Unlocking hidden potential: advancements, approaches, and obstacles in repurposing drugs for cancer therapy.

Introduction

Drug repurposing, also known as drug repositioning, reprofiling, reusing, and rediscovery, is the process by which a known drug or compound is used for a new indication [ 1 ]. Its use in cancer therapy dates back to the very first chemotherapeutics, which arose from research on the observed anti-tumour potential of mustard gas on skin cancers [ 2 – 4 ]. More recently, interest in repurposed drugs has increased as a potential counter to the ever-increasing cost, low approval rates and prolonged time to market of novel drugs. The increasing opportunity for collaboration, as well as opportunities for funding, make drug repurposing more viable in this climate. There is currently an important role played by philanthropy, governments/states and not-for-profit organisations in early phase drug repurposing. A few current institutions, initiatives and funds with goals of furthering the development of repurposed drugs are; The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, The Wellcome Trust Health Innovation Challenge Fund, European Infrastructure for Translational Medicine, The Broad Institutes Drug Repurposing Hub, Cures Within Reach, Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (reDO) Project, and The Structural Genomics Consortium [ 5 ]. Multi-partner collaborations such as these, and those between academia and industry, have the opportunity to make drug repurposing more feasible.

The incidence of cancer is increasing, as is the resultant economic burden of cancer treatment on countries’ health systems. Between 1990 and 2013, there was a 75.6% increase in the number of cases of cancer globally, with 35%, 35.6% and 5% of this change attributable to population growth, the aging population, and a change in incidence rates [ 6 ]. Alongside the increase in demand for cancer treatment, there has also been a steady increase in the cost of treating each patient, such that health spending on cancer care has outpaced the incidence of cancer [ 7 ]. The median cost of cancer treatment at the time of the United States of America (USA) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency approval has increased from less than $100 per month in the 1990s to approximately $10,000 per month in 2011. Once adjusted for inflation and health benefits, the average price of anti-cancer drugs at the time of launch has increased by 10% annually between 1995 and 2013—an average increase of $8500 per year [ 8 , 9 ]. A corresponding increase in the public health systems’ budgets spent on cancer treatment has been observed in Europe (EU-27, plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), the total health expenditure on cancer care increased by 98%, from €52 billion in 1995 to €103 billion in 2018. The amount spent specifically on cancer drugs more than tripled from €10 billion in 2005 to €32 billion in 2018. Cancer drug treatment costs were found to be even higher in the USA, with a median cost 2.31 times higher than Europe, and the financial burden is more often borne by individuals and private insurance companies than the government [ 7 , 10 , 11 ]. In a New Zealand (NZ) context, despite a remarkable track record for restraining public pharmaceutical expenditure, the drug purchase agency PHARMAC’s funding has increased by 25% over the four years to March 2022, in a large part, to fund more cancer drugs publicly [ 12 , 13 ]. Global cancer drug sales are projected to increase even further in the next few years, from $193 billion USD in 2022 to $377 billion USD by 2027, with the drivers including earlier cancer diagnoses and decreased mortality resulting in longer treatment periods, as well as increased access to novel cancer drugs in more parts of the world, and the continued influx of new drugs to the market [ 14 ].

The number of novel FDA-approved drugs per billion US dollars invested in research and development (R&D) has halved every nine years since 1950, and the likelihood of approval (LOA) for cancer drugs in phase I clinical trials is only 6.7%, the lowest LOA of any drug type, and about half the LOA of non-oncology drugs [ 15 , 16 ]. This exponential decrease, termed the ‘Eroom’s Law’, has occurred despite major advancements in the technology and scientific knowledge used in modern drug discovery [ 15 ]. Scannell et al. propose four main causes for the Eroom’s Law: (1) any new drug invented now must offer significantly improved health outcomes compared to the cheaper drugs already available, in order to gain a foothold in the market; (2) there are more regulatory hurdles in today’s drug development which require more resources to gain approval; (3) there is a tendency to invest in R&D, to be the first in the more lucrative position of launching a new type of drug; and (4) the implication that, in order for the Eroom’s law to have become a problem, the industry must not have adopted R&D methods as advanced as commonly assumed, i.e., we have, to some extent, industrialised the wrong set of R&D activities [ 15 ].

An often overlooked and underappreciated solution to many of these increasingly pressing issues is the repurposing of drugs for a new indication in cancer treatment. Drugs which can be repurposed include; generic (off-patent) drugs already available on the market; on-patent drugs, including those still undergoing clinical trials; and failed drugs for the original indication. Drugs which have the potential to be repurposed for cancer treatment may have originally been cancer drugs used for a different cancer, or non-oncology drugs used for a different indication altogether.

Repurposing a drug for a new indication is generally cheaper and faster than developing an entirely new drug. The preclinical and phase I clinical trials, which assesses a drug’s safety and tolerance, are already complete in the initial development process, so while it takes approximately 13 to 15 years and costs around US$2–3 billion to bring a novel drug to the market, repurposing a drug is estimated to take only 6.5 years and cost an average of $300 million [ 17 , 18 ] (Fig. 1 ). Later-phase clinical trials for the repurposed drug for its new indication, the regulatory approval process and any reformulation required, will cost much the same as for a novel drug. However, repurposed drugs are less likely to fail overall in comparison to novel drugs development [ 19 ]. Another benefit of having previously undergone the early phase clinical trials is that safety, dosing, and pharmacokinetic data is already available for repurposed drugs [ 20 ]. Fig. 1 A common drug development timeline [ 161 ]. Repurposed drugs can often join this timeline in the third stage (clinical trials) skipping up to 7 years of study that a new drug would require. Created using Biorender, May 2023.

Cancer, with its inherent heterogeneity, rapid development of treatment resistance, and the intricate web of cellular pathways that contribute to its malignancy, presents a challenge for single-agent therapies. It is increasingly evident that the future of effective cancer treatment lies in the realm of combinatory therapies. This article is dedicated to exploring the promise of combinatory approaches, recognising their potential to tackle the multifaceted nature of cancer and improve treatment outcomes. In this review, we aim to shed light on the potential of drug repurposing, with a particular emphasis on promising drugs identified in vitro. It is important to note that while these drugs exhibit significant potential in pre-clinical studies, their performance in clinical settings may vary. We acknowledge that not all drugs discussed here may ultimately prove effective in combinatory cancer therapies, and there are indeed numerous instances of unsuccessful trials, especially of single-agent drugs in this field.

Repurposed drugs

Repurposed drug classification

In this review, we adopt a comprehensive view of drug repurposing. It encompasses not only dramatic changes in drug applications but also more subtle adaptations that reveal previously unnoticed therapeutic potential. The overarching goal is to explore the utility of repurposing from a practical standpoint, recognising that this strategy can manifest in various forms. While drug repurposing often refers to the repositioning of off-patent FDA-approved drugs to new clinical indications, it can also include the repositioning of failed and patented drugs. As such, potential repurposing candidates fall into one of the following classes: generic, patented, and failed drugs, each of which have their own associated advantages and constraints [ 21 ].

Generic drugs refer to those which are off patent, approved by regulatory agencies, and typically readily available in pharmacies. Due to the extensive testing and pre-clinical and clinical trials which led to their approval, and their monitored use in the population over a long period of time, data relating to their safety and efficacy is both extensive and easily accessible. As a result, generic drugs are typically favoured for repurposing by those in academia, small biotech companies, and not-for-profit research organisations because they are cheaper and lower risk [ 22 ].

Patented drugs, which can be extended to include clinical investigational compounds, are patent-protected, and are typically approved or in the late stages of clinical trials. Access to data relating to the safety and efficacy of such compounds is usually limited to their respective pharmaceutical companies which own the patents.

Similarly protected, failed drugs (also called abandoned or discontinued pharmaceutical agents) have been through some stage(s) of clinical trial but did not reach approval, whether due to inadequate efficacy against the intended indication, issues with safety, or lack of funding [ 23 , 24 ].

About 90% of drugs that move through the clinical trials process do not receive approval and make it to clinical use [ 25 ], yielding a significant financial loss for stakeholders in most cases [ 24 ]. Repositioning, or ‘rescuing’, such drugs for new indications is therefore particularly attractive to the companies that invest their time and resources on the drugs, only for them to fail at a late stage. As with patented drugs, safety and efficacy data on these failed compounds are not easily accessible to those outside of the company in which they were developed [ 26 ]. Other challenges include addressing the reasons for their initial failure to ensure that the same issues do not hinder their success in a new context [ 27 ]. Because of limited access to safety and efficacy data and profit concerns, the repurposing of both patented and failed drugs is more attractive to their corresponding pharmaceutical companies that hold the patents than those in academia and other research organisations.

Strategies to identify efficacious compounds

Recently, efforts have been made to compile comprehensive drug repurposing libraries, providing a centralised list of drugs available for repurposing, often off-patent drugs available as generics [ 28 ]. Databases may include additional information for each compound, such as their affected molecular pathways and genes, pharmacology, and side effects [ 29 ]. There are numerous ways of determining which drugs in such libraries are likely to be effective against a particular condition; screening methods can be knowledge-based, drug-based, activity-based, in silico or in vitro. While these screening methods are reviewed extensively elsewhere [ 29 – 32 ] we will delve into them briefly in this review because of their paramount significance in the drug repurposing process. We want to emphasise the importance of accurate identification and comprehensive in vitro / in vivo testing during the pre-clinical stage, as accurate identification ensures that potential drug candidates are thoroughly evaluated, minimising false leads, and increasing the likelihood of successful translation to clinical trials.

Generally, experimental approaches for drug discovery are classified as either target-based or drug-based (Fig. 2 ). In target-based screening, researchers investigate the interaction between drugs and specific well-defined molecular targets, often using cell-based assays [ 33 ]. On the other hand, drug-based (phenotypic) screening relies on cellular or disease models to assess drug effects based on phenotypic outcomes like cell viability and proliferation [ 34 ]. Both methods have been used successfully in drug repurposing [ 32 ]. Fig. 2 Potential screening methods for identifying efficacious repurposed drugs. These methods may either be in vitro or in vivo studies, and may include drug-based phenotypic screens, target-based high throughput assays. Alternatively, computational or virtual screening (in silico) may be done through signature matching (using –omics data), AI or machine and deep learning, genome-wide association studies and disease/target association studies, or chemical similarity and molecular docking simulations. Created using Biorender, February 2023.

