4.6 Review

Vitamin D analogues: Potential use in cancer treatment

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN ONCOLOGY HEMATOLOGY
卷 112, 期 -, 页码 190-197

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.02.015

关键词

Vitamin D; Receptor; Cancer; Treatment; Prevention; Calcitriol; Analogue

资金

  1. Science Foundation Ireland
  2. Research Cluster Award [08/SRC/B1410]
  3. Cancer Clinical Research Trust
  4. Caroline Foundation
  5. BREAST-PREDICT programme of the Irish Cancer Society [CCRC13GAL]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The vitamin D receptor (VDR) is a member of the thyroid-steroid family of nuclear transcription factors. Following binding of the active form of vitamin D, i.e., 1,25(OH)(2)D3 (also known as calcitriol) and interaction with co-activators and co-repressors, VDR regulates the expression of several different genes. Although relatively little work has been carried out on VDR in human cancers, several epidemiological studies suggest that low circulating levels of vitamin D are associated with both an increased risk of developing specific cancer types and poor outcome in patients with specific diagnosed cancers. These associations apply especially in colorectal and breast cancer. Consistent with these findings, calcitriol as well as several of its synthetic analogues have been shown to inhibit tumor cell growth in vitro and in diverse animal model systems. Indeed, some of these vitamin D analogues with low calcemic inducing activity (e.g., EB1089, inecalcitol, paricalcitol) have progressed to clinical trials in patients with cancer. Preliminary results from these trials suggest that these vitamin D analogues have minimal toxicity, but clear evidence of efficacy remains to be shown. Although evidence of efficacy for mono-treatment with vitamin D analogues is currently lacking, several studies have reported that supplementation with calcitriol or the presence of high endogenous circulating levels of vitamin D enhances response to standard therapies. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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