evaluated by the strength of the immune responses triggered by sheep red blood cells. This correlation could indicate that cancer formation is a relatively frequent process that is counterbalanced by immune surveillance (Frese and Tuveson, 2007).

Oncogene-induced tumors, which develop in GEMM, constitute a second type of murine SP tumors. A number of reviews have been devoted to the properties of different GEMM, the most frequently used model of SP tumors, for cancer studies ( Frese and Tuveson, 2007; Willimsky and Blankenstein, 2007; Day et al., 2015; Kersten et al., 2017; Olson et al., 2018). Oncogene-induced tumors present a high incidence, which leads to a delay of only a few weeks between birth and tumor development. Different GEMM have been constructed to generate tumors in various organs. For instance, mammary tumors develop ‘spontaneously’ in models where an oncogene (either PyMT or neu) is targeted to the mammary glands by the inclusion in the oncogene promoter of MMTV, that is Mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV-PyMT or MMTV-neu mice).

In MMTV-PyMT mice, up to 10 tumors develop with a delay of 2 months in FVB mice, and of 5 months in C57BL/6J mice. Similarly, oncogene-driven tumors are generated in the prostate in the TRAMP model (Foster et al., 1997) and in the pancreas in the Rip-Tag model (Ye et al., 1994), whereas melanoma tumors are developed in the Ret model (Takahashi et al., 1992). In some variants of these GEMM, such as the TiRP (Tamoxifen-Induced, expressing active Ras and the P1A tumor-specific antigen) melanoma model, the expression of the oncogenes is induced, for instance by tamoxifen (Huijbers et al., 2006; Kersten et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2017). In practice, inducible models are somehow intermediate between TP and SP oncogene-induced tumors. Like TP tumors, their triggering is sudden, but, as for oncogene-induced tumors that develop with aging, there is no massive introduction of tumor cells, many of which die and trigger an inflammatory situation.

One may consider that the incidence of these GEMM tumors is excessively high, and results in multifocal or multiple tumors, which develop much faster than those in humans. This is why T. Blankenstein and colleagues have developed a third model, the so-called sporadic tumor model, which is still oncogene-induced but with such a low probability that only one or two tumors develop, after a long delay in the order of one year. This model is certainly as close as possible to human tumors (Willimsky and Blankenstein, 2007; Willimsky and Blankenstein, 2005).

Given their dependency on specific genetic events, GEMM have proved to be useful for testing the efficacy of agents targeting farnesyl transferase, epidermal growth factor receptor, angiogenesis, matrix metalloproteases and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) to inhibit tumor growth (Van Dyke and Jacks, 2002; Suggitt and Bibby, 2005; Kohl et al., 1995; Lenferink et al., 2000; Bergers et al., 1999; Bergers et al., 2000; Huss et al., 2003). Moreover, GEMM also make it possible to evaluate how mutations in specific genes affect tumor sensitivity or resistance to chemotherapeutic drugs, such as cyclophosphamide in lymphoid malignancy (Schmitt et al., 1999) or doxorubicin and paclitaxel in mammary and salivary tumors (Bearss et al., 2000).

However, by construction, the mutational burden of tumors in GEMM is usually low compared to that observed in human tumors. To reduce this gap, it has been proposed that the mutation load in GEMM should be increased, for instance by introducing mutations in the DNA mismatch repair machinery (Germano et al., 2017). An additional difference between GEMM and human tumors should be noted: a human tumor is expected to correspond to the descendance of one or a few initially transformed cells, whereas in a GEMM, the constitutive expression of a few oncogenes maintains the continuous appearance of newly transformed cells. A single stream is not equivalent to multiple streams that are constantly renewed.

In addition to the TP and SP models, tumors may also be induced by a carcinogen, either chemical or mineral/mechanical (asbestos). In carcinogen-induced models, the type and route of administration of the carcinogen dictates the location in which the tumor is formed. For instance, topical application of DMBA/TPA (7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene/12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol-13-acetate) results in skin carcinogenesis, and injection of methylcholanthrene (MCA) intramuscularly gives rise to fibrosarcomas. Carcinogen-induced tumors show a strong and long-lasting inflammation (Shi et al., 2017) that resembles the chronic inflammatory milieu of GEMM such as the K14-HPV16 transgenic model of skin carcinogenesis (de Visser et al., 2005).

Given the fact that most carcinogens are also mutagenic agents, carcinogen-induced tumors have a higher mutational burden compared to GEMM or TP models, which are most often genetically defined by two or three mutations (Olson et al., 2018). Consistent with the fact that a high mutation load increases the occurrence of neoantigens recognizable by a large number of T cells (Chan et al., 2019), thus influencing the importance of the T cell infiltrate, tumor patients with high mutational burden usually show a good response to immunotherapy (Lawrence et al., 2013; Alexandrov et al., 2013; Quiroga et al., 2016; Chalmers et al., 2017; Schumacher and Schreiber, 2015; Gros et al., 2016; Sharma and Allison, 2015; McGranahan et al., 2016). The higher immunogenicity of carcinogen-induced tumors compared to GEMM tumors has been illustrated by studies showing that sarcomas triggered by KrasG12D oncogene activation and Trp53 deletion are not recognized by the immune system, contrary to the MCA-induced mouse model of sarcoma, which may induce the appearance of tumor-specific T cells (DuPage et al., 2012; Matsushita et al., 2012). In addition, MCA-induced mouse sarcomas harbor genetic mutations similar to those found in patients bearing tumors that are likely to be carcinogen-induced (Liu et al., 2014).

Given the importance of tumor immunogenicity in predicting the response to immunotherapies, carcinogen-induced tumor models would be of interest for investigating the efficacy of immunotherapeutic agents. In addition, and contrary to what happens in TP models, carcinogen-induced tumors and SP tumors share the relative slowness of their development, which allows the formation of a complex tumor microenvironment (Olson et al., 2018). However, carcinogen-induced models have been employed in only a minority of immunotherapy pre-clinical studies. See for instance, a study on the synergistic effect of anti-CD73 and anti-PD-1 treatment in delaying progression of MCA-induced fibrosarcomas (Allard et al., 2013). The delayed development, heterogeneous appearance, location, size and number of carcinogen-induced tumors contribute not only to the biological interest but also to the experimental complexity of these tumor models (Liu et al., 2015). These features of carcinogen-induced models, which are less marked but comparable to those observed with sporadic tumor models, make it difficult to produce homogeneous groups of animals that can be used to compare therapeutic modalities.

Transplanted cell lines that are derived from carcinogen-induced tumors have been more commonly used (Efremova et al., 2018; Redmond et al., 2014; Noguchi et al., 2017). One may expect that such tumor cells have a higher mutational burden than other TP cell lines, and could potentially be more immunogenic. However, the rapid growth of such tumors is typical of TP tumors, with a quickly built microenvironment. This will put limits on their clinical relevance, as further discussed later.

All of the examples given above concern primary tumors, and not metastases, which constitute a problem of major importance because most cancer patients die of metastases, not of their primary tumors. The use of murine models for studying the formation and treatment of metastases is too important and specific a topic to fit within the scope of the present review, and will not be further examined here.

Now that the global landscape of tumor models has been recalled, we can begin to compare them. The discussion will focus on comparing TP and SP tumors, by examining the different functional aspects of the tumors that appear to be model-dependent. Up to now, such comparisons have mainly dealt with differences in the vasculature of TP and SP tumors (Falk, 1982; Fenton et al., 2001; Fenton et al., 2004; Sikder et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2002). Here, we underline the importance of not only the vasculature but also the tumor's growth rate, immune infiltrate, inflammation level, metabolism, and TGFβ signaling, and how these characteristics influence tumor sensitivity to anti-cancer treatments (as summarized in Table 1). We also highlight the variability observed for different features. This variability does not result from some inaccuracy in the measurements. It rather reflects the importance of stochasticity in life, which has been taken into account in several complementary concepts: first in Darwin’s theory of natural selection of random variants, then in the notions of ‘epigenetic landscape’ (Waddington, 1957), ‘gene network dynamics’, multi-stability and self-organization, which allow a given living system to adopt several possible stable states (Huang, 2012). A phenotype is not determined by genotype alone but also by constraints including stochastic events and epigenetics. Therefore, the ‘variability’ that is inherent to some tumor models should not be concealed.

Tumor architecture

After tumor initiation, stromal cells may be recruited by the nascent tumor from neighboring normal tissue or may differentiate from mesenchymal cells arriving through the blood from the bone marrow (Bucala et al., 1994; Kraman et al., 2010). The self-organization of the stroma involves different cell types including stromal cells, endothelial cells and macrophages. The stromal compartment usually includes a peritumoral capsule and stromal sheets between tumor islets. This organization is typical of human carcinoma and it is also observed in some murine tumor models (see below). In the MMTV-PyMT (pre-EMT) model, fibronectin is only expressed by stromal cells, and the vasculature is strictly associated with the stroma. This holds true whether the tumor is SP, or whether it results from an orthotopical implant (TP) of cells freshly dissociated from a SP tumor (Figure 1A&B) and thus includes multiple cell types that have not been kept in culture. However, in most commonly used models of TP tumors, 10⁵–10⁶ cells from an established tumor cell line are injected subcutaneously. Cells kept in culture for a long time usually drift, and such tumor cell lines have frequently acquired fibroblast markers such as gp38 or fibronectin because they have gone through EMT. An example is provided by the TC1 (TP) tumor model (Figure 1C). Post-EMT tumor cells never form tumors that are organized into tumor islets and stromal sheets, as if the self-organization of the stromal compartment were hampered by the similarities between fibroblasts and post-EMT tumor cells. Moreover, a mesenchymal transition may sometimes take place in vivo. This is the case for a SP melanoma model named TiRP described in Zhu et al. (2017) (Figure 1D). This tumor shows a uniform fibronectin expression and no tumor islets nor stromal sheets. The same structure is observed in the corresponding TP melanoma (not shown).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Thus, the existence or not of a mesenchymal transition determines a certain architecture of the tumor. Importantly, this structural organization influences the distribution of monocytes/macrophages and T cells. Indeed, this immune infiltrate is concentrated in the stromal sheets when they exist, whereas it is more uniformly dispersed in the tumor mass after EMT (Thoreau et al., 2015; Weiss et al., 2017).