One instance of drug repurposing through target-based screening involves Tamoxifen. Initially developed as a contraceptive, after failing to suppress ovulation, it was repurposed for the treatment of breast cancer [ 35 ] Researchers later identified the oestrogen receptor (ER) as a potential target in breast cancer, leading to clinical trials evaluating Tamoxifen’s efficacy in blocking the ER. It was found to effectively inhibit oestrogen and slow the growth of ER+ breast cancers [ 36 ] and since became one of the most widely used and effective drugs in the treatment of this type of cancer [ 37 ]. In contrast, Auranofin which was originally an anti-arthritic medication, offers a drug-based screening example for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) [ 38 , 39 ]. Its use was discovered through a drug-based phenotypic screen for cell proliferation, Pesetto et. al., revealed that auranofin can effectively and selectively target GIST cells, including those which are resistant to standard treatments such as imatinib [ 38 ].

In the age of –omics and big data, computational methods of repurposed drug screening are becoming increasingly favourable [ 40 ]. In signature matching screens, the proteomic, metabolomic, and genomic signatures of cancer cells can be compared with those of drug-treated cells, allowing the prediction of which drugs are most likely to be effective against the pathology by reversing dysregulation and restoring a healthy –omics profile [ 26 ]. This in silico screening method has been demonstrated in the identification of cimetidine, an anti-peptic ulcer drug, as a potential treatment for lung adenocarcinoma [ 41 ]. Serota et. al., subsequently experimentally validated this prediction in vitro and in vivo, showing the drug was able to inhibit lung tumour cells in mouse xenograft models.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have also been used to highlight genetic variants associated with certain diseases, and therefore potential therapeutic targets [ 42 ]. A repurposed drug may then be investigated for the treatment of the disease if it is known to target the protein or pathway identified in the GWAS. A recent study by Lin et. al., identified the anti-psychotic imipramine for the treatment of glioblastoma (GB) using this method [ 42 ]. They found that imipramine-targeted GB cells have a higher sensitivity than to temozolomide (TMZ), the current standard chemotherapy for this tumour.

Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning can also be used to uncover potential repurposing candidates. In some cases, text mining can be performed to find new associations between drugs and diseases [ 43 ]. A recent text mining study [ 44 ], uses PubMed literature to study cancer metastasis-related genes and identify repurposed drugs that may target them. Detroja et. al., demonstrate that aspirin can be repurposed to target TP53 and curcumin for MMP9, both targets strongly associated with cancer metastasis [ 44 ]. Using similar text mining methods, clinical observations can be analysed to find links between diseases and drug repositioning opportunities [ 45 , 46 ]. For example, numerous systematic reviews have investigated the association between metformin and lower incidence of cancer, leading to its current use for a variety of cancers [ 47 – 49 ].

Investigating chemical similarity between drugs and performing molecular docking simulations represent yet another avenue for the identification of drug repurposing candidates. These kinds of analyses require well-validated targets, making it difficult for conditions that are not well understood on a molecular level. Drug screening using molecular docking and dynamics simulations has been used to investigate the possible extension of FDA-approved chemotherapy drugs to treat other types of cancers [ 50 ]. The study by Shaikh et. al., uses a virtual screen that measures the interaction of numerous approved drugs with 18 structurally similar kinases important in a variety of cancers [ 50 ], shows that thalidomide which is used for treating multiple myeloma, has a good binding potential with both wild-type farnesyltransferase and thymidylate synthase, kinases important to multiple signalling pathways in colon and renal cancer, respectively. This virtual screening technique may be particularly useful for rapid, high-throughput screening to identify drugs that bind to well-defined molecular targets.

A more systematic approach for identifying drugs for repurposing may ameliorate some bias associated with the previously retrospective nature of repurposed drug identification [ 51 ]. Even so, extensive and comprehensive in vitro and in vivo validation experiments should be performed in order to fully assess the effect of the drug, to ensure a greater likelihood of success in clinical trials [ 52 ].

Repurposed drugs for cancer treatment

Clinical applications

Repurposed drugs have diverse clinical applications in cancer therapy including; monotherapy, multi-modal or combination therapy, adverse effect management and chemo/radio sensitisation. They may also be used as prophylactic chemo-preventative agents for at-risk populations, and as adjuvant treatments to prevent recurrence.

Monotherapy involves the utilisation of drugs that possess specific mechanisms of action, enabling them to effectively inhibit tumour growth or induce cancer cell death when administered as standalone treatments. This approach has been employed in the treatment of solid cancers such as glioma. In the case of glioma, a number of repurposed drugs are currently undergoing testing to assess their potential in targeting cancer stem cells (CSCs) in the hopes of increasing survival of glioma patients [ 53 , 54 ].

Multimodal therapy uses combinations of medications so that practitioners can target different aspects of a complex condition and provide more comprehensive and effective treatment [ 55 ]. This approach recognises that complex health conditions are multifaceted, and a single treatment modality may not be sufficient to address all aspects of the problem [ 56 , 57 ]. The rationale lies in the potential to achieve enhanced treatment outcomes by leveraging complementary mechanisms of action and targeting different aspects of cancer cells or their microenvironment. By combining drugs, researchers aim to maximise therapeutic efficacy, overcome resistance mechanisms, and improve overall patient outcomes [ 56 , 57 ].

Repurposed drugs may also be used either to reduce recurrence and metastasis, or to prevent development of cancer in at-risk patients [ 58 ]. Aggressive cytotoxic treatment for patients with low-risk cancer – such as small and low-grade cancers, may lower their quality of life. Therefore, well-tolerated therapies such as curcumin are being investigated for their ability to prevent cancer progression of patients with low-risk prostate cancer ( NCT03769766 ) [ 59 ]. Additionally, metformin is being assessed for its effect on preventing recurrence of endometrial cancer ( NCT05192850 ) and prevention in those considered at-risk of developing breast cancer ( NCT01905046 ) [ 49 ].

While personalised treatment currently shows great promise in the treatment of cancer, its widespread implementation faces the formidable challenge of comprehensively profiling the genetic mutations of each patient’s tumour [ 60 ]. This process is resource-intensive and often impractical for a significant portion of cancer cases [ 61 ]. However, an alternative strategy emerges: the development of a select group of drugs designed to target the most prevalent or critical proteins and pathways in a wide range of cancers. This approach holds the potential to impact a larger patient population with relatively manageable effort.

Current treatments of cancer are associated with varying degrees of treatment failure, manifesting as loco-regional recurrence and/or distant metastasis. Although partial or complete tumour regression can be achieved it can be followed by cancer relapse in many cases, due to the expansion of the CSC population [ 62 ] Cancer metastasis and treatment resistance have been purported as the main cause of a number of cancer-related deaths [ 63 , 64 ].

Rationale for combination therapy in oncology

As our knowledge of cancer biology continues to expand with discoveries such as inter- and intra-tumoural heterogeneity, and the complex interplay between tumours and their microenvironment, the importance of combination therapies to target multiple pathways simultaneously is increasingly evident [ 65 ]. The diversity of genetic, epigenetic, proteomic, and metabolomic alterations demonstrate the variety of the outcomes linked to cancer. Such variety implicates the dysregulation of multiple signalling pathways, even in one tumour [ 65 ]. In addition to the tumour itself, it’s essential to consider the dynamic tumour microenvironment (TME). The TME is made up of various cellular and non-cellular components, all interconnected by numerous pathways facilitating communication among cancer cells, CSCs, and the surrounding microenvironment. These pathways include interactions with components of the immune system and complex signalling pathways such as the paracrine Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS), Notch, Wnt/β-catenin, and Sonic Hedgehog [ 66 ]. Therefore, a more effective treatment for cancer may require a multi-target strategy, in lieu of the long-standing pursuit of a single target ‘silver bullet’ approach [ 67 ].

The rationale for combinatory therapy in cancer is based on hallmarks of oncogenesis; the polygenic mutational basis for most malignancies [ 68 ], tumour recurrence, metastasis, and the development of resistance to single-agent therapies—including specific targeted therapies [ 68 ]. Targeted approaches using monotherapy against specific signalling pathways have shown limited efficacy [ 69 ]. Therefore, an urgent need to design alternative combinatorial strategies to replace conventional regimens exists [ 70 ].

This approach, while biologically favourable, often results in increased costs of clinical care due to the use of multiple drugs, particularly when the proposed individual treatments (such as on patent drugs) are already prohibitively expensive [ 56 ]. However, the use of repurposed drugs makes this strategy considerably more accessible, affordable, and efficient [ 54 ]. By utilising these more economical alternatives, combination therapy becomes a more viable option for reducing the overall cost of combinatory cancer treatments [ 71 ].

It has been shown that drug combination therapy with two to three drugs each with a unique mode of action may overcome challenges relating to efficacy [ 72 ]. For example, the discovery of thalidomide’s anti-angiogenic properties led to a ground-breaking initial clinical trial on patients with recurrent/refractory multiple myeloma [ 8 ]. Initial interest in preclinical and clinical trials of thalidomide as a treatment for multiple myeloma was prompted by the historic response rate of 25% in this patient population, who had no other therapeutic alternative [ 8 ]. Thalidomide’s clinical efficacy was then validated, with response rates ranging from 25% to 35% [ 8 ]. The use of thalidomide in combination with other drugs that are efficacious against myeloma cells was then investigated in subsequent trials which demonstrated response rate of about 50% when combined with steroids, and about 70% when combined with steroids and an alkylating agent such as melphalan [ 8 ]. One current example is the testing of thalidomide in combination with chemotherapy, specifically the GDPT regimen, for the treatment of T-cell lymphoma in ongoing clinical trials ( NCT01664975 ) [ 73 ]. Furthermore, certain drugs are being individually investigated for their radio-sensitising effect. For instance, nelfinavir has been utilised to enhance the efficacy of standard chemoradiotherapy in the treatment of cervical carcinoma, aiming to increase treatment outcomes ( NCT03256916 ) [ 74 ].

