Domenico Ribatti- Department of Translational Biomedicine and Neuroscience, University of Bari Medical School, Bari, Italy
The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) has long been a favored system for the study of tumor growth because a chick’s immunocompetent system is not fully developed, and the conditions for rejection have not yet been established. Grafting tumors onto the CAM allows us to study the morphological aspects of the interactions of the tumors with the blood vessels of the host and to examine the identity of the vessels that supply the grafts. This article analyzes the literature data concerning the use of the CAM model to study lung cancer and the effects of anti-angiogenic molecules on the growth of this tumor due to the lack of literature data summarizing this topic.
Introduction
The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane (CAM) is formed at embryonic days (EDs) 3–4 by the fusion of the chorion and the allantois, and it consists of three layers: ectoderm (from the chorion), mesoderm, and endoderm (from the allantois) (1). In this double layer, an extremely rich vascular network develops, which is connected to embryonic circulation by two allantoic arteries and one allantoic vein. By ED 16, the CAM becomes closely pressed against the shell membranes, which enables it to act as a gas-exchange organ receiving oxygen and eliminating carbon dioxide through the pores in the shell (1). Immature blood vessels scattered in the mesoderm grow very rapidly until ED 8 and give rise to a capillary plexus, which comes to be intimately associated with the overlying chorionic epithelial cells. At ED 14, the capillary plexus is located at the surface of the ectoderm adjacent to the shell membrane. Endothelial cell mitotic index declines rapidly, and the vascular system attains its final arrangement on ED 18, just before hatching. On EDs 10–12, the mesodermal vessels are now distinct arterioles and venules accompanied by a pair of interconnected lymphatics (2). Veins are also associated with lymphatics, and larger veins are surrounded by a lymphatic plexus (3).
The CAM assay in the study of tumor biology
The CAM has long been a favored system for the study of tumor growth because a chick’s immunocompetent system is not fully developed, and the conditions for rejection have not yet been established (4). In 1911, Rous demonstrated the growth of the Rous sarcoma grafted onto the CAM (5). In 1912, Murphy reported that mouse and rat tumors implanted onto the CAM could be maintained by a continuous passage from egg to egg (6). The first evidence of tumor-induced angiogenesis in vivo was obtained using the CAM assay, dated 1913 (7). Starting from these observations, the CAM has been established as an experimental system for research in tumor biology. The behavior of chicken, mouse, and human tumor cells and tissues implanted on the CAM surface was compared and evaluated for their growth, histological features, viability after re-transplantation in their original host, and the effects on the chick embryo (8). The CAM has been used as a test system for tumor chemosensitivity (9) and for the study of tumor invasion and metastasis and of neovascularization of heterologous normal and neoplastic implants (10).
Grafting tumors onto the CAM allows us to study the morphological aspects of the interactions of the tumors with the blood vessels of the host and to examine the identity of the vessels that supply the grafts (Figure 1). The formation of peripheral anastomoses between host and preexisting donor vessels is the main and most common mechanism involved in the revascularization of the graft of an embryonic organ onto the CAM, whereas sprouting of CAM-derived vessels into the transplants occurs in the grafts of tumor tissue (12, 13).
Figure 1. The CAM model for studying tumor growth and angiogenesis involves a structured experimental procedure, typically spanning several days of the chick embryo’s development. The key steps are as follows. Egg preparation and incubation (EDs 1–4) Fertilized chicken eggs are incubated under controlled temperature and humidity, often in a rotating incubator, to allow initial embryonic development. Albumen aspiration and fenestration (EDs 4–5): A small hole is made at the blunt end of the egg (over the air sac), and some albumen is removed using a syringe to lower the CAM and detach it from the inner shell membrane. A window is then cut into the eggshell over a highly vascularized area to expose the CAM beneath. The window is sealed with tape. Tumor cell/stimulus engraftment (EDs 7–9) The tumor cells or bioptic specimens are carefully placed onto the exposed, highly vascularized CAM. The egg is then re-sealed and incubated further without rotation. Tumor growth and angiogenesis development (several days post-engraftment): The tumor grows over several days, developing its own blood supply by inducing angiogenesis from the surrounding CAM vasculature. The development can be monitored daily through the window (reproduced from 11). CAM, chorioallantoic membrane; EDs, embryonic days.
