Abstract
Despite major advances in oncology, cancer therapy continues to face persistent challenges due to intratumoral heterogeneity, drug resistance, and the poor clinical translation of experimental therapeutics. Conventional preclinical models such as 2D cultures and animal systems often fail to accurately recapitulate the tumor microenvironment immune contexture, and patient-specific variability limiting their predictive power. While nanomedicine and advanced drug delivery platforms offer promising solutions, their translational success is hindered by insufficient integration with physiologically relevant tumor models. In this review, we critically examine how patient-derived organoids derived from patient tumors serve as next-generation platforms for modeling cancer heterogeneity, therapeutic response, and biomarker discovery. We further explore how the integration of PDOs with functional biomaterials, extracellular matrix mimetics, and organ-on-chip systems enables dynamic co-culture environments that capture tumor–stroma–immune interactions with high fidelity. By linking the biological underpinnings of resistance, such as genetic mutations, altered signaling, metabolic rewiring, and immune evasion, with smart biomaterial design and drug screening workflows, we propose a unified roadmap for precision oncology. Additionally, we highlight the emergence of PDO biobanks, co-culture innovations, and high-throughput phenotypic screening as essential tools for improving clinical translation. This interdisciplinary synthesis underscores the transformative potential of PDO-based platforms in accelerating personalized cancer therapy.
Graphical Abstract
1 Introduction
As of 2025, cancer remains one of the leading causes of death worldwide. According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an estimated 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths occurred globally in 2022, with lung, breast, and colorectal cancers being the most prevalent types (Siegel et al., 2025; ). It is estimated that about one in five men and women will develop cancer at some point in their lives, while roughly one in nine men and one in 12 women will die from it. For males, there were 10.3 million new cases and 5.4 million deaths; for females, there were 9.7 million new cases and 4.3 million deaths (). The most commonly diagnosed cancers were lung (2.5 million cases; Taverna et al., 2024), breast (2.3 million), and colorectal (1.9 million). In the United States alone, an estimated 2,041,910 new cancer cases and 618,120 cancer deaths are projected for 2025 (Siegel et al., 2025). Despite increasing survival from early detection and advanced therapies, the overall burden continues to rise, highlighting the need for more effective personalized approaches.
Surgery remains one of the most used treatment options, particularly for early-stage cancers where complete removal of the tumor is possible (). Minimally invasive techniques such as laparoscopic and robotic-assisted surgery have improved patient recovery and reduced complications. Radiation therapy is another widely used treatment, involving the use of high-energy radiation to destroy cancer cells (Tiruye et al., 2023; Yamoah et al., 2015). Advanced techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy, have enhanced the precision of radiation delivery (Vaios and Wo, 2020). Chemotherapy continues to be a key component of cancer treatment, particularly for metastatic cancers where surgical options are limited. It is frequently employed as a primary therapy for advanced cancers, a neoadjuvant treatment to shrink tumors before surgery, and an adjuvant therapy to eliminate residual cancer cells post-surgery (Wei et al., 2021). Traditional chemotherapy drugs primarily target rapidly dividing cells; however, their lack of specificity often leads to off-target toxicity, resulting in side effects such as anemia, infections, and gastrointestinal complications that significantly impact patients’ quality of life (; ). To address these challenges, newer formulations have focused on improving specificity and reducing toxicity through strategies such as nanomaterials formulations, liposomal drug delivery, and combination with other kind of targeted therapies (Singh et al., 2025).
Targeted cancer therapy (TCT) has become increasingly important, with drugs designed to attack specific molecules involved in cancer growth (Yin et al., 2020; ). Targeted therapies offer high specificity, reducing neutropenia, off-target toxicity, and multi-drug resistance while enabling higher cytotoxic at the target. In the past few years, many drugs in combination with different biomaterials, proteins, nanoparticles, etc., have been developed based on the principle of active targeting. For instance, Mirvetuximab soravtansine, approved in late 2022, targets folate receptor alpha-positive ovarian cancer resistant to platinum-based chemotherapy (; ). Enhertu (trastuzumab deruxtecan), approved in 2024, is an antibody-drug conjugate for HER2-positive solid tumors, combining trastuzumab with a topoisomerase inhibitor for targeted delivery of cytotoxic agents (; ). Lifileucel (Amtagvi), approved in February 2024, is the first FDA-approved tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy for metastatic melanoma (Sarnaik et al., 2021; ). Zanidatamab (Ziihera), approved in November 2024, is a bispecific antibody targeting two HER2 receptor sites for treating HER2-positive biliary tract cancer (; ). Inavolisib (Itovebi), approved in October 2024, is a PI3K alpha inhibitor used for PIK3CA-mutant breast cancer, a mutation commonly found in several cancers (). Sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy), initially approved in 2020 for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, has since expanded to treat hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and metastatic urothelial cancer by delivering a topoisomerase inhibitor directly to tumor cells (; ).
In addition to TCT, immunotherapy has also become a key strategy in cancer treatment by enabling the body’s immune system to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, have shown remarkable efficacy in melanoma, lung cancer, and other solid tumors (Rapoport et al., 2021; ). In December 2024, the FDA approved Imfinzi (durvalumab) for limited-stage small cell lung cancer, enhancing the immune response by blocking the PD-L1 pathway (; Patel et al., 2020; Westin et al., 2024). CAR-T cell therapy, which involves modifying a patient’s T cells to target cancer, has shown promising results in hematological cancers like leukemia and lymphoma (). Hormone therapy remains a standard treatment for hormone-dependent cancers such as breast and prostate cancer, with drugs targeting estrogen, androgen, and other hormone pathways. In January 2025, the FDA approved datopotamab deruxtecan-dlnk (Datroway) for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, delivering chemotherapy directly to cancer cells while sparing healthy tissue (). These recent advancements underscore the growing precision and efficacy of immunotherapy, CAR-T cell therapy, and hormone-based treatments in improving cancer outcomes.
Similarly, many nanomedicines in combination with radiation therapies have played a critical role in cancer treatment, such as cancer cell membrane-coated nanoparticles that enhance targeted drug delivery and phototherapy efficacy by improving tumor targeting and reducing immune clearance (Singh et al., 2025; ). Another example is Photodynamic therapy (PDT), which involves light-activated drugs, has been enhanced by nanomedicines to boost the immune response, improving anti-tumor effects in combination therapies (Sun et al., 2022). Gene therapy has also advanced, with strategies targeting specific genetic mutations driving cancer progression, such as using CRISPR-based editing to correct mutations in hematologic cancers. Stem cell transplants have become more accessible due to the use of reduced-intensity conditioning regimens, which improve outcomes in older patients with leukemia and lymphoma (). Other approaches for cancer treatment are Autogene Cevumeran, a personalized mRNA vaccine, which has shown promise in clinical trials for pancreatic cancer (Rojas et al., 2023). Oncolytic viruses (OVs), such as RP2, an engineered herpes simplex virus currently in clinical trials for melanoma and other solid tumors, have demonstrated encouraging results in patient survival (). These advancements reflect the dynamic and evolving landscape of cancer therapy, offering more targeted and effective treatments.
Despite advancements in cancer diagnosis and treatment, the complexity of tumor biology, including tumor heterogeneity and the TME, continues to hinder the development of effective, personalized therapies (; ). Traditional preclinical models, including 2D cell cultures, spheroids, organoids, animal models, and 3D bioprinting, have long been utilized to study cancer biology and evaluate therapies (). However, these models often fail to replicate the complex in vivo environment, cellular diversity, and genetic dynamics of human tumors (Vitale et al., 2022). For instance, organoids and spheroids, while valuable models, are static systems that often face challenges with reproducibility. Tissue engineering struggles to achieve precise cell placement, and 3D bioprinting methods fail to fully replicate key in vivo features such as fluid dynamics and biomimetic tissue organization (). Additionally, experimental animals differ inherently from humans, limiting their ability to accurately predict human responses (). As a result, their limited predictive accuracy contributes to the high failure rate of cancer drugs in clinical trials, with over 90% failing to translate from preclinical studies to successful treatments. This highlights the pressing need for more biomimetic models that can accurately simulate human tumor environments and aid in the development of highly precise, personalized medications.
Recent reviews and translational studies have underscored the growing clinical relevance of PDOs. They have highlighted their value in modeling tumor heterogeneity and drug responses, their application in biomarker discovery and personalized therapy, and provided translational evidence by demonstrating how PDOs can guide therapeutic decisions. While these works collectively establish the promise of PDOs, few have critically evaluated how biomaterials, microfluidic platforms, and dynamic culture systems can synergize with PDOs to enhance clinical translation (Yang and Yu, 2023; Tong et al., 2024). In this review, we have explored the evolution of PDOs, highlighting diverse approaches such as organ-on-chip and vessel-on-chip technologies, ongoing clinical trials, the integration of emerging technologies, and the current biomaterials employed in their development, along with the challenges that continue to hinder their translational potential.
2 PDOs: a paradigm shift
Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and PDO models have emerged as powerful and complementary tools in cancer research, each offering distinct advantages and addressing specific limitations of traditional models (). Unlike traditional models, PDOs and PDX retain patient-specific mutations, epigenetic modifications, and drug response profiles over multiple passages (). PDX models are established by implanting patient-derived tumor tissue into immunodeficient mice, which allows the tumor to grow in an in vivo environment that preserves the original TME, including stromal and vascular components. This makes PDX models particularly useful for studying tumor-stroma interactions, metastasis, and systemic drug responses. In contrast, PDOs are miniature, self-organizing structures cultured from patient tumor tissues, which replicate the genetic, proteomic, and morphological characteristics of the original tumor (; ). PDO development involves isolating tumor cells from biopsies or resected tissues, enzymatically digesting them into single cells or clusters, and embedding them in extracellular matrix (ECM)-based scaffolds, such as Matrigel™ (). The culture medium is supplemented with essential growth factors, including Wnt, R-spondin, and epidermal growth factor (EGF), to support cell proliferation and differentiation (). Within a few days to weeks, these cells self-organize into 3D structures that recapitulate the histology and functionality of the parent tumor.
One of the key advantages of PDOs is their ability to retain patient-specific genomic and phenotypic characteristics over multiple passages, unlike 2D cultures, which often undergo clonal drift and loss of critical mutations (Taverna et al., 2024). PDOs can be established across diverse cancer types such as colorectal, breast, lung, pancreatic, and ovarian with relatively high success rates. Their compatibility with high-throughput drug screening and multi-omics profiling has made them an efficient platform for identifying novel therapeutic targets and guiding personalized treatment strategies. In contrast to tumor spheroids and other static 3D systems, PDOs better replicate tumor-specific architecture, cellular heterogeneity, and microenvironmental gradients (e.g., oxygen, nutrients), enhancing their translational relevance (Sisakht et al., 2025; ). Advances in co-culture techniques now allow PDOs to be integrated with stromal cells, fibroblasts, and immune components, enabling the study of tumor–stroma and tumor–immune interactions in a patient-specific context. Compared to PDXs, which maintain stromal architecture in vivo but are costly, slow to establish, and unsuitable for high-throughput use, PDOs offer a faster, more scalable, and ethically favorable alternative. Emerging PDO-PDX matched models further strengthen the translational pipeline by enabling in vitro drug screening with in vivo validation. While PDX models remain essential for systemic response studies, the rise of large PDO biobanks has accelerated early-stage therapeutic testing and precision oncology development (Figure 1). Yet, current PDO biobanks face critical limitations. The absence of harmonized protocols for tissue processing, culture maintenance, and data annotation across centers hinders comparability and poses challenges for collaborative, large-scale clinical translation ().
