Background
Resistance often follows initial responses to chemotherapy. This phenomenon was first noted for alkylating agents in the 1940s [ 1 – 3 ], and although combinations of chemotherapeutic agents led to improved survival [ 4 – 6 ], resistance has remained a problem for classical chemotherapy and newer targeted agents [ 7 ]. Cell culture methods allowed study of the phenomenon in vitro, and cell lines have been widely used to explore the mechanisms involved [ 7 , 8 ]. Classical multidrug resistance (MDR) was recognised early in the development of chemotherapy and MDR1 ( ABCB1 , PgP) was identified in 1986 [ 9 ], followed by other drug efflux pumps [ 10 ]. Fig. 1 We recognise six hallmarks of anti-cancer drug resistance. Cancer cells may alter drug targets by mutation or reduced expression; upregulate the expression of drug pumps; increase the activity of expression of drug detoxification mechanisms; reduce their susceptibility to apoptosis; alter their level of proliferation; and increase their ability to repair DNA damage. All of these may be employed at once, but there is considerable heterogeneity between tumours, requiring an individualised approach to cancer treatment
The rapidity with which cancer cells can develop resistance to chemotherapy is startling. Using samples from an early neoadjuvant breast cancer trial, we were able to show a considerable difference in chemosensitivity between cancer cells obtained prior to and following four cycles of CMF chemotherapy [ 11 ]. The dogma that resistance arose from overgrowth of resistant cell clones due to new mutations was clearly incorrect. We went on to show that tumour-derived cells in primary cell culture down-regulate drug targets and up-regulate resistance mechanisms compared with untreated cells [ 12 ]. It is now clear that cancer chemosensitivity is governed by the relative expression of sensitivity and resistance mechanisms, determined by both genetic and environmental factors within tumours [ 13 – 15 ].
Initially many tumours appear to respond to treatment but, as not all the neoplastic cells are killed, this residual population enables regrowth of tumours that no longer respond to a wide variety of drugs [ 11 ]. This is cannot be explained by just one mechanism: extreme drug resistance is far more likely to be derived from both gene regulation and mutation. Thus, although in some cases acquired drug resistance may appear to be due to specific mutations, in many cases rapid resistance originates from multiple non-mutational, non-genetic mechanisms [ 12 , 14 , 15 ].
As targeted agents such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) came into practice, it was rapidly noted that these too exhibited the development of resistance, but usually a much slower rate [ 16 – 18 ]. In GIST, imatinib resistance was been found to be due to new mutations, and these often arise in one deposit while others continue to respond [ 19 – 24 ]. Similar results are seen for other mutation-targeted agents including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [ 25 – 28 ], BRAF inhibitors in melanoma [ 29 , 30 ], and HER2 inhibition in breast cancer [ 31 , 32 ]. A tumour can compensate for EGFR (HER1) blockade through the activation of alternative signaling pathways such as amplification of MET as well as through changes in tumour microenvironment [ 33 ]. EMT has also been reported in NSCLC samples from patients who had developed resistance to EGFR inhibition [ 33 ], and some patients develop small cell lung cancer, via neuroendocrine differentiation [ 34 ].
