ArticleCancers2023
Enhanced Biomimetics of Three-Dimensional Osteosarcoma Models: A Scoping Review.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of gelatin based cryogel model for drug screening application in osteosarcoma.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Next-generation osteosarcoma models for precision medicine.Communications biology · 2026Review
- Advancement in Scaffold-Based 3D Cell Culture Models for Osteosarcoma Drug Screening.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2025Review
- Targeting Cell-Matrix Induced Chemoresistance With Regorafenib in a 3D Model of Osteosarcoma.Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A · 2025Article
- Decellularized extracellular matrix-based disease models for drug screening.Materials today. Bio · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review evaluated 3D osteosarcoma (OS) models' biomimicry, examining their ability to mimic the tumour microenvironment (TME) and their drug sensitivity. Adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the systematic search revealed 293 studies, with 70 selected for final analysis. Overall, 64% of 3D OS models were scaffold-based, compared to self-generated spheroid models. Scaffolds generated using native matrix were most common (42%) with collagen I/hydroxyapatite predominating. Both scaffold-based and scaffold-free models were used equally for drug screening. The sensitivity of cancer cells in 3D was reported to be lower than that of cells in 2D in ~90% of the drug screening studies. This correlates with the observed upregulation of drug resistance. OS cells cultured in extracellular matrix (ECM)-mimetic scaffolds and native biomaterials were more resistant than cells in 2D. Co-cultures of OS and stromal cells in 3D models enhanced osteogenic differentiation, ECM remodelling, mineralisation, and angiogenesis, suggesting that tumour-stroma crosstalk promotes disease progression. Seven studies demonstrated selective toxicity of chemotherapeutics towards OS cells while sparing stromal cells, providing useful evidence for developing biomimetic tumour-stroma models to test selective drug toxicity. In conclusion, this review highlights the need to enhance biomimicry in 3D OS models for TME recapitulation, especially in testing novel therapeutics. Future research should explore innovative 3D biomimetic models, biomaterials, and advancements in personalised medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.