Integrative oncology drug discovery accompanied by preclinical translational research as prerequisite for clinical development

Chinese Clinical Oncology

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Hoffmann, Jens ^a  

^a Experimentelle Pharmakologie und Onkologie Berlin Buch GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

In vitro in vivo tumor models; Integrative drug discovery; Preclinical translational cancer research; Rnai drug modifier screen

Indexed keywords

EID: 84960330444     PISSN: 23043865     EISSN: 23043873     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2304-3865.2014.05.09     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Swinney DC, Anthony J. How were new medicines discovered? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10:507-19.
2. Eschenbrenner J, Winsel S, Hammer S, et al. Evaluation of activity and combination strategies with the microtubule-targeting drug sagopilone in breast cancer cell lines. Front Oncol 2011;1:44.
3. Purcell JW, Davis J, Reddy M, et al. Activity of the kinesin spindle protein inhibitor ispinesib (SB-715992) in models of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:566-76.
4. Chou TC. Theoretical basis, experimental design, and computerized simulation of synergism and antagonism in drug combination studies. Pharmacol Rev 2006;58:621-81.
5. Jordan MA, Wilson L. Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:253-65.
6. Klar U, Hoffmann J, Giurescu M. Sagopilone (ZK-EPO): from a natural product to a fully synthetic clinical development candidate. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2008;17:1735-48.
7. Klar U, Buchmann B, Schwede W, et al. Total synthesis and antitumor activity of ZK-EPO: the first fully synthetic epothilone in clinical development. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2006;45:7942-8.
8. Hoffmann J, Vitale I, Buchmann B, et al. Improved cellular pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics underlie the wide anticancer activity of sagopilone. Cancer Res 2008;68:5301-8.
9. Winsel S, Sommer A, Eschenbrenner J, et al. Molecular mode of action and role of TP53 in the sensitivity to the novel epothilone sagopilone (ZK-EPO) in A549 non-small cell lung cancer cells. PLoS One 2011;6:e19273.
10. Kelloff GJ, Sigman CC. Cancer biomarkers: selecting the right drug for the right patient. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;11:201-14.
11. Hammer S, Sommer A, Fichtner I, et al. Comparative profiling of the novel epothilone, sagopilone, in xenografts derived from primary non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:1452-65.
12. Cosse JP, Michiels C. Tumour hypoxia affects the responsiveness of cancer cells to chemotherapy and promotes cancer progression. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2008;8:790-7.
13. Brahimi-Horn MC, Chiche J, Pouysségur J. Hypoxia and cancer. J Mol Med (Berl) 2007;85:1301-7.
14. Blagosklonny MV. Mitotic arrest and cell fate: why and how mitotic inhibition of transcription drives mutually exclusive events. Cell Cycle 2007;6:70-4.
15. Aylon Y, Oren M. Living with p53, dying of p53. Cell 2007;130:597-600.
16. Riley KJ, Maher LJ 3rd. p53 RNA interactions: new clues in an old mystery. RNA 2007;13:1825-33.
17. Das S, Boswell SA, Aaronson SA, et al. P53 promoter selection: choosing between life and death. Cell Cycle 2008;7:154-7.
18. Kastritis E, Efstathiou E, Gika D, et al. Brain metastases as isolated site of relapse in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer previously treated with platinum and paclitaxel-based chemotherapy. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:994-9.
19. Hoffmann J, Fichtner I, Lemm M, et al. Sagopilone crosses the blood-brain barrier in vivo to inhibit brain tumor growth and metastases. Neuro Oncol 2009;11:158-66.
20. Strube A, Hoffmann J, Stepina E, et al. Sagopilone inhibits breast cancer bone metastasis and bone destruction due to simultaneous inhibition of both tumor growth and bone resorption. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:3751-9.
21. Haddad TC, Yee D. Of mice and (wo)men: is this any way to test a new drug? J Clin Oncol 2008;26:830-2.
22. Sharpless NE, Depinho RA. The mighty mouse: genetically engineered mouse models in cancer drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;5:741-54.
23. Furman WL, Stewart CF, Poquette CA, et al. Direct translation of a protracted irinotecan schedule from a xenograft model to a phase I trial in children. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1815-24.
24. Nevins JR, Huang ES, Dressman H, et al. Towards integrated clinico-genomic models for personalized medicine: combining gene expression signatures and clinical factors in breast cancer outcomes prediction. Hum Mol Genet 2003;12 Spec No 2:R153-7.
25. Angevin E, Glukhova L, Pavon C, et al. Human renal cell carcinoma xenografts in SCID mice: tumorigenicity correlates with a poor clinical prognosis. Lab Invest 1999;79:879-88.
26. Peterson JK, Houghton PJ. Integrating pharmacology and in vivo cancer models in preclinical and clinical drug development. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:837-44.
27. Perez-Soler R, Kemp B, Wu QP, et al. Response and determinants of sensitivity to paclitaxel in human non-small cell lung cancer tumors heterotransplanted in nude mice. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:4932-8.
28. Fichtner I, Becker M, Zeisig R, et al. In vivo models for endocrine-dependent breast carcinomas: special considerations of clinical relevance. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:845-51.
29. Becker M, Sommer A, Krätzschmar JR, et al. Distinct gene expression patterns in a tamoxifen-sensitive human mammary carcinoma xenograft and its tamoxifen-resistant subline MaCa 3366/TAM. Mol Cancer Ther 2005;4:151-68.
30. Fichtner I, Rolff J, Soong R, et al. Establishment of patient-derived non-small cell lung cancer xenografts as models for the identification of predictive biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:6456-68.
31. Garber K. From human to mouse and back: 'tumorgraft' models surge in popularity. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:6-8.