Mechanisms of resistance
The principles underlying the development of anti-cancer drugs resistance apply across all the anti-cancer drugs we have studied, though some are more common in different drug-tumour combinations. The mechanisms fall into a number of distinct categories (Fig. 1 ), and often occur together, complicating attempts to combat them: Alteration of Drug Targets: While it is common to separate drugs used in chemotherapy from newer agents targeting molecular pathways, it is of course a truism that all drugs have targets. These targets can be altered by cells in a number of ways. Rapid down-regulation of a target gene expression is an obvious ploy, exemplified by the effect of doxorubicin on topoisomerase IIα [ 12 ], but more subtle alteration of drug targets by mutation is also common particularly in response to targeted agents such as receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors [ 21 , 22 , 25 , 30 , 32 ]. If the target is part of a pathway activated by other molecules, then the cell may activate an alternative molecular mechanism – mutation of EGFR in ALK fusion gene positive lung cancer is a good example [ 28 , 35 , 36 ]. Expression of drug efflux pumps: The ATP-binding cassette (ABC) superfamily of proteins includes a number of membrane proteins able to transport a wide diversity of substrates. Besides an ability to transport of toxins out of cells, other substrates include amino acids, peptides, sugars, lipids, steroids, bile salts, nucleotides and endogenous metabolites [ 10 ]. These pumps act to protect cells by ejecting a wide variety of toxins. Although in bacteria this toxin might be an antibiotic, in human cancer it is often an anticancer drug. Classical drug resistance is mediated by the MDR1 ( ABCB1 ) gene, which encodes a membrane-based xenobiotic pump molecule, known as phenolic glycoprotein (PgP). This pump is relatively promiscuous and ejects drugs from the cell at a rate that may exceed their entry, rendering the cell resistant. One of the more important molecules of the blood-brain barrier, it has been much studied. This in turn led to the discovery of numerous other pumps, and the human genome contains 49 ABC transporter molecules [ 10 ], many of which can pump drugs. Besides MDR1 the best known are multidrug resistance related protein ( MRP1, ABCC1 ) and breast cancer related protein ( BCRP, ABCG2 ). Pharmaceutical chemists now design drugs with this mind, so that pump mechanisms are less problematic than they were, though even some TKIs, including gefitinib and erlotinib [ 37 , 38 ], are pumped. Metabolite and nucleotide pumps have also been found to be of importance, and genes such as hENT1 have been reported to be important mediators of chemosensitivity in gene expression studies [ 13 – 15 ]. Rapid up-regulation of drugs pumps can occur in cancer cells and lead to resistance [ 12 ]. Expression of detoxification mechanisms: Drug metabolism occurs at the host level, where it underlies the pharmacokinetics of many drugs, and within cancer cells themselves, where there may be considerable heterogeneity. Molecules such as gluthathione S-transferase (GSTπ) are well known to be up-regulated in some cancers and a potential cause of resistance [ 12 , 39 ]. It is possible that conjugation and excretion of drugs at the luminal surface of some well-differentiated adenocarcinomas may explain the relationship between differentiation and drug sensitivity to some drugs, but this remains uncertain [ 40 – 42 ]. Altered local drug metabolism and detoxification are key resistance mechanisms across many cancers. As an example, these processes have been investigated in the plasma cell cancer, Multiple Myeloma (MM), where a majority of patients repeatedly relapse and finally succumb to the disease [ 43 ]. The expression of 350 genes encoding for uptake carriers, xenobiotic receptors, phase I and II drug metabolising enzymes and efflux transporters was assessed in MM cells of newly-diagnosed patients. There was a global downregulation of genes encoding for xenobiotic receptors and downstream detoxification genes in patients with an unfavourable outcome. However, there was a higher expression of genes encoding for the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator and Nrf2 pathways as well as the ABC transporters in these patients [ 43 ]. Reduced susceptibility to apoptosis and cell death: Apoptosis was recognised as a unique form of cell death by Currie and others in the 1970s [ 44 , 45 ]. It attracted the attention from pathologists, but it was not until experiments by Gerard Evan et al. [ 46 – 48 ] that it became clear that avoidance of apoptosis underpinned the development of cancer and was an important resistance mechanism for cancer cells to both chemotherapy [ 8 , 47 , 48 ] and agents targeting