The use of tumor models that present an architecture of tumor islets separated by stromal sheets is of particular relevance for the following reason. M. Angelo and colleagues have recently shown that, in breast cancer, an enriched co-occurrence of immune populations defines a structured immune environment that is indicative of a good prognosis (Keren et al., 2018). They have established an important correlation between a structure (the spatial distribution of immune cells in the tumor) and a function (the efficacy of the anti-tumoral immune response), without suggesting a causal explanation for this correlation. On the basis of the previous discussion, we propose that a well-developed, regular stroma surrounding a functional vascular tree provides an oxygenated space in which immune cells can be recruited. The different cell types gathered there may interact and are ready to respond to an external stimulation. Murine models show that such structures are not observed when tumor cells have gone through EMT. If such a structure is important in human primary carcinoma, one should be aware of the limits of murine models that do not present such an architecture.

Growth rate

As already pointed out, the growth of a tumor is entirely dependent on its vascularization. Indeed, in the absence of angiogenesis, a tumor cannot grow beyond 1–3 mm in diameter (Greene, 1941; Gimbrone et al., 1969). Once vascularized, the tumor cells that proliferate most actively are those located close to blood vessels (Tannock, 1968). The growth rate of tumor cells is thus indirectly controlled by that of endothelial cells within the tumor (Tannock, 1970).

Tumor growth rate diminishes when tumors outgrow their blood supply (Cataland et al., 1962). Small TP tumors are better vascularized than large ones, in terms of average distance between blood vessels and tumor cells. Indeed, it has been shown that oxygen diffuses with a space constant of a few tens of microns. As a result, tumor cells that are located further than 60–80 µm from a blood vessel suffer from excessive hypoxia, which triggers their apoptosis followed by secondary necrosis (Thomlinson and Gray, 1955; Carmona-Fontaine et al., 2017) (and our own unpublished observations). This partially explains why the growth of TP tumors slows down when tumors are > 1 g (or 1 cm³) (Cataland et al., 1962) and Figure 2A. There are examples in which the growth rate is higher for TP than for SP tumors (Wexler et al., 1965; McCredie et al., 1971), but, given the limited number of available comparisons and inconsistent evidence this certainly cannot be considered to be a general rule (Rous, 1914; Burton and Begg, 1961).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Surprisingly, it is also possible, under some conditions, to observe an acceleration of tumor growth. Thus, we have observed that SP mammalian tumors have an initial slow growth rate, which increases about two-fold when tumors reach a size of around 6 mm in diameter (Figure 2B), reaching a growth rate comparable to that of TP tumors. The reason for this frequent acceleration of SP tumor growth is unclear. One possibility is that tumor cell proliferation is initially slowed down by different microenvironmental brakes, including TGFβ, which is abundant in these tumors (Guerin et al., 2019). At some point, tumor cells may become unresponsive to TGFβ, as shown in different tumor models (Guerin et al., 2019).

Other examples of accelerations of tumor growth have been reported. For instance, when the size of SP tumors is reduced by surgery, the remaining part of the tumor regrows very rapidly, faster than before surgery (Havas and Donnelly, 1961). This observation is also common for human tumors: a partial tumor regression in response to a treatment is followed by a swift regrowth.

Thus, variations in the rate of tumor growth may be observed in two directions: accelerations of tumor growth for some SP tumors, either spontaneously or after treatment, or a slowdown that may be attributed to an insufficient vasculature, and ensuing hypoxia and necrosis. With exactly the same tumor cells, we have observed either an acceleration in a SP context (Figure 2B) or a slowing down in a TP context (Figure 2A). Such rate changes in tumor growth, combined with the inherent stochasticity involved in tumor formation mentioned earlier, cause important variability in tumor growth rates in murine models.

Altogether, tumor growth rate is strongly dependent on the angiogenesis rate. Tumors that grow fast are not only more aggressive but also more susceptible to antitumoral treatment for several reasons. First their vascular network is more immature and therefore more fragile. Second, rapidly proliferating cells are more susceptible to anti-mitotic drugs or to high local concentrations of IFNα (Sujobert and Trautmann, 2016; Weiss et al., 2017). To conclude on the rate of tumor growth: when tumor cells divide regularly, the tumor growth is exponential and linear on a log scale. However, this growth rate may be either accelerated, when the tumor escapes microenvironmental brakes (particularly conspicuous for SP tumors), or reduced, when angiogenesis becomes insufficient and hypoxic or necrotic regions appear.

TGFβ

The last factor examined in this review, which is key to understanding differences between TP and SP tumors, is TGFβ.

The abundance of TGFβ in tumors is quite variable. TGFβ may be produced by tumor cells (Schlingensiepen et al., 2008) (and our unpublished data), by cancer-associated fibroblasts (Nazareth et al., 2007), by dying cells (Chen et al., 2001; Moustakas et al., 2002), and by TAM (Bonde et al., 2012). Of note, the secretion of TGFβ by macrophages increases after ingestion of dying cells (Fadok et al., 1998). In benign tumors or at the pretumoral state, TGFβ, together with Notch (Box 4), exerts an anti-tumoral role (Cui et al., 1994; Pu et al., 2009), which should not be forgotten.

Box 4.

Anti-tumoral action of TGFβ and Notch.

The pro-quiescence function of TGFβ may be exerted together with Notch function at the interface between tumor cells and macrophages. In a study performed in a SP murine mammary tumor model (Shen et al., 2017), it has been shown that Notch may upregulate TGFβRI and thus sensitize cells to TGFβ. Conversely, TGFβ promotes the expression of JAG1, a Notch ligand, and Notch receptor activation, resulting in the production of IL-1β and CCL2 and in the recruitment of monocytes.

TGFβ is also necessary for the generation and maintenance of memory T cells (Sanjabi et al., 2009; Casey et al., 2012; Hirai et al., 2019). After an initial anti-tumoral effect of TGFβ, the dominant effect becomes protumoral through different mechanisms. One mechanism is an immunosuppression, resulting from an inhibition of activated T cells by regulatory T cells and from the anti-proliferative action of TGFβ on T cells (Fahlén et al., 2005; Esquerré et al., 2008). In addition, TGFβ activates cancer-associated fibroblasts, which contribute to neoangiogenesis, and other responses associated with wound healing (Kuperwasser et al., 2004). TGFβ is also a major inducer of EMT. Another mechanism is the acquisition by tumor cells of a resistance to TGFβ and to its anti-proliferative effects. Such a resistance may be due to an antagonism exerted by active Ras on TGFβ signaling (Fahlén et al., 2005; Burch et al., 2011).

Thus, TGFβ is a real conductor of the immunosuppressive orchestra. We have recently unraveled the existence of a new and major immunosuppressive effect of TGFβ. In the MMTV-PyMT model, despite important similarities (Varticovski et al., 2007), there is a major difference between orthotopic TP and SP tumors. Indeed, in this model, TGFβ is found in abundance and is able to block IFNβ-dependent responses in SP tumors, but not in TP tumors. In this phenomenon, TAM plays key roles, as a source and a target of both IFNβ/α and TGFβ. The TGFβ-dependent inhibition of IFNβ/α signaling may explain why SP tumors are resistant to the STING agonist DMXAA, which can trigger the regression of TP but not of SP tumors, unless mice bearing SP tumors are also treated with an anti-TGFβ antibody (Guerin et al., 2019).

The abundance of TGFβ is observed not only in classical murine SP models, but also in tumor-bearing mice in the sporadic tumor model, even though its involvement in the development of tumors in the sporadic tumor model has not been established (Willimsky and Blankenstein, 2007). In human tumors, the abundance of TGFβ has been associated with a bad prognosis (Gold, 1999; Bruna et al., 2007). TGFβ mRNA is most abundant in head and neck cancers (https://www.proteinatlas.org/ENSG00000105329-TGFB1/pathology). The next three cancers with abundant TGFβ are kidney, stomach and pancreatic cancers. For all of these cancers except pancreatic cancer, the patient prognosis is much worse for the group of patients with the highest intratumoral TGFβ level. As there is an increasing number of cancer treatments in which IFNα is at play (see e.g. Sistigu et al., 2014 for example), TGFβ-dependent inhibition of IFNβ/α signaling is likely to be involved in numerous treatment-resistance phenomena. As previously reported (Guerin et al., 2019), it would thus be of major interest to think of combining such treatments with TGFβ blockade.

