4.6 Review

Crosstalk between hedgehog and other signaling pathways as a basis for combination therapies in cancer

期刊

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
卷 40, 期 6, 页码 750-759

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.02.003

关键词

Cell signaling; Combination chemotherapy; Novel antitumor agents; Hedgehog; Smoothened; Targeted therapy

类别

资金

  1. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hedgehog (Hh) pathway is aberrantly activated in a number of tumors. In medulloblastoma, basal cell carcinoma, and rhabdomyosarcoma, mutations in Hh pathway genes lead to ligand-independent pathway activation. In many other tumor types, ligand-dependent activation of Hh signaling is potentiated through crosstalk with other critical molecular signaling pathways. Among such pathways, RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, EGFR, and Notch are of particular interest because agents that selectively inhibit these pathways are available and can be readily combined with agents such as vismodegib, sonidegib (LDE225), and BMS-833923, which target smoothened a key Hh pathway regulator. Numerous preclinical studies have revealed the ways in which Hh intersects with each of these pathways, and combination therapies have resulted in improved antitumor efficacy and survival in animal models. Hh also plays an important role in hematopoiesis and in the maintenance of BCR-ABL-driven leukemic stem cells. Thus, combined inhibition of the Hh pathway and BCR-ABL has emerged as a promising potential therapeutic strategy in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). A number of clinical trials evaluating combinations of Hh inhibitors with other targeted agents are now underway in CML and a variety of solid tumors. This review highlights these trials and summarizes preclinical evidence of crosstalk between Hh and four other actionable pathways RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK, PI31K/AKT/mTOR, EGFR, and Notch as well as the role of Hh in the maintenance of BCR-ABL-driven leukemic stem cells. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. 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