4.7 Article

Sorafenib alone or as combination therapy for growth control of cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

BIOCHEMICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 73, 期 9, 页码 1308-1317

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2006.12.031

关键词

Nexavar (TM); ERK1/2; insulin-like growth factor receptor 1; combination treatment; EGI-1; TFK-1

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/aim: Treatment options of advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CC) are unsatisfactory and new therapeutic approaches are mandatory. Dysregulations of the mitogen-activated kinase (MAPK) pathway associated with proliferative advantages of tumors are commonly observed in CCs. The novel multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib potently suppresses the growth of various cancers by inhibiting kinases of Wild-type B-Raf, mutant(V559E)B-Raf and C-Raf but its effects on CC remains to be explored. We therefore studied the antineoplastic potency of sorafenib in human CC cells alone and in combination with conventional cytostatics or IGF-1R inhibition. Methods and results: Sorafenib treatment dose-dependently blocked growth- factor-induced activation of the MAPKP and inhibited the proliferation of EGI-1 and TFK-1 CC cells in a time-and dose-dependent manner. At least two mechanisms accounted for the effects observed: arrest at the G(1)/G(0)- transition of the cell cycle and induction of apoptosis. The cell cycle arrest was associated with upregulation of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27(Kip1) and down-regulation of cyclin D1. Combining sorafenib with doxoruibicin or IGF-1R-inhibition resulted in (over)additive antiproliferative effects whereas co-application of sorafenib and the antimetabolites 5-FU or gemcitabine diminished the antineoplastic effects of the cytostatics. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the growth of human CC cells can be potently suppressed by sorafenib alone or in certain combination therapies and may provide a promising rationale for future in vivo evaluations and clinical trials. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. 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

4.7
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