4.6 Review

Medulloblastoma and the DNA Damage Response

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.903830

关键词

medulloblastoma; radiation oncology; pediatrics; therapeutic targeting; p53 status

类别

资金

  1. NCI [4R00CA204601]
  2. NINDS [R01NS110386]
  3. Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation for Childhood Cancer Research
  4. Winship Cancer Institute (P30 Center Grant) [CA138292]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medulloblastoma is the most common malignant brain tumor in children. Despite genomic characterization, clinical treatment is still mainly determined by histology and surgical factors rather than molecular profile. DNA damage repair protein inhibitors have the potential for broad impact in all patients.
Medulloblastoma (MB) is the most common malignant brain tumor in children with standard of care consisting of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. Recent molecular profiling led to the identification of four molecularly distinct MB subgroups - Wingless (WNT), Sonic Hedgehog (SHH), Group 3, and Group 4. Despite genomic MB characterization and subsequent tumor stratification, clinical treatment paradigms are still largely driven by histology, degree of surgical resection, and presence or absence of metastasis rather than molecular profile. Patients usually undergo resection of their tumor followed by craniospinal radiation (CSI) and a 6 month to one-year multi-agent chemotherapeutic regimen. While there is clearly a need for development of targeted agents specific to the molecular alterations of each patient, targeting proteins responsible for DNA damage repair could have a broader impact regardless of molecular subgrouping. DNA damage response (DDR) protein inhibitors have recently emerged as targeted agents with potent activity as monotherapy or in combination in different cancers. Here we discuss the molecular underpinnings of genomic instability in MB and potential avenues for exploitation through DNA damage response inhibition.

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