However, this mechanism cannot always explain the differential sensitivity of TP and SP tumors to anti-tumoral treatments. Indeed, when comparing TiRP (Huijbers et al., 2006; Zhu et al., 2017), a SP model of melanoma, and T429 tumors, its TP counterpart, one can observe that DMXAA is active against TP melanomas and not against SP melanomas (Figure 3). In this case, SP tumors also express higher levels of TGFβ than TP tumors (Fenton et al., 2001). However, contrary to what was observed in PyMT tumors, DMXAA seems to induce equal levels of IFNα signaling in both SP and TP tumors. The different sensitivity of SP and TP melanomas to DMXAA therefore relies on a different mechanism. We have mentioned above that another anti-tumoral treatment, that is the adoptive transfer of anti-tumoral-specific T cells, was active against the TP melanoma but not the SP melanoma. This differential sensitivity appears to be due to the larger abundance of MDSCs in the SP melanoma (Zhu et al., 2017). These MDSC mediate immunosuppression by triggering the apoptosis of tumor-infiltrating CD8 T cells through the Fas/Fas-ligand pathway (Zhu et al., 2017). Whether or not the differential response to DMXAA is also MDSC-dependent remains to be clarified.

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

A third example of identical tumor cells that behave differently in a SP and a TP context are represented by the Kras^G12D/+;Trp53^R172H/+;Pdx-1-Cre (KPC) mice, which develop spontaneous pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), and the KPC-derived PDAC cell line. There too, treatment of mice with a chemotherapy plus an anti-CD40 antibody results in a conspicuous T cell infiltrate in TP but not in SP KPC tumors (Beatty et al., 2015). The reason for this difference has not been elucidated.

It is often considered that different organs give rise to different types of human cancers that have distinct genomic profiles and sensitivities to anticancer therapies. The origin of these differences has been explored with different approaches including: (i) profiling the tumor-associated mutations and the transcriptional landscape of the immune infiltrate; and (ii) considering the original functioning of the healthy organ and the cross-talk between tumor cells and the stromal and immune microenvironment. Here, we examine factors that could be decisive for the organ-specificity of human tumors, and consider which preclinical tumor models should be used to take this specificity into account.

All animal models have advantages and drawbacks, none of them may be considered as ideal. However, authors have a marked propensity to mention the advantages of the model they use, and too often choose not to discuss its drawbacks. In this review, the strengths and weaknesses that are inherent to specific tumor models are analyzed.

Sporadic tumor models are certainly the closest to human tumors, but their slowness to develop and the large variability in their growth make them barely usable, in practice, for systematic studies.

SP mammary tumors arising in female C3H mice almost fall into the same category, but are somehow more simple to use, especially if the probability of tumor occurrence is increased by infecting the mice with MMTV (Fenton et al., 2005).

GEMM, characterized by the expression of several oncogenes in a specific tissue, represent an interesting compromise. They keep proximity to human tumors, even though their growth rate is faster. They present important constraints of use, albeit less huge than for sporadic models.

TP tumors constitute the most popular tumor model. As pointed out throughout this review, they differ profoundly from tumors that grow spontaneously in humans or in SP murine models. The difference with SP tumors is larger for tumors growing after the injection of a cell line than for those formed after the injection of the various cells dissociated from a spontaneous tumor. The difference with SP tumors is also larger for tumors that are implanted subcutaneously rather than orthotopically. Another difference may be observed between tumors implanted subcutaneously or intradermally (Joncker et al., 2016). The main ways in which TP and SP tumors differ are summarized below and in Table 1.

The vascularization of TP tumors is not dependent on an angiogenic switch, which has already taken place in implanted cells. Thereafter, the growth rate of the vascular network is usually faster in TP tumors than in SP tumors, contributing to the frequently faster growth rate of TP tumors. However, the rapid growth of the vascular tree of TP tumors makes it more immature and more fragile than that of SP tumors.

In TP tumors, potential anti-tumoral T cells differentiate without the tolerization phase that takes place in SP murine tumors and in human tumors. The myeloid infiltrate is more immunosuppressive in SP tumors for several reasons. One may be a larger abundance of neutrophil attractants, for reasons which remain to be determined (Zhu et al., 2017). Another reason may be a larger concentration in some SP tumors (Guerin et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2017) of TGFβ, which polarizes TAM towards a more immunosuppressive state.

These strong conclusions could be drawn because we have been able to compare, for two tumor types (mammary and melanoma), isogenic tumor cells in the context of both TP and SP tumors. The conclusions obtained from the two systems were not identical but were complementary. It would be of major interest to extend such a comparison to additional pairs of SP and TP tumors.

All of these features may contribute to explain the different sensitivity of TP and SP murine tumors to a large spectrum of anti-tumoral treatments, which work better (and sometimes only) in TP tumors (Table 1). This is the case for the anti-tumoral effect of cortisone (Burton and Begg, 1961), the efficiency of the adoptive cell transfer of antigen-specific T cells (Zhu et al., 2017), practically all the ICD-based chemotherapies, and the anti-angiogenic effects of IL-12 (Lee et al., 2002) or DMXAA.

Erroneous conclusions may be drawn from studies with TP tumors. For instance, tumors growing after implantation of B16 melanoma lines, or of LLC or MAD109 lung tumor cell lines, are poorly immunogenic and resistant to immunotherapy, in contrast to the responses observed in the corresponding tumors in patients (Zeiser et al., 2012). These observations do not imply that transplanted murine tumor models should no longer be used, but they indicate that data translation from these models to human studies without an intermediate validation in SP models may be risky. Although this seems to be an elementary caution, it has not always been taken, for instance, for the phase III clinal trial with DMXAA (Lara et al., 2011). We have also pointed out that, in many cases, human xenografts appear to be a false good idea, because they represent a situation in which the multiple interactions between tumor cells, T cells, macrophages, stromal cells and endothelial cells cannot be properly reconstituted. Finally, in order to be able to use certain molecular tools, research has been more and more concentrated on a few strains of laboratory mice. It is reasonable to think that diversifying the animal models used in research would help to propose more efficient anti-tumoral treatments.

1. 1. AACR Project GENIE Consortium

   (2017) AACR project GENIE: powering precision medicine through an international consortium

   Cancer Discovery 7:818–831.

   https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0151

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alexandrov LB
   2. Nik-Zainal S
   3. Wedge DC
   4. Aparicio SA
   5. Behjati S
   6. Biankin AV
   7. Bignell GR
   8. Bolli N
   9. Borg A
   10. Børresen-Dale AL
   11. Boyault S
   12. Burkhardt B
   13. Butler AP
   14. Caldas C
   15. Davies HR
   16. Desmedt C
   17. Eils R
   18. Eyfjörd JE
   19. Foekens JA
   20. Greaves M
   21. Hosoda F
   22. Hutter B
   23. Ilicic T
   24. Imbeaud S
   25. Imielinski M
   26. Imielinsk M
   27. Jäger N
   28. Jones DT
   29. Jones D
   30. Knappskog S
   31. Kool M
   32. Lakhani SR
   33. López-Otín C
   34. Martin S
   35. Munshi NC
   36. Nakamura H
   37. Northcott PA
   38. Pajic M
   39. Papaemmanuil E
   40. Paradiso A
   41. Pearson JV
   42. Puente XS
   43. Raine K
   44. Ramakrishna M
   45. Richardson AL
   46. Richter J
   47. Rosenstiel P
   48. Schlesner M
   49. Schumacher TN
   50. Span PN
   51. Teague JW
   52. Totoki Y
   53. Tutt AN
   54. Valdés-Mas R
   55. van Buuren MM
   56. van 't Veer L
   57. Vincent-Salomon A
   58. Waddell N
   59. Yates LR
   60. Zucman-Rossi J
   61. Futreal PA
   62. McDermott U
   63. Lichter P
   64. Meyerson M
   65. Grimmond SM
   66. Siebert R
   67. Campo E
   68. Shibata T
   69. Pfister SM
   70. Campbell PJ
   71. Stratton MR
   72. Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative
   73. ICGC Breast Cancer Consortium
   74. ICGC MMML-Seq Consortium
   75. ICGC PedBrain

   (2013) Signatures of mutational processes in human Cancer

   Nature 500:415–421.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12477

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Allard B
   2. Pommey S
   3. Smyth MJ
   4. Stagg J

   (2013) Targeting CD73 enhances the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs

   Clinical Cancer Research 19:5626–5635.

   https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0545

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anders K
   2. Kershaw O
   3. Larue L
   4. Gruber AD
   5. Blankenstein T

   (2017) The immune system prevents recurrence of transplanted but not autochthonous antigenic tumors after oncogene inactivation therapy

   International Journal of Cancer 141:2551–2561.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31009

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Auslander N
   2. Zhang G
   3. Lee JS
   4. Frederick DT
   5. Miao B
   6. Moll T
   7. Tian T
   8. Wei Z
   9. Madan S
   10. Sullivan RJ
   11. Boland G
   12. Flaherty K
   13. Herlyn M
   14. Ruppin E

   (2018) Robust prediction of response to immune checkpoint blockade therapy in metastatic melanoma

   Nature Medicine 24:1545–1549.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0157-9

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Bearss DJ
   2. Subler MA
   3. Hundley JE
   4. Troyer DA
   5. Salinas RA
   6. Windle JJ

   (2000) Genetic determinants of response to chemotherapy in transgenic mouse mammary and salivary tumors

   Oncogene 19:1114–1122.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1203275

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Beatty GL
   2. Winograd R
   3. Evans RA
   4. Long KB
   5. Luque SL
   6. Lee JW
   7. Clendenin C
   8. Gladney WL
   9. Knoblock DM
   10. Guirnalda PD
   11. Vonderheide RH

   (2015) Exclusion of T cells from pancreatic carcinomas in mice is regulated by Ly6Clow F4/80+ extratumoral macrophages

   Gastroenterology 149:201–210.

   https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.04.010

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bergers G
   2. Javaherian K
   3. Lo KM
   4. Folkman J
   5. Hanahan D

   (1999) Effects of angiogenesis inhibitors on multistage carcinogenesis in mice

   Science 284:808–812.