The CAM model has a broad range of applications in various cancer types, such as colorectal, prostate, brain, gastric, ovarian, liver, head and neck, and breast cancers, and as a result, it is one of the most used environments for tumor biology and angiogenesis studies (14). Lung cancer was selected as the type of cancer to apply the CAM model because lung cancer has a great prevalence and clinical significance, and lung tumors have a strong angiogenic phenotype that makes the CAM model especially appropriate in investigating tumor–host interactions and anti-angiogenic therapies. Moreover, tumor cells can be identified in the CAM, as well as in the internal organs of the embryo, such as the lungs, liver, and brain (15). Moreover, we decided to investigate the CAM application in the study of human lung cancer because, at present, there are no literature data summarizing this topic. General inclusion criteria are limited to peer-reviewed journal articles published in English and within a certain time frame, the last 16 years. Exclusion criteria include studies that do not primarily focus on the CAM model or studies that do not provide enough details on the methodology or have incomplete results necessary for analysis. The entire selection process has been documented using a flowchart, such as the one recommended by the PRISMA statement.
Anti-angiogenesis in lung cancer
Anti-angiogenesis in lung cancer targets new blood vessel formation that tumors need to grow, using drugs like bevacizumab (Avastin) and ramucirumab (Cyramza) that block vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)/VEGF receptor (VEGFR) pathways, improving survival when combined with chemotherapy, especially in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two anti-angiogenic agents are currently approved in the United States and/or the European Union (EU) for the treatment of NSCLC following chemotherapy: nintedanib (approved in the EU) [an oral triple angiokinase inhibitor that targets VEGFRs 1–3, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs) α/β, and fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) 1–3 (16, 17)] and ramucirumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds to VEGFR2, inhibiting VEGF-induced angiogenesis (18).
Researchers are still exploring optimal use, resistance, toxicity, and combinations with targeted therapies and immunotherapies for better outcomes. In this context, combinations with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors or immunotherapy overcome these limitations (19).
Immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic drugs work together to fight lung cancer by disrupting the tumor’s blood supply, while simultaneously unleashing the immune system, creating a powerful combo that shows promising results, especially in advanced NSCLC. Anti-angiogenic drugs, like VEGF inhibitors, starve tumors and reduce the immunosuppressive environment, making it easier for immunotherapy (like PD-1 inhibitors) to activate T cells and attack the cancer, often leading to better survival rates than either treatment alone. This synergy is now a standard approach, with combinations like atezolizumab, bevacizumab, and chemotherapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for first-line treatment (20–22).
The CAM model in the study of lung cancer tumor growth and angiogenesis
The CAM model provides robust and rapid mechanistic evidence for tumor biology and drug response studies using lung tumor xenografts, using methods comparable to those used for human samples, including histology and immunohistochemistry, molecular analysis, and imaging techniques. The CAM model used in pre-clinical potential research may inform or provide background for later clinical trials and justify the transition to human trials by demonstrating initial efficacy, safety, or mechanistic insights, such as anti-angiogenic drugs.
Miura et al. (23) transplanted lung cancer cell lines and cell line-derived organoids onto the CAM and demonstrated an angiogenic effect, and bevacizumab treatment reduced the number of newly formed blood vessels. Rousset et al. (24) evaluated here whether the isolation of fresh cancer tumor cells (CTCs) from patients with metastatic cancers provides a reliable tumor model after a CAM xenograft. They enrolled patients with lung metastatic cancers. After 48–72 h of culture, the CTCs were engrafted onto the CAM of embryonated chicken eggs at ED 9. The tumors were resected 9 days after engraftment, and histopathological, immunochemical, and genomic analyses were performed. In the lung cancer group, adenocarcinoma was the most frequent histological subtype. Fourteen were positive for PD-L1. It is important to note that the primary difficulties and inconsistencies in making and using CTC xenografts stem from the loss of tumor heterogeneity, the replacement of human stroma with other components, the lack of a functional human immune system in the models, and issues with experimental reproducibility and contamination.
In vivo angiogenic response surrounding the SCLC transplantation tumors in CAM was promoted after exogenous HIF-1α transduction. HIF-1α upregulated the expression of angiogenic genes VEGF-A, TNFAIP6, PDGFC, FN1, MMP28, and MMP14 and glycolytic genes GLUT1 and GLUT2. The expression of these angiogenic factors was also upregulated by HIF-1α in the transplantation tumors in CAM, as RT-PCR and Western blotting analysis indicated (25).