FIGURE 1
Moreover, creating PDOs from adult stem cells (ASCs) within PDX tissue has emerged as an innovative strategy for generating matched in vitro/in vivo models. These models retain the genomic, histological, and pharmacological profiles of the original tumor, allowing researchers to conduct higher-throughput in vitro screens and validate findings in vivo using the corresponding PDX model. Compared to PDXs, which require the implantation of tumors into immunodeficient mice, PDOs provide faster generation times, reduced ethical concerns, and scalability for high-throughput applications. Thus, each model used to study cancer therapies offers distinct advantages and comes with certain limitations. Table 1 summarizes the key properties and differences among 2D cell cultures, 3D spheroid models, PDXs, PDOs, and other models commonly employed in cancer research. It highlights their relative strengths and limitations in replicating tumor heterogeneity, mimicking the TME, scalability, and suitability for drug screening and personalized medicine. Despite the advantages, the establishment of PDOs remains highly dependent on tumor sample quality. Low-cellularity biopsies, necrotic tissue, or samples with excessive stromal content frequently compromise PDO viability, limiting their expansion and downstream applications in drug screening and personalized medicine. Nevertheless, considerable inter-patient variability in PDO growth efficiency and phenotype remains a major barrier, often complicating therapeutic predictions and limiting cross-study comparability. Furthermore, differences in ECM scaffolds, growth factor supplementation, and media formulations between laboratories highlight the lack of standardized culture conditions, reducing reproducibility and clinical consistency.
TABLE 1
| Feature | 2D cell cultures | 3D spheroids | PDX | PDO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor Fidelity | Low, Loss of architecture, genetic drift | Moderate, improves structure, lacks heterogeneity | High, maintains tumor heterogeneity, includes stroma | High, Preserves genetic, proteomic, and architectural features |
| Scalability | High, Simple expansion | Moderate, more scalable than PDXs | Low, Costly, slow to expand | High, Suitable for high-throughput formats |
| Cost | Low, Minimal reagents | Moderate, Needs ECM, bioreactors | High, Requires animals, surgical teams | Moderate, High media cost but no animals |
| Ethical Concerns | Minimal, no animal use | Low, in vitro system | High, Animal welfare and human tissue handling | Low, Derived from patient tissue, no animals |
| Drug Response Accuracy | Poor, fails to mimic in vivo | Moderate, Some prediction capacity | High, reflects in vivo drug response | High, Correlates with clinical outcomes |
| Immune System Modeling | Absent | Limited, Static immune co-cultures possible | Poor to Moderate, Humanized mouse models emerging | Moderate to High, Co-culture with autologous PBMCs or TILs possible |
| Reproducibility | High, Protocols standardized | Moderate, Variability in ECM and cell lines | Low, Patient and animal variability | Moderate to High, still affected by patient tumor quality and heterogeneity |
| Clinical Relevance | Low | Moderate, Useful for mechanism studies | High, Predictive of patient outcome | High, enables personalized therapy and biomarker testing |
| Safety | High, No patient risk | Moderate, No systemic modeling | Moderate, Zoonosis and immunocompromised animal risks | High, Safe if sourced and cultured properly |
| Mutation and Genetic Drift | High, Rapid loss over time | Moderate, Some preservation | Low, Stable mutation profile | Low, maintains heterogeneity over passages |
| Time to Establishment | Fast, 1–3 days | Moderate, 1–2 weeks | Slow, 6–12 weeks | Moderate,1–3 weeks |
| Use in Drug Screening | High, HTS-compatible | Moderate-Medium-throughput assays | Low, not HTS feasible | High, Used in HTS, functional testing, multi-omics analysis |
Comparison of PDOs with traditional preclinical cancer models.
3 PDOs in cancer research and personalized therapy
In this section, we explore how PDOs are being utilized to address three critical aspects of cancer research and care: (i) drug sensitivity and resistance profiling, (ii) modeling tumor evolution and genetic heterogeneity, and (iii) advancing immuno-oncology applications. Together, these dimensions underscore the increasing clinical and translational significance of PDOs in the development of personalized and effective cancer therapies.
3.1 Drug sensitivity and resistance testing
PDOs are particularly valuable for identifying optimal drug combinations and overcoming acquired resistance. By exposing PDOs to a range of chemotherapeutic and targeted agents, researchers can evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of various treatments in a patient-specific context. It significantly reduces the time required to identify optimal therapies, a particularly critical factor for patients with aggressive or rapidly progressing cancers (). Recent studies have established PDO-based drug screening platforms capable of predicting patient response with high accuracy in different cancer models. Georgios et al., 2018. established a living biobank of PDOs from metastatic, heavily pre-treated colorectal and gastroesophageal cancer patients enrolled in phase I/II trials. The PDOs closely mirrored the original tumors in both phenotype and genotype. Drug screening results aligned with molecular profiling, and ex vivo PDO responses, as well as PDO-derived xenograft models, correlated with patient outcomes (Vlachogiannis et al., 2018). demonstrated that PDOs from metastatic colorectal cancer can predict patient response to irinotecan-based chemotherapy with over 80% accuracy, helping identify non-responders and avoid ineffective treatment (). These findings support the potential of PDOs to guide personalized treatment strategies and predict clinical responses. Different studies showed that PDOs derived from colorectal cancer patients have successfully predicted sensitivity to chemotherapy agents like 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and irinotecan (Smabers et al., 2024). This predictive capability has paved the way for high-throughput screening (HTS) of drug libraries, facilitating high-throughput drug screening and enabling the identification of personalized treatment strategies (Smabers et al., 2024). showed that in ovarian cancer, resistance to platinum-based chemotherapy (e.g., cisplatin) remains a major challenge (). The authors identified the YBX1/m5C-CHD3/HR repair signaling axis as a key mechanism for platinum resistance in ovarian cancer. Inhibiting YBX1 increased sensitivity to platinum-based chemotherapy, highlighting YBX1 as a potential target for overcoming platinum resistance in ovarian cancer using PDO models (Figure 2A). () Another example by Zhou et al., who demonstrated that irbesartan could enhance chemotherapy efficacy in PDAC patients with high c-Jun expression by inhibiting the Hippo/YAP1/c-Jun/stemness/iron metabolism axis using PDO models (Zhou et al., 2023a). This finding led to the initiation of a phase II clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of irbesartan combined with a standard gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel regimen in advanced stage III/IV PDAC (Figure 2B) (Zhou et al., 2023a).
FIGURE 2
Subsequent research revealed that combining trastuzumab and pertuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer PDOs yielded enhanced efficacy (
3.2 Tumor evolution and genetic heterogeneity
Tumor heterogeneity, driven by genetic mutations and epigenetic changes, plays a key role in disease progression and treatment resistance. Tumors comprise diverse cellular subpopulations, which complicate therapy by allowing the emergence of resistant clones. PDOs to some extent capture this intra-tumoral heterogeneity, retaining the genetic, epigenetic, and cellular diversity of the original tumor, including cancer stem cells, immune cells, and stromal components. This makes them ideal for studying tumor evolution and the development of drug resistance. Multi-omics profiling (including genomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics) using PDOs has identified key mutations associated with resistance. So far, scientists have studied the co-culture of PDOs with immune cells and fibroblasts, which enhances the ability to study tumor-stroma and immune interactions. Hypoxia and nutrient availability have also been modeled in PDOs to study how these factors drive tumor evolution and therapy resistance. For instance,
Furthermore, PDO models have been used to uncover mechanisms driving tumor evolution and drug resistance in BRCA1-mutant ovarian cancer (Xie et al., 2024). Recent findings revealed that BRCA1 promotes ferroptosis by catalyzing K6-linked polyubiquitination and degradation of GPX4. Loss of BRCA1 increases GPX4 levels, leading to ferroptosis resistance. PDO-based studies demonstrated that combining PARP inhibitors (PARPi) with a GPX4 inhibitor yielded synergistic anti-tumor effects in BRCA1-deficient ovarian cancer PDOs, underscoring GPX4 as a promising therapeutic target for BRCA1-mutant cancers (Xie et al., 2024). Collectively, these findings underscore the utility of PDOs as robust preclinical models to elucidate tumor evolution, intratumoral heterogeneity, and mechanisms of therapy resistance. However, standardization of culture methods and long-term reproducibility remain important barriers to translating PDO-based heterogeneity studies into the clinic.
3.3 PDO-based immuno-oncology models
The human immune system employs multiple defense mechanisms, including humoral immunity (mediated by antibodies) and cell-mediated immunity (involving immune cells such as T cells), to eliminate tumor cells. However, these mechanisms are often suppressed within the TME, leading to immune escape and tumor progression. Several factors in the TME contribute to this immune suppression, including hypoxia, epigenetic modifications, and translational regulation. These modifications create an environment that allows cancer cells to evade immune detection and continue to grow and spread (Ringquist et al., 2021). The complex interplay between malignant cells and surrounding non-malignant components within the TME also influences key cancer-related processes such as tumor progression, metastasis, carcinogenesis, and drug resistance. Therefore, accurately modeling these interactions is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness of immunotherapies (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3

Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) act as models for forecasting immunotherapy outcomes, including ICI and immune cell therapies. Effective PDTOs should incorporate various cell types, particularly immune cells, and accurately reflect the TME to ensure reliable testing. Adapted with permission from
PDOs are also playing an increasingly important role in the field of immunotherapy (Zhang et al., 2022). They have been used to model patient-specific responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T cell therapies, offering a platform to study the interaction between tumors and the immune system. PDO-based immuno-oncology models allow the co-culture of PDOs with autologous immune cells, including T cells, dendritic cells, and natural killer (NK) cells. This creates a more physiologically relevant environment, allowing researchers to better predict how a patient’s tumor will respond to immunotherapy. For instance, PDO models have been used in studying immunotherapy responses in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A recent study developed an HCC organoid-on-a-chip platform by co-culturing HCC-PDOs with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC), PBMC, and cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) to mimic the TME (Figure 4A) (Zou et al., 2023). This model increased PDO success rates, accelerated growth, and enhanced immune cell survival and differentiation into tumor-associated macrophages. The microfluidic chip enabled high-throughput drug screening and accurately predicted patient responses to anti-PD-L1 drugs, offering a valuable platform for optimizing HCC immunotherapy (Zou et al., 2023). While PDO-immune co-culture platforms have shown promise, challenges remain regarding immune compatibility and long-term maintenance. Organoids transplanted into animal models often lack autologous immune context, leading to false-negative predictions for immunotherapies. Moreover, even in vitro co-cultures with PBMCs or TILs are typically limited to short-term assays due to immune cell exhaustion. Developing autologous or engineered immune-compatible platforms will be essential to improve predictive power in immuno-oncology research.
FIGURE 4

(A) Establishment of an HCC-TME using PDO co-cultured with MSC and PBMC on a high-throughput microfluidic chip (Zou et al., 2023). (B) Establishing CRC MOS for drug screening and clinical validation (
Recently, micro-organospheres (MOSs) have also emerged as a more rapid and clinically adaptable platform for immunotherapy testing. The integration of genomic profiling and biomarker analysis with PDO and MOS models could further enhance the predictive accuracy and clinical relevance of immuno-oncology treatments (
PDOs have also been used to study resistance to bispecific antibodies.