These findings of increased efficacy may be due to synergistic effects; if each drug acts on a separate target or signalling pathway, the use of multiple drugs can have a synergistic impact that lowers the required therapeutic dosage for each individual drug [ 75 ]. Combination therapy therefore may provide cytotoxic effects on cancer cells while simultaneously reducing their harmful effects on normal cells [ 76 ]. Interestingly, a repurposed drug may also possess previously unidentified molecular mechanisms that allow interactions with pathways characteristically involved in the cancer. Essentially, the drugs’ so-called “off-target” effects, may have unanticipated anti-cancer benefits. For example, when identifying off-target effects of etomoxir it was discovered that carnitine palmitoyltransferase I (CPT1) is essential for cancer cell proliferation, and occurs independently of β-oxidation [ 77 ]. This suggests that one such function of CPT1 maybe importing long chain fatty acids into the mitochondria for anabolic fates, rather than catabolic oxidation which may support cancer cell proliferation independent of fatty acid oxidation.

Ultimately, if a disease (such as cancer and psychiatric illnesses) exhibits polygenicity or includes intricate biological signalling networks and feedback loops, inhibition of a single target is typically insufficient to generate the maximum therapeutic impact (Fig. 3 ). As a result, treating these complex or “smart” malignancies requires “smart” treatment strategies that directly target the expanded oncogenic signalling network. This cannot be achieved by blocking a single protein, but rather through pharmacological inhibition of numerous targets simultaneously. This can have cumulative and even partial effects that outweigh those of single target inhibition [ 78 ], thereby overcoming drug resistance. Fig. 3 Rationale for combination therapy in oncology. The use of multiple drugs can target the inter-tumoural heterogeneity between patients, intra-tumoural heterogeneity within the same tumour (including the cancer stem cell subpopulation). Multiple drugs also target multiple pathways which may be redundant or compensatory allowing full cessation of proliferation, invasion and metastasis. Created using Biorender, May 2023.

Preclinical and clinical trials of repurposed drugs for oncology

Several existing drugs such as niclosamide, metformin, chloroquine and thioridazine have been identified as candidate CSC inhibitors [ 79 ]. Thioridazine, an anti-psychotic drug, selectively targets neoplastic cells, and impairs human somatic CSCs capable of initiating leukaemic disease in vivo while having no effect on normal blood stem cells [ 80 , 81 ]. Metformin has been shown to both eradicate and radiosensitise cancer cells, as well as eradicating radioresistant CSCs by activating AMPK and suppression of mTOR [ 82 ]. Metformin is also preferentially cytotoxic to CSCs or CSC-like cells relative to non-CSCs [ 82 ]. Disulfiram (DSF) also targets CSCs, by blocking transcriptional availability of CSC signature genes such as Hoxa, Hoxb and Meis1 [ 83 , 84 ]. Anti-psychotics have shown promise in cancer through inhibition of BHC110/LSD1 which decreases tumour progression. Some anti-psychotics such as brexpiprazole may decrease tumour progression through the downregulation of survivin [ 85 ]. Anti- inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), through various mechanisms have also been used in the treatment of cancer. It has been suggested that up to 20% of all cancer types arise from a chronic inflammatory disease [ 86 ]. NSAIDs, in particular, COX-2 inhibitors have shown promising anti-cancer activity in previous laboratory and clinical studies [ 87 – 89 ]. However, its dosage, treatment regimen, risks, and benefits need to be further clarified for their use in cancer.

These pre-clinical and limited clinical trials show that drug repurposing for cancer treatment offers a promising approach to developing new cancer therapies that are both safe and cost-effective. However, while there have been a number of repurposed drugs that have entered clinical trials for cancer treatment, they are often tested as monotherapy, rather than in combination with other drugs [ 90 – 92 ]. This is, even though combination therapy with multiple drugs has been shown to be an effective approach in cancer treatment [ 72 , 93 ]. The use of multiple drugs with different mechanisms of action, allows simultaneous targeting of multiple pathways involved in cancer development to increase the likelihood of successful treatment outcomes [ 90 , 92 , 94 ].

One reason why there are fewer clinical trials exploring combination therapy with repurposed drugs may be due to the cost and complexity of running clinical trials [ 8 , 21 ]. Combining multiple drugs in a clinical trial requires careful consideration of dosing, timing, and potential interactions between the drugs, which can be difficult to coordinate [ 8 , 90 ]. Additionally, repurposed drugs may have different mechanisms of action and side effect profiles, which can make it challenging to determine the optimal combination for a given patient population [ 91 ]. Combinatory investigations should not only encompass assessments of efficacy and safety but also delve into the exploration of optimal dosages and synergistic effects with other treatments before they’re taken further in clinical trials. This comprehensive approach ensures a stronger evidence base for the inclusion of drugs in clinical trials and increases the likelihood of successful therapeutic outcomes.

The recent SCALOP-2 [ 95 ] and LU001 [ 96 ] clinical trials have underscored the critical need for comprehensive preclinical investigations before repurposing drugs for clinical trials. These trials have revealed challenges associated with certain drug combinations in specific contexts, prompting a more cautious approach to drug repurposing. In the case of the SCALOP-2 trial, the rationale for the inclusion of nelfinavir could be much stronger. The decision to include this drug was primarily based on its potential radiosensitisation effects, supported by preclinical data demonstrating its inhibition of PI3K and Akt phosphorylation [ 95 ]. However, a notable gap in the study was the lack of a thorough investigation into drug synergy and rigorous preclinical assessment of dosages for this combination, including the use of organoids or other non-human models. Such an approach could have provided a more robust foundation for supporting nelfinavir’s potential efficacy and safety in clinical trials, particularly considering the prevalence of KRAS mutations in pancreatic cancer. Similarly, in the LU001 trial, the inclusion of metformin for the treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer raised questions about the strength of its rationale. The primary basis for including metformin was its known antineoplastic effects observed in epidemiologic and retrospective studies [ 96 ]. However, to enhance the credibility of this decision, a more comprehensive preclinical investigation is essential. This should focus on elucidating the precise mechanisms of action of metformin in this cancer and assessing its synergy with concurrent treatments, different dosages of metformin should be explored to identify the most effective and tolerable regimen.

There is a need for more emphasis on running clinical trials for repurposed drugs in combination with other drugs for cancer treatment, as combination therapy has the potential to be more effective than single-agent therapy [ 72 ]. There have been some successful clinical trials exploring combination therapy with repurposed drugs—for example the CUSP9v3 regimen, a cocktail of nine drugs involved in the coordinated undermining of survival pathways utilised in GB [ 97 ]. This research is promising and is moving forward to phase 2 clinical trials [ 97 ]. Similarly, a phase I clinical trial on GB using a cocktail of seven repurposed drugs that inhibit the RAS and its related pathways has shown that the treatment is safe and well-tolerated with a median overall survival of 19.9 months [ 98 ], However, further research is needed in this area to fully realise the potential of repurposed drugs in cancer treatment. Conducting comprehensive preclinical investigations before advancing combinatory drugs into clinical trials is essential. In the preclinical phase, researchers should not only evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug combinations but also explore different dosages and regimens. This includes assessing the dose-response relationship to determine the optimal dosage for achieving therapeutic effects while minimising adverse effects. Repurposed drugs which have been undergone clinical trials for a new indication are summarised in Table 1 . Table 1 List of repurposed drugs that have gone or are undergoing clinical trials for anti- cancer indications. Highest Phase of Clinical Trials Drug Original Indication Reported Targets Cancer Types Pre-clinical Cimetidine Reduce stomach acid [ 127 ] H 2 receptor antagonist Lung adenocarcinoma [ 41 ] Clomiphene citrate Luteal phase dysfunction [ 128 ] Oestrogen agonist GB [ 129 ] Etomoxir Chronic heart failure, Diabetes mellitus [ 130 ] Inhibitor of CPT1, prevent FAO Bladder cancer [ 130 ] Phase I Imipramine Depression [ 131 ] Serotonin receptor, glutamate receptors Breast cancer [ 132 ] NCT03122444 GB [ 42 ] Thioridazine Anti-psychotic [ 133 ] D R D 2 AML [ 80 ] NCT02096289 Repaglinide Diabetes mellitus [ 134 ] Inhibits potassium efflux Prostate cancer [ 135 ] NCT04664725 Ovarian cancer NCT04718740 Phase II Quinacrine Malaria, giardiasis, rheumatoid arthritis [ 90 ] p53, FACT-CK2-p53 axis Colorectal adenocarcinoma NCT01844076 NSSLC [ 136 ] NCT01839955 Auranofin Arthritis [ 38 ] TrxR CLL [ 137 ] NCT01419691 Ovarian cancer NCT03456700 Itraconazole Anti-fungal agent [ 90 ] mTOR-cholesterol trafficking, VDAC1, PDGF-Akt–mTOR axis NSSLC [ 138 ] NCT03664115 BCC and other skin cancers NCT01108094 Niclosamide Anti-helminthic drug [ 90 ] Wnt/β-catenin, STAT3, NF-κB, Notch, ROS, mTORC1 Prostate cancer NCT02807805 Colorectal cancer NCT02519582 [ 139 ] Disulfiram NSAID, alcohol-aversion drug [ 90 ] ALDH, NAD + -dependent proteins NSSLC [ 140 ] NCT00312819 GB NCT01907165 Diclofenac NSAID, analgesia [ 141 ] cGMP system, COX-1/2, BCC NCT01358045 [ 142 ] Chlorpromazine Anti-psychotic [ 143 ] D R D 2 agonist PI3K/mTOR GB [ 144 ] NCT04224441 Lovastatin Hypercholesterolaemia [ 145 , 146 ] HMG-CoA reductase, inhibits some RAS isoprenylation Ovarian cancer [ 147 ] NCT00585052 Phase III Chloroquine Malaria, rheumatoid arthritis [ 90 ] Autophagy, PPT1 GB [ 148 ] NCT00224978 Breast cancer NCT02333890 Nelfinavir HIV [ 149 ] Autophagy and apoptosis, HIV protease Cervical carcinoma NCT03256916 [ 74 ] Curcumin Dermatological diseases [ 150 ] hTERT, Wnt/β-catenin, cytokines, Hippo/YAP Prostate cancer NCT03769766 Colon cancer [ 151 ] NCT00295035 Genistein Menopause, osteoporosis, obesity [ 152 ] hTERT, Wnt/β-catenin, cAMP/PKA Prostate cancer NCT00584532 Bladder cancer NCT00118040 [ 153 ] Berberine Bacterial diarrhoea [ 90 ] Ephrin-B2, MMP-2/MMP-9, EMT, miR-101, VEGF Colorectal adenoma [ 154 ] NCT02226185 NCT03281096 Mebendazole Intestinal helminthiasis [ 90 ] Chk2, Nbs1, PARP-1, DHODH Colon cancer NCT03925662 [ 155 ] Aspirin NSAID for pain and fever [ 90 ] COX-1/2, ANXA1- NF–κB axis, CDX2, COMMD1–RelA axis Colon cancer NCT02467582 [ 156 ] Propranolol Anti-hypertensive [ 157 ] β-adrenoceptor antagonist Malignant melanoma [ 158 ] NCT02962947 Phase IV Ritonavir HIV [ 90 ] p53, CDKs-RB axis, AKT-E2F-1-RB axis Kaposi’s sarcoma NCT00444379 [ 159 ] Thalidomide Sedative, anti-emetic [ 90 ] Proangiogenic factors, VEGF receptor, NF-κB T-cell Lymphoma NCT01664975 Multiple myeloma NCT00652041 Prostate cancer [ 160 ] NCT00020085 Metformin Type II diabetes mellitus [ 90 ] AMPK, PI3K-mTOR pathways, BACH1 Prostate Cancer NCT02511665 Breast cancer NCT05507398 NCT01905046 Endometrial carcinoma [ 49 ] NCT05192850 Drugs are grouped based on their highest phase of clinical trial reached for their new repurposed indication, and includes details of the drugs original indication, potential molecular targets and examples of ongoing clinical trials/research. Table of Pre-Clinical and Clinical Trials of Repurposed Drugs for Oncology. AML acute myeloid leukaemia, BCC basal cell carcinoma, CLL chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, CML chronic myeloid leukaemia, EMT epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, FAO fatty acid oxidation, GB glioblastoma, HIV human immunodeficiency virus, NSAID non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, ROS reactive oxygen species, VEGF vascular endothelial growth factor.

