Revolutionizing cancer care: Bioprinting prostate cancer stem cells for targeted treatments

Table 1 Comparison of Traditional and 3D bioprinted models in exploring prostate cancer stem cell microenvironment and therapeutic resistance

Traditional models	3D bioprinted models
2D cell cultures- lack tumor architecture- no microenvironment mimicry	3D architecture- mimics in vivo structures- maintains ECM and gradients
Animal models-species differences- limited personalization	Patient-specific models- derived from patient cells- enables personalized medicine
Simplistic TME- Incomplete PCSC interactions- low cell heterogeneity	Complex TME- includes stromal & immune cells- High fidelity of PCSC niche
Static drug testing- poor predictability- no adaptive mechanisms	Dynamic drug screening- mimics drug diffusion & hypoxia- Real-time therapy testing
Limited resistance modeling- misses EMT, hypoxia response	Therapy resistance replication- includes hypoxia, EMT, cytokine crosstalk
Slow, costly translational gaps	High-throughput & scalable- faster treatment planning- organ-on-chip integration possible

PCSC: Prostate cancer stem cell; EMT: Epithelial–mesenchymal transition.