4 PDO-based microfluidic and biomimetic platforms
Embedding PDOs into microfluidic chips, have further enhanced cancer research by enabling real-time studies of TME dynamics. These “organ-on-chip” (OOC), multi-organ-on-a-chip (MoC), “patient-on-chip” (POC) systems allow for the investigation of complex biological processes, including immune cell infiltration and stromal remodeling (Sood et al., 2023). These models employing PDOs have emerged as a promising alternative technology for testing and developing TCTs (
4.1 Organ-on-chip
These microfluidic devices are designed to mimic human tissues and organs on a smaller scale, replicating key dynamic processes that occur in vivo. By incorporating human cancer cells, specifically PDOs, within the chip’s microchannels and introducing dynamic flow conditions, researchers can create biomimetic cancer-on-a-chip (CoC) models (
OOC models have also been explored for targeting angiogenesis, which refers to the formation of new blood vessels that supply nutrients and oxygen to tumors, enabling them to grow and spread. Targeting these angiogenic pathways is a common strategy in cancer therapy to restrict tumor blood supply and inhibit growth. Lee et al., 2020 showed the potential of RNAi-based nanomedicine targeting angiogenic pathways using OOC models (Figure 5) (
FIGURE 5

3D microfluidic platform for in vitro cancer angiogenesis regulation using siVEGFR/MSN treatment. (A) Schematic of chip design and cell loading sequence. (B) Representative confocal 3D images showing HepG2 angiogenesis with or without siVEGFR/MSN treatment. (C) 3D reconstructed image of sprouting; depth-coded showing sprouts at different depths. (D–F) Quantitative analysis of vessel volume, sprout length, and vascular junctions (
4.2 Multiorgan-on-a-chip (MoC)
While single-OOC models have proven effective in replicating in vivo conditions, they fall short in capturing organ-to-organ interactions, which are crucial for studying cancer metastasis and systemic drug toxicity. To address this limitation, multi-organ-on-a-chip (MoC) systems have been developed, providing a more comprehensive platform for mimicking complex physiological environments. These MoC models have been particularly valuable in investigating cancer metastasis, cell migration, and invasion into secondary organs, often referred to as metastasis-on-a-chip platforms (
FIGURE 6

Microphysiological System Chip Platform (MSCP) for high-throughput drug screening and microphysiological system construction. (A) Schematic of drug absorption from the intestine to vital organs (liver, heart, lung, intestine), mimicked by the MSCP to evaluate multiple drugs simultaneously (Zhu et al., 2024). (B) Overview of the microfluidic chips that have been used to model fallopian tubes and the uterus (Yan et al., 2023). Adapted with permission.
Advanced MoC models also facilitate the testing of combination therapies and immune-based treatments in a physiologically relevant context. By incorporating immune cells, endothelial cells, and stromal components into the platform, researchers can explore how the immune system responds to targeted therapies and immunotherapies. For instance, Yan et al. (2023) highlighted that microfluidic chips have transformed the understanding and management of female reproductive health by simulating complex physiological and pathological conditions (Figure 6B) (Yan et al., 2023). These platforms have been used to model the ovary, fallopian tube, uterus, placenta, and cervix, enabling studies on follicle and oocyte culture, gamete manipulation, cryopreservation, and drug screening. MoC systems have also been applied to study endometriosis, ovarian, endometrial, and cervical cancers, providing valuable insights for improving therapies and diagnostic approaches. However, these microfluidic platforms lacked the ability to replicate the complex vascular network and dynamic blood flow present in vivo. This limited nutrient and oxygen delivery, waste removal, and immune cell interaction, reducing the physiological relevance of the models. Vessel-on-a-chip technology addresses these gaps by integrating vascular structures, improving tissue viability, and enabling more accurate drug testing and disease modeling.
4.3 Vessel-on-a-chip
Vessel-on-a-chip models have been employed to investigate the behavior of drugs within the tumor microcirculation system. By replicating the structural and molecular characteristics of tumor-associated blood vessels, these models enable the assessment of drugs transport, adhesion, and penetration under physiological flow conditions (
FIGURE 7

(A) Experimental set-up for vessel formation (Wu et al., 2023), (B) The ‘reset’ vascular endothelial cells (R-VECs) self-assemble into 3D durable vessels in vitro and in vivo (
A recent advancement in vessel-on-a-chip models is the Organ-On-VascularNet platform, where endothelial cells are reset to adaptable, vasculogenic cells through transient reactivation of embryonic-restricted ETS variant transcription factor 2 (ETV2) (
Another example is developed by
5 Engineering functional biomaterials to advance PDO systems
A central bottleneck in PDO technology is the inability to fully recapitulate the complex TME with high reproducibility and translational relevance. Functional biomaterials spanning natural ECM substitutes, synthetic hydrogels, nanoclays, and bioactive composites are now being engineered not only to provide structural and biochemical support but also to directly address these shortcomings. By enabling precise control over stiffness, degradability, ligand presentation, and bioactivity, these next-generation materials improve reproducibility, mechanical stability, and the fidelity of tumor–stroma–immune interactions within PDOs (Yi et al., 2021). Matrigel® is one such example, applied widely in PDO advancement. Two Matrigel is a widely used mouse-derived basement membrane extract that provides a supportive ECM-like environment for organoid growth and differentiation. A recent study used Matrigel to develop a human fallopian tube (HFT) organoid model from stem cells isolated from the isthmus and ampulla regions (
5.1 ECM substitutes and functional hydrogel scaffolds
The ECM provides not only structural support but also crucial biochemical and biomechanical cues essential for organoid development, differentiation, and function. To replicate these complex in vivo environments, diverse natural and synthetic hydrogels have been engineered as ECM substitutes in PDO systems. These scaffolds are being increasingly refined to enhance tunability, mechanical integrity, and biological relevance. A recent study developed a plasma-rich platelet ECM-based system for culturing HCC organoids, providing a more physiologically relevant and cost-effective platform for liver cancer modeling (
FIGURE 8

(A) Plasma-derived ECM characterization (
Another study developed a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) organoid model using a decellularized human amniotic membrane (dAM) as a scaffold combined with Huh-7 cells, bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSC), and human umbilical vein endothelial cell-conditioned medium (HUVEC-CM) (Figure 8B) (
In parallel, several next-generation biomaterials are emerging to overcome the limitations of traditional ECM substitutes. For instance, Norbornene-functionalized hyaluronic acid (NorHA) hydrogels offer tunable stiffness and degradability, making them ideal for studying immune cell infiltration and tumor–immune interactions (
While ECM-based models replicate key structural and biochemical cues, synthetic biomaterials offer enhanced control over biomechanical properties, enabling greater precision in drug screening and tissue modeling. However, Matrigel® poses several translational challenges beyond batch variability. As a tumor-derived, animal-based matrix, it contains undefined components and residual growth factors, introducing biological noise and potential tumorigenic risks. Its lack of FDA approval and incompatibility with GMP processes limit its clinical translation. Emerging xeno-free alternatives such as VitroGel®, PEG hydrogels, and synthetic nanocellulose scaffolds (e.g., GrowDex®) offer reproducibility and tunability better suited for regulatory environments (Table 2).
TABLE 2
| Biomaterial | Type | Origin | Used in | Key advantages | Limitations | Applications in PDOs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matrigel® | Natural ECM hydrogel | Mouse sarcoma (BME) | Organoids, co-cultures | Biochemical richness, supports differentiation | Batch variability, undefined, animal-derived | Widely used for PDO growth and TME modeling |
| PEG | Synthetic polymer | Fully synthetic | Drug screening, stiffness modeling | Tunable stiffness, reproducible, inert | Requires functionalization for adhesion | Tumor stiffness mimicry, HTS |
| Laponite | Synthetic nanoclay | Synthetic | Drug delivery, TME mimicry | pH/temperature responsive, injectable | May require blending for structure | Controlled drug release, hypoxic TME simulation |
| NorHA | Synthetic hydrogel | Modified hyaluronic acid | Immune cell co-culture | Tunable degradation/stiffness, bioactive | Needs photo-initiation | T cell infiltration, immune–tumor interaction models |
| GelMA | Hybrid hydrogel | Gelatin-derived | 3D bioprinting, vascular organoids | Biocompatible, photo-crosslinkable | UV exposure and gelation complexity | Tumor vascularization, regenerative models |
| VitroGel® | Synthetic hydrogel | Xeno-free, commercial | HTS, clinical testing | Ready-to-use, reproducible, clinical-grade | Cost, proprietary formulation | Screening, personalized medicine |
| GrowDex® | Natural hydrogel | Nanocellulose (plant) | Biobanking, personalized models | Animal-free, injectable, ethical | Lacks complex ECM cues | Organoid preservation, ethical models |
| Collagen I/IV | Natural ECM proteins | Human/animal-derived | Co-culture, invasion models | Physiological adhesion, immune relevance | Not highly tunable mechanically | Stromal co-cultures, angiogenesis studies |
| PuraMatrix™ | Self-assembling peptide hydrogel | Synthetic | Neural/cancer organoids | Animal-free, defined, supports 3D growth | Expensive, soft gel | Neural organoids, cancer PDO architecture |
| Pluronic® F127 | Thermo-responsive hydrogel | Synthetic | In vivo delivery, dynamic modeling | Injectable, reversible gelation | Poor bioactivity without additives | Organoid transplantation, dynamic systems |
| Silk fibroin | Natural protein hydrogel | Silkworm-derived | Long-term culture, drug release | Biocompatible, slow degradation | More complex to fabricate | Sustained drug delivery, structural PDO support |
| MXenes | 2D nanomaterials | Synthetic | Biosensing, photothermal therapy | Conductive, high surface area, biofunctionalizable | Needs composite formulation | Real-time monitoring, photothermal PDO models |
| PEDOT:PSS/ Polypyrrole | Conductive polymer | Synthetic | Biosensing, electro-responsive platforms | Conductivity, real-time readouts | Non-biodegradable, fabrication complexity | Monitoring cell response, HTS-integrated PDOs |
Summarizes the biomaterials discussed in this section, outlining their properties, advantages, and applications in PDO systems.
