4.5 Review

Targeting KRASG12C-Mutated Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Research and Clinical Developments

期刊

ONCOTARGETS AND THERAPY
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 747-756

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S340392

关键词

KRAS(G12C); sotorasib; adagrasib; colorectal cancer; targeted therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying mutations in the KRAS gene is crucial for the treatment of colorectal cancer. The introduction of KRAS(G12C) inhibitors has shown safety and efficacy in preclinical studies and early phase trials, although not all tumor types with KRAS(G12C) mutations are responsive to monotherapy. Colorectal cancer patients have shown less benefit, possibly due to treatment-induced resistance through increased EGFR signaling. Combination therapy trials with EGFR inhibitors are currently underway.
Identifying mutations in the KRAS gene has become increasingly important in the treatment of colorectal cancer with many prognostic and therapeutic implications. However, efforts to develop drugs that target KRAS mutations have not been successful until more recently with the introduction of the KRAS(G12C) inhibitors, sotorasib (AMG510) and adagrasib (MRTX849). Both agents have demonstrated safety and promising efficacy in preclinical studies and early phase trials, but it appears that not all tumor types harboring the KRAS(G12C) mutation are sensitive to monotherapy approaches. In particular, patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) derive less benefit compared to those with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), likely due to rapid treatment-induced resistance through increased epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling. As a result, combination therapy trials with EGFR inhibitors are currently underway. Here, we will review the available clinical trial data on KRAS(G12C) inhibitors in KRAS(G12C)-mutated CRC, possible mechanisms of resistance to monotherapy, the research studying why available agents are proving to be less efficacious in CRC compared to NSCLC, and future directions for these promising new drugs.

作者

匿名

评论

主要评分

4.5
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