4.7 Article

MK-1775, a Potent Wee1 Inhibitor, Synergizes with Gemcitabine to Achieve Tumor Regressions, Selectively in p53-Deficient Pancreatic Cancer Xenografts

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 2799-2806

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2580

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Merck Research Laboratories
  2. NIH [CA116554, CA129963]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Investigate the efficacy and pharmacodynamic effects of MK-1775, a potent Wee1 inhibitor, in both monotherapy and in combination with gemcitabine (GEM) using a panel of p53-deficient and p53 wild-type human pancreatic cancer xenografts. Experimental Design: Nine individual patient-derived pancreatic cancer xenografts (6 with p53-deficient and 3 with p53 wild-type status) from the PancXenoBank collection at Johns Hopkins were treated with MK-1775, GEM, or GEM followed 24 hour later by MK-1775, for 4 weeks. Tumor growth rate/regressions were calculated on day 28. Target modulation was assessed by Western blotting and immunohistochemistry. Results: MK-1775 treatment led to the inhibition of Wee1 kinase and reduced inhibitory phosphorylation of its substrate Cdc2. MK-1775, when dosed with GEM, abrogated the checkpoint arrest to promote mitotic entry and facilitated tumor cell death as compared to control and GEM-treated tumors. MK-1775 monotherapy did not induce tumor regressions. However, the combination of GEM with MK-1775 produced robust antitumor activity and remarkably enhanced tumor regression response (4.01-fold) compared to GEM treatment in p53-deficient tumors. Tumor regrowth curves plotted after the drug treatment period suggest that the effect of the combination therapy is longer-lasting than that of GEM. None of the agents produced tumor regressions in p53 wild-type xenografts. Conclusions: These results indicate that MK-1775 selectively synergizes with GEM to achieve tumor regressions, selectively in p53-deficient pancreatic cancer xenografts. Clin Cancer Res; 17(9); 2799-806. (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

4.7
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