5.2 Synthetic biomaterials: PEG, laponite, and alginate systems
Synthetic biomaterials, such as Laponite, polyethylene glycol (PEG), and alginate derivatives, offer precise control over matrix composition, stiffness, porosity, and biochemical cues. These materials can be engineered to mimic the biomechanical properties of the native tumor environment, allowing for better replication of the physical forces and signaling gradients present in human tumors. For example, PEG-based hydrogels can be tuned to match the stiffness of specific tumor tissues, ranging from soft tissues like breast and pancreatic cancer to stiffer solid tumors like bone metastases. This level of mechanical control improves the relevance of PDO-based drug screening, as studies have shown that matrix stiffness influences cancer cell proliferation, invasion, and therapy resistance. A recent study developed a bioink combining gelatin, alginate, and liver decellularized extracellular matrix (LdECM) for 3D bioprinting (You et al., 2024). The bioink enhanced bone mesenchymal stem cell (BMSC) proliferation and differentiation, and in vivo tests showed improved angiogenesis and bone regeneration in a rat model (You et al., 2024). Another study, demonstrated that culturing kidney organoids derived from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) in a kidney decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM) hydrogel enhanced vascularization and glomerular development. Single-cell transcriptomics showed that vascularized kidney organoids exhibited more mature glomerular structures and greater similarity to human kidneys than those cultured without dECM. This approach also enabled modeling of Fabry nephropathy and improved vascular integrity after transplantation into mouse kidneys. This highlights the potential of dECM-based scaffolds to improve organoid complexity and functionality for disease modeling and regenerative medicine (Figure 8C) (
In addition to PEG and alginate-based systems, several other biomaterials have emerged as promising alternatives or complements to Matrigel®. Gelatin methacrylate (GelMA) is a photo-crosslinkable, tunable hydrogel widely used in 3D bioprinting and vascularized tumor models due to its excellent biocompatibility and structural stability (Zhou et al., 2023b; Xiao et al., 2019). VitroGel®, a xeno-free, ready-to-use hydrogel, offers reproducible performance, tunable stiffness, and compatibility with HTS, making it suitable for clinical and pharmaceutical applications (Zhang et al., 2025;
In addition to established systems, several advanced biomaterials have recently emerged with high relevance to PDO engineering. Zwitterionic hydrogels provide excellent anti-fouling and immune-evasive properties, making them ideal for co-culture and transplant models (Wang et al., 2025). Self-healing hydrogels, based on dynamic covalent or host–guest interactions, offer mechanical resilience and long-term stability (Pishavar et al., 2021). Micropatterned PEG-based hydrogels, often fabricated via 3D bioprinting or photolithography, allow spatial control of organoid architecture and mimic tissue zonation. Organ-specific decellularized ECMs (e.g., brain, pancreas, lung) enhance organoid fidelity by preserving tissue-specific cues (Tran et al., 2022). Additionally, DNA-based hydrogels and aptamer-functionalized matrices enable precise growth factor presentation and real-time biosensing (Wu et al., 2025). Together, these materials support complex, dynamic PDO environments for precision oncology and high-throughput functional screening. This type of immunomodulatory and regenerative biomaterial underscores the potential of next-generation hydrogels in not only supporting PDOs but also modeling tumor–immune dynamics and healing processes within a single platform (
Beyond enhancing structural fidelity and controlled drug delivery, functional biomaterials have also laid the groundwork for developing advanced co-culture platforms that better emulate the cellular heterogeneity of the TME. While tuning material properties are critical for replicating biomechanical and biochemical cues, integrating stromal and immune components within these engineered matrices is essential for capturing the dynamic, functional interactions that drive tumor progression. An example of such an immunomodulatory biomaterial is the ROD peptide hydrogel, comprising RADA16-I peptide, lysed OK-432, and doxorubicin, developed for treating residual hepatocellular carcinoma after incomplete radiofrequency ablation. This hydrogel exhibited a controlled drug release profile and robustly activated the STING pathway, promoting dendritic cell maturation and enhancing CD4+/CD8+ T cell infiltration while suppressing regulatory T cells (
5.3 Co-culture with stromal and immune cells
Functional biomaterials also enable the incorporation of bioactive ligands that facilitate cell-matrix interactions and tissue remodeling (
FIGURE 9

(A) Single-cell transcriptomics of the triple co-cultures revealed distinct myeloid cell states and gene expression signatures shaped by chemotherapy or oncolytic influenza A virus (O-IAV) treatment (
Hydrogel-based co-culture models have further expanded the physiological relevance of PDO platforms (
6 PDOs in clinical translation
The refinement of PDO platforms through advanced biomaterials and co-culture strategies has accelerated their integration into clinical research. To ensure the reliability of organoid-based screening, quality control (QC) standards have been introduced in major biobanks. These include matching organoid and tumor mutational profiles (e.g., ≥90% SNV concordance), transcriptomic similarity via RNA-seq clustering, morphology scoring via histopathology, and pharmacologic response correlation. Adopting standardized QC protocols is essential for clinical implementation and reproducibility. Since 2020, there has been a significant rise in clinical trials investigating the use of PDOs for drug screening, personalized medicine, and disease modeling across various cancer types (Table 3). This surge in PDOs-based clinical trials reflects a growing recognition of their potential in overcoming inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity, improving treatment efficacy, and minimizing adverse effects. The first recorded clinical trial during this period, NCT04219137 (MOCHA), was initiated in January 2020 to investigate the molecular characteristics of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma using organoid models. This marked the beginning of an era where organoids were increasingly employed in clinical oncology research. Shortly after, trials such as NCT04279509 (SCORE) were launched in February 2020 to test chemotherapy selection using high-throughput drug screening in PDOs for refractory solid tumors, including head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and epithelial ovarian cancer. Similarly, NCT04371198 (May 2020) focused on establishing rectal cancer organoids to evaluate their role in disease modeling. Throughout 2020, several other trials expanded the scope of organoid applications. NCT04478877 (July 2020) aimed to establish and characterize meningioma PDOs through sequencing. In contrast, NCT04555473 (TAILOR), initiated in September 2020, combined sequencing and drug testing to evaluate longitudinal tumor progression in epithelial ovarian cancer. Trials such as NCT04611035 (Q-GAIN) and NCT04655573 investigated the predictive value of PDO-based drug screening in gastrointestinal and advanced breast cancers, respectively.
TABLE 3
| Cancer type | Clinical trials (NCT IDs) | Drug tested | PDOs prediction accuracy | Clinical outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorectal Cancer | NCT04279509, NCT05304741, NCT05384184, NCT05640433 | FOLFOX, irinotecan, cetuximab | High concordance with therapy response (>80%) | Improved prediction of resistance and therapy adaptation |
| Pancreatic Cancer | NCT05196334, NCT05351983 | Gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, oxaliplatin | Validated predictive accuracy in matched patient cohorts | Early intervention guided by PDOs improved therapy alignment |
| Breast Cancer | NCT04655573, NCT05183425, NCT05007379, NCT06102824 | Trastuzumab, pertuzumab, carboplatin | Strong correlation in HER2+ and triple-negative subtypes | Enhanced clinical matching in neoadjuvant trials |
| Lung Cancer | NCT05669586 | Osimertinib, EGFR/ALK inhibitors | Effective at modeling resistance mutations (e.g., T790M) | Supported treatment modification strategies |
| Ovarian Cancer | NCT04279509, NCT04555473, NCT04768270, NCT05175326, NCT06085404 | PARP inhibitors, taxane-platinum combinations | Moderate concordance; variable by BRCA status | Improved progression-free intervals in BRCA-mutated PDOs |
| Glioblastoma | NCT04865315, NCT04868396 | Temozolomide, CAR-T | Low to moderate correlation | Promising platform; clinical translation ongoing |
| Gastric Cancer | NCT05203549 | 5-FU, platinum, PD-1 inhibitors | High correlation in early-stage PDO screens | Ongoing trials show potential for stratified therapy |
| Neuroendocrine Tumor | NCT04555473 | Everolimus, somatostatin analogs | Limited validation; small sample sizes | Potential tool for individualized dosing regimens |
| Liver Cancer (HCC) | NCT05913141 | Sorafenib, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors | Preliminary organoid-drug matching promising | Under clinical validation for use in second-line therapies |
| Biliary Tract/Cholangiocarcinoma | NCT05634694 | FGFR inhibitors, immunotherapies | Under investigation | PDOs enable subtype-specific drug testing |
| Renal Cancer (VHL-related) | NCT06195150 | Belzutifan, VEGFR inhibitors | Not yet validated | Exploratory use of PDOs in hereditary tumors |
| Glioblastoma/High-grade Astrocytoma | NCT04865315, NCT04868396 | Temozolomide, personalized combinations | Moderate concordance, improving with combinatorial profiling | Ongoing; PDOs assist in drug repurposing and individual sensitivity assessment |
Summary of clinical trials using PDOs across cancer types, highlighting key cancer types, trial numbers, drugs tested, predictive accuracy, and clinical relevance of PDOs-based screening.
In 2021, trials continued to focus on predicting drug sensitivity and response. NCT04768270 (February 2021) and NCT05175326 (January 2022) investigated the utility of ovarian cancer organoids for drug screening and evaluation of clinical consistency. Glioma-based studies, such as NCT04865315 (HiLoGlio) and NCT04868396, investigated the establishment and drug screening potential of glioblastoma stem cell organoids. Notable trials such as NCT04906733 (Cetuximab sensitivity in colon cancer) and NCT05007379 (CARMA in breast cancer) demonstrated that PDOs models could guide therapeutic decisions based on drug sensitivity.
The trend accelerated in 2022 with a focus on more complex and multi-dimensional applications. NCT05177432 and NCT05183425 evaluated the consistency between PDOs-guided and clinical responses in colorectal liver metastases and breast cancer. Trials like NCT05196334 (pancreatic cancer) and NCT05203549 (gastric cancer) further validated the clinical relevance of PDOs models in predicting chemotherapy outcomes. NCT05304741 and NCT05351983 explored the role of PDOs-based drug sensitivity in colorectal and pancreatic cancers, respectively, while NCT05384184 (BORG) assessed organoid-based therapy for colorectal cancer metastases and hepatocellular carcinoma.
In 2023, the focus expanded to include next-generation sequencing (NGS) and immunotherapy. NCT05634694 and NCT05644743 tested the predictive accuracy of PDO models for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gastrointestinal cancer. NCT05669586 assessed the role of PDOs in predicting drug resistance in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Trials such as NCT05725200 (EVIDENT) and NCT05832398 investigated the outcomes of personalized treatments in metastatic colorectal cancer and precision chemotherapy, respectively. NCT05913141 (PDO-TIL) focused on liver cancer drug screening, while NCT05955196 evaluated immune microenvironment modulation in colon cancer through CD47-SIRPα inhibitors. More recent trials in late 2023 and 2024 have sought to integrate PDOs into real-world clinical decision-making. NCT06077591 and NCT06085404 focused on validating NGS-guided and organoid-guided therapies for advanced solid tumors and ovarian cancer. NCT06102824 (ORIENTA) and NCT06155305 (ONAC) tested the efficacy of organoid-based drug sensitivity in advanced breast cancer and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The most recent trial, NCT06195150 (ITHORinVHL), initiated in January 2024, targets Von Hippel-Lindau-related renal cancer, exploring the role of PDOs in overcoming intra- and inter-tumoral heterogeneity. Overall, these trials demonstrate a consistent and growing trend toward the clinical integration of PDOs in oncology. The versatility of organoids in drug sensitivity testing, sequencing, and disease modeling underscores their value in guiding personalized treatments and improving clinical outcomes. The increasing number of multi-center and multi-phase trials reflects a shift from experimental to more applied clinical use, positioning PDOs as pivotal tools in precision oncology. Time-to-decision is a key variable in clinical translation. On average, PDOs take 10–21 days to establish and expand to sufficient size for drug screening, with success rates varying by cancer type (60%–80%). Costs associated with growth factors, ECM matrices, and labor can be significant. However, innovations in bioprinting, synthetic scaffolds, and microfluidic platforms have reduced costs and assay volumes, improving the scalability and viability of clinical PDO pipelines.
