4.6 Article

The phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase inhibitor PX-866 overcomes resistance to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor gefitinib in A-549 human non-small cell lung cancer xenografts

期刊

MOLECULAR CANCER THERAPEUTICS
卷 4, 期 9, 页码 1349-1357

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-05-0149

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA52995, CA90821, U01 CA052995, U54 CA090821, U19 CA052995] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors such as gefitinib show antitumor activity in a subset of non -small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients having mutated EGFR. Recent work shows that phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3-K) is coupled to the EGFR only in NSCLC cell lines expressing ErbB-3 and that EGFR inhibitors do not inhibit PI3-K signaling in these cells. The central role PI3-K plays in cell survival suggests that a PI3-K inhibitor offers a strategy to increase the antitumor activity of EGFR inhibitors in resistant NSCL tumors that do not express ErbB-3. We show that PX-866, a PI3-K inhibitor with selectivity for p110 alpha, potentiates the antitumor activity of gefitinib against even large A-549 NSCL xenografts giving complete tumor growth control in the early stages of treatment. A-549 xenograft phospho-Akt was inhibited by PX-866 but not by gefitinib. A major toxicity of PX-866 administration was hyperglycemia with decreased glucose tolerance, which was reversed upon cessation of treatment. The decreased glucose tolerance caused by PX-866 was insensitive to the AMP-activated protein kinase inhibitor metformin but reversed by insulin and by the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma activator pioglitazone. Prolonged PX-866 administration also caused increased neutrophil counts. Thus, PX-866, by inhibiting PI3-K signaling, may have clinical use in increasing the response to EGFR inhibitors such as gefitinib in patients with NSCLC and possibly in other cancers who do not respond to EGFR 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