4.7 Article Retracted Publication

被撤回的出版物: IP1867B suppresses the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF1R) ablating epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor resistance in adult high grade gliomas (Retracted article. See vol. 507, pg. 39, 2021)

期刊

CANCER LETTERS
卷 458, 期 -, 页码 29-38

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.canlet.2019.05.028

关键词

Adult high grade glioma; Drug repurposing; EGFR; IGFR1

类别

资金

  1. Brain Tumour Research
  2. Headcase Cancer Trust
  3. Ollie Young Foundation
  4. FCT Investigator contract from the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), Portugal [IF/00614/2014]
  5. FCT [IF/00614/2014/CP12340006, UID/BIM/04773/2013CBMR1334]
  6. Innovate Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

High grade gliomas (HGGs) are aggressive primary brain tumours with local invasive growth and poor clinical prognosis. Clinical outcome is compounded by resistance to standard and novel therapeutics. We have evaluated reformulated aspirin (IP1867B) alone and in combination with conventional and novel anti-aHGG agents. We show that recent biopsy-derived aHGG models were highly resistant to conventional therapeutics although show sensitivity to IP1867B, a reformulated liquid aspirin. IP186713 treatment mediated a potent suppression of the IL6/STAT3 and NF-kappa B pathways and observed a significant reduction in EGFR transcription and protein expression. We observed the loss of the insulin-like growth factor 1 and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor expression at both the transcript and protein level post IP1867B treatment. This increased sensitivity to EGFR inhibitors. In vivo, IP1867B was very well tolerated, had little-to-no gastric lesions versus aspirin and, directed a significant reduction of tumour burden with suppression of EGFR, IGF1 and IGFR1. With EGFR inhibitors, we noted a potent synergistic response in aHGG cells. These data provide a rationale for further investigation of IP1867B with a number of anti-EGFR agents currently being evaluated in the clinic.

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

4.7
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