7 Integration with emerging technologies
The integration of PDOs with emerging technologies has significantly expanded their applications in cancer research and personalized medicine, enabling more comprehensive, precise, and scalable approaches to understanding and treating cancer. HTS represents one of the most impactful technological advancements in PDO research, as discussed in several examples above where HTS was employed for drug testing and therapy selection across various cancer types (
FIGURE 10

Establishment and drug screening of patient-derived tumor models. (A) Tumor biopsies were processed by fresh dissociation, in vitro culture, or in vivo transplantation, followed by molecular validation and drug screening. (B) Representative H&E and IHC staining for tumor markers and Ki-67 show similarities between patient tumors and 3D cultures in EWS (zcc38), ACC (zcc292), and WT (zcc384). (C) The cohort distribution of tumor types is shown. (D) Success and failure rates of model establishment across tumor types. (E) Number of samples expanded by each method. (F) Compounds screened per sample type. (G) Heatmap of drug sensitivity (median AUC Z-scores) highlights pathway-specific responses across tumor types and sample preparations.
In parallel, HTS technologies are also advancing the classification of genetic variants in hereditary cancers. For example, a cDNA-based high-throughput assay was developed to functionally classify 74 BRCA1 variants of uncertain significance (VUS), particularly in the RING and BRCT domains, using BRCA1-deficient stem cells (
Multi-omics analysis is another critical area where PDOs are driving advancements in cancer research. Genomic sequencing of PDOs provides actionable insights into tumor-specific driver mutations and resistance pathways. Beyond genomics, proteomic and metabolomic profiling of PDOs uncovers novel therapeutic targets and metabolic vulnerabilities. These multi-dimensional datasets enable a deeper understanding of tumor biology, helping researchers identify biomarkers for therapy response and develop targeted interventions. Additionally, integration with computational tools enables the synthesis of omics data into meaningful predictions of therapeutic outcomes. For instance,
FIGURE 11

(A) CRLM PDO biobank established and analyzed using multiomics, showing distinct morphologies and growth patterns consistent with primary tumors (
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) also provide powerful tools for data analysis and prediction in PDO-based studies. AI algorithms applied to large PDO datasets can predict drug responses, optimize treatment regimens, and identify novel biomarkers with unparalleled accuracy (
8 Challenges and ethical considerations
So far, it is evident that PDOs offer a transformative platform for modeling patient-specific tumor biology and advancing personalized cancer therapy. However, several challenges still hinder their widespread clinical adoption and translational scalability. One major limitation is the variability in culture conditions, particularly the use of ECM-based scaffolds such as Matrigel® or BME®. These ECMs are complex, animal-derived mixtures with undefined composition and significant batch-to-batch variability, hindering standardization and regulatory compliance. Additionally, their high cost and incompatibility with high-throughput platforms pose logistical and economic barriers to widespread clinical use. However, research is already ongoing to overcome these challenges. Innovations in synthetic and defined ECM alternatives-such as peptide-based hydrogels and bioengineered scaffolds are actively being explored. A notable advancement in this area was reported by Wijnakker et al. (2025), who developed a fully defined, animal-free, integrin-targeting surface using a C-terminal fragment of Invasin, an outer membrane protein from Yersinia. Invasin binds to β1-integrin complexes, including α6β1, a key receptor involved in epithelial adhesion to laminin-111 (the major adhesive component of Matrigel). When Invasin was coated on standard culture plates and combined with organoid growth factors, the system supported long-term, multipassage expansion of primary epithelial cells in a 2D organoid sheet format (Wijnakker et al., 2025). Importantly, these 2D organoid sheets preserved critical features of 3D PDOs, including epithelial polarity, tight junctions, and multilineage differentiation into enterocytes, goblet cells, paneth cells, and enteroendocrine cells. The 2D configuration provided enhanced accessibility to apical and basal surfaces, facilitated imaging, and proved compatible with automated high-throughput drug screening. Moreover, the system was versatile across multiple species, including human, mouse, and even snake epithelia, highlighting its translational robustness. This innovation does not represent a return to traditional 2D cell culture but rather a re-engineered organoid platform that retains the biological complexity of PDOs while offering improved scalability, reproducibility, and clinical utility. As such, 2D organoid sheets cultured on integrin-activating surfaces represent a promising step toward defined, scalable, and cost-effective PDO systems for functional screening and translational oncology. Another study by
Similarly, the development of a pan-cancer PDO platform involving over 1,000 patients enabled standardized, chemically defined culture systems and a neural network-based drug prediction model using label-free imaging (
The regulatory landscape for PDO-based diagnostics remains underdeveloped. Establishing standard operating procedures (SOPs) for PDO culture and quality control, like Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), will be crucial for obtaining FDA approval and achieving widespread clinical adoption. The use of patient tissues requires transparent and informed consent processes to ensure ethical compliance. Furthermore, the genetic data generated from PDO studies raises concerns about data security and privacy. Robust frameworks must be implemented to safeguard this sensitive information and prevent misuse. Regulatory and commercialization hurdles further complicate the adoption of PDOs in clinical settings. The development of regulatory pathways for PDO-based diagnostics and therapies is still in its infancy. Establishing guidelines for quality control, clinical validation, and safety assessment will require collaboration between academia, industry, and regulatory agencies. These efforts are crucial in bridging the gap between PDO research and its application in personalized cancer care.
9 Future perspectives and conclusion
The next phase of PDO research is poised to address critical gaps in physiological fidelity, clinical integration, and scalability. While PDOs have already demonstrated utility in capturing patient-specific tumor biology and enabling individualized therapy selection, several frontiers demand deeper innovation. A major area of focus is the incorporation of the immune system into PDO models. Recent advances in co-culturing PDOs with autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and dendritic cells have enabled preliminary modeling of immune checkpoint responses. However, these systems remain limited by short-term viability, immune cell exhaustion, and lack of vascular and lymphatic context. Future models must improve cytokine support, enable longer co-culture durations, and ideally incorporate vascularization or lymphoid-like niches to better emulate in vivo immune-tumor dynamics.
Another promising but nascent frontier is the integration of patient-specific microbiomes. Evidence increasingly links microbiota composition to therapeutic efficacy and resistance, particularly in gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers. However, co-culturing live microbial communities with PDOs is technically challenging due to differing oxygen requirements, risks of overgrowth or contamination, and the need for anaerobic containment systems. Emerging microfluidic or gut-on-a-chip platforms may provide feasible solutions, enabling controlled and spatially defined microbial exposure within PDO environments. These systems could eventually support microbiome-based stratification or adjuvant therapy design, although translational readiness remains limited.
On the technological front, advances in ECM-substitute scaffolds (e.g., xeno-free synthetic hydrogels), microfluidic bioreactors, and robotics are gradually addressing the issues of batch-to-batch variability, manual labor intensity, and reproducibility. Standardization of culture protocols, readouts, and quality control metrics is essential to ensure reproducibility across clinical laboratories. These developments will be particularly critical for global implementation in lower-resource settings.
Finally, the widespread clinical adoption of PDO-guided therapies will depend on robust clinical validation, integration with genomic and pharmacologic data, and alignment with evolving regulatory frameworks. While several ongoing clinical trials are evaluating the predictive accuracy of PDO-based drug screening, formal regulatory endorsement will require harmonized standards for patient consent, biospecimen handling, assay reproducibility, and clinical decision interpretation. The emergence of harmonized biobank networks and real-time clinical interfaces will be pivotal in translating PDO insights into actionable therapies. Through coordinated progress across biological, technological, and regulatory domains, PDOs are poised to become an indispensable component of the precision oncology toolkit reshaping not only how we screen drugs, but how we understand, stratify, and ultimately treat cancer at the individual level.
Statements
Author contributions
HS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. IM: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. PS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. NNF Grant number: NNF20CC0035580, DFF and Thematic Research-Independent green research (2023): 3164-00026A.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AhnJ.YoonM. J.HongS. H.ChaH.LeeD.KooH. S.et al (2021). Three-dimensional microengineered vascularised endometrium-on-a-chip. Hum. Reprod.36, 2720–2731. 10.1093/humrep/deab186
2
AnushaT.BrahmanP. K.SesharamsinghB.LakshmiA.BhavaniK. S. (2025). Electrochemical detection of cervical cancer biomarkers. Clin. Chim. Acta567, 120103. 10.1016/j.cca.2024.120103
3
AttaD.Abou-ShanabA. M.KamarS. S.SolimanM. W.MagdyS.El-BadriN. (2025). Amniotic membrane-derived extracellular matrix for developing a cost-effective xenofree hepatocellular carcinoma organoid model. J. Biomed. Mater Res. A113, e37882. 10.1002/jbm.a.37882
4
BardiaA.HurvitzS. A.TolaneyS. M.LoiratD.PunieK.OliveiraM.et al (2021). Sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.384, 1529–1541. 10.1056/NEJMoa2028485
5
BardiaA.JhaveriK.KalinskyK.PernasS.TsurutaniJ.XuB.et al (2024). TROPION-Breast01: datopotamab deruxtecan vs chemotherapy in pre-treated inoperable or metastatic HR+/HER2-breast cancer. Future Oncol.20, 423–436. 10.2217/fon-2023-0188