Waschkies et al. (26) compared MC-38 colon and A549 lung adenocarcinoma cell grafts grown on the CAM, using quantitative MRI readouts as imaging markers. Different grafts based on the A549 lung adenocarcinoma cell line display distinct phenotypes that can be distinguished and characterized non-invasively in ovo using MRI in the living chicken embryo.
Three NSCLC cell lines were used to analyze the anti-angiogenic effect when exposed to metformin alone, pemetrexed alone, or their combination in the CAM model (27). Sodium valproate, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, produces dose-dependent anti-angiogenic and antimigratory effects on lung tumors grafted on the CAM (28).
Li et al. (29) tested human NSCLC xenograft tumors on the CAM. The NSCLC cell lines tested formed a solid tumor. When chemotherapeutic agents and recombinant viruses were tested, the simple application of these agents on the CAM resulted in efficient systemic delivery, and systemic treatment with a combination of pemetrexed and cisplatin inhibited tumor growth (29). The human NSCLC HCC827 cells were engrafted onto the CAM and treated with osimertinib, a third-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, for 7 days (30). They found that tumor growth inversely correlated with osimertinib dosage, and transcriptomic analysis revealed that osimertinib reduced EGFR pathway activity and dampened chemotaxis, immune recruitment, and angiogenesis. MiR-146a-5p-overexpressing NSCLC cells were transplanted onto the CAM, and the xenograft tumor size and angiogenesis of the miR-146a-5p-overexpressing group were lower when compared with the control group (31).
The effect of miR-542-5p on the tumorigenesis of NSCLC was verified in the CAM model. Both tumor growth and angiogenesis were significantly suppressed by miR-542-5p mimic in the CAM (32). When cells derived from the Lewis lung were inoculated onto the CAM at EDs 9–11, large tumors were produced. Although most of these tumors contained mouse cells, they could no longer be transplanted either in C57BL mice or on the CAM. Cloned cells obtained from Lewis lung carcinoma grown in vitro produced CAM tumors, which were different from those produced by the parental cells in that the former retained some tumorigenic potential in mice. The phenotype associated with the cloned cell populations was stable in vitro and in vivo (33).
Human lung cancer cells transfected with pigment epithelium-derived factor (PEDF) were inoculated in the CAM. The tumor volume and the vascular density of the experimental group were significantly smaller than those of the control group (34).
Other pathological conditions
The CAM model allows scientists to evaluate the effects of potential drugs on lung disease, such as the antifibrotic drugs being tested for pulmonary fibrosis. Perrault et al. (35) implanted xenografts derived from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) on the CAM and evaluated the efficacy of antifibrotic drugs. They demonstrated that the daily treatment of the xenografts with nintedanib and PRI-4050 significantly reduced their size, fibrosis-associated gene expression, and collagen deposition.
Concluding remarks
The main advantages of the CAM model are the low cost, simplicity, reproducibility, and reliability. An ethical advantage of the CAM model is that the chick embryo is not considered a living animal until ED 17, which can be used without any ethical restriction, and does not require protocol approval by an animal welfare or ethics committee (36).
Table 1 provides a comparison of the advantages and limitations of the CAM and the mouse xenograft models. Moreover, in contrast to standard mouse models, most cancer cells arrested in the CAM microcirculation survive without cell damage, and many of them complete extravasation within 24 h after injections (37). On the contrary, when standard mouse models of experimental metastasis are used, most of the intravenously injected cancer cells perish in the microcirculation before extravasation (38).
Table 1. A comparison of advantages and limitations between the CAM and the mouse xenograft models.
The limitations of the use of the CAM model are the disparity in immune response in relation to mammalian systems and the applicability of results to human patients. The chick embryo’s immune system remains immature and is naturally immunodeficient during the experimental window. This lack of a fully developed adaptive immune system means that the model cannot accurately replicate the complex immune interactions and responses observed in adult mammalian systems or human patients, which is a major drawback for immunotherapy-related studies. In this context, findings from the CAM model are generally not directly applicable to human clinical practice without further validation in mammalian and clinical models. The model is useful as a bridge between in vitro and mammalian in vivo studies, but not a total replacement.