Barriers to drug repurposing

Intellectual property and profit concerns

Despite the potential benefits it holds, drug repurposing has not gained much momentum. One of the main reasons for this slower uptake is the presence of various barriers, particularly those related to financial aspects, that have not yet been effectively addressed [ 99 ]. The existing business model of pharmaceutical companies plays a significant role in this situation, as they heavily rely on the returns generated from investments in research, development, and marketing of new drugs once they are approved for clinical use [ 21 ]. Typically, these financial returns are achieved by obtaining market exclusivity for their drugs, which allows them to market the drugs at high prices without facing competition [ 100 ]. When a drug receives approval from the FDA, there are two types of market exclusivity that can be sought: patent protection and statutory and regulatory market exclusivity [ 99 ]

To acquire patent-protection, products must generate new intellectual property (IP), whether it be the drug composition itself, the use of the drug for a new indication, reformulation, dosing, or in combination with other treatments [ 99 ]. As a repurposed drug is not a new chemical entity and its structure is known, a novel patent claim to the active pharmaceutical ingredient is not possible [ 101 ]. For repurposed drugs ‘Use’ patents may be filed to protect the ‘method of use’ of the drug for the new indication, however, use patents are typically weaker than composition-of-matter patents and are therefore more costly for the companies to enforce [ 99 ]. Use patents also do not prevent off-label prescriptions, in which medications are prescribed for indications or populations for which they have no regulatory approval for [ 102 ]. In the case of drug repurposing, this can mean prescription of the generic version of a drug instead of the more expensive patented alternative which has gone through the regulatory approval process for the new indication and achieved market exclusivity. To tackle this problem pharmaceutical companies are legally prohibited from advertising off-label indications, although physicians are able to prescribe its off-label uses, supported by evidence of their efficacy in it new indications [ 103 ] which may take away from potential profits.

Pharmaceutical companies can use alternative methods to exclude other firms from the market when applying for regulatory approval. In the USA, this form of market exclusivity that typically lasts for five years for a new chemical entity, seven years for an orphan drug, and only three years for new indications of existing drugs [ 99 ]. The most common pathway to achieving this exclusivity for new indications utilises previous pharmacology and toxicology studies and only requires new information regarding safety and efficacy for the new indication [ 99 ]. Since the orphan drug act was introduced in the USA in 1983, providing a longer period of market exclusivity for drugs treating rare diseases, the number of approved treatments has soared from 38 to now over 350 treatments for a variety of rare diseases [ 104 ]. Developing incentives to support pharmaceutical companies to invest in drug repurposing, such as extended periods of market exclusivity, may encourage research focus and collaboration in the area [ 105 ]. Numerous policy changes including tax breaks and FDA-priority review vouchers have been suggested previously to incentivise R&D efforts into drug repurposing [ 105 , 106 ], however, how effective these incentives are is unclear due to possible off-label prescription. Some identify the funding of phase II and III clinical trials as the primary incentive problem for drug repurposing [ 99 ]. Instead of incentives such as granting market exclusivity, tax breaks, prise funds, or FDA-priority review vouchers [ 106 ], funding of these clinical trials could work as a better incentive for drug repurposing research.

It has been reported that the likelihood of the FDA granting approval for a new indication for a drug is highest within 1–2 years of approval for its original indication, before generic entry [ 107 ]. For pharmaceutical companies, time and resources may be better invested in the repurposing of failed and patented drugs mentioned previously, as this may optimise the role of financial incentives for pharmaceutical companies on drug repurposing [ 40 ]. Those that are not wholly constrained by their business model, whether it be academia, biotech companies, or not-for-profit organisations, are better suited to research into repurposing generic drugs, where available data on efficacy, pharmacology, and safety is extensive [ 21 ].

Despite big pharma’s central role in the drug development ecosystem, existing evidence supporting the use of off-patent medications in cancer treatment has been largely due to academic and independent research [ 105 ]. However, acquiring and retaining marketing exclusivity requires specialised IP knowledge and resources not typically available for researchers and organisations outside the pharmaceutical industry [ 99 ]. Collaborations between academia and pharmaceutical industry are therefore becoming increasingly attractive for drug repurposing projects, as they can help to ameliorate profit-driven limitations of pharmaceutical companies inbuilt into their business model, as well as offer academia expertise in the drug development field [ 21 ]. For example, because of collaboration between numerous pharmaceutical companies and the British Medical Research Council, 70 failed drugs were made available for repurposing efforts in 2014 [ 22 ]. In the USA, a collaboration between academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and national institutes of health made 58 failed compounds available to academia for repurposing [ 22 ]. These collaborations are promising in this developing field, although some argue that collaborations are limited by extensive negotiation of technology transfer, data access, and IP rights [ 108 ]. However, as open-access data and collaboration become more common in the post-COVID-19 climate [ 109 ], efficient drug repurposing may be closer on the horizon.

To facilitate drug development for neglected or rare diseases, there are several options available from an IP perspective [ 110 ], including patent pools, open licensing, and allowing academic institutions and staff to participate in patent ownership for new medical uses [ 110 , 111 ]. In addition, new funding models are emerging that involve venture capitals, public funding, and non-for-profit organisations. These models have the potential to greatly impact certain fields of medicine, such as rare disorders, where drug repurposing plays an important role. Together, these options and models are fostering collaboration among stakeholders and facilitating the development of new treatments for neglected and rare diseases [ 111 , 112 ].

Biases affecting drug repurposing

Traditionally, repurposed drugs have been identified in retrospective observational studies, which may be subject to immortal time bias and selection bias [ 51 ]. In this method, long-term studies which follow patients through life-long treatment are analysed to find associations between drug use and cancer incidence. Such long-term observational studies are particularly subject to immortal time bias leading to an often overestimation of advantages for the treatment group [ 113 ]. This bias has been observed in numerous studies of metformin and the incidence of cancer [ 48 ], calling into question the reliability of retrospective observational studies in identifying new repurposing candidates. Additionally, when drugs are first tested or used for their original indication, the group(s) being assessed are typically not considered ‘healthy’. For example, the cohort studies of metformin used to identify it as a possible chemotherapeutic were done using patients with diabetes mellitus [ 47 , 48 , 114 ] and because the participants from the original study (diabetics) are different from that for the new indication (cancer patients), a selection bias is created [ 115 ]. The biases affecting retrospective observational studies highlights the importance of a more systematic approach to target identification [ 51 ], integrating methods covered previously.

The difficulty of combination therapy

Due to the polygenic mutational basis of cancer, single agent therapies have been historically unsatisfactory in their effect on tumour growth and recurrence rate due to resistance, leading to their use in combination [ 116 ]. Approvals for combination therapy are typically based on randomised phase II or III clinical trials which show improved survival compared to the established standard of care [ 52 ]. By nature, combination drug trials are more difficult than those for monotherapy, requiring a meticulous study design to accurately reflect the intricacy, efficacy and usefulness of the therapy [ 117 ]. The substantial cost, time, and resources involved in clinical trials means that drugs are typically not brought forward to phase III clinical trials if they are ineffective as single agents in phase II trials [ 51 ]. To determine if drugs have at least some level of single-agent activity, they require testing in randomised trials as opposed to the more common uncontrolled phase II studies in oncology. These randomised trials would require a large sample size to reflect a potentially small effect, posing a significant financial burden [ 51 ] This is further complicated by the low rates of patient participation in clinical trials [ 71 ], in which 40% of cancer trials fail due to insufficient patient accrual [ 118 ]. This demonstrates how clinical trials are not optimised for the evaluation of combination therapies [ 52 ]. Drugs which lack single agent activity may still have a significant effect in combination therapy, making them difficult to eliminate from further evaluation after ‘unsuccessful’ monotherapy phase II clinical trials [ 51 ].

