4.8 Article

BIBW2992, an irreversible EGFR/HER2 inhibitor highly effective in preclinical lung cancer models

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 27, 期 34, 页码 4702-4711

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/onc.2008.109

关键词

EGFR; HER2; lung cancer; BIBW2992; therapeutics

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P20 CA090578, P50 CA090578-06, R01 CA090687, P50 CA090578, R01 CA122794-04, R01 CA122794, P20 CA90578, R01 CA90687] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG027757-03, R01 AG2400401, R01 AG027757, K08 AG024004] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic alterations in the kinase domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are associated with sensitivity to treatment with small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Although first-generation reversible, ATP-competitive inhibitors showed encouraging clinical responses in lung adenocarcinoma tumors harboring such EGFR mutations, almost all patients developed resistance to these inhibitors over time. Such resistance to first generation EGFR inhibitors was frequently linked to an acquired T790M point mutation in the kinase domain of EGFR, or upregulation of signaling pathways downstream of HER3. Overcoming these mechanisms of resistance, as well as primary resistance to reversible EGFR inhibitors driven by a subset of EGFR mutations, will be necessary for development of an effective targeted therapy regimen. Here, we show that BIBW2992, an anilino-quinazoline designed to irreversibly bind EGFR and HER2, potently suppresses the kinase activity of wild-type and activated EGFR and HER2 mutants, including erlotinib-resistant isoforms. Consistent with this activity, BIBW2992 suppresses transformation in isogenic cell-based assays, inhibits survival of cancer cell lines and induces tumor regression in xenograft and transgenic lung cancer models, with superior activity over erlotinib. These findings encourage further testing of BIBW2992 in lung cancer patients harboring EGFR or HER2 oncogenes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据