   https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5415.808

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bergers G
   2. Brekken R
   3. McMahon G
   4. Vu TH
   5. Itoh T
   6. Tamaki K
   7. Tanzawa K
   8. Thorpe P
   9. Itohara S
   10. Werb Z
   11. Hanahan D

   (2000) Matrix metalloproteinase-9 triggers the angiogenic switch during carcinogenesis

   Nature Cell Biology 2:737–744.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/35036374

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Bissell MJ
    2. Hines WC

    (2011) Why don't we get more Cancer? A proposed role of the microenvironment in restraining Cancer progression

    Nature Medicine 17:320–329.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2328

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bonde AK
    2. Tischler V
    3. Kumar S
    4. Soltermann A
    5. Schwendener RA

    (2012) Intratumoral macrophages contribute to epithelial-mesenchymal transition in solid tumors

    BMC Cancer 12:35.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-12-35

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bruna A
    2. Darken RS
    3. Rojo F
    4. Ocaña A
    5. Peñuelas S
    6. Arias A
    7. Paris R
    8. Tortosa A
    9. Mora J
    10. Baselga J
    11. Seoane J

    (2007) High TGFbeta-Smad activity confers poor prognosis in glioma patients and promotes cell proliferation depending on the methylation of the PDGF-B gene

    Cancer Cell 11:147–160.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2006.11.023

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Bucala R
    2. Spiegel LA
    3. Chesney J
    4. Hogan M
    5. Cerami A

    (1994) Circulating fibrocytes define a new leukocyte subpopulation that mediates tissue repair

    Molecular Medicine 1:71–81.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03403533

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Burch ML
    2. Zheng W
    3. Little PJ

    (2011) Smad Linker region phosphorylation in the regulation of extracellular matrix synthesis

    Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 68:97–107.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-010-0514-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Burton AF
    2. Begg RW

    (1961)

    Effect of cortisone on growth, DNA, RNA, and protein of spontaneous and transplanted mammary tumors in mice

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute 26:601–610.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Carmona-Fontaine C
    2. Bucci V
    3. Akkari L
    4. Deforet M
    5. Joyce JA
    6. Xavier JB

    (2013) Emergence of spatial structure in the tumor microenvironment due to the warburg effect

    PNAS 110:19402–19407.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1311939110

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Carmona-Fontaine C
    2. Deforet M
    3. Akkari L
    4. Thompson CB
    5. Joyce JA
    6. Xavier JB

    (2017) Metabolic origins of spatial organization in the tumor microenvironment

    PNAS 114:2934–2939.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700600114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Casares N
    2. Pequignot MO
    3. Tesniere A
    4. Ghiringhelli F
    5. Roux S
    6. Chaput N
    7. Schmitt E
    8. Hamai A
    9. Hervas-Stubbs S
    10. Obeid M
    11. Coutant F
    12. Métivier D
    13. Pichard E
    14. Aucouturier P
    15. Pierron G
    16. Garrido C
    17. Zitvogel L
    18. Kroemer G

    (2005) Caspase-dependent immunogenicity of doxorubicin-induced tumor cell death

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 202:1691–1701.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20050915

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Casey KA
    2. Fraser KA
    3. Schenkel JM
    4. Moran A
    5. Abt MC
    6. Beura LK
    7. Lucas PJ
    8. Artis D
    9. Wherry EJ
    10. Hogquist K
    11. Vezys V
    12. Masopust D

    (2012) Antigen-independent differentiation and maintenance of effector-like resident memory T cells in tissues

    The Journal of Immunology 188:4866–4875.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1200402

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Cataland S
    2. Cohen C
    3. Sapirstein LA

    (1962)

    Relationship between size and perfusion rate of transplanted tumors

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute 29:389–394.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Chalmers ZR
    2. Connelly CF
    3. Fabrizio D
    4. Gay L
    5. Ali SM
    6. Ennis R
    7. Schrock A
    8. Campbell B
    9. Shlien A
    10. Chmielecki J
    11. Huang F
    12. He Y
    13. Sun J
    14. Tabori U
    15. Kennedy M
    16. Lieber DS
    17. Roels S
    18. White J
    19. Otto GA
    20. Ross JS
    21. Garraway L
    22. Miller VA
    23. Stephens PJ
    24. Frampton GM

    (2017) Analysis of 100,000 human Cancer genomes reveals the landscape of tumor mutational burden

    Genome Medicine 9:34.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0424-2

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Chan TA
    2. Yarchoan M
    3. Jaffee E
    4. Swanton C
    5. Quezada SA
    6. Stenzinger A
    7. Peters S

    (2019) Development of tumor mutation burden as an immunotherapy biomarker: utility for the oncology clinic

    Annals of Oncology 30:44–56.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy495

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Chen W
    2. Frank ME
    3. Jin W
    4. Wahl SM

    (2001) TGF-beta released by apoptotic T cells contributes to an immunosuppressive milieu

    Immunity 14:715–725.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-7613(01)00147-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Choudhury A
    2. Moniaux N
    3. Ulrich AB
    4. Schmied BM
    5. Standop J
    6. Pour PM
    7. Gendler SJ
    8. Hollingsworth MA
    9. Aubert JP
    10. Batra SK

    (2004) MUC4 mucin expression in human pancreatic tumours is affected by organ environment: the possible role of TGFbeta2

    British Journal of Cancer 90:657–664.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601604

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Ciampricotti M
    2. Hau CS
    3. Doornebal CW
    4. Jonkers J
    5. de Visser KE

    (2012) Chemotherapy response of spontaneous mammary tumors is independent of the adaptive immune system

    Nature Medicine 18:344–346.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.2652

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Coffelt SB
    2. de Visser KE

    (2015) Immune-mediated mechanisms influencing the efficacy of anticancer therapies

    Trends in Immunology 36:198–216.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2015.02.006

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Colegio OR
    2. Chu NQ
    3. Szabo AL
    4. Chu T
    5. Rhebergen AM
    6. Jairam V
    7. Cyrus N
    8. Brokowski CE
    9. Eisenbarth SC
    10. Phillips GM
    11. Cline GW
    12. Phillips AJ
    13. Medzhitov R

    (2014) Functional polarization of tumour-associated macrophages by tumour-derived lactic acid

    Nature 513:559–563.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13490

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Conlon J
    2. Burdette DL
    3. Sharma S
    4. Bhat N
    5. Thompson M
    6. Jiang Z
    7. Rathinam VA
    8. Monks B
    9. Jin T
    10. Xiao TS
    11. Vogel SN
    12. Vance RE
    13. Fitzgerald KA

    (2013) Mouse, but not human STING, binds and signals in response to the vascular disrupting agent 5,6-dimethylxanthenone-4-acetic acid

    The Journal of Immunology 190:5216–5225.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1300097

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Corcoran RB
    2. Ebi H
    3. Turke AB
    4. Coffee EM
    5. Nishino M
    6. Cogdill AP
    7. Brown RD
    8. Della Pelle P
    9. Dias-Santagata D
    10. Hung KE
    11. Flaherty KT
    12. Piris A
    13. Wargo JA
    14. Settleman J
    15. Mino-Kenudson M
    16. Engelman JA

    (2012) EGFR-mediated re-activation of MAPK signaling contributes to insensitivity of BRAF mutant colorectal cancers to RAF inhibition with vemurafenib

    Cancer Discovery 2:227–235.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0341

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Cui W
    2. Kemp CJ
    3. Duffie E
    4. Balmain A
    5. Akhurst RJ

    (1994)

    Lack of transforming growth factor-beta 1 expression in benign skin tumors of p53null mice is prognostic for a high risk of malignant conversion

    Cancer Research 54:5831–5836.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Day CP
    2. Merlino G
    3. Van Dyke T

    (2015) Preclinical mouse Cancer models: a maze of opportunities and challenges

    Cell 163:39–53.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.068

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. de Visser KE
    2. Korets LV
    3. Coussens LM

    (2005) De novo carcinogenesis promoted by chronic inflammation is B lymphocyte dependent

    Cancer Cell 7:411–423.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2005.04.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Devaud C
    2. Westwood JA
    3. John LB
    4. Flynn JK
    5. Paquet-Fifield S
    6. Duong CP
    7. Yong CS
    8. Pegram HJ
    9. Stacker SA
    10. Achen MG
    11. Stewart TJ
    12. Snyder LA
    13. Teng MW
    14. Smyth MJ
    15. Darcy PK
    16. Kershaw MH

    (2014) Tissues in different anatomical sites can sculpt and vary the tumor microenvironment to affect responses to therapy

    Molecular Therapy 22:18–27.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2013.219

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Deweerdt S

    (2014) Comparative biology: naked ambition

    Nature 509:S60–S61.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/509S60a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Di Carlo E
    2. Forni G
    3. Lollini P
    4. Colombo MP
    5. Modesti A
    6. Musiani P

    (2001) The intriguing role of polymorphonuclear neutrophils in antitumor reactions

    Blood 97:339–345.

    https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V97.2.339

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Di Mitri D
    2. Toso A
    3. Chen JJ
    4. Sarti M
    5. Pinton S
    6. Jost TR
    7. D’Antuono R
    8. Montani E
    9. Garcia-Escudero R
    10. Guccini I
    11. Da Silva-Alvarez S
    12. Collado M
    13. Eisenberger M
    14. Zhang Z
    15. Catapano C
    16. Grassi F
    17. Alimonti A

    (2014) Tumour-infiltrating Gr-1+ myeloid cells antagonize senescence in cancer

    Nature 515:134–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13638

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Drees JJ
    2. Mertensotto MJ
    3. Augustin LB
    4. Schottel JL
    5. Saltzman DA

