4.5 Review

Investigational FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 inhibitors in treatment of acute myeloid leukemia

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 943-954

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/13543784.2014.911839

关键词

crenolanib; FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene; FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene inhibitor; quizartinib; sorafenib

资金

  1. Ambit
  2. Arog
  3. Astellas
  4. Novartis
  5. Ariad
  6. CTI Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Outcomes for the majority of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remain poor. Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in the understanding of the cytogenetic and molecular determinants of AML pathogenesis. One such advance is the identification of recurring mutations in the FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 gene (FLT3). Currently, this marker, which appears in approximately one-third of all AML patients, not only signifies a poorer prognosis but also identifies an important target for therapy. FLT3 inhibitors have now undergone clinical evaluation in Phase I, II and III clinical trials, as both single agents and in combination with chemotherapeutics. Unfortunately, to date, none of the FLT3 inhibitors have gained FDA approval for the treatment of patients with AML. Yet, several promising FLT3 inhibitors are being evaluated in all phases of drug development. Areas covered: This review aims to highlight the agents furthest along in their development. It also focuses on those FLT3 inhibitors that are being evaluated in combination with other anti-leukemia agents. Expert opinion: The authors believe that the field of research for FLT3 inhibitors remains promising, despite the historically poor prognosis of this subgroup of patients with AML. The most promising areas of research will likely be the elucidation of the mechanisms of resistance to FLT3 inhibitors, and development of potent FLT3 inhibitors alone or in combination with hypomethylating agents, cytotoxic chemotherapy or with other targeted agents.

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

4.5
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