4.4 Review

Therapy-Induced Senescence in Cancer

Journal

JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
Volume 102, Issue 20, Pages 1536-1546

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq364

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01CA97131]
  2. University of Wisconsin George M. O'Brien Urology Research Center [1P50DK065303]
  3. John Livesey Endowment
  4. Department of Defense [DAMD17-02-1-0163]
  5. Ruth L. Kirchstein National Research Service [T32 CA009681-14]
  6. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA097131, T32CA009681] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [P50DK065303] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cellular senescence is a response to nonlethal stress that results in persistent cytostasis with a distinct morphological and biochemical phenotype. The senescence phenotype, detected in tumors through the expression of mRNA and protein markers, can be generated in cancer cells lacking functional p53 and retinoblastoma protein. Current research suggests that therapy-induced senescence (TIS) represents a novel functional target that may improve cancer therapy. TIS can be induced in immortal and transformed cancer cells by selected anticancer compounds or radiation, and accumulating data indicate that TIS may produce reduced toxicity-related side effects and increased tumor-specific immune activity. This review examines the current status of TIS-regulated mechanisms, agents, and senescence biomarkers with the goal of encouraging further development of this approach to cancer therapy. Remaining hurdles include the lack of efficient senescence-inducing agents and incomplete biological data on tumor response. The identification of additional compounds and other targeted approaches to senescence induction will further the development of TIS in the clinical treatment of cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available