    (2015) Vasculature disruption enhances bacterial targeting of autochthonous tumors

    Journal of Cancer 6:843–848.

    https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.12491

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. DuPage M
    2. Mazumdar C
    3. Schmidt LM
    4. Cheung AF
    5. Jacks T

    (2012) Expression of tumour-specific antigens underlies Cancer immunoediting

    Nature 482:405–409.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10803

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Efremova M
    2. Rieder D
    3. Klepsch V
    4. Charoentong P
    5. Finotello F
    6. Hackl H
    7. Hermann-Kleiter N
    8. Löwer M
    9. Baier G
    10. Krogsdam A
    11. Trajanoski Z

    (2018) Targeting immune checkpoints potentiates immunoediting and changes the dynamics of tumor evolution

    Nature Communications 9:32.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02424-0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Ercolini AM
    2. Machiels J-PH
    3. Chen YC
    4. Slansky JE
    5. Giedlen M
    6. Reilly RT
    7. Jaffee EM

    (2003) Identification and characterization of the immunodominant rat HER-2/neu MHC class I epitope presented by spontaneous mammary tumors from HER-2/neu-Transgenic mice

    The Journal of Immunology 170:4273–4280.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.170.8.4273

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Esquerré M
    2. Tauzin B
    3. Guiraud M
    4. Müller S
    5. Saoudi A
    6. Valitutti S

    (2008) Human regulatory T cells inhibit polarization of T helper cells toward antigen-presenting cells via a TGF-beta-dependent mechanism

    PNAS 105:2550–2555.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0708350105

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Fadok VA
    2. Bratton DL
    3. Konowal A
    4. Freed PW
    5. Westcott JY
    6. Henson PM

    (1998) Macrophages that have ingested apoptotic cells in vitro inhibit proinflammatory cytokine production through autocrine/paracrine mechanisms involving TGF-beta, PGE2, and PAF

    Journal of Clinical Investigation 101:890–898.

    https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI1112

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Fahlén L
    2. Read S
    3. Gorelik L
    4. Hurst SD
    5. Coffman RL
    6. Flavell RA
    7. Powrie F

    (2005) T cells that cannot respond to TGF-beta escape control by CD4(+)CD25(+) regulatory T cells

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 201:737–746.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20040685

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Falk P

    (1982) Differences in vascular pattern between the spontaneous and the transplanted C3H mouse mammary carcinoma

    European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology 18:155–165.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5379(82)90059-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Feig C
    2. Jones JO
    3. Kraman M
    4. Wells RJ
    5. Deonarine A
    6. Chan DS
    7. Connell CM
    8. Roberts EW
    9. Zhao Q
    10. Caballero OL
    11. Teichmann SA
    12. Janowitz T
    13. Jodrell DI
    14. Tuveson DA
    15. Fearon DT

    (2013) Targeting CXCL12 from FAP-expressing carcinoma-associated fibroblasts synergizes with anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy in pancreatic Cancer

    PNAS 110:20212–20217.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320318110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Fenton BM
    2. Lord EM
    3. Paoni SF

    (2001) Intravascular HbO2 saturations, perfusion and hypoxia in spontaneous and transplanted tumor models

    International Journal of Cancer 93:693–698.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.1401

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Fenton BM
    2. Paoni SF
    3. Ding I

    (2004) Effect of VEGF receptor-2 antibody on vascular function and oxygenation in spontaneous and transplanted tumors

    Radiotherapy and Oncology 72:221–230.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2004.05.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Fenton BM
    2. Paoni SF
    3. Grimwood B
    4. Ding I

    (2005) Varied response of spontaneous tumors to antiangiogenic agents

    Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 566:59–65.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-26206-7_9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Fidler IJ

    (2003) The pathogenesis of Cancer metastasis: the 'seed and soil' hypothesis revisited

    Nature Reviews Cancer 3:453–458.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1098

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Folkman J

    (1971) Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications

    The New England Journal of Medicine 285:1182–1186.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197111182852108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Folkman J

    (2002) Role of angiogenesis in tumor growth and metastasis

    Seminars in Oncology 29:15–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1053/sonc.2002.37263

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Folkman J
    2. Hanahan D

    (1991)

    Switch to the angiogenic phenotype during tumorigenesis

    Princess Takamatsu Symposia 22:339–347.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Foster BA
    2. Gingrich JR
    3. Kwon ED
    4. Madias C
    5. Greenberg NM

    (1997)

    Characterization of prostatic epithelial cell lines derived from transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate (TRAMP) model

    Cancer Research 57:3325–3330.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Franklin RA
    2. Liao W
    3. Sarkar A
    4. Kim MV
    5. Bivona MR
    6. Liu K
    7. Pamer EG
    8. Li MO

    (2014) The cellular and molecular origin of tumor-associated macrophages

    Science 344:921–925.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1252510

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Frese KK
    2. Tuveson DA

    (2007) Maximizing mouse cancer models

    Nature Reviews Cancer 7:654–658.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2192

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Fung AS
    2. Lee C
    3. Yu M
    4. Tannock IF

    (2015) The effect of chemotherapeutic agents on tumor vasculature in subcutaneous and orthotopic human tumor xenografts

    BMC Cancer 15:112.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1091-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Galluzzi L
    2. Buqué A
    3. Kepp O
    4. Zitvogel L
    5. Kroemer G

    (2017) Immunogenic cell death in cancer and infectious disease

    Nature Reviews Immunology 17:97–111.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2016.107

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Gee MS
    2. Procopio WN
    3. Makonnen S
    4. Feldman MD
    5. Yeilding NM
    6. Lee WM

    (2003) Tumor vessel development and maturation impose limits on the effectiveness of anti-vascular therapy

    The American Journal of Pathology 162:183–193.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63809-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Germano G
    2. Lamba S
    3. Rospo G
    4. Barault L
    5. Magrì A
    6. Maione F
    7. Russo M
    8. Crisafulli G
    9. Bartolini A
    10. Lerda G
    11. Siravegna G
    12. Mussolin B
    13. Frapolli R
    14. Montone M
    15. Morano F
    16. de Braud F
    17. Amirouchene-Angelozzi N
    18. Marsoni S
    19. D'Incalci M
    20. Orlandi A
    21. Giraudo E
    22. Sartore-Bianchi A
    23. Siena S
    24. Pietrantonio F
    25. Di Nicolantonio F
    26. Bardelli A

    (2017) Inactivation of DNA repair triggers neoantigen generation and impairs tumour growth

    Nature 552:116–120.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24673

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Gimbrone MA
    2. Aster RH
    3. Cotran RS
    4. Corkery J
    5. Jandl JH
    6. Folkman J

    (1969) Preservation of vascular integrity in organs perfused in vitro with a platelet-rich medium

    Nature 222:33–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/222033a0

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Gold LI

    (1999)

    The role for transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta) in human Cancer

    Critical Reviews in Oncogenesis 10:303–360.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Greene HS

    (1941) Heterologous transplantation of mammalian tumors : I. the transfer of rabbit tumors to alien species

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 73:461–474.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.73.4.461

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Gros A
    2. Parkhurst MR
    3. Tran E
    4. Pasetto A
    5. Robbins PF
    6. Ilyas S
    7. Prickett TD
    8. Gartner JJ
    9. Crystal JS
    10. Roberts IM
    11. Trebska-McGowan K
    12. Wunderlich JR
    13. Yang JC
    14. Rosenberg SA

    (2016) Prospective identification of neoantigen-specific lymphocytes in the peripheral blood of melanoma patients

    Nature Medicine 22:433–438.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.4051

    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Guerin MV
    2. Regnier F
    3. Feuillet V
    4. Vimeux L
    5. Weiss JM
    6. Bismuth G
    7. Altan-Bonnet G
    8. Guilbert T
    9. Thoreau M
    10. Finisguerra V
    11. Donnadieu E
    12. Trautmann A
    13. Bercovici N

    (2019) Tgfβ blocks IFNα/β release and tumor rejection in spontaneous mammary tumors

    Nature Communications 10:4131.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11998-w

    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Hanahan D
    2. Folkman J

    (1996) Patterns and emerging mechanisms of the angiogenic switch during tumorigenesis

    Cell 86:353–364.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80108-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Hartmaier RJ
    2. Charo J
    3. Fabrizio D
    4. Goldberg ME
    5. Albacker LA
    6. Pao W
    7. Chmielecki J

    (2017) Genomic analysis of 63,220 tumors reveals insights into tumor uniqueness and targeted Cancer immunotherapy strategies

    Genome Medicine 9:16.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0408-2

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Havas HF
    2. Donnelly AJ

    (1961)

    Mixed bacterial toxins in the treatment of tumors. IV. response of methylcholanthrene-induced, spontaneous, and transplanted tumors in mice

    Cancer Research 21:17–25.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Hirai T
    2. Zenke Y
    3. Yang Y
    4. Bartholin L
    5. Beura LK
    6. Masopust D
    7. Kaplan DH

    (2019) Keratinocyte-Mediated activation of the cytokine TGF-β maintains skin recirculating memory CD8⁺ T Cells

    Immunity 50:1249–1261.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2019.03.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Hirsch HM

    (1962) Some aspects of the problem of immunity against transplanted and spontaneous tumors

    Bacteriological Reviews 26:336–353.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.26.3.336-353.1962

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Huang S

    (2012) The molecular and mathematical basis of Waddington's epigenetic landscape: a framework for post-Darwinian biology?