The CAM has long been a favored system for the study of tumor biology and tumor angiogenesis because, at the stage of development when generally tumor grafts are placed (6–10 days of incubation), a chick’s immunocompetent system is not fully developed, and the conditions of rejection have not yet been established. All studies for mammalian neoplasms, including lung cancer, have used tumor cell lines, tumor bioptic specimens, cell suspensions derived from tumors, and mouse tumor xenograft bioptic specimens. Compared with mammalian models, where tumor growth takes 3–6 weeks, the chick embryo grows faster. Between 2 and 5 days after tumor implants, the tumor grafts are visible and are supplied with vessels of CAM origin. Tumors grafted onto the CAM remain non-vascularized for a few days, after which they can be penetrated by new blood vessels and begin a phase of rapid growth.
CAM can also be used to study the effects of anti-angiogenic molecules and provides a model to study metastasis. In fact, the chick embryo provides a model to study either spontaneous or experimental metastasis in a considerably shorter time, 7–9 days, compared with 4–10 weeks for most typical murine models (10).
In the meantime, the short duration of the CAM model (7–9 days) is a limiting factor in analyzing the complexity of the human tumor microenvironment and in distinguishing tumor-induced angiogenesis from normal embryonic vascularization. While the CAM model is a powerful tool for studying cancer biology, its ability to fully replicate the tumor microenvironment is constrained by the difficulty of determining if tumor-induced inflammation in the chick parallels the chronic inflammation seen in human cancer. Moreover, human tumor-associated stroma is replaced by chick-derived stroma, altering the tumor’s behavior.
In the case of human glioblastoma multiforme experimental model studies in the CAM, Hagerdon et al. (39) demonstrated that glioblastoma cells formed avascular tumors within 2 days, which progressed through VEGFR2-dependent angiogenesis. Blocking the VEGFR-2 and PDGFR signaling pathways with small-molecule receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors blocked tumor growth. Moreover, gene regulation analysis during the angiogenic switch by oligonucleotide micro-arrays identified genes associated with tumor vascularization and growth.
Author contributions
DR: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by Associazione “Il Sorriso di Antonio,” Corato, Italy.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work 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) declared that generative AI was not 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. Romanoff AL. The Avian Embryo: Structural and Functional Development. New York: Mac Millan (1960).
2. Ausprunk DH, Knighton DR, and Folkman J. Differentiation of vascular endothelium in the chick chorioallantois: A structural and autoradiographic study. Dev Biol. (1974) 38:237–48. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(74)90004-9
3. Ribatti D. Lymphatics in the chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane. Microvasc Res. (2025) 160:104806. doi: 10.1016/j.mvr.2025.104806
4. Ribatti D, Tamma R, and Ali Komi DE. The morphological basis of the development of the chick embryo immune system. Exp Cell Res. (2019) 381:323–9. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2019.05.027
5. Rous P. A sarcoma of the fowl transmissible by an agent separable from the tumor cells. J Exp Med. (1911) 13:397–411. doi: 10.1084/jem.13.4.397
6. Murphy JB. Transplantability of Malignant tumors to the embryo of a foreign species. J Am Med Ass. (1912) 59:874. doi: 10.1001/jama.1912.04270090118016
7. Ribatti D. The first evidence of the tumor-induced angiogenesis in vivo by using the chorioallantoic membrane assay dated 1913. Leukemia. (2004) 18:1350–1. doi: 10.1038/sj.leu.2403411
8. Karnofsky DA, Ridgway LP, and Patterson PA. Tumor transplantation to the chick embryo. Ann N Y Acad Sci. (1952) 55:313–29. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1952.tb26547.x
9. Kunzi-Rapp K, Schneckenburger H, and Westphal-Frösch C. Test system for human tumor cell sensitivity to drugs on chicken chorioallantoic membranes. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. (1992) 28:565–6. doi: 10.1007/BF02631021
10. Cimpean AM, Ribatti D, and Raica M. The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane as a model to study tumor metastasis. Angiogenesis. (2008) 11:311–9. doi: 10.1007/s10456-008-9117-1
11. Chastel T, Filiberti S, Mitola S, Ronca R, Turtoi A, and Corsini M. Protocol for performing angiogenic and tumorigenic assays using the in ovo chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane model. STAR Protoc. (2025) 6:103663. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2025.103663
12. Ausprunk DH and Folkman J. Vascular injury in transplanted tissues. Fine structural changes in tumor, adult, and embryonic blood vessels. Virchows Arch B Cell Pathol. (1976) 21:31–44. doi: 10.1007/BF02899142
13. Ausprunk DH, Knighton DR, and Folkman J. Vascularization of normal and neoplastic tissues grafted to the chick chorioallantois. Role of host and preexisting graft blood vessels. Am J Pathol. (1975) 79:597–618.
