4.7 Review

The PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway as a Therapeutic Target in Endometrial Cancer

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 18, 期 21, 页码 5856-5864

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0662

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Genentech/Roche
  2. Novartis
  3. AstraZeneca
  4. Merck
  5. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  6. Ann Rife Cox Chair in Gynecology
  7. Stand Up To Cancer Dream Team Translational Cancer Research Grant, a Program of the Entertainment Industry Foundation [SU2C-AACR-DT0209]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Endometrial cancer is the most common gynecologic malignancy in the United States. Overactivation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, a signaling pathway that plays an important role in cellular growth and survival, has recently been implicated in endometrial cancer pathogenesis, and as such, inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is of therapeutic interest. Preclinical and clinical studies are proving useful in elucidating the antitumor effects of different PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors, and in defining which patient populations these inhibitors might be most effective in. For example, an increasing amount of preclinical data suggest that loss of PTEN or genetic alteration of PIK3CA may be indicators of sensitivity to PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibition, while activating KRAS mutations may predict resistance. In the latter case, combined inhibition of the RAS/RAF/MEK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways has been suggested as a therapeutic strategy. In addition, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway has been implicated in conferring resistance to conventional therapies, and so PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibitors in combination with hormonal and/or cytotoxic agents are being evaluated. In conclusion, preclinical models are providing insights into the antitumor activity of PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway inhibition, and are helping define patient populations most likely to benefit from these therapies. Clinical validation of these findings is ongoing. Clin Cancer Res; 18(21); 5856-64. (C) 2012 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