    BioEssays 34:149–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201100031

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Hugo W
    2. Zaretsky JM
    3. Sun L
    4. Song C
    5. Moreno BH
    6. Hu-Lieskovan S
    7. Berent-Maoz B
    8. Pang J
    9. Chmielowski B
    10. Cherry G
    11. Seja E
    12. Lomeli S
    13. Kong X
    14. Kelley MC
    15. Sosman JA
    16. Johnson DB
    17. Ribas A
    18. Lo RS

    (2016) Genomic and transcriptomic features of response to Anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma

    Cell 165:35–44.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.065

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Huijbers IJ
    2. Krimpenfort P
    3. Chomez P
    4. van der Valk MA
    5. Song JY
    6. Inderberg-Suso EM
    7. Schmitt-Verhulst AM
    8. Berns A
    9. Van den Eynde BJ

    (2006) An inducible mouse model of melanoma expressing a defined tumor antigen

    Cancer Research 66:3278–3286.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3216

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Huss WJ
    2. Barrios RJ
    3. Greenberg NM

    (2003)

    SU5416 selectively impairs angiogenesis to induce prostate cancer-specific apoptosis

    Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 2:611–616.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Joncker NT
    2. Bettini S
    3. Boulet D
    4. Guiraud M
    5. Guerder S

    (2016) The site of tumor development determines immunogenicity via temporal mobilization of antigen-laden dendritic cells in draining lymph nodes

    European Journal of Immunology 46:609–618.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.201545797

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Keren L
    2. Bosse M
    3. Marquez D
    4. Angoshtari R
    5. Jain S
    6. Varma S
    7. Yang SR
    8. Kurian A
    9. Van Valen D
    10. West R
    11. Bendall SC
    12. Angelo M

    (2018) A structured Tumor-Immune microenvironment in triple negative breast Cancer revealed by multiplexed ion beam imaging

    Cell 174:1373–1387.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.039

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Kersten K
    2. de Visser KE
    3. van Miltenburg MH
    4. Jonkers J

    (2017) Genetically engineered mouse models in oncology research and Cancer medicine

    EMBO Molecular Medicine 9:137–153.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201606857

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Kohl NE
    2. Omer CA
    3. Conner MW
    4. Anthony NJ
    5. Davide JP
    6. deSolms SJ
    7. Giuliani EA
    8. Gomez RP
    9. Graham SL
    10. Hamilton K

    (1995) Inhibition of farnesyltransferase induces regression of mammary and salivary carcinomas in ras transgenic mice

    Nature Medicine 1:792–797.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0895-792

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Kraman M
    2. Bambrough PJ
    3. Arnold JN
    4. Roberts EW
    5. Magiera L
    6. Jones JO
    7. Gopinathan A
    8. Tuveson DA
    9. Fearon DT

    (2010) Suppression of antitumor immunity by stromal cells expressing fibroblast activation protein-alpha

    Science 330:827–830.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1195300

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Kuperwasser C
    2. Chavarria T
    3. Wu M
    4. Magrane G
    5. Gray JW
    6. Carey L
    7. Richardson A
    8. Weinberg RA

    (2004) Reconstruction of functionally normal and malignant human breast tissues in mice

    PNAS 101:4966–4971.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0401064101

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Lanfredini S
    2. Thapa A
    3. O'Neill E

    (2019) RAS in pancreatic cancer

    Biochemical Society Transactions 47:961–972.

    https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20170521

    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Lara PN
    2. Douillard JY
    3. Nakagawa K
    4. von Pawel J
    5. McKeage MJ
    6. Albert I
    7. Losonczy G
    8. Reck M
    9. Heo DS
    10. Fan X
    11. Fandi A
    12. Scagliotti G

    (2011) Randomized phase III placebo-controlled trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without the vascular disrupting agent vadimezan (ASA404) in advanced non-small-cell lung Cancer

    Journal of Clinical Oncology 29:2965–2971.

    https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2011.35.0660

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Lawrence MS
    2. Stojanov P
    3. Polak P
    4. Kryukov GV
    5. Cibulskis K
    6. Sivachenko A
    7. Carter SL
    8. Stewart C
    9. Mermel CH
    10. Roberts SA
    11. Kiezun A
    12. Hammerman PS
    13. McKenna A
    14. Drier Y
    15. Zou L
    16. Ramos AH
    17. Pugh TJ
    18. Stransky N
    19. Helman E
    20. Kim J
    21. Sougnez C
    22. Ambrogio L
    23. Nickerson E
    24. Shefler E
    25. Cortés ML
    26. Auclair D
    27. Saksena G
    28. Voet D
    29. Noble M
    30. DiCara D
    31. Lin P
    32. Lichtenstein L
    33. Heiman DI
    34. Fennell T
    35. Imielinski M
    36. Hernandez B
    37. Hodis E
    38. Baca S
    39. Dulak AM
    40. Lohr J
    41. Landau DA
    42. Wu CJ
    43. Melendez-Zajgla J
    44. Hidalgo-Miranda A
    45. Koren A
    46. McCarroll SA
    47. Mora J
    48. Crompton B
    49. Onofrio R
    50. Parkin M
    51. Winckler W
    52. Ardlie K
    53. Gabriel SB
    54. Roberts CWM
    55. Biegel JA
    56. Stegmaier K
    57. Bass AJ
    58. Garraway LA
    59. Meyerson M
    60. Golub TR
    61. Gordenin DA
    62. Sunyaev S
    63. Lander ES
    64. Getz G

    (2013) Mutational heterogeneity in Cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes

    Nature 499:214–218.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12213

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Lee JC
    2. Kim DC
    3. Gee MS
    4. Saunders HM
    5. Sehgal CM
    6. Feldman MD
    7. Ross SR
    8. Lee WM

    (2002)

    Interleukin-12 inhibits angiogenesis and growth of transplanted but not in situ mouse mammary tumor virus-induced mammary carcinomas

    Cancer Research 62:747–755.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Leite de Oliveira R
    2. Hamm A
    3. Mazzone M

    (2011) Growing tumor vessels: more than one way to skin a cat - implications for angiogenesis targeted Cancer therapies

    Molecular Aspects of Medicine 32:71–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2011.04.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Lenferink AE
    2. Simpson JF
    3. Shawver LK
    4. Coffey RJ
    5. Forbes JT
    6. Arteaga CL

    (2000) Blockade of the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase suppresses tumorigenesis in MMTV/Neu + MMTV/TGF-alpha bigenic mice

    PNAS 97:9609–9614.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.160564197

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Liu J
    2. Blake SJ
    3. Smyth MJ
    4. Teng MW

    (2014) Improved mouse models to assess tumour immunity and irAEs after combination Cancer immunotherapies

    Clinical & Translational Immunology 3:e22.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/cti.2014.18

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Liu Y
    2. Yin T
    3. Feng Y
    4. Cona MM
    5. Huang G
    6. Liu J
    7. Song S
    8. Jiang Y
    9. Xia Q
    10. Swinnen JV
    11. Bormans G
    12. Himmelreich U
    13. Oyen R
    14. Ni Y

    (2015) Mammalian models of chemically induced primary malignancies exploitable for imaging-based preclinical theragnostic research

    Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery 5:708–729.

    https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.06.01

    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Ma Y
    2. Mattarollo SR
    3. Adjemian S
    4. Yang H
    5. Aymeric L
    6. Hannani D
    7. Portela Catani JP
    8. Duret H
    9. Teng MW
    10. Kepp O
    11. Wang Y
    12. Sistigu A
    13. Schultze JL
    14. Stoll G
    15. Galluzzi L
    16. Zitvogel L
    17. Smyth MJ
    18. Kroemer G

    (2014) CCL2/CCR2-dependent recruitment of functional antigen-presenting cells into tumors upon chemotherapy

    Cancer Research 74:436–445.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-1265

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Matsushita H
    2. Vesely MD
    3. Koboldt DC
    4. Rickert CG
    5. Uppaluri R
    6. Magrini VJ
    7. Arthur CD
    8. White JM
    9. Chen Y-S
    10. Shea LK
    11. Hundal J
    12. Wendl MC
    13. Demeter R
    14. Wylie T
    15. Allison JP
    16. Smyth MJ
    17. Old LJ
    18. Mardis ER
    19. Schreiber RD

    (2012) Cancer exome analysis reveals a T-cell-dependent mechanism of Cancer immunoediting

    Nature 482:400–404.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10755

    • Google Scholar
90. 1. McCredie JA
    2. Inch WR
    3. Sutherland RM

    (1971) Differences in growth and morphology between the spontaneous C3H mammary carcinoma in the mouse and its syngeneic transplants

    Cancer 27:635–642.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197103)27:3<635::AID-CNCR2820270319>3.0.CO;2-F

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. McGranahan N
    2. Furness AJ
    3. Rosenthal R
    4. Ramskov S
    5. Lyngaa R
    6. Saini SK
    7. Jamal-Hanjani M
    8. Wilson GA
    9. Birkbak NJ
    10. Hiley CT
    11. Watkins TB
    12. Shafi S
    13. Murugaesu N
    14. Mitter R
    15. Akarca AU
    16. Linares J
    17. Marafioti T
    18. Henry JY
    19. Van Allen EM
    20. Miao D
    21. Schilling B
    22. Schadendorf D
    23. Garraway LA
    24. Makarov V
    25. Rizvi NA
    26. Snyder A
    27. Hellmann MD
    28. Merghoub T
    29. Wolchok JD
    30. Shukla SA
    31. Wu CJ
    32. Peggs KS
    33. Chan TA
    34. Hadrup SR
    35. Quezada SA
    36. Swanton C