14. Ribatti D. The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane as a model for tumor biology. Exp Cell Res. (2014) 328:314–24. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2014.06.010
15. Bobek V, Plachy J, Pinterova D, Kolostova K, Boubelik M, Jiang P, et al. Development of a green fluorescent protein metastatic-cancer chickembryo drug-screen model. Clin Exp Metastasis. (2004) 21:347–52. doi: 10.1023/B:CLIN.0000046138.58210.31
16. Hilberg F, Roth GJ, Krssak M, Kautschitsch S, Sommergruber W, Tontsch-Grunt U, et al. BIBF 1120: triple angiokinase inhibitor with sustained receptor blockade and good antitumor efficacy, Cancer Res. (2008) 68:4774–82. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-6307
17. Hilberg F, Tontsch-Grunt U, Baum A, Le AT, Doebele RC, Lieb S, et al. Triple angiokinase inhibitor nintedanib directly inhibits tumor cell growth and induces tumor shrinkage via blocking oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases, J. Pharmacol Exp Ther. (2018) 364:494–503. doi: 10.1124/jpet.117.244129
18. Spratlin JL, Cohen RB, Eadens M, Gore L, Camidge DR, Diab S, et al. Phase I pharmacologic and biologic study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B), a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, J. Clin Oncol. (2010) 28:780–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.7537
19. Li Y, Lin M, Wang S, Cao B, Li C, and Li G. Novel angiogenic regulators and anti-angiogenesis drugs targeting angiogenesis signaling pathways: perspectives for targeting angiogenesis in lung cancer. Front Oncol. (2022) 12:842960. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.842960
20. Reck M, Popat S, Groh´ C, Corral J, Novello S, Gottfried M, et al. Anti-angiogenic agents for NSCLC following first-line immunotherapy: Rationale, recent updates, and future perspectives. Lung Cancer. (2023) 179:107173. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2023.03.009
21. Barney T, Thyagarajan A, and Sahu RP. Combining immune checkpoint inhibitors and anti-angiogenesis approaches: treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Med Sci. (2025) 13:143. doi: 10.3390/medsci13030143
22. Sun L, Chen B, Wang B, Li J, Li L, Tian T, et al. Combination of immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy shows promising efficacy in NSCLC patients with recurrent or refractory brain metastases and negative driver genes. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1684759. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1684759
23. Miura K, Koyanagi-Aoi M, Maniwa Y, and Aoi T. Chorioallantoic membrane assay revealed the role of TIPARP (2,3,7,8−tetrachlorodibenzo−p−dioxin−inducible poly (ADP−ribose) polymerase) in lung adenocarcinoma−induced angiogenesis. Cancer Cell Int. (2023) 23:34. doi: 10.1186/s12935-023-02870-5
24. Rousset X, Maillet D, Grolleau E, Barthelemy D, Calattini S, Brevet M, et al. Embryonated chicken tumor xenografts derived from circulating tumor cells as a relevant model to study metastatic dissemination: a proof of concept. Cancers. (2022) 14:4085. doi: 10.3390/cancers14174085
25. Wan J, Chai H, Yu Z, Ge W, Kang N, Xia W, et al. HIF-1α effects on angiogenic potential in human small cell lung carcinoma. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. (2011) 30:77. doi: 10.1186/1756-9966-30-77
26. Waschkies CF, Pfiffner FK, Heuberger DM, Schneider MA, Tian Y, Wolint P, et al. Tumor grafts grown on the chicken chorioallantoic membrane are distinctively characterized by MRI under functional gas challenge. Sci Rep. (2020) 10:7505. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-64290-z