The issues mentioned above highlight the importance of comprehensive, reliable, and predictive pre-clinical combination studies for successful clinical translation [ 52 ] so that only the most effective therapeutic combinations will be trialled in phase II or III studies, negating unnecessary costs [ 119 ]. It has also been suggested that high quality mechanistic evidence of a drug(s) mechanism of action should be obtained before moving repurposed drugs to clinical trial [ 52 , 120 ] which may prevent the use of time and resources on potentially unsuccessful and unnecessary clinical trials. Additionally, looking into the molecular basis of synergy in combination therapy would allow for optimisation of drug combinations [ 119 ]. Developing high-throughput methods of screening on effective pre-clinical models remains a key target in the pharmaceutical arena, allowing for the thorough investigation of multiple drug’s efficacy and molecular mechanism before moving to clinical trials [ 121 ]. For example, recent advances have been made in the creation of a high-throughput in vitro model of the human lung epithelial cell layer which can be used for drug screening [ 122 ]. It is also worth noting the importance of pre-clinical models of cancer that are simple enough for screening, yet able to recapitulate the drug response in patients—such as emerging 3D tumour organoids [ 123 ]. A study by Movia et al., designed a co-cultured model of the human lung epithelium and show that it can mimic drug resistance mechanisms reflected that in vivo, and are not present in simpler mono-layer culture models [ 123 ]. This once again demonstrates the importance of simplistic yet accurate cancer models for comprehensive preclinical trials.

Conclusions and perspectives

Cancer drugs have become increasingly expensive and prohibitive, with the average cost of a year’s treatment now exceeding $100,000 per annum, while offering only modest improvements in patient survival in most instances. Expensive cancer drugs are a burden on society in two ways: they impose high costs on those funding treatment (patients/insurance/state), and they stifle the development of equally effective but more affordable alternatives. The need for less costly alternatives is particularly dire in cases where the benefit of new therapies is marginal, as the cost-effectiveness ratio is often unfavourable. The high cost of cancer drugs is therefore unsustainable, and innovative solutions are urgently needed to address this burgeoning issue.

There are several potential benefits of drug repurposing for cancer with combination therapies; less toxicity, greater effectiveness, reduced dosage at an equivalent or higher level of effectiveness [ 119 ], and the potential to combat drug resistance in current cancer therapies [ 124 ]. Furthermore, contrary to de novo development, drug repurposing is a cost-effective and time-saving method for increasing the number of clinically available cancer treatments [ 30 ]. The pursuit of a select group of drugs designed to target the most frequently mutated or pivotal proteins and pathways in cancer represents a pragmatic approach to enhance treatment outcomes. By casting a wider net that covers a substantial portion of cancer cases, this strategy offers the promise of more accessible and effective cancer therapies. While personalised treatment remains an important avenue of research [ 121 ], the development of such broadly applicable drug combinations can significantly extend our ability to impact the lives of cancer patients. Furthermore, we anticipate that drug repurposing will be a key strategy in the prevention of cancer in at-risk but otherwise healthy population, an issue which is becoming an increasingly important public health concern. The testing of combination therapy, which would focus on the numerous compromised cellular pathways, would be more appropriate for many cancer patients [ 125 ]. However, with very few exceptions [ 126 ], the pharmaceutical research and testing process is not designed to assist the testing of combination therapies [ 8 ].

Collaborations between multiple entities, such as philanthropists, governments/states, not-for-profit organisations, dedicated institutions, initiatives and funds, can generate the necessary funding to support cost-effective clinical trials. The notion that research groups should exclusively focus on discovering “superior” therapies and disregard more affordable alternatives is no longer valid, primarily due to the exorbitant prices of novel cancer drugs. Ultimately, the current high cost of novel cancer drugs is unsustainable, especially when the benefits of these new therapies are minimal at best. In such cases, the cost-effectiveness ratio of these drugs is unfavourable, emphasising the pressing need for less expensive alternatives like drug repurposing.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

All Figures were Created with BioRender.com.

Author contributions

FRW, GBH, AFW and CG wrote the first draught. All authors were involved in, interpreted the results, reviewed literature, and revised the manuscript and agrees to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Funding

FRW is supported by the Graham Langridge Scholarship and the Victoria University of Wellington Doctoral Scholarship.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

References

1. Toumi M Rémuzat C Value added medicines: what value repurposed medicines might bring to society? J Mark Access Health Policy. 2017 5 1264717 28265347 10.1080/20016689.2017.1264717 PMC5328340

2. Adair FE Bagg HJ Experimental and clinical studies on the treatment of cancer by Dichlorethylsulphide (Mustard Gas) Ann Surg. 1931 93 190 9 17866462 10.1097/00000658-193101000-00026 PMC1398743

3. Haddow A On the biological alkylating agents Perspect Biol Med. 1973 16 503 24 4593768 10.1353/pbm.1973.0029

4. Schein CH Repurposing approved drugs for cancer therapy Br Med Bull. 2021 137 13 27 33517358 10.1093/bmb/ldaa045 PMC7929227

5. Hernandez JJ, Pryszlak M, Smith L, Yanchus C, Kurji N, Shahani VM, et al. Giving drugs a second chance: overcoming regulatory and financial hurdles in repurposing approved drugs as cancer therapeutics. Front Oncol. 2017;14:7. 10.3389/fonc.2017.00273 PMC5694537 29184849

6. Fitzmaurice C Dicker D Pain A Hamavid H Moradi-Lakeh M MacIntyre MF The global burden of cancer 2013 JAMA Oncol 2015 1 505 27 26181261 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0735 PMC4500822

7. Hofmarcher T Lindgren P Wilking N Jönsson B The cost of cancer in Europe 2018 Eur J Cancer 2020 129 41 9 32120274 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.01.011

8. Bertolini F Sukhatme VP Bouche G Drug repurposing in oncology—patient and health systems opportunities Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2015 12 732 42 26483297 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.169

9. Howard DH Bach PB Berndt ER Conti RM Pricing in the market for anticancer drugs J Econ Perspect. 2015 29 139 62 10.1257/jep.29.1.139 28441702

10. Vokinger KN Hwang TJ Grischott T Reichert S Tibau A Rosemann T Prices and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a cost–benefit analysis Lancet Oncol 2020 21 664 70 32359489 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30139-X

11. Tangka FK Trogdon JG Richardson LC Howard D Sabatino SA Finkelstein EA Cancer treatment cost in the United States Cancer 2010 116 3477 84 20564103 10.1002/cncr.25150

12. Little A Beehive.govt.nz. 2022 [cited 2023 May 1]. Pharmac deal good news for New Zealanders. Available from: https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/pharmac-deal-good-news-new-zealanders .

13. Main B Csanadi M Ozieranski P Pricing strategies, executive committee power and negotiation leverage in New Zealand’s containment of public spending on pharmaceuticals Health Econ Policy Law 2022 17 348 65 35382921 10.1017/S1744133122000068

14. IQVIA. IQVIA. 2023 [cited 2023 May 1]. The global use of medicines 2023 Outlook to 2027. Available from: https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/the-global-use-of-medicines-2023 .

15. Scannell JW Blanckley A Boldon H Warrington B Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012 11 191 200 22378269 10.1038/nrd3681

16. Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32:1 [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: https://www-nature-com.wmezproxy.wnmeds.ac.nz/articles/nbt.2786 . 10.1038/nbt.2786 24406927

17. Pushpakom S Chapter 1: Introduction and historical overview of drug repurposing opportunities RSC Drug Discov Ser 2022 2022 1 13

18. Nosengo N Can you teach old drugs new tricks? Nature. 2016 534 314 6 27306171 10.1038/534314a

19. Palve V Liao Y Remsing Rix LL Rix U Turning liabilities into opportunities: Off-target based drug repurposing in cancer Semin Cancer Biol 2021 68 209 29 32044472 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.02.003 PMC7415607

20. Pantziarka P Verbaanderd C Huys I Bouche G Meheus L Repurposing drugs in oncology: from candidate selection to clinical adoption. Semin Cancer Biol 2021 68 186 91 31982510 10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.01.008

21. Cha Y Erez T Reynolds IJ Kumar D Ross J Koytiger G Drug repurposing from the perspective of pharmaceutical companies Br J Pharmacol. 2018 175 168 80 28369768 10.1111/bph.13798 PMC5758385

22. Hong SJ, Li EC, Matusiak LM, Schumock GT. Spending on antineoplastic agents in the United States, 2011 to 2016. (2018);18:14. 10.1200/JOP.18.00069. 10.1200/JOP.18.00069 30226791

23. Weir SJ DeGennaro LJ Austin CP Repurposing approved and abandoned drugs for the treatment and prevention of cancer through public–private partnership Cancer Res 2012 72 1055 8 22246671 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3439 PMC3341848

24. Fogel DB Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: a review Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2018 11 156 64 30112460 10.1016/j.conctc.2018.08.001 PMC6092479

25. Mullard A Parsing clinical success rates Nat Rev Drug Discov 2016 15 447 447 10.1038/nrd.2016.136 27357012

26. Pushpakom S Iorio F Eyers PA Escott KJ Hopper S Wells A Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations Nat Rev Drug Discov 2018 18 41 58 30310233 10.1038/nrd.2018.168

27. Allarakhia M Open-source approaches for the repurposing of existing or failed candidate drugs: learning from and applying the lessons across diseases Drug Des Devel Ther 2013 753 66 10.2147/DDDT.S46289 PMC3743608 23966771

28. Corsello SM Bittker JA Liu Z Gould J McCarren P Hirschman JE The drug repurposing hub: a next-generation drug library and information resource Nat Med 2017 23 405 8 28388612 10.1038/nm.4306 PMC5568558

29. Himmelstein DS, Lizee A, Hessler C, Brueggeman L, Chen SL, Hadley D, et al. Systematic integration of biomedical knowledge prioritizes drugs for repurposing. Elife. 2017;22:6. 10.7554/eLife.26726 PMC5640425 28936969

30. Mottini C Napolitano F Li Z Gao X Cardone L Computer-aided drug repurposing for cancer therapy: approaches and opportunities to challenge anticancer targets Semin Cancer Biol 2021 68 59 74 31562957 10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.09.023