6
BengtssonA.AnderssonR.RahmJ.GangannaK.AnderssonB.AnsariD. (2021). Organoid technology for personalized pancreatic cancer therapy. Cell Oncol. (Dordr)44, 251–260. 10.1007/s13402-021-00585-1
7
BhatiaR.SharmaA.NarangR. K.RawalR. K. (2021). Recent nanocarrier approaches for targeted drug delivery in cancer therapy. Curr. Mol. Pharmacol.14, 350–366. 10.2174/1874467213666200730114943
8
BhattV. R.GundaboluK.KollT.ManessL. J. (2018). Initial therapy for acute myeloid leukemia in older patients: principles of care. Leuk. Lymphoma59, 29–41. 10.1080/10428194.2017.1323275
9
BlairH. A. (2025). Inavolisib: first approval. Drugs85, 271–278. 10.1007/s40265-024-02136-y
10
BorettoM.MaenhoudtN.LuoX.HennesA.BoeckxB.BuiB.et al (2019). Patient-derived organoids from endometrial disease capture clinical heterogeneity and are amenable to drug screening. Nat. Cell Biol.21, 1041–1051. 10.1038/s41556-019-0360-z
11
BorgesR.ZambaniniT.PelosineA. M.JustoG. Z.SouzaA. C. S.MachadoJ.Jr.et al (2023). A colloidal hydrogel-based drug delivery system overcomes the limitation of combining bisphosphonates with bioactive glasses: in vitro evidence of a potential selective bone cancer treatment allied with bone regeneration. Biomater. Adv.151, 213441. 10.1016/j.bioadv.2023.213441
12
BouwmanP.van der GuldenH.van der HeijdenI.DrostR.KlijnC. N.PrasetyantiP.et al (2013). A high-throughput functional complementation assay for classification of BRCA1 missense variants. Cancer Discov.3, 1142–1155. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0094
13
BrayF.LaversanneM.SungH.FerlayJ.SiegelR. L.SoerjomataramI.et al (2024). Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin.74, 229–263. 10.3322/caac.21834
14
BrouwerN. P. M.KhanA.BokhorstJ. M.AyatollahiF.HayJ.CiompiF.et al (2024). The complexity of shapes: how the circularity of tumor nodules affects prognosis in colorectal cancer. Mod. Pathol.37, 100376. 10.1016/j.modpat.2023.100376
15
BukamurH.KatzH.AlsharediM.AlkrekshiA.ShweihatY. R.MunnN. J. (2020). Immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pulmonary toxicity: focus on nivolumab. South Med. J.113, 600–605. 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001166
16
CaballeroD.BlackburnS. M.de PabloM.SamitierJ.AlbertazziL. (2017). Tumour-vessel-on-a-chip models for drug delivery. Lab. Chip17, 3760–3771. 10.1039/c7lc00574a
17
CalpeB.KovacsW. J. (2020). High-throughput screening in multicellular spheroids for target discovery in the tumor microenvironment. Expert Opin. Drug Discov.15, 955–967. 10.1080/17460441.2020.1756769
18
CaoY.SunT.SunB.ZhangG.LiuJ.LiangB.et al (2023). Injectable hydrogel loaded with lysed OK-432 and doxorubicin for residual liver cancer after incomplete radiofrequency ablation. J. Nanobiotechnology21, 404. 10.1186/s12951-023-02170-0
19
CartryJ.BedjaS.BoileveA.MathieuJ. R. R.GontranE.AnnereauM.et al (2023). Implementing patient derived organoids in functional precision medicine for patients with advanced colorectal cancer. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res.42, 281. 10.1186/s13046-023-02853-4
20
CaveroI.GuillonJ. M.HolzgrefeH. H. (2019). Human organotypic bioconstructs from organ-on-chip devices for human-predictive biological insights on drug candidates. Expert Opin. Drug Saf.18, 651–677. 10.1080/14740338.2019.1634689
21
ChatterjeeS.HuiP. C.KanC. W.WangW. (2019). Dual-responsive (pH/temperature) Pluronic F-127 hydrogel drug delivery system for textile-based transdermal therapy. Sci. Rep.9, 11658. 10.1038/s41598-019-48254-6
22
ChesneyJ.LewisK. D.KlugerH.HamidO.WhitmanE.ThomasS.et al (2022). Efficacy and safety of lifileucel, a one-time autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) cell therapy, in patients with advanced melanoma after progression on immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies: pooled analysis of consecutive cohorts of the C-144-01 study. J. Immunother. Cancer10, e005755. 10.1136/jitc-2022-005755
23
CioceM.FumagalliM. R.DonzelliS.GoemanF.CanuV.RutiglianoD.et al (2023). Interrogating colorectal cancer metastasis to liver: a search for clinically viable compounds and mechanistic insights in colorectal cancer patient derived organoids. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res.42, 170. 10.1186/s13046-023-02754-6
24
Cruz-AcunaR.GarciaA. J. (2019). Engineered materials to model human intestinal development and cancer using organoids. Exp. Cell Res.377, 109–114. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2019.02.017
25
Cruz-AcunaR.KariukiS. W.SugiuraK.KaraiskosS.PlasterE. M.LoebelC.et al (2023). Engineered hydrogel reveals contribution of matrix mechanics to esophageal adenocarcinoma and identifies matrix-activated therapeutic targets. J. Clin. Invest.133, e168146. 10.1172/JCI168146
26
DabasP.DandaA. (2023). Revolutionizing cancer treatment: a comprehensive review of CAR-T cell therapy. Med. Oncol.40, 275. 10.1007/s12032-023-02146-y
27
Del PiccoloN.ShirureV. S.BiY.GoedegebuureS. P.GholamiS.HughesC. C. W.et al (2021). Tumor-on-chip modeling of organ-specific cancer and metastasis. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.175, 113798. 10.1016/j.addr.2021.05.008
28
DingS.HsuC.WangZ.NateshN. R.MillenR.NegreteM.et al (2022). Patient-derived micro-organospheres enable clinical precision oncology. Cell Stem Cell29, 905–917 e6. 10.1016/j.stem.2022.04.006
29
DornhofJ.KieningerJ.MuralidharanH.MaurerJ.UrbanG. A.WeltinA. (2022). Microfluidic organ-on-chip system for multi-analyte monitoring of metabolites in 3D cell cultures. Lab. Chip22, 225–239. 10.1039/d1lc00689d
30
Durvalumab (Imfinzi) (2023). CADTH Reimbursement Recommendation: indication: in combination with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer. Cambridge, United Kingdom: AstraZeneca.
31
El-DerbyA. M.KhedrM. A.GhoneimN. I.GabrM. M.KhaterS. M.El-BadriN. (2024). Plasma-derived extracellular matrix for xenofree and cost-effective organoid modeling for hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Transl. Med.22, 487. 10.1186/s12967-024-05230-7
32
FashemiB. E.van BiljonL.RodriguezJ.GrahamO.MullenM.KhabeleD. (2023). Ovarian cancer patient-derived organoid models for pre-clinical drug testing. J. Vis. Exp.199. 10.3791/65068
33
FaubertB.SolmonsonA.DeBerardinisR. J. (2020). Metabolic reprogramming and cancer progression. Science368, eaaw5473. 10.1126/science.aaw5473
34
FerroY.MaurottiS.TarsitanoM. G.LodariO.PujiaR.MazzaE.et al (2023). Therapeutic fasting in reducing chemotherapy side effects in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients15, 2666. 10.3390/nu15122666
35
FitzpatrickP. A.AkrapN.SöderbergE. M. V.HarrisonH.ThomsonG. J.LandbergG. (2017). Robotic mammosphere assay for high-throughput screening in triple-negative breast cancer. SLAS Discov.22, 827–836. 10.1177/2472555217692321
36
FongE. L. S.TohT. B.LinQ. X. X.LiuZ.HooiL.Mohd Abdul RashidM. B.et al (2018). Generation of matched patient-derived xenograft in vitro-in vivo models using 3D macroporous hydrogels for the study of liver cancer. Biomaterials159, 229–240. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.12.026
37
GatimelN.PerezG.BrunoE.SagnatD.RollandC.Tanguy-Le-GacY.et al (2025). Human fallopian tube organoids provide a favourable environment for sperm motility. Hum. Reprod.40, 503–517. 10.1093/humrep/deae258
38
GoisA. M.MendoncaD. M. F.FreireM. A. M.SantosJ. R. (2020). In vitro and in vivo models of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: an updated Overview. Brain Res. Bull.159, 32–43. 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2020.03.012
39
GoldenbergD. M.CardilloT. M.GovindanS. V.RossiE. A.SharkeyR. M. (2015). Trop-2 is a novel target for solid cancer therapy with sacituzumab govitecan (IMMU-132), an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC). Oncotarget6, 22496–22512. 10.18632/oncotarget.4318
40
Gonzalez-ExpositoR.SemiannikovaM.GriffithsB.KhanK.BarberL. J.WoolstonA.et al (2019). CEA expression heterogeneity and plasticity confer resistance to the CEA-targeting bispecific immunotherapy antibody cibisatamab (CEA-TCB) in patient-derived colorectal cancer organoids. J. Immunother. Cancer7, 101. 10.1186/s40425-019-0575-3
41
GoodarziK.RaoS. S. (2024). Structurally decoupled hyaluronic acid hydrogels for studying matrix metalloproteinase-mediated invasion of metastatic breast cancer cells. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.277, 134493. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.134493
42
HardingJ. J.FanJ.OhD. Y.ChoiH. J.KimJ. W.ChangH. M.et al (2023). Zanidatamab for HER2-amplified, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (HERIZON-BTC-01): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2b study. Lancet Oncol.24, 772–782. 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00242-5
43
HuangY.LiuT.HuangQ.WangY. (2024). From organ-on-a-chip to human-on-a-chip: a review of research progress and latest applications. ACS Sens.9, 3466–3488. 10.1021/acssensors.4c00004
44
HurvitzS. A.HeggR.ChungW. P.ImS. A.JacotW.GanjuV.et al (2023). Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus trastuzumab emtansine in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer: updated results from DESTINY-Breast03, a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet401, 105–117. 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)02420-5
45
JainK. K. (2021). Personalized immuno-oncology. Med. Princ. Pract.30, 1–16. 10.1159/000511107
46
JoshiA. S.BapatM. V.SinghP.MijakovicI. (2024). Viridibacillus culture derived silver nanoparticles exert potent anticancer action in 2D and 3D models of lung cancer via mitochondrial depolarization-mediated apoptosis. Mater. Today Bio25, 100997. 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.100997
47
KabiljoJ.TheophilA.HomolaJ.RennerA. F.SturzenbecherN.AmmonD.et al (2024). Cancer-associated fibroblasts shape early myeloid cell response to chemotherapy-induced immunogenic signals in next generation tumor organoid cultures. J. Immunother. Cancer12, e009494. 10.1136/jitc-2024-009494
48
Kaidar-PersonO.Vrou OffersenB.HolS.ArenasM.AristeiC.BourgierC.et al (2019). ESTRO ACROP consensus guideline for target volume delineation in the setting of postmastectomy radiation therapy after implant-based immediate reconstruction for early stage breast cancer. Radiother. Oncol.137, 159–166. 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.04.010
49
KalafatiE.DrakopoulouE.AnagnouN. P.PappaK. I. (2023). Developing oncolytic viruses for the treatment of cervical cancer. Cells12, 1838. 10.3390/cells12141838
50
KazakovaA. N.AnufrievaK. S.IvanovaO. M.ShnaiderP. V.MalyantsI. K.AleshikovaO. I.et al (2022). Deeper insights into transcriptional features of cancer-associated fibroblasts: an integrated meta-analysis of single-cell and bulk RNA-sequencing data. Front. Cell Dev. Biol.10, 825014. 10.3389/fcell.2022.825014
51
KefayatA.HosseiniM.GhahremaniF.JolfaieN. A.RafieniaM. (2022). Biodegradable and biocompatible subcutaneous implants consisted of pH-sensitive mebendazole-loaded/folic acid-targeted chitosan nanoparticles for murine triple-negative breast cancer treatment. J. Nanobiotechnology20, 169. 10.1186/s12951-022-01380-2
