4.7 Review

Application and reflection of genomic scar assays in evaluating the efficacy of platinum salts and PARP inhibitors in cancer therapy

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 261, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lfs.2020.118434

关键词

Homologous recombination deficiency; Genomic scars; Platinum; PARP inhibitors

资金

  1. Key RAMP
  2. D Guidance Plan Project in Liaoning Province [2019JH8/10300022]
  3. Shengjing Freedom Researchers' Project [201804]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Defective DNA repair is one of the most important features of tumors. BRCA1/2 participates in homologous recombination repair as a key tumor suppressor gene. BRCA1/2 mutation is an important biomarker for predicting the sensitivity of platinum salts and Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and other cancers. However, epigenetic modifications and other mutations in homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes can also cause homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Patients with no BRCA1/2 mutations, but bearing similar molecular phenotypes (BRCAness) can still obtain clinical benefits from treatment with platinum salts or PARP inhibitors. Therefore, an accurate assessment of HRD is essential for the formulation of personalized treatments. However, methods to identify HRD in tumors vary and are controversial. Currently, genomic scar assays have been used in multiple clinical trials to assess patient clinical benefit. This review summarizes the therapeutic effects of platinum salts and PARP inhibitors in breast and ovarian cancer, clarifies the predictive value of genomic scar assays in evaluating the clinical benefit of different patient groups and treatment options, and proposes the limitations and optimization of current HRD scoring methods. Using and optimizing genomic scar assays can help to accurately screen the population with the most benefit, expand the scope of drug application, and make the most suitable clinical decision based on individual differences.

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