31. Jin G Wong STC Toward better drug repositioning: prioritizing and integrating existing methods into efficient pipelines Drug Discov Today 2014 19 637 44 24239728 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.11.005 PMC4021005

32. Parisi D Adasme MF Sveshnikova A Bolz SN Moreau Y Schroeder M Drug repositioning or target repositioning: a structural perspective of drug-target-indication relationship for available repurposed drugs Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2020 18 1043 55 32419905 10.1016/j.csbj.2020.04.004 PMC7215100

33. Swinney DC Phenotypic vs. target-based drug discovery for first-in-class medicines Clin Pharm Ther 2013 93 299 301 10.1038/clpt.2012.236 23511784

34. Balis FM Evolution of anticancer drug discovery and the role of cell-based screening J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 94 78 9 11792737 10.1093/jnci/94.2.78

35. Jordan VC Tamoxifen: a most unlikely pioneering medicine Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003 2 205 13 12612646 10.1038/nrd1031

36. Howell A Howell SJ Tamoxifen evolution Br J Cancer 2023 128 421 5 36765172 10.1038/s41416-023-02158-5 PMC9938251

37. Quirke VM. Tamoxifen from failed contraceptive pill to best-selling breast cancer medicine: a case-study in pharmaceutical innovation. Front Pharmacol. 2017;12:8. 10.3389/fphar.2017.00620 PMC5600945 28955226

38. Pessetto ZY Weir SJ Sethi G Broward MA Godwin AK Drug repurposing for gastrointestinal stromal tumor Mol Cancer Ther 2013 12 1299 309 23657945 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0968 PMC3707936

39. Iqbal N Iqbal N Imatinib: a breakthrough of targeted therapy in cancer Chemother Res Pract 2014 2014 1 9 10.1155/2014/357027 PMC4055302 24963404

40. Wieder R Adam N Drug repositioning for cancer in the era of AI, big omics, and real-world data Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2022 175 103730 35654244 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103730

41. Sirota M, Dudley JT, Kim J, Chiang AP, Morgan AA, Sweet-Cordero A, et al. Discovery and preclinical validation of drug indications using compendia of public gene expression data. Sci Transl Med. 2011;17:3. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3001318 PMC3502016 21849665

42. Lin WZ Liu YC Lee MC Tang CT Wu GJ Chang YT From GWAS to drug screening: repurposing antipsychotics for glioblastoma J Transl Med 2022 20 70 35120529 10.1186/s12967-021-03209-2 PMC8815269

43. Baker S Ali I Silins I Pyysalo S Guo Y Högberg J Cancer Hallmarks Analytics Tool (CHAT): a text mining approach to organize and evaluate scientific literature on cancer Bioinformatics. 2017 33 3973 81 29036271 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx454 PMC5860084

44. Detroja TS Gil-Henn H Samson AO Text-mining approach to identify hub genes of cancer metastasis and potential drug repurposing to target them J Clin Med 2022 11 2130 35456223 10.3390/jcm11082130 PMC9029557

45. Thorn CF Klein TE Altman RB PharmGKB: the Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base Methods Mol Biol 2013 1015 311 20 23824865 10.1007/978-1-62703-435-7_20 PMC4084821

46. Campillos M Kuhn M Gavin AC Jensen LJ Bork P Drug target identification using side-effect similarity Science 2008 321 263 6 18621671 10.1126/science.1158140

47. Yu H, Zhong X, Gao P, Shi J, Wu Z, Guo Z, et al. The potential effect of metformin on cancer: an umbrella review. Front Endocrinol. 2019;18:10. 10.3389/fendo.2019.00617 PMC6760464 31620081

48. Suissa S Azoulay L Metformin and the risk of cancer Diabetes Care 2012 35 2665 73 23173135 10.2337/dc12-0788 PMC3507580

49. Chae YK Arya A Malecek MK Shin DS Carneiro B Chandra S Repurposing metformin for cancer treatment: current clinical studies Oncotarget. 2016 7 40767 80 27004404 10.18632/oncotarget.8194 PMC5130043

50. Shaikh N, Linthoi RK, Swamy K v., Karthikeyan M, Vyas R. Comprehensive molecular docking and dynamic simulations for drug repurposing of clinical drugs against multiple cancer kinase targets. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2022;22:1–9. 10.1080/07391102.2022.2124453 36134605

51. Tran AA Prasad V Drug repurposing for cancer treatments: a well-intentioned, but misguided strategy Lancet Oncol 2020 21 1134 6 32888447 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30424-1

52. Day D Siu LL Approaches to modernize the combination drug development paradigm Genome Med 2016 8 115 27793177 10.1186/s13073-016-0369-x PMC5084460

53. Bahmad HF Elajami MK El Zarif T Bou-Gharios J Abou-Antoun T Abou-Kheir W Drug repurposing towards targeting cancer stem cells in pediatric brain tumors Cancer Metastasis Rev 2020 39 127 48 31919619 10.1007/s10555-019-09840-2

54. Sun W Sanderson PE Zheng W Drug combination therapy increases successful drug repositioning Drug Discov Today 2016 21 1189 95 27240777 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.05.015 PMC4907866

55. Murray CL Multimodal cancer therapy for breast cancer in the first trimester of pregnancy JAMA. 1984 252 2607 6092731

56. Möttönen T Hannonen P Leirisalo-Repo M Nissilä M Kautiainen H Korpela M Comparison of combination therapy with single-drug therapy in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial Lancet 1999 353 1568 73 10334255 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)08513-4

57. Mokhtari RB Homayouni TS Baluch N Morgatskaya E Kumar S Das B Combination therapy in combating cancer Oncotarget. 2017 8 38022 43 28410237 10.18632/oncotarget.16723 PMC5514969

58. Rodrigues R, Duarte D, Vale N. Drug repurposing in cancer therapy: influence of patient’s genetic background in breast cancer treatment. Int J Mol Sci. (2022);1 [cited 2022 Dec 20];23. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9028365/ . 10.3390/ijms23084280 PMC9028365 35457144

59. Abd. Wahab NA Lajis NH Abas F Othman I Naidu R Mechanism of anti-cancer activity of curcumin on androgen-dependent and androgen-independent prostate cancer Nutrients. 2020 12 679 32131560 10.3390/nu12030679 PMC7146610

60. Ogino S Fuchs CS Giovannucci E How many molecular subtypes? Implications of the unique tumor principle in personalized medicine Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2012 12 621 8 22845482 10.1586/erm.12.46 PMC3492839

61. Santos C Sanz-Pamplona R Nadal E Grasselli J Pernas S Dienstmann R Intrinsic cancer subtypes-next steps into personalized medicine Cell Oncol 2015 38 3 16 10.1007/s13402-014-0203-7 PMC13004252 25586691

62. Marzagalli M Fontana F Raimondi M Limonta P Cancer stem cells—key players in tumor relapse Cancers 2021 13 376 33498502 10.3390/cancers13030376 PMC7864187

63. Dillekås H Rogers MS Straume O Are 90% of deaths from cancer caused by metastases? Cancer Med 2019 8 5574 6 31397113 10.1002/cam4.2474 PMC6745820

64. Kilmister EJ, Koh SP, Weth FR, Gray C, Tan ST. Cancer metastasis and treatment resistance: mechanistic insights and therapeutic targeting of cancer stem cells and the tumor microenvironment. Biomedicines. 2022;21:10. 10.3390/biomedicines10112988 PMC9687343 36428556

65. Nouri Z Fakhri S Nouri K Wallace CE Farzaei MH Bishayee A Targeting multiple signaling pathways in cancer: the rutin therapeutic approach Cancers. 2020 12 1 34 10.3390/cancers12082276 PMC7463935 32823876

66. Malla RR Kiran P Tumor microenvironment pathways: cross regulation in breast cancer metastasis Genes Dis 2022 9 310 24 35224148 10.1016/j.gendis.2020.11.015 PMC8843880

67. Roma-Rodrigues C Mendes R Baptista P Fernandes A Targeting tumor microenvironment for cancer therapy Int J Mol Sci 2019 20 840 30781344 10.3390/ijms20040840 PMC6413095

68. Loscalzo J. Molecular interaction networks and drug development: novel approach to drug target identification and drug repositioning. FASEB J. 2023;5:37. 10.1096/fj.202201683R PMC10107166 36468661

69. Atashzar MR Baharlou R Karami J Abdollahi H Rezaei R Pourramezan F Cancer stem cells: a review from origin to therapeutic implications J Cell Physiol. 2020 235 790 803 31286518 10.1002/jcp.29044

70. Catara G, Colanzi A, Spano D. Combinatorial strategies to target molecular and signaling pathways to disarm cancer stem cells. Front Oncol. (2021);11. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2021.689131 . 10.3389/fonc.2021.749040 PMC8415775 34485166

71. Boshuizen J Peeper DS Rational cancer treatment combinations: an urgent clinical need Mol Cell 2020 78 1002 18 32559422 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.05.031

72. Sun W Sanderson PE Zheng W Drug combination therapy increases successful drug repositioning Drug Discov Today. 2016 21 1189 27240777 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.05.015 PMC4907866

73. Sun Y Li L Li X Zhang L Wang X Fu X Outcomes of GDPT (gemcitabine, cisplatin, prednisone, thalidomide) versus CHOP in newly diagnosed peripheral T-cell lymphoma patients Ther Adv Med Oncol 2020 12 175883592092382 10.1177/1758835920923829 PMC7278096 32550864

74. Chopra S Goda JS Mittal P Mulani J Pant S Pai V Concurrent chemoradiation and brachytherapy alone or in combination with nelfinavir in locally advanced cervical cancer (NELCER): study protocol for a phase III trial BMJ Open 2022 12 e055765 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055765 PMC8987785 35387819

75. Pemovska T Bigenzahn JW Superti-Furga G Recent advances in combinatorial drug screening and synergy scoring Curr Opin Pharmacol 2018 42 102 10 30193150 10.1016/j.coph.2018.07.008 PMC6219891

