4.8 Article

Itraconazole Inhibits Angiogenesis and Tumor Growth in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 71, 期 21, 页码 6764-6772

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-0691

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute
  2. Burroughs Wellcome Fund [NIH P50 CA058184]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab has been approved for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although the survival benefit associated with this agent is marginal, and toxicities and cost are substantial. A recent screen for selective inhibitors of endothelial cell proliferation identified the oral antifungal drug itraconazole as a novel agent with potential antiangiogenic activity. In this article, we define and characterize the antiangiogenic and anticancer activities of itraconazole in relevant preclinical models of angiogenesis and lung cancer. Itraconazole consistently showed potent, specific, and dose-dependent inhibition of endothelial cell proliferation, migration, and tube formation in response to both VEGF-and basic fibroblast growth factor-mediated angiogenic stimulation. In vivo, using primary xenograft models of human NSCLC, oral itraconazole showed single-agent growth-inhibitory activity associated with induction of tumor hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha expression and marked inhibition of tumor vascularity. Itraconazole significantly enhanced the antitumor efficacy of the chemotherapeutic agent cisplatin in the same model systems. Taken together, these data suggest that itraconazole has potent and selective inhibitory activity against multiple key aspects of tumor-associated angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo, and strongly support clinical translation of its use. Based on these observations, we have initiated a randomized phase II study comparing the efficacy of standard cytotoxic therapy with or without daily oral itraconazole in patients with recurrent metastatic NSCLC. Cancer Res; 71(21); 6764-72. (C)2011 AACR.

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

4.8
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