    (2016) Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade

    Science 351:1463–1469.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf1490

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Moustakas A
    2. Pardali K
    3. Gaal A
    4. Heldin CH

    (2002) Mechanisms of TGF-beta signaling in regulation of cell growth and differentiation

    Immunology Letters 82:85–91.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-2478(02)00023-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Mueller MM
    2. Fusenig NE

    (2004) Friends or foes - bipolar effects of the tumour stroma in Cancer

    Nature Reviews Cancer 4:839–849.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1477

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Nazareth MR
    2. Broderick L
    3. Simpson-Abelson MR
    4. Kelleher RJ
    5. Yokota SJ
    6. Bankert RB

    (2007) Characterization of human lung tumor-associated fibroblasts and their ability to modulate the activation of tumor-associated T cells

    The Journal of Immunology 178:5552–5562.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.178.9.5552

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Noguchi T
    2. Ward JP
    3. Gubin MM
    4. Arthur CD
    5. Lee SH
    6. Hundal J
    7. Selby MJ
    8. Graziano RF
    9. Mardis ER
    10. Korman AJ
    11. Schreiber RD

    (2017) Temporally distinct PD-L1 expression by tumor and host cells contributes to immune escape

    Cancer Immunology Research 5:106–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0391

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Old LJ
    2. Benacerraf B
    3. Clarke DA
    4. Carswell EA
    5. Stockert E

    (1961)

    The role of the reticuloendothelial system in the host reaction to neoplasia

    Cancer Research 21:1281–1300.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Olson B
    2. Li Y
    3. Lin Y
    4. Liu ET
    5. Patnaik A

    (2018) Mouse models for Cancer immunotherapy research

    Cancer Discovery 8:1358–1365.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Oxenhandler RW
    2. Berkelhammer J
    3. Smith GD
    4. Hook RR

    (1982)

    Growth and regression of cutaneous melanomas in sinclair miniature swine

    The American Journal of Pathology 109:259–269.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Pao W
    2. Ooi CH
    3. Birzele F
    4. Ruefli-Brasse A
    5. Cannarile MA
    6. Reis B
    7. Scharf SH
    8. Schubert DA
    9. Hatje K
    10. Pelletier N
    11. Spleiss O
    12. Reed JC

    (2018) Tissue-Specific immunoregulation: a call for better understanding of the "Immunostat" in the Context of Cancer

    Cancer Discovery 8:395–402.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1320

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Penny HL
     2. Sieow JL
     3. Adriani G
     4. Yeap WH
     5. See Chi Ee P
     6. San Luis B
     7. Lee B
     8. Lee T
     9. Mak SY
     10. Ho YS
     11. Lam KP
     12. Ong CK
     13. Huang RY
     14. Ginhoux F
     15. Rotzschke O
     16. Kamm RD
     17. Wong SC

     (2016) Warburg metabolism in tumor-conditioned macrophages promotes metastasis in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

     OncoImmunology 5:e1191731.

     https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2016.1191731

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Pérez J
     2. García PM
     3. Bautista MJ
     4. Millán Y
     5. Ordás J
     6. Martín de las Mulas J

     (2002) Immunohistochemical characterization of tumor cells and inflammatory infiltrate associated with cutaneous melanocytic tumors of duroc and iberian swine

     Veterinary Pathology 39:445–451.

     https://doi.org/10.1354/vp.39-4-445

     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Provenzano PP
     2. Cuevas C
     3. Chang AE
     4. Goel VK
     5. Von Hoff DD
     6. Hingorani SR

     (2012) Enzymatic targeting of the stroma ablates physical barriers to treatment of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

     Cancer Cell 21:418–429.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2012.01.007

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Pu H
     2. Collazo J
     3. Jones E
     4. Gayheart D
     5. Sakamoto S
     6. Vogt A
     7. Mitchell B
     8. Kyprianou N

     (2009) Dysfunctional transforming growth factor-beta receptor II accelerates prostate tumorigenesis in the TRAMP mouse model

     Cancer Research 69:7366–7374.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-0758

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Quiroga D
     2. Lyerly HK
     3. Morse MA

     (2016) Deficient mismatch repair and the role of immunotherapy in metastatic colorectal Cancer

     Current Treatment Options in Oncology 17:41.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-016-0414-4

     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Redmond WL
     2. Linch SN
     3. Kasiewicz MJ

     (2014) Combined targeting of costimulatory (OX40) and coinhibitory (CTLA-4) pathways elicits potent effector T cells capable of driving robust antitumor immunity

     Cancer Immunology Research 2:142–153.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0031-T

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Reilly RT
     2. Gottlieb MB
     3. Ercolini AM
     4. Machiels JP
     5. Kane CE
     6. Okoye FI
     7. Muller WJ
     8. Dixon KH
     9. Jaffee EM

     (2000)

     HER-2/neu is a tumor rejection target in tolerized HER-2/neu transgenic mice

     Cancer Research 60:3569–3576.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Robert C
     2. Schachter J
     3. Long GV
     4. Arance A
     5. Grob JJ
     6. Mortier L
     7. Daud A
     8. Carlino MS
     9. McNeil C
     10. Lotem M
     11. Larkin J
     12. Lorigan P
     13. Neyns B
     14. Blank CU
     15. Hamid O
     16. Mateus C
     17. Shapira-Frommer R
     18. Kosh M
     19. Zhou H
     20. Ibrahim N
     21. Ebbinghaus S
     22. Ribas A
     23. KEYNOTE-006 investigators

     (2015) Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma

     New England Journal of Medicine 372:2521–2532.

     https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1503093

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Rous P

     (1914) The influence of diet on transplanted and spontaneous mouse tumors

     The Journal of Experimental Medicine 20:433–451.

     https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20.5.433

     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Sanjabi S
     2. Mosaheb MM
     3. Flavell RA

     (2009) Opposing effects of TGF-beta and IL-15 cytokines control the number of short-lived effector CD8+ T cells

     Immunity 31:131–144.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2009.04.020

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Schlingensiepen KH
     2. Fischer-Blass B
     3. Schmaus S
     4. Ludwig S

     (2008) Antisense therapeutics for tumor treatment: the TGF-beta2 inhibitor AP 12009 in clinical development against malignant tumors

     Recent Results in Cancer Research. Fortschritte Der Krebsforschung. Progres Dans Les Recherches Sur Le Cancer 177:137–150.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71279-4_16

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Schmitt CA
     2. McCurrach ME
     3. de Stanchina E
     4. Wallace-Brodeur RR
     5. Lowe SW

     (1999) INK4a/ARF mutations accelerate lymphomagenesis and promote chemoresistance by disabling p53

     Genes & Development 13:2670–2677.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.13.20.2670

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Schumacher TN
     2. Schreiber RD

     (2015) Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy

     Science 348:69–74.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa4971

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Sevko A
     2. Michels T
     3. Vrohlings M
     4. Umansky L
     5. Beckhove P
     6. Kato M
     7. Shurin GV
     8. Shurin MR
     9. Umansky V

     (2013) Antitumor effect of paclitaxel is mediated by inhibition of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and chronic inflammation in the spontaneous melanoma model

     The Journal of Immunology 190:2464–2471.

     https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1202781

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Sharma P
     2. Allison JP

     (2015) The future of immune checkpoint therapy

     Science 348:56–61.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa8172

     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Sharpless NE
     2. Depinho RA

     (2006) The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in Cancer drug development

     Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 5:741–754.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2110

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Shen Q
     2. Cohen B
     3. Zheng W
     4. Rahbar R
     5. Martin B
     6. Murakami K
     7. Lamorte S
     8. Thompson P
     9. Berman H
     10. Zúñiga-Pflücker JC
     11. Ohashi PS
     12. Reedijk M

     (2017) Notch shapes the innate immunophenotype in breast Cancer

     Cancer Discovery 7:1320–1335.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0037

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Shi Q
     2. Godschalk RWL
     3. van Schooten FJ

     (2017) Inflammation and the chemical carcinogen benzo[a]pyrene: partners in crime

     Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research 774:12–24.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2017.08.003

     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Sikder H
     2. Huso DL
     3. Zhang H
     4. Wang B
     5. Ryu B
     6. Hwang ST
     7. Powell JD
     8. Alani RM

     (2003) Disruption of Id1 reveals major differences in angiogenesis between transplanted and autochthonous tumors

     Cancer Cell 4:291–299.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1535-6108(03)00245-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Sistigu A
     2. Yamazaki T
     3. Vacchelli E
     4. Chaba K
     5. Enot DP
     6. Adam J
     7. Vitale I
     8. Goubar A
     9. Baracco EE
     10. Remédios C
     11. Fend L
     12. Hannani D
     13. Aymeric L
     14. Ma Y
     15. Niso-Santano M
     16. Kepp O
     17. Schultze JL
     18. Tüting T
     19. Belardelli F
     20. Bracci L
     21. La Sorsa V
     22. Ziccheddu G
     23. Sestili P
     24. Urbani F
     25. Delorenzi M
     26. Lacroix-Triki M
     27. Quidville V
     28. Conforti R
     29. Spano JP
     30. Pusztai L
     31. Poirier-Colame V
     32. Delaloge S
     33. Penault-Llorca F
     34. Ladoire S
     35. Arnould L
     36. Cyrta J
     37. Dessoliers MC
     38. Eggermont A
     39. Bianchi ME
     40. Pittet M
     41. Engblom C
     42. Pfirschke C
     43. Préville X
     44. Uzè G
     45. Schreiber RD
     46. Chow MT
     47. Smyth MJ
     48. Proietti E
     49. André F
     50. Kroemer G
     51. Zitvogel L