76. Duarte D Guerreiro I Vale N Novel strategies for cancer combat: drug combination using repurposed drugs induces synergistic growth inhibition of MCF-7 breast and HT-29 colon cancer cells Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2022 44 4930 49 36286050 10.3390/cimb44100335 PMC9601176

77. Yao CH Liu GY Wang R Moon SH Gross RW Patti GJ Identifying off-target effects of etomoxir reveals that carnitine palmitoyltransferase I is essential for cancer cell proliferation independent of β-oxidation PLoS Biol 2018 16 e2003782 29596410 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003782 PMC5892939

78. Phi LTH Sari IN Yang YG Lee SH Jun N Kim KS Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs) in Drug Resistance and their Therapeutic Implications in Cancer Treatment Stem Cells Int 2018 2018 5416923 29681949 10.1155/2018/5416923 PMC5850899

79. Chan MM Chen R Fong D Targeting cancer stem cells with dietary phytochemical - Repositioned drug combinations Cancer Lett 2018 433 53 64 29960048 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.06.034 PMC7117025

80. Kang S Dong SM Kim BR Park MS Trink B Byun HJ Thioridazine induces apoptosis by targeting the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway in cervical and endometrial cancer cells Apoptosis 2012 17 989 97 22460505 10.1007/s10495-012-0717-2 PMC3413814

81. Sachlos E Risueño RM Laronde S Shapovalova Z Lee JH Russell J Identification of drugs including a dopamine receptor antagonist that selectively target cancer stem cells Cell 2012 149 1284 97 22632761 10.1016/j.cell.2012.03.049

82. Song CW Lee H Dings RPM Williams B Powers J Santos TD Metformin kills and radiosensitizes cancer cells and preferentially kills cancer stem cells Sci Rep 2012 2 1 9 10.1038/srep00362 PMC3324825 22500211

83. Azar K Kannappan V Liu Y Butcher K Morris M Armesilla A Disulfiram targets glioblastoma-stem-like cells in vitro and in vivo Neuro Oncol 2018 20 i20 10.1093/neuonc/nox238.089

84. Triscott J Pambid MR Dunn SE Concise review: bullseye: targeting cancer stem cells to improve the treatment of gliomas by repurposing disulfiram Stem Cells. 2015 33 1042 6 25588723 10.1002/stem.1956

85. Suzuki S Yamamoto M Togashi K Sanomachi T Sugai A Seino S In vitro and in vivo anti-tumor effects of brexpiprazole, a newly-developed serotonin-dopamine activity modulator with an improved safety profile Oncotarget. 2019 10 3547 58 31191825 10.18632/oncotarget.26949 PMC6544401

86. Greten FR Grivennikov SI Inflammation and cancer: triggers, mechanisms, and consequences Immunity. 2019 51 27 41 31315034 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.06.025 PMC6831096

87. Piazza GA Keeton AB Tinsley HN Whitt JD Gary BD Mathew B NSAIDs: old drugs reveal new anticancer targets Pharmaceuticals. 2010 3 1652 67 27713322 10.3390/ph3051652 PMC4034002

88. Zappavigna S Cossu AM Grimaldi A Bocchetti M Ferraro GA Nicoletti GF Anti-inflammatory drugs as anticancer agents Int J Mol Sci 2020 21 2605 32283655 10.3390/ijms21072605 PMC7177823

89. Zarghi A Arfaei S Selective COX-2 inhibitors: a review of their structure-activity relationships Iran J Pharm Res. 2011 10 655 24250402 PMC3813081

90. Zhang Z Zhou L Xie N Nice EC Zhang T Cui Y Overcoming cancer therapeutic bottleneck by drug repurposing Signal Transduct Target Ther 2020 5 1 25 32616710 10.1038/s41392-020-00213-8 PMC7331117

91. Talevi A, Bellera CL. Challenges and opportunities with drug repurposing: finding strategies to find alternative uses of therapeutics. 2019[cited 2023 May 4];15:397–401. Available from: 10.1080/17460441.2020.1704729. 10.1080/17460441.2020.1704729 31847616

92. Csermely P Ágoston V Pongor S The efficiency of multi-target drugs: the network approach might help drug design Trends Pharm Sci 2005 26 178 82 15808341 10.1016/j.tips.2005.02.007

93. World Health Organization. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. WHO/EURO:2021-2807-42565-59178. 2021 [cited 2023 May 3]. Repurposing of medicines – the underrated champion of sustainable innovation: policy brief. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/342567 .

94. Jin MZ Jin WL The updated landscape of tumor microenvironment and drug repurposing Signal Transduct Target Ther 2020 5 1 16 32843638 10.1038/s41392-020-00280-x PMC7447642

95. Strauss VY Shaw R Virdee PS Hurt CN Ward E Tranter B Study protocol: a multi-centre randomised study of induction chemotherapy followed by capecitabine ± nelfinavir with high- or standard-dose radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP-2) BMC Cancer 2019 19 121 30717707 10.1186/s12885-019-5307-z PMC6360784

96. Skinner H Hu C Tsakiridis T Santana-Davila R Lu B Erasmus JJ Addition of metformin to concurrent chemoradiation in patients with locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer JAMA Oncol 2021 7 1324 34323922 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2318 PMC8323052

97. Halatsch ME, Kast RE, Karpel-Massler G, Mayer B, Zolk O, Schmitz B, et al. A phase Ib/IIa trial of 9 repurposed drugs combined with temozolomide for the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma: CUSP9v3. Neurooncol Adv. 2021;1:3. 10.1093/noajnl/vdab075 PMC8349180 34377985

98. O’Rawe M Wickremesekera AC Pandey R Young D Sim D FitzJohn T Treatment of glioblastoma with re-purposed renin-angiotensin system modulators: results of a phase I clinical trial J Clin Neurosci 2022 95 48 54 34929651 10.1016/j.jocn.2021.11.023

99. Halabi SF. The drug repurposing ecosystem: intellectual property incentives, market exclusivity, and the future of “New” medicines. Yale J Law Technol. (2021);25:20.

100. Heled Y Patents V Statutory exclusivities in biological pharmaceuticals - do we really Need Both? Mich Telecom Tech L Rev 2012 18 419

101. Smith RB Repositioned drugs: integrating intellectual property and regulatory strategies Drug Discov Today Ther Strateg 2011 8 131 7

102. Radley DC Finkelstein SN Stafford RS Off-label prescribing among office-based physicians Arch Intern Med 2006 166 1021 16682577 10.1001/archinte.166.9.1021

103. Verbaanderd C Meheus L Huys I Pantziarka P Repurposing drugs in oncology: next steps. Trends Cancer 2017 3 543 6 28780930 10.1016/j.trecan.2017.06.007

104. Murphy SM Puwanant A Griggs RC Unintended effects of orphan product designation for rare neurological diseases Ann Neurol 2012 72 481 90 23109143 10.1002/ana.23672 PMC3490440

105. Verbaanderd C, Rooman I, Meheus L, Huys I On-Label or Off-Label? Overcoming regulatory and financial barriers to bring repurposed medicines to cancer patients. Front Pharmacol. 2020;31:10. 10.3389/fphar.2019.01664 PMC7006723 32076405

106. Mueller-Langer F Neglected infectious diseases: are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research? Health Econ Policy Law 2013 8 185 208 23343639 10.1017/S1744133112000321 PMC3592259

107. Sahragardjoonegani B Beall RF Kesselheim AS Hollis A Repurposing existing drugs for new uses: a cohort study of the frequency of FDA-granted new indication exclusivities since 1997 J Pharm Policy Pract 2021 14 3 33397471 10.1186/s40545-020-00282-8 PMC7780607

108. Krishnamurthy N Grimshaw AA Axson SA Choe SH Miller JE Drug repurposing: a systematic review on root causes, barriers and facilitators BMC Health Serv Res 2022 22 970 35906687 10.1186/s12913-022-08272-z PMC9336118

109. Lee JJ Haupt JP Scientific globalism during a global crisis: research collaboration and open access publications on COVID-19 High Educ 2021 81 949 66 10.1007/s10734-020-00589-0 PMC7378298 32836335

110. Fetro C Connecting academia and industry for innovative drug repurposing in rare diseases: it is worth a try Rare Dis Orphan Drugs J 2023 2 7

111. van den Berg S de Visser S Leufkens HGM Hollak CEM Drug repurposing for rare diseases: a role for academia Front Pharmacol 2021 12 2673 10.3389/fphar.2021.746987 PMC8564285 34744726

112. Roessler HI Knoers NVAM van Haelst MM van Haaften G Drug repurposing for rare diseases Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2021 42 255 67 33563480 10.1016/j.tips.2021.01.003

113. Tyrer F Bhaskaran K Rutherford MJ Immortal time bias for life-long conditions in retrospective observational studies using electronic health records BMC Med Res Methodol 2022 22 86 35350993 10.1186/s12874-022-01581-1 PMC8962148

114. DeFronzo RA Goodman AM Efficacy of metformin in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus N. Engl J Med 1995 333 541 9 7623902 10.1056/NEJM199508313330902

115. Hammer GP du Prel JB Blettner M Avoiding bias in observational studies: part 8 in a series of articles on evaluation of scientific publications Dtsch Arztebl Int 2009 106 664 8 19946431 10.3238/arztebl.2009.0664 PMC2780010

116. Devita VT Young RC Canellos GP Combination versus single agent chemotherapy: a review of the basis for selection of drug treatment of cancer Cancer. 1975 35 98 110 162854 10.1002/1097-0142(197501)35:1<98::aid-cncr2820350115>3.0.co;2-b

117. Michel MC Staskin D Study designs for evaluation of combination treatment: focus on individual patient benefit Biomedicines. 2022 10 270 35203479 10.3390/biomedicines10020270 PMC8869609

118. Lee SJC Murphy CC Geiger AM Gerber DE Cox JV Nair R Conceptual model for accrual to cancer clinical trials J Clin Oncol 2019 37 1993 6 31166822 10.1200/JCO.19.00101 PMC6879309

119. Rationalizing combination therapies. Nat Med. 2017;23:1113–1113. 10.1038/nm.4426 28985211

120. Maziarz M Stencel A The failure of drug repurposing for COVID-19 as an effect of excessive hypothesis testing and weak mechanistic evidence Hist Philos Life Sci. 2022 44 1 26 36258007 10.1007/s40656-022-00532-9 PMC9579070