52
KimH. K.LeeE. J.LeeY. J.KimJ.KimY.KimK.et al (2020). Impact of proactive high-throughput functional assay data on BRCA1 variant interpretation in 3684 patients with breast or ovarian cancer. J. Hum. Genet.65, 209–220. 10.1038/s10038-019-0713-2
53
KimJ. W.NamS. A.YiJ.KimJ. Y.LeeJ. Y.ParkS. Y.et al (2022). Kidney decellularized extracellular matrix enhanced the vascularization and maturation of human kidney organoids. Adv. Sci. (Weinh)9, e2103526. 10.1002/advs.202103526
54
KongJ.LeeH.KimD.HanS. K.HaD.ShinK.et al (2020). Network-based machine learning in colorectal and bladder organoid models predicts anti-cancer drug efficacy in patients. Nat. Commun.11, 5485. 10.1038/s41467-020-19313-8
55
KumariR.XuX.LiH. Q. (2022). Translational and clinical relevance of PDX-derived organoid models in oncology drug discovery and development. Curr. Protoc.2, e431. 10.1002/cpz1.431
56
LarsenB. M.KannanM.LangerL. F.LeibowitzB. D.BentaiebA.CancinoA.et al (2021). A pan-cancer organoid platform for precision medicine. Cell Rep.36, 109429. 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109429
57
LeZ.ChenS.FengY.LuW.LiuM. (2024). SERPINC1, a new prognostic predictor of colon cancer, promote colon cancer progression through EMT. Cancer Rep. Hob.7, e2079. 10.1002/cnr2.2079
58
LeeS.KimS.KooD. J.YuJ.ChoH.LeeH.et al (2021). 3D microfluidic platform and tumor vascular mapping for evaluating anti-angiogenic RNAi-based nanomedicine. ACS Nano15, 338–350. 10.1021/acsnano.0c05110
59
LeverantA.OpryskL.DabrowskiA.Kyker-SnowmanK.VazquezM. (2024). Three-dimensionally printed microsystems to facilitate flow-based study of cells from neurovascular barriers of the retina. Micromachines (Basel)15, 1103. 10.3390/mi15091103
60
LiB.ShaoH.GaoL.LiH.ShengH.ZhuL. (2022a). Nano-drug co-delivery system of natural active ingredients and chemotherapy drugs for cancer treatment: a review. Drug Deliv.29, 2130–2161. 10.1080/10717544.2022.2094498
61
LiB. T.SmitE. F.GotoY.NakagawaK.UdagawaH.MazieresJ.et al (2022b). Trastuzumab deruxtecan in HER2-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.386, 241–251. 10.1056/NEJMoa2112431
62
LiuZ.LinH.ZhaoM.DaiC.ZhangS.PengW.et al (2018). 2D superparamagnetic tantalum carbide composite MXenes for efficient breast-cancer theranostics. Theranostics8, 1648–1664. 10.7150/thno.23369
63
LiuJ.SunH.PengY.ChenL.XuW.ShaoR. (2022). Preparation and characterization of natural Silk fibroin hydrogel for protein drug delivery. Molecules27, 3418. 10.3390/molecules27113418
64
LiuS.KumariS.HeH.MishraP.SinghB. N.SinghD.et al (2023). Biosensors integrated 3D organoid/organ-on-a-chip system: a real-time biomechanical, biophysical, and biochemical monitoring and characterization. Biosens. Bioelectron.231, 115285. 10.1016/j.bios.2023.115285
65
LiuS.ZhangZ.WangZ.LiJ.ShenL. (2024a). Genome-wide CRISPR screening identifies the pivotal role of ANKRD42 in colorectal cancer metastasis through EMT regulation. IUBMB Life76, 803–819. 10.1002/iub.2855
66
LiuX.ShenM.BingT.ZhangX.LiY.CaiQ.et al (2024b). A bioactive injectable hydrogel regulates tumor metastasis and wound healing for melanoma via NIR-light triggered hyperthermia. Adv. Sci. (Weinh)11, e2402208. 10.1002/advs.202402208
67
LiuW. S.ChenZ.LuZ. M.DongJ. H.WuJ. H.GaoJ.et al (2024c). Multifunctional hydrogels based on photothermal therapy: a prospective platform for the postoperative management of melanoma. J. Control Release371, 406–428. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2024.06.001
68
LiuH.ZhouY.ChangW.ZhaoX.HuX.KohK.et al (2024d). Construction of a sensitive SWCNTs integrated SPR biosensor for detecting PD-L1(+) exosomes based on Fe3O4@TiO2 specific enrichment and signal amplification. Biosens. Bioelectron.262, 116527. 10.1016/j.bios.2024.116527
69
LuoX.FongE. L. S.ZhuC.LinQ. X. X.XiongM.LiA.et al (2021). Hydrogel-based colorectal cancer organoid co-culture models. Acta Biomater.132, 461–472. 10.1016/j.actbio.2020.12.037
70
LuoZ.WangB.LuoF.GuoY.JiangN.WeiJ.et al (2023). Establishment of a large-scale patient-derived high-risk colorectal adenoma organoid biobank for high-throughput and high-content drug screening. BMC Med.21, 336. 10.1186/s12916-023-03034-y
71
MatulonisU. A.LorussoD.OakninA.PignataS.DeanA.DenysH.et al (2023). Efficacy and safety of Mirvetuximab soravtansine in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer with high folate receptor alpha expression: results from the SORAYA study. J. Clin. Oncol.41, 2436–2445. 10.1200/JCO.22.01900
72
MayohC.MaoJ.XieJ.TaxG.ChowS. O.CadizR.et al (2023). High-throughput drug screening of primary tumor cells identifies therapeutic strategies for treating children with high-risk cancer. Cancer Res.83, 2716–2732. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-22-3702
73
MeiJ.LiuX.TianH. X.ChenY.CaoY.ZengJ.et al (2024). Tumour organoids and assembloids: patient-derived cancer avatars for immunotherapy. Clin. Transl. Med.14, e1656. 10.1002/ctm2.1656
74
MengH.MiaoH.ZhangY.ChenT.YuanL.WanY.et al (2024). YBX1 promotes homologous recombination and resistance to platinum-induced stress in ovarian cancer by recognizing m5C modification. Cancer Lett.597, 217064. 10.1016/j.canlet.2024.217064
75
Meric-BernstamF.BeeramM.HamiltonE.OhD. Y.HannaD. L.KangY. K.et al (2022). Zanidatamab, a novel bispecific antibody, for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic HER2-expressing or HER2-amplified cancers: a phase 1, dose-escalation and expansion study. Lancet Oncol.23, 1558–1570. 10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00621-0
76
MoS.TangP.LuoW.ZhangL.LiY.HuX.et al (2022). Patient-derived organoids from colorectal cancer with paired liver metastasis reveal tumor heterogeneity and predict response to chemotherapy. Adv. Sci. (Weinh)9, e2204097. 10.1002/advs.202204097
77
MooreK. N.AngelerguesA.KonecnyG. E.GarciaY.BanerjeeS.LorussoD.et al (2023). Mirvetuximab soravtansine in frα-positive, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.389, 2162–2174. 10.1056/NEJMoa2309169
78
NakadaT.SugiharaK.JikohT.AbeY.AgatsumaT. (2019). The latest research and development into the antibody-drug conjugate, [fam-] trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201a), for HER2 cancer therapy. Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo)67, 173–185. 10.1248/cpb.c18-00744
79
NashimotoY.HayashiT.KunitaI.NakamasuA.TorisawaY.-s.NakayamaM.et al (2017). Integrating perfusable vascular networks with a three-dimensional tissue in a microfluidic device. Integr. Biol.9, 506–518. 10.1039/c7ib00024c
80
NgS.TanW. J.PekM. M. X.TanM. H.KurisawaM. (2019). Mechanically and chemically defined hydrogel matrices for patient-derived colorectal tumor organoid culture. Biomaterials219, 119400. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2019.119400
81
OkamotoT.NatsumeY.DoiM.NosatoH.IwakiT.YamanakaH.et al (2022). Integration of human inspection and artificial intelligence-based morphological typing of patient-derived organoids reveals interpatient heterogeneity of colorectal cancer. Cancer Sci.113, 2693–2703. 10.1111/cas.15396
82
OoftS. N.WeeberF.DijkstraK. K.McLeanC. M.KaingS.van WerkhovenE.et al (2019). Patient-derived organoids can predict response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Sci. Transl. Med.11, eaay2574. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aay2574
83
OzerL. Y.FayedH. S.EricssonJ.Al Haj ZenA. (2023). Development of a cancer metastasis-on-chip assay for high throughput drug screening. Front. Oncol.13, 1269376. 10.3389/fonc.2023.1269376
84
PalaniyandiT.RaviM.SivajiA.BaskarG.ViswanathanS.WahabM. R. A.et al (2024). Recent advances in microfluidic chip technologies for applications as preclinical testing devices for the diagnosis and treatment of triple-negative breast cancers. Pathol. Res. Pract.264, 155711. 10.1016/j.prp.2024.155711
85
PalikuqiB.NguyenD. T.LiG.SchreinerR.PellegataA. F.LiuY.et al (2020). Adaptable haemodynamic endothelial cells for organogenesis and tumorigenesis. Nature585, 426–432. 10.1038/s41586-020-2712-z
86
PanY. T.DingY. F.HanZ. H.YuwenL.YeZ.MokG. S. P.et al (2021). Hyaluronic acid-based nanogels derived from multicomponent self-assembly for imaging-guided chemo-photodynamic cancer therapy. Carbohydr. Polym.268, 118257. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2021.118257
87
PatelP.AlrifaiD.McDonaldF.ForsterM.AstraZenecaU. K. L. (2020). Beyond chemoradiotherapy: improving treatment outcomes for patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer through immuno-oncology and durvalumab (Imfinzi®▼, AstraZeneca UK Limited). Br. J. Cancer123, 18–27. 10.1038/s41416-020-01071-5
88
PishavarE.KhosraviF.NaserifarM.Rezvani GhomiE.LuoH.ZavanB.et al (2021). Multifunctional and self-Healable intelligent hydrogels for cancer drug delivery and promoting tissue regeneration in vivo. Polym. (Basel)13, 2680. 10.3390/polym13162680
89
PlattnerC.LambertiG.BlattmannP.KirchmairA.RiederD.LoncovaZ.et al (2023). Functional and spatial proteomics profiling reveals intra- and intercellular signaling crosstalk in colorectal cancer. iScience26, 108399. 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108399
90
RapoportB. L.ShannonV. R.CooksleyT.JohnsonD. B.AndersonL.BlidnerA. G.et al (2021). Pulmonary toxicities associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors: an update from the immuno-oncology subgroup of the neutropenia, infection and myelosuppression study group of the multinational association for supportive care in cancer. Front. Pharmacol.12, 743582. 10.3389/fphar.2021.743582
91
RingquistR.GhoshalD.JainR.RoyK. (2021). Understanding and improving cellular immunotherapies against cancer: from cell-manufacturing to tumor-immune models. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.179, 114003. 10.1016/j.addr.2021.114003
92
RojasL. A.SethnaZ.SoaresK. C.OlceseC.PangN.PattersonE.et al (2023). Personalized RNA neoantigen vaccines stimulate T cells in pancreatic cancer. Nature618, 144–150. 10.1038/s41586-023-06063-y
93
SarnaikA. A.HamidO.KhushalaniN. I.LewisK. D.MedinaT.KlugerH. M.et al (2021). Lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, in metastatic melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol.39, 2656–2666. 10.1200/JCO.21.00612
94
ScheibeB.WychowaniecJ. K.ScheibeM.PeplinskaB.JarekM.NowaczykG.et al (2019). Cytotoxicity assessment of Ti–Al–C based MAX phases and Ti3C2Tx MXenes on human fibroblasts and cervical cancer cells. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.5, 6557–6569. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.9b01476
95
ShresthaS.LekkalaV. K. R.AcharyaP.KangS.-Y.VangaM. G.LeeM.-Y. (2024). Reproducible generation of human liver organoids (HLOs) on a pillar plate platform via microarray 3D bioprinting. Lab a Chip24, 2747–2761. 10.1039/d4lc00149d
96
SiegelR. L.KratzerT. B.GiaquintoA. N.SungH.JemalA. (2025). Cancer statistics, 2025. CA Cancer J. Clin.75, 10–45. 10.3322/caac.21871
97