     (2014) Cancer cell-autonomous contribution of type I interferon signaling to the efficacy of chemotherapy

     Nature Medicine 20:1301–1309.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3708

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Spiotto MT
     2. Banh A
     3. Papandreou I
     4. Cao H
     5. Galvez MG
     6. Gurtner GC
     7. Denko NC
     8. Le QT
     9. Koong AC

     (2010) Imaging the unfolded protein response in primary tumors reveals microenvironments with metabolic variations that predict tumor growth

     Cancer Research 70:78–88.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-2747

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Strachan DC
     2. Ruffell B
     3. Oei Y
     4. Bissell MJ
     5. Coussens LM
     6. Pryer N
     7. Daniel D

     (2013) CSF1R inhibition delays cervical and mammary tumor growth in murine models by attenuating the turnover of tumor-associated macrophages and enhancing infiltration by CD8⁺ T cells

     OncoImmunology 2:e26968.

     https://doi.org/10.4161/onci.26968

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Suggitt M
     2. Bibby MC

     (2005)

     50 years of preclinical anticancer drug screening: empirical to target-driven approaches

     Clinical Cancer Research 11:971–981.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Sujobert P
     2. Trautmann A

     (2016) Conflicting signals for Cancer treatment

     Cancer Research 76:6768–6773.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-1393

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Sumimoto H
     2. Imabayashi F
     3. Iwata T
     4. Kawakami Y

     (2006) The BRAF–MAPK signaling pathway is essential for cancer-immune evasion in human melanoma cells

     The Journal of Experimental Medicine 203:1651–1656.

     https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20051848

     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Suzuki H
     2. Mohr U
     3. Kimmerle G

     (1979) Spontaneous endocrine tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats

     Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 95:187–196.

     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Takahashi M
     2. Iwamoto T
     3. Nakashima I

     (1992) Proliferation and neoplastic transformation of pigment cells in metallothionein/ret transgenic mice

     Pigment Cell Research 5:344–347.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0749.1992.tb00560.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Talmadge JE
     2. Singh RK
     3. Fidler IJ
     4. Raz A

     (2007) Murine models to evaluate novel and conventional therapeutic strategies for Cancer

     The American Journal of Pathology 170:793–804.

     https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2007.060929

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Tannock IF

     (1968) The relation between cell proliferation and the vascular system in a transplanted mouse mammary tumour

     British Journal of Cancer 22:258–273.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1968.34

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Tannock IF

     (1970)

     Population kinetics of carcinoma cells, capillary endothelial cells, and fibroblasts in a transplanted mouse mammary tumor

     Cancer Research 30:2470–2476.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Thomlinson RH
     2. Gray LH

     (1955) The histological structure of some human lung cancers and the possible implications for radiotherapy

     British Journal of Cancer 9:539–549.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1955.55

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Thoreau M
     2. Penny HL
     3. Tan K
     4. Regnier F
     5. Weiss JM
     6. Lee B
     7. Johannes L
     8. Dransart E
     9. Le Bon A
     10. Abastado JP
     11. Tartour E
     12. Trautmann A
     13. Bercovici N

     (2015) Vaccine-induced tumor regression requires a dynamic cooperation between T cells and myeloid cells at the tumor site

     Oncotarget 6:27832–27846.

     https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.4940

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Tumeh PC
     2. Harview CL
     3. Yearley JH
     4. Shintaku IP
     5. Taylor EJ
     6. Robert L
     7. Chmielowski B
     8. Spasic M
     9. Henry G
     10. Ciobanu V
     11. West AN
     12. Carmona M
     13. Kivork C
     14. Seja E
     15. Cherry G
     16. Gutierrez AJ
     17. Grogan TR
     18. Mateus C
     19. Tomasic G
     20. Glaspy JA
     21. Emerson RO
     22. Robins H
     23. Pierce RH
     24. Elashoff DA
     25. Robert C
     26. Ribas A

     (2014) PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance

     Nature 515:568–571.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13954

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Van Dyke T
     2. Jacks T

     (2002) Cancer modeling in the modern era: progress and challenges

     Cell 108:135–144.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00621-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Vander Heiden MG
     2. Cantley LC
     3. Thompson CB

     (2009) Understanding the warburg effect: the metabolic requirements of cell proliferation

     Science 324:1029–1033.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160809

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Varticovski L
     2. Hollingshead MG
     3. Robles AI
     4. Wu X
     5. Cherry J
     6. Munroe DJ
     7. Lukes L
     8. Anver MR
     9. Carter JP
     10. Borgel SD
     11. Stotler H
     12. Bonomi CA
     13. Nunez NP
     14. Hursting SD
     15. Qiao W
     16. Deng CX
     17. Green JE
     18. Hunter KW
     19. Merlino G
     20. Steeg PS
     21. Wakefield LM
     22. Barrett JC

     (2007) Accelerated preclinical testing using transplanted tumors from genetically engineered mouse breast Cancer models

     Clinical Cancer Research 13:2168–2177.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0918

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. Book

     1. Waddington C

     (1957)

     The Strategy of the Genes; a Discussion of Some Aspects of Theoretical Biology

     London: Allen & Unwin.

     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Warburg O
     2. Wind F
     3. Negelein E

     (1927) The metabolism of tumors in the body

     The Journal of General Physiology 8:519–530.

     https://doi.org/10.1085/jgp.8.6.519

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Watkins SK
     2. Egilmez NK
     3. Suttles J
     4. Stout RD

     (2007) IL-12 rapidly alters the functional profile of tumor-associated and tumor-infiltrating macrophages in vitro and in vivo

     The Journal of Immunology 178:1357–1362.

     https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.178.3.1357

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Waxler SH
     2. Tabar P
     3. Melcher LR

     (1953)

     Obesity and the time of appearance of spontaneous mammary carcinoma in C3H mice

     Cancer Research 13:276–278.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Weiss JM
     2. Subleski JJ
     3. Wigginton JM
     4. Wiltrout RH

     (2007) Immunotherapy of Cancer by IL-12-based cytokine combinations

     Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 7:1705–1721.

     https://doi.org/10.1517/14712598.7.11.1705

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Weiss JM
     2. Guérin MV
     3. Regnier F
     4. Renault G
     5. Galy-Fauroux I
     6. Vimeux L
     7. Feuillet V
     8. Peranzoni E
     9. Thoreau M
     10. Trautmann A
     11. Bercovici N

     (2017) The STING agonist DMXAA triggers a cooperation between T lymphocytes and myeloid cells that leads to tumor regression

     OncoImmunology 6:e1346765.

     https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2017.1346765

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Wellenstein MD
     2. de Visser KE

     (2018) Cancer-Cell-Intrinsic mechanisms shaping the tumor immune landscape

     Immunity 48:399–416.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2018.03.004

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Wexler H
     2. Minton JP
     3. Ketcham AS

     (1965) A comparison of survival time and extent of tumor metastases in mice with transplanted, induced and spontaneous tumors

     Cancer 18:985–994.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(196508)18:8<985::AID-CNCR2820180810>3.0.CO;2-P

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Willimsky G
     2. Blankenstein T

     (2005) Sporadic immunogenic tumours avoid destruction by inducing T-cell tolerance

     Nature 437:141–146.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03954

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Willimsky G
     2. Blankenstein T

     (2007) The adaptive immune response to sporadic Cancer

     Immunological Reviews 220:102–112.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-065X.2007.00578.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Wood S

     (1958)

     Pathogenesis of metastasis formation observed in vivo in the rabbit ear chamber

     A.M.A. Archives of Pathology 66:550–568.

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. 1. Ye X
     2. McCarrick J
     3. Jewett L
     4. Knowles BB

     (1994) Timely immunization subverts the development of peripheral nonresponsiveness and suppresses tumor development in simian virus 40 tumor antigen-transgenic mice

     PNAS 91:3916–3920.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.9.3916

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
148. 1. Zeiser R
     2. Schnitzler M
     3. Andrlova H
     4. Hellige T
     5. Meiss F

     (2012) Immunotherapy for malignant melanoma

     Current Stem Cell Research & Therapy 7:217–228.

     https://doi.org/10.2174/157488812799859883

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Zhang Z
     2. Ji S
     3. Zhang B
     4. Liu J
     5. Qin Y
     6. Xu J
     7. Yu X

     (2018) Role of angiogenesis in pancreatic Cancer biology and therapy

     Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 108:1135–1140.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2018.09.136

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Zhu J
     2. Powis de Tenbossche CG
     3. Cané S
     4. Colau D
     5. van Baren N
     6. Lurquin C
     7. Schmitt-Verhulst AM
     8. Liljeström P
     9. Uyttenhove C
     10. Van den Eynde BJ

     (2017) Resistance to Cancer immunotherapy mediated by apoptosis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes

     Nature Communications 8:1404.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00784-1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Marion V Guerin

   Université de Paris, Institut Cochin, INSERM, U1016, CNRS, UMR8104, F-75014, Paris, France

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2159-8518

2. Veronica Finisguerra

   Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, de Duve Institute WELBIO, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2455-9939

3. Benoit J Van den Eynde

   Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, de Duve Institute WELBIO, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4995-3270

4. Nadege Bercovici

   Université de Paris, Institut Cochin, INSERM, U1016, CNRS, UMR8104, F-75014, Paris, France

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8449-0590

5. Alain Trautmann

   Université de Paris, Institut Cochin, INSERM, U1016, CNRS, UMR8104, F-75014, Paris, France

   For correspondence

   alain.trautmann@inserm.fr

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7514-420X

• 15,765

  views

• 2,180

  downloads

• 89

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.