Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 12, 2025
A Murine Ommaya Xenograft Model to Study Direct-Targeted Therapy of Leptomeningeal Disease
Published on: January 29, 2021
Meningioma animal models: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mikkel Schou Andersen1,2,3, Mikkel Seremet Kofoed4,5,6, Asger Sand Paludan-Müller7,8
1Department of Neurosurgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. Mikkel.c.schou.andersen@rsyd.dk.
Background:
Animal models are widely used to study pathological processes and drug (side) effects in a controlled environment. There is a wide variety of methods available for establishing animal models depending on the research question. Commonly used methods in tumor research include xenografting cells (established/commercially available or primary patient-derived) or whole tumor pieces either orthotopically or heterotopically and the more recent genetically engineered models-each type with their own advantages and disadvantages. The current systematic review aimed to investigate the meningioma model types used, perform a meta-analysis on tumor take rate (TTR), and perform critical appraisal of the included studies. The study also aimed to assess reproducibility, reliability, means of validation and verification of models, alongside pros and cons and uses of the model types.
Methods:
We searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for all in vivo meningioma models. The primary outcome was tumor take rate. Meta-analysis was performed on tumor take rate followed by subgroup analyses on the number of cells and duration of incubation. The validity of the tumor models was assessed qualitatively. We performed critical appraisal of the methodological quality and quality of reporting for all included studies.
Results:
We included 114 unique records (78 using established cell line models (ECLM), 21 using primary patient-derived tumor models (PTM), 10 using genetically engineered models (GEM), and 11 using uncategorized models). TTRs for ECLM were 94% (95% CI 92-96) for orthotopic and 95% (93-96) for heterotopic. PTM showed lower TTRs [orthotopic 53% (33-72) and heterotopic 82% (73-89)] and finally GEM revealed a TTR of 34% (26-43).
Conclusion:
This systematic review shows high consistent TTRs in established cell line models and varying TTRs in primary patient-derived models and genetically engineered models. However, we identified several issues regarding the quality of reporting and the methodological approach that reduce the validity, transparency, and reproducibility of studies and suggest a high risk of publication bias. Finally, each tumor model type has specific roles in research based on their advantages (and disadvantages).
Systematic Review Registration:
PROSPERO-ID CRD42022308833.
