4.7 Review

The Emerging Role of Homologous Recombination Repair and PARP Inhibitors in Genitourinary Malignancies

期刊

CANCER
卷 123, 期 11, 页码 1912-1924

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30631

关键词

bladder cancer; DNA repair defects; polyadenosine diphosphate (ADP) ribose polymerase 1 (PARP1) inhibition; prostate adenocarcinoma; prostate cancer; renal cell carcinoma; targeted therapy; urothelial cell carcinoma

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As cells age and are exposed to genotoxic stress, preservation of the genomic code requires multiple DNA repair pathways to remove single-strand or double-strand breaks. Loss of function somatic genomic aberrations or germline deficiency in genes involved in DNA repair can result in acute cell death or, after a latency period, cellular transformation. Therapeutic exploitation of DNA repair by inhibition of poly (adenosine diphosphate [ADP]) ribose polymerases (PARP), a family of enzymes involved in the repair of single-strand and in some cases double-strand breaks, has become a novel cancer treatment. Although the application of PARP inhibitors (PARPis) initially focused on tumors with BRCA1 or BRCA2 deficiencies, synthetic susceptibilities to PARPis have been expanded due to the identification of tumors with mutations pathways involved in DNA damage repair, in particular those that repair double-strand breaks using homologous recombination (HR). There is an increasing appreciation that genitourinary (GU) malignancies, including bladder cancer and especially prostate cancer, contain subsets of patients with germline and somatic alterations in HR genes that may reflect an increased response to PARPis. In this review, the authors describe the mechanisms and rationale of the use of PARPis in patients with GU cancers, summarize previously reported preclinical and clinical trials, and identify ongoing trials to determine how PARPis and strategies targeted at HR repair can have widespread application in patients with GU cancers. (C) 2017 American Cancer Society.

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