27. Wang JL, Lan YW, Tsai YT, Chen YC, Staniczek T, Tsou YA, et al. Additive antiproliferative and antiangiogenic effects of metformin and pemetrexed in a non-small-cell lung cancer xenograft model. Front Cell Dev Biol. (2021) 9:688062. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.688062
28. Dirziuvienè R, Šlekienė L, Palubinskienė J, Balnytė I, Lasienė K, Stakišaitis D, et al. Tumor derived from lung cancer cells respond differently to treatment with sodium valproate (aHDAC inhibitor) in a chicken embryo chorioallantoic membrane model. Histol Histopathol. (2022) 37:1201–11. doi: 10.14670/HH-18-482
29. Li J, Brachtlova T, van der Meulen-Muileman IH, Kleerebezem S, Liu C, Li P, et al. Human non-small cell lung cancer chicken embryo chorioallantoic membrane tumor models for experimental cancer treatments. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24:15425. doi: 10.3390/ijms242015425
30. Barthélémy D, Vigneron A, Rousset X, Guitton J, Grolleau E, Raffin M, et al. Pharmacological effects of osimertinib on a chicken chorioallantoic membrane xenograft model with the EGFR exon-19-deleted advanced NSCLC mutation. FEBS Open Bio. (2025) 15:836–55. doi: 10.1002/2211-5463.13970
31. Hunag WT, Cen WL, He RQ, Xie Y, Zhang Y, Li P, et al. Effect of miR-146a-5p on tumor growth in NSCLC using chick chorioallantoic membrane assay and bioinformatics investigation. Mol Med Rep. (2017) 16:8781–92. doi: 10.3892/mmr.2017.7713
32. He RQ, Li XJ, Liang L, Xie Y, Luo DZ, Ma J, et al. The suppressive role of miR-542-5p in NSCLC: the evidence from clinical data and in vivo validation using a chick chorioallantoic membrane model. BMC Cancer. (2017) 17:655. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3646-1
33. Belin D and Ossowski L. Loss of tumorigenicity of Lewis lung carcinoma on the chorioallantoic membrane of the chick embryo. Cancer Res. (1983) 43:3263–9.
34. Chen JF, Zhao W, Zhang JZ, Jiang WG, and Zhang LJ. Effects of pigment epithelial derived factor gene on growth of lung cancer cell and neovascularization: experiments with lung cancer cells and chick embryos. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. (2009) 89:485–90.
35. Perreault A, Harper K, Lebel M, Charbonneau M, Adam D, Brochiero E, et al. Human lung tissue implanted on the chick chorioallantoic membrane as a novel in vivo model of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Resp Cell Mol Biol. (2022) 67:164–72. doi: 10.1165/rcmb.2022-0037MA
36. Fisher D, Fluegen G, Garcia P, Ghaffari-Tabrizi-Wizsy N, Gribaldo L, Yun-Ju Wang Y, et al. The CAM model-Q&A with experts. Cancers. (2023) 15:191. doi: 10.3390/cancers15010191
37. Koop S, MacDonald IC, Luzzi K, Schmidt EE, Morris VL, Grattan M, et al. Fate of melanoma cells entering the microcirculation: Over 80% survive and extravasate. Cancer Res. (1995) 55:2520–3.
38. Fidler IJ. Biological behavior of Malignant melanoma cells correlated to their survival in vivo. Cancer Res. (1975) 35:218–24.
Keywords: angiogenesis, anti-angiogenesis, chorioallantoic membrane, in ovo, lung cancer, tumor biology
Citation: Ribatti D (2026) The chick embryo chorioallantoic membrane as an experimental model to study lung cancer. Front. Oncol. 16:1758487. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2026.1758487
Received: 01 December 2025; Accepted: 14 January 2026; Revised: 09 January 2026;
Published: 29 January 2026.
Edited by:
Mohamed Rahouma, NewYork-Presbyterian, United StatesReviewed by:
Allison J. Nipper, Rush University, United StatesRamesh Bhonde, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, India
Fani Karagianni, Center for Excellence on Rare Hematological Diseases of Children and Adults - Cutaneous Lymphoma 2nd Dpt. of Dermatology and Venereology University General Hospital “ATTIKON”, Greece
Copyright © 2026 Ribatti. 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: Domenico Ribatti, ZG9tZW5pY28ucmliYXR0aUB1bmliYS5pdA==