121. Nowak-Sliwinska P Scapozza L Altaba AR Drug repurposing in oncology: compounds, pathways, phenotypes and computational approaches for colorectal cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer 2019 1871 434 54 31034926 10.1016/j.bbcan.2019.04.005 PMC6528778

122. Bluhmki T Bitzer S Gindele JA Schruf E Kiechle T Webster M Development of a miniaturized 96-Transwell air–liquid interface human small airway epithelial model Sci Rep 2020 10 13022 32747751 10.1038/s41598-020-69948-2 PMC7400554

123. Weeber F Ooft SN Dijkstra KK Voest EE Tumor organoids as a pre-clinical cancer model for drug discovery Cell Chem Biol 2017 24 1092 100 28757181 10.1016/j.chembiol.2017.06.012

124. Kesh K Gupta VK Durden B Garrido V Mateo-Victoriano B Lavania SP Therapy resistance, cancer stem cells and ECM in cancer: the matrix reloaded Cancers 2020 12 3067 33096662 10.3390/cancers12103067 PMC7589733

125. Keith CT Borisy AA Stockwell BR Multicomponent therapeutics for networked systems Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005 4 71 8 15688074 10.1038/nrd1609

126. Robert C Karaszewska B Schachter J Rutkowski P Mackiewicz A Stroiakovski D Improved overall survival in melanoma with combined dabrafenib and trametinib N Engl J Med 2015 372 30 9 25399551 10.1056/NEJMoa1412690

127. Brimblecombe R Duncan W Durant G Ganellin C Parsons M Black J The pharmacology of cimetidine, a new histamine H2-receptor antagonist Br J Pharm 2010 160 S52 3 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.00854.x PMC2947417 20590655

128. Wallach EE Adashi EY Clomiphene citrate: mechanism(s) and site(s) of action—a hypothesis revisited Fertil Steril 1984 42 331 44 6432584 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)48069-6

129. Lyne SB Yamini B An alternative pipeline for glioblastoma therapeutics: a systematic review of drug repurposing in glioblastoma Cancers. 2021 13 1953 33919596 10.3390/cancers13081953 PMC8073966

130. Cheng S Wang G Wang Y Cai L Qian K Ju L Fatty acid oxidation inhibitor etomoxir suppresses tumor progression and induces cell cycle arrest via PPARγ-mediated pathway in bladder cancer Clin Sci 2019 133 1745 58 10.1042/CS20190587 31358595

131. Ulrich-Merzenich G Kelber O Koptina A Freischmidt A Heilmann J Müller J Novel neurological and immunological targets for salicylate-based phytopharmaceuticals and for the anti-depressant imipramine Phytomedicine. 2012 19 930 9 22743246 10.1016/j.phymed.2012.05.004

132. Timilsina S Rajamanickam S Rao A Subbarayalu P Nirzhor S Abdelfattah N The antidepressant imipramine inhibits breast cancer growth by targeting estrogen receptor signaling and DNA repair events Cancer Lett 2022 540 215717 35568265 10.1016/j.canlet.2022.215717 PMC10313451

133. Thanacoody HK Thioridazine R The good and the bad Recent Pat Antiinfect Drug Discov 2011 6 92 8 21548877 10.2174/157489111796064588

134. Balfour JA Faulds D Repaglinide Drugs Aging 1998 13 173 80 9739505 10.2165/00002512-199813020-00008

135. el Sharkawi FZ el Shemy HA Khaled HM Possible anticancer activity of rosuvastatine, doxazosin, repaglinide and oxcarbazepin Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014 15 199 203 24528027 10.7314/apjcp.2014.15.1.199

136. Vaidya B Kulkarni NS Shukla SK Parvathaneni V Chauhan G Damon JK Development of inhalable quinacrine loaded bovine serum albumin modified cationic nanoparticles: repurposing quinacrine for lung cancer therapeutics Int J Pharm 2020 577 118995 31935471 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.118995

137. Roder C Thomson MJ Auranofin: repurposing an old drug for a golden new age Drugs R D 2015 15 13 20 25698589 10.1007/s40268-015-0083-y PMC4359176

138. Rudin CM Brahmer JR Juergens RA Hann CL Ettinger DS Sebree R Phase 2 study of pemetrexed and itraconazole as second-line therapy for metastatic nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer J Thorac Oncol 2013 8 619 23 23546045 10.1097/JTO.0b013e31828c3950 PMC3636564

139. Pan JX Ding K Wang CY Niclosamide, an old antihelminthic agent, demonstrates antitumor activity by blocking multiple signaling pathways of cancer stem cells Chin J Cancer 2012 31 178 84 22237038 10.5732/cjc.011.10290 PMC3777479

140. Lu C Li X Ren Y Zhang X Disulfiram: a novel repurposed drug for cancer therapy Cancer Chemother Pharm 2021 87 159 72 10.1007/s00280-020-04216-8 33426580

141. Tonussi CR Ferreira SH Mechanism of diclofenac analgesia: direct blockade of inflammatory sensitization Eur J Pharm 1994 251 173 9 10.1016/0014-2999(94)90398-0 7908638

142. Pantziarka P, Sukhatme V, Bouche G, Melhuis L, Sukhatme VP. Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDO)—diclofenac as an anti-cancer agent. Ecancermedicalsci. 2016;11:10. 10.3332/ecancer.2016.610 PMC4720497 26823679

143. Ban TA Fifty years chlorpromazine: a historical perspective Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2007 3 495 500 19300578 PMC2655089

144. Matteoni S Matarrese P Ascione B Ricci-Vitiani L Pallini R Villani V Chlorpromazine induces cytotoxic autophagy in glioblastoma cells via endoplasmic reticulum stress and unfolded protein response J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2021 40 347 34740374 10.1186/s13046-021-02144-w PMC8569984

145. Davignon J Xhignesse M Mailloux H Frohlich J Hayden ML Vaneeta H Mishkel MA McQueen MJ Tan MH Wolfe B Nikkila E Tikkanen MJ Ojaja JP Helve E Dujovne CA Horniman S Goldberg I Ginsberg H Goldberg R Farkas R Lovastatin 5-year safety and efficacy study Arch Intern Med 1993 153 1079 87 8481075

146. Bouterfa HL Sattelmeyer V Czub S Inhibition of Ras farnesylation by lovastatin leads to downregulation of proliferation and migration in primary cultured human glioblastoma cells Anticancer Res 2000 20 2761 71 10953355

147. Zheng C Yan S Lu L Yao H He G Chen S Lovastatin Inhibits EMT and Metastasis of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Stem Cells Through Dysregulation of Cytoskeleton-Associated Proteins Front Oncol 2021 11 656687 34150623 10.3389/fonc.2021.656687 PMC8212055

148. Briceño E Reyes S Sotelo J Therapy of glioblastoma multiforme improved by the antimutagenic chloroquine Neurosurg Focus 2003 14 1 6 10.3171/foc.2003.14.2.4 15727424

149. Kaldor SW Kalish VJ Davies JF Shetty BV Fritz JE Appelt K Viracept (Nelfinavir Mesylate, AG1343): a potent, orally bioavailable inhibitor of HIV-1 protease J Med Chem 1997 40 3979 85 9397180 10.1021/jm9704098

150. Zhou H S Beevers C Huang S The targets of curcumin Curr Drug Targets 2011 12 332 47 20955148 10.2174/138945011794815356 PMC3025067

151. Shehzad A Wahid F Lee YS Curcumin in cancer chemoprevention: molecular targets, pharmacokinetics, bioavailability, and clinical trials Arch Pharm 2010 343 489 99 10.1002/ardp.200900319 20726007

152. Gilbert Elizabeth R Liu D Anti-diabetic functions of soy isoflavone genistein: mechanisms underlying its effects on pancreatic β-cell function Food Funct 2013 4 200 12 23160185 10.1039/c2fo30199g PMC3678366

153. Barnes S Peterson TG Coward L Rationale for the use of genistein-containing soy matrices in chemoprevention trials for breast and prostate cancer J Cell Biochem 1995 59 181 7 10.1002/jcb.240590823 8538197

154. Chen YX Gao QY Zou TH Wang BM Liu SD Sheng JQ Berberine versus placebo for the prevention of recurrence of colorectal adenoma: a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled study Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020 5 267 75 31926918 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30409-1

155. Nygren P Larsson R Drug repositioning from bench to bedside: tumour remission by the antihelmintic drug mebendazole in refractory metastatic colon cancer Acta Oncol 2014 53 427 8 24160353 10.3109/0284186X.2013.844359

156. Li P Wu H Zhang H Shi Y Xu J Ye Y Aspirin use after diagnosis but not prediagnosis improves established colorectal cancer survival: a meta-analysis Gut. 2015 64 1419 25 25239119 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308260

157. Lewis PJ Haeusler G Reduction in sympathetic nervous activity as a mechanism for hypotensive effect of propranolol Nature. 1975 256 440 440 1143350 10.1038/256440a0

158. Fjæstad KY Rømer AMA Goitea V Johansen AZ Thorseth ML Carretta M Blockade of beta-adrenergic receptors reduces cancer growth and enhances the response to anti-CTLA4 therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment Oncogene. 2022 41 1364 75 35017664 10.1038/s41388-021-02170-0 PMC8881216

159. Colafigli M Ciccullo A Borghetti A Fanti I Melis F Modica S Impact of antiretroviral therapy on the risk of recurrence in HIV-1 infected patients with kaposi sarcoma: a multicenter cohort experience J Clin Med 2019 8 2062 31771172 10.3390/jcm8122062 PMC6947508

160. Figg WD Hussain MH Gulley JL Arlen PM Aragon-Ching JB Petrylak DP A double-blind randomized crossover study of oral thalidomide versus placebo for androgen dependent prostate cancer treated with intermittent androgen ablation J Urol 2009 181 1104 13 19167733 10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.026 PMC2838198

161. Tonkens R An overview of the drug development process Physician Exec 2005 31 48 52 16048163