SinghP.PanditS.BalusamyS. R.MadhusudananM.SinghH.Amsath HaseefH. M.et al (2025). Advanced nanomaterials for cancer therapy: gold, silver, and iron oxide nanoparticles in oncological applications. Adv. Healthc. Mater.14, 2403059. 10.1002/adhm.202403059
98
SisakhtM. M.GholizadehF.HekmatiradS.MahmoudiT.MontazeriS.SharifiL.et al (2025). Cost-reduction strategy to culture patient derived bladder tumor organoids. Sci. Rep.15, 4223. 10.1038/s41598-025-87509-3
99
SmabersL. P.WensinkE.VerissimoC. S.KoedootE.PitsaK. C.HuismansM. A.et al (2024). Organoids as a biomarker for personalized treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: drug screen optimization and correlation with patient response. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res.43, 61. 10.1186/s13046-024-02980-6
100
SongH.WeinsteinH. N. W.AllegakoenP.WadsworthM. H.2ndXieJ.YangH.et al (2022). Single-cell analysis of human primary prostate cancer reveals the heterogeneity of tumor-associated epithelial cell states. Nat. Commun.13, 141. 10.1038/s41467-021-27322-4
101
SongQ.LiuH.WangW.ChenC.CaoY.ChenB.et al (2024). Carboxyl graphene modified PEDOT:PSS organic electrochemical transistor for in situ detection of cancer cell morphology. Nanoscale16, 3631–3640. 10.1039/d3nr06190f
102
SoodA.KumarA.GuptaV. K.KimC. M.HanS. S. (2023). Translational nanomedicines across human reproductive organs modeling on microfluidic chips: state-of-the-art and future prospects. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng.9, 62–84. 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.2c01080
103
StratingE.VerhagenM. P.WensinkE.DunnebachE.WijlerL.ArangurenI.et al (2023). Co-cultures of colon cancer cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts recapitulate the aggressive features of mesenchymal-like colon cancer. Front. Immunol.14, 1053920. 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1053920
104
SunB.Bte RahmatJ. N.KimH. J.MahendranR.EsuvaranathanK.ChiongE.et al (2022). Wirelessly activated nanotherapeutics for in vivo programmable photodynamic-chemotherapy of orthotopic bladder cancer. Adv. Sci. (Weinh)9, e2200731. 10.1002/advs.202200731
105
SunL.WangY.WangL.YaoB.ChenT.LiQ.et al (2019). Resolvin D1 prevents epithelial-mesenchymal transition and reduces the stemness features of hepatocellular carcinoma by inhibiting paracrine of cancer-associated fibroblast-derived COMP. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res.38, 170. 10.1186/s13046-019-1163-6
106
SunY.LiuJ.ZhuL.HuangF.DongY.LiuS.et al (2025). Treatment response to oncolytic virus in patient-derived breast cancer and hypopharyngeal cancer organoids: evaluation via a microfluidics organ-on-a-chip system. Bioeng. (Basel)12, 146. 10.3390/bioengineering12020146
107
TaubenbergerA. V.BrayL. J.HallerB.ShaposhnykovA.BinnerM.FreudenbergU.et al (2016). 3D extracellular matrix interactions modulate tumour cell growth, invasion and angiogenesis in engineered tumour microenvironments. Acta Biomater.36, 73–85. 10.1016/j.actbio.2016.03.017
108
TavernaJ. A.HungC. N.WilliamsM.WilliamsR.ChenM.KamaliS.et al (2024). Ex vivo drug testing of patient-derived lung organoids to predict treatment responses for personalized medicine. Lung Cancer190, 107533. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2024.107533
109
TiruyeT.DavidR.O'CallaghanM.FitzGeraldL. M.HiggsB.KahokehrA. A.et al (2023). Risk of secondary malignancy following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Sci. Rep.13, 20083. 10.1038/s41598-023-45856-z
110
TongL.CuiW.ZhangB.FonsecaP.ZhaoQ.ZhangP.et al (2024). Patient-derived organoids in precision cancer medicine. Med5, 1351–1377. 10.1016/j.medj.2024.08.010
111
TranO. N.WangH.LiS.MalakhovA.SunY.Abdul AzeesP. A.et al (2022). Organ-specific extracellular matrix directs trans-differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells and formation of salivary gland-like organoids in vivo. Stem Cell Res. Ther.13, 306. 10.1186/s13287-022-02993-y
112
VaiosE. J.WoJ. Y. (2020). Proton beam radiotherapy for anal and rectal cancers. J. Gastrointest. Oncol.11, 176–186. 10.21037/jgo.2019.04.03
113
VitaleC.MarzagalliM.ScaglioneS.DonderoA.BottinoC.CastriconiR. (2022). Tumor microenvironment and hydrogel-based 3D cancer models for in vitro testing immunotherapies. Cancers (Basel)14, 1013. 10.3390/cancers14041013
114
VlachogiannisG.HedayatS.VatsiouA.JaminY.Fernandez-MateosJ.KhanK.et al (2018). Patient-derived organoids model treatment response of metastatic gastrointestinal cancers. Science359, 920–926. 10.1126/science.aao2774
115
WalzS.PollehneP.VollmerP.AicherW. K.StenzlA.HarlandN.et al (2023). Effects of scaffolds on urine- and urothelial carcinoma tissue-derived organoids from bladder cancer patients. Cells12, 2108. 10.3390/cells12162108
116
WangZ.ZhaiB.SunJ.ZhangX.ZouJ.ShiY.et al (2024). Recent advances of injectable in situ-forming hydrogels for preventing postoperative tumor recurrence. Drug Deliv.31, 2400476. 10.1080/10717544.2024.2400476
117
WangY.GaoC.ChengS.LiY.HuangY.CaoX.et al (2025). 3D bioprinting of double-layer conductive Skin for wound healing. Adv. Healthc. Mater14, e2404388. 10.1002/adhm.202404388
118
WeiG.WangY.YangG.WangY.JuR. (2021). Recent progress in nanomedicine for enhanced cancer chemotherapy. Theranostics11, 6370–6392. 10.7150/thno.57828
119
WestinS. N.MooreK.ChonH. S.LeeJ. Y.Thomes PepinJ.SundborgM.et al (2024). Durvalumab plus carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib as first-line treatment for advanced endometrial cancer: the phase III DUO-E trial. J. Clin. Oncol.42, 283–299. 10.1200/JCO.23.02132
120
WijnakkerJ.van SonG. J. F.KruegerD.van de WeteringW. J.Lopez-IglesiasC.SchreursR.et al (2025). Integrin-activating Yersinia protein Invasin sustains long-term expansion of primary epithelial cells as 2D organoid sheets. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.122, e2420595121. 10.1073/pnas.2420595121
121
WuY.ZhaoY.ZhouY.IslamK.LiuY. (2023). Microfluidic droplet-assisted fabrication of vessel-supported tumors for preclinical drug discovery. ACS Appl. Mater Interfaces15, 15152–15161. 10.1021/acsami.2c23305
122
WuX.HuY.ShengS.YangH.LiZ.HanQ.et al (2025). DNA-based hydrogels for bone regeneration: a promising tool for bone organoids. Mater Today Bio31, 101502. 10.1016/j.mtbio.2025.101502
123
XiaoS.ZhaoT.WangJ.WangC.DuJ.YingL.et al (2019). Gelatin methacrylate (GelMA)-Based hydrogels for cell transplantation: an effective strategy for tissue engineering. Stem Cell Rev. Rep.15, 664–679. 10.1007/s12015-019-09893-4
124
XieX.ChenC.WangC.GuoY.SunB.TianJ.et al (2024). Targeting GPX4-mediated ferroptosis protection sensitizes BRCA1-deficient cancer cells to PARP inhibitors. Redox Biol.76, 103350. 10.1016/j.redox.2024.103350
125
YamoahK.ShowalterT. N.OhriN. (2015). Radiation therapy Intensification for solid tumors: a Systematic review of Randomized trials. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys.93, 737–745. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.07.2284
126
YanJ.WuT.ZhangJ.GaoY.WuJ. M.WangS. (2023). Revolutionizing the female reproductive system research using microfluidic chip platform. J. Nanobiotechnology21, 490. 10.1186/s12951-023-02258-7
127
YangR.YuY. (2023). Patient-derived organoids in translational oncology and drug screening. Cancer Lett.562, 216180. 10.1016/j.canlet.2023.216180
128
YiS. A.ZhangY.RathnamC.PongkulapaT.LeeK. B. (2021). Bioengineering approaches for the advanced organoid research. Adv. Mater33, e2007949. 10.1002/adma.202007949
129
YinL.DuanJ. J.BianX. W.YuS. C. (2020). Triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtyping and treatment progress. Breast Cancer Res.22, 61. 10.1186/s13058-020-01296-5
130
YouP.SunH.ChenH.LiC.MaoY.ZhangT.et al (2024). Composite bioink incorporating cell-laden liver decellularized extracellular matrix for bioprinting of scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomater. Adv.165, 214017. 10.1016/j.bioadv.2024.214017
131
ZhangJ.TavakoliH.MaL.LiX.HanL.LiX. (2022). Immunotherapy discovery on tumor organoid-on-a-chip platforms that recapitulate the tumor microenvironment. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev.187, 114365. 10.1016/j.addr.2022.114365
132
ZhangJ.FuC.LuoQ.QinX.BaturS.XieQ.et al (2024). A laponite-based immunologically active gel delivery system for long-acting tumor vaccine. J. Control Release373, 201–215. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2024.07.030
133
ZhangH.JiM.WangY.JiangM.LvZ.LiG.et al (2025). Intrinsic PD-L1 degradation induced by a novel self-assembling hexapeptide for enhanced cancer immunotherapy. Adv. Sci. (Weinh)12, e2410145. 10.1002/advs.202410145
134
ZhouT.XieY.HouX.BaiW.LiX.LiuZ.et al (2023a). Irbesartan overcomes gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer by suppressing stemness and iron metabolism via inhibition of the Hippo/YAP1/c-Jun axis. J. Exp. and Clin. Cancer Res.42, 111. 10.1186/s13046-023-02671-8
135
ZhouZ.DengT.TaoM.LinL.SunL.SongX.et al (2023b). Snail-inspired AFG/GelMA hydrogel accelerates diabetic wound healing via inflammatory cytokines suppression and macrophage polarization. Biomaterials299, 122141. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122141
136
ZhuL.YuhanJ.YuH.ZhangB.HuangK.ZhuL. (2023). Decellularized extracellular matrix for remodeling bioengineering organoid’s microenvironment. Small19, e2207752. 10.1002/smll.202207752
137
ZhuY.JiangD.QiuY.LiuX.BianY.TianS.et al (2024). Dynamic microphysiological system chip platform for high-throughput, customizable, and multi-dimensional drug screening. Bioact. Mater39, 59–73. 10.1016/j.bioactmat.2024.05.019
138
ZouZ.LinZ.WuC.TanJ.ZhangJ.PengY.et al (2023). Micro-engineered organoid-on-a-chip based on mesenchymal stromal cells to predict immunotherapy responses of HCC patients. Adv. Sci. (Weinh)10, e2302640. 10.1002/advs.202302640
139
ZuM.HaoX.NingJ.ZhouX.GongY.LangY.et al (2023). Patient-derived organoid culture of gastric cancer for disease modeling and drug sensitivity testing. Biomed. Pharmacother.163, 114751. 10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114751
Summary
Keywords
patient-derived organoids, precision oncology, biomaterials, organ-on-chip, 3D culture, immuno-oncology, microfluidic platforms, translational modeling
Citation
Singh H, Mijakovic I and Singh P (2025) Advances in precision oncology using patient-derived organoids and functional biomaterials. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 13:1670328. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2025.1670328
Received
21 July 2025
Accepted
18 September 2025
Published
30 September 2025
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Yi Cao, University of South China, China
Reviewed by
Carmela De Marco, Magna Græcia University of Catanzaro, Italy
Everton Freitas De Morais, State University of Campinas, Brazil
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2025 Singh, Mijakovic and Singh.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hina Singh, Hina.Singh@medsch.ucr.edu; Ivan Mijakovic, ivan.mijakovic@chalmers.se; Priyanka Singh, prisin@biosustain.dtu.dk
† These authors have contributed equally to this work
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.