Pathology of genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine cancer: Consensus report and recommendations

Ralph H. Hruban, N. Volkan Adsay, Jorge Albores-Saavedra, Miriam R. Anver, Andrew V. Biankin, Gregory P. Boivin, Emma E. Furth, Toru Furukawa, Alison Klein, David S. Klimstra, Gunter Kloppel, Gregory Y. Lauwers, Daniel S. Longnecker, Jutta Luttges, Anirban Maitra, G. Johan A. Offerhaus, Lucía Pérez-Gallego, Mark Redston, David A. Tuveson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

287 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Several diverse genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine neoplasia have been developed. These mouse models have a spectrum of pathologic changes; however, until now, there has been no uniform nomenclature to characterize these changes. An international workshop, sponsored by The National Cancer Institute and the University of Pennsylvania, was held from December 1 to 3, 2004 with the goal of establishing an internationally accepted uniform nomenclature for the pathology of genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine neoplasia. The pancreatic pathology in 12 existing mouse models of pancreatic neoplasia was reviewed at this workshop, and a standardized nomenclature with definitions and associated images was developed. It is our intention that this nomenclature will standardize the reporting of genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine neoplasia, that it will facilitate comparisons between genetically engineered mouse models and human pancreatic disease, and that it will be broad enough to accommodate newly emerging mouse models of pancreatic neoplasia.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)95-106
Number of pages12
JournalCancer Research
Volume66
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Jan 1
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Cancer Research

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Pathology of genetically engineered mouse models of pancreatic exocrine cancer: Consensus report and recommendations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this