4.6 Review

From Pure Antagonists to Pure Degraders of the Estrogen Receptor: Evolving Strategies for the Same Target

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 14, 页码 9334-9343

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c06362

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH RCMI program at Xavier University of Louisiana [U54MD007595]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research has been ongoing to find orally bioavailable SERDs for the treatment of advanced breast cancer, with the currently FDA-approved pure antiestrogen fulvestrant limited in efficacy due to its low bioavailability. Early oral SERDs have not shown significant improvement in clinical trials, but hope lies in the new generation of basic SERD molecules and PROTAC ER degraders with improved oral bioavailability, low toxicity, and superior efficacy in receptor degradation.
Pure antiestrogens, or selective estrogen receptor degraders (SERDs), have proven to be effective in treating breast cancer that has progressed on tamoxifen and/or aromatase inhibitors. However, the only FDA-approved pure antiestrogen, fulvestrant, is limited in efficacy by its low bioavailability. The search for orally bioavailable SERDs has continued for nearly as long as the clinical history of the injection-only fulvestrant. Oral SERDs that have been developed and tested in patients ranged from nonsteroidal ER binders containing an acrylic acid or amino side chain to bifunctional proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC) pure ER degraders. Structural evolution in the development of oral SERD molecules has been closely associated with quantifiable ER-degrading potency, as seen in the structural comparison analysis of acrylic acid and basic amino side-chain-bearing SERDs. Failure to improve on fulvestrant in the clinical trials by numerous acidic SERDs and early basic SERDs is blamed on tolerability and/or insufficient efficacy, which will likely be overcome by the new-generation basic SERD molecules and PROTAC ER degraders with improved oral bioavailability, low toxicity, and superior efficacy of receptor degradation.

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

4.6
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