signaling pathways [ 49 – 51 ]. Other forms of cell death may also be triggered by anti-cancer drugs, including necrosis, necroptosis, and autophagy [ 52 ]. In all cases, the key feature in resistance seems to be survival signalling which prevents cell death. Not all forms of cell death are the same, and the level of damage required to achieve cell death is variable. This particularly true of autophagy, which can either promote chemosensitisation or chemoresistance [ 53 ]. In some cases, its inhibition can chemosensitise tumours [ 54 ]. Necroptosis is a caspase-independent form of cell death induced by receptor-interacting protein kinases (RIP1 and RIP3) or mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein (MLKL). Its importance in cancer treatment is controversial, but its induction may circumvent anti-apoptotic mechanisms [ 55 ]. Increased ability to repair DNA damage: As cancers must acquire permanent genomic mutations, cancer can be viewed as a disease of DNA repair as changes in these genes produce the mutator phenotype essential the for the acquisition of further mutations. Once a mutation is acquired cancers often become addicted to a different DNA repair pathway. A good example of this is exemplified by BRCA1/2. As BRACA1/2 are key components of a DNA double strand repair pathway these cancers become dependent on another DNA repair component, PARP1, for replication fork progression [ 56 , 57 ]. Inhibition of PARP1 in these cancer cells is catastrophic and results in their death. This is the concept of synthetic lethality [ 58 ] and has been proposed as a potential Achilles heel in a cancer cell’s defense. Although this concept may enable the clinician to increase the therapeutic index between cancer and normal cells, it is expected that these approaches will also have the potential to develop resistance. DNA damage is recognised by cells, and if they cannot repair the damage, this leads to apoptosis [ 12 , 59 ]. If apoptotic potential is reduced, then cells can survive considerable DNA damage, but an alternative is to up-regulate DNA repair [ 59 ]. Many cells of course do both. Altered proliferation: The normal response to DNA damage that cannot be repaired is apoptosis, but as Gerard Evan showed in diploid fibroblasts, the threshold for death is much higher in cells that are not growing [ 46 ]. Transient reduction in growth is mediated in part by P53 [ 60 ]. Levels of P53 rise and at first simply reduce cell cycle, only tipping over to stimulate apoptosis at a certain threshold [ 60 ].
Other factors
In addition to these key mechanisms there are several other factors external to the neoplastic cell that can contribute to resistance. These include the influence of the tumour stroma and microenvironment [ 61 , 62 ], the role of tumour-initiating cells as part of intra-tumoural heterogeneity, autophagy [ 63 ] and intra-tumoural heterogeneity [ 64 ].
Although much of the field of cancer drug resistance has been focused on the tumour cell and its ability to develop resistance, the ‘host’ can also play a major role in promoting resistance to therapy. Chemotherapy, targeted therapies and radiotherapy all lead to the recruitment of different host cells and factors to the tumour microenvironment. This host response can then contribute to resistance by inducing various cellular and molecular pathways that support the tumour, for example by driving tumour cell proliferation (Altered Proliferation) or survival (Reduced susceptibility to apoptosis ) . As the tumour microenvironment is heterogeneous it can help support a variety of resistance mechanisms. For example various cellular pathways are affected by tumour hypoxia, and thus tissue hypoxia can contribute to development of resistance [ 61 ].
Tumour-initiating cells may also play a key role in tumour recurrence as these cancer stem cells (CSCs) are able to utilise a number of mechanisms to evade chemotherapy (e.g. expression of ABC transporters, enhanced expression of aldehyde dehydrogenase, expression of pro-survival proteins altered DNA damage response and altered signaling pathways) [ 65 , 66 ]. As a result of their ability to better tolerate drug exposure, CSCs are often refractory to drug treatment. For example, integrin αvβ3 expression in multiple types of solid tumour stem cells controls a pro-survival pathway involving activation of KRAS, which may contribute to TKI drug resistance [ 67 ].
Autophagy is a complex issue as induction of autophagy can have both a pro-death and a pro-survival role [ 63 , 68 ]. Thus autophagy can influence both the anticancer efficacy of drugs as well as contribute to drug resistance. In its role as a cellular housekeeper autophagy removes damaged organelles and by recycling macromolecules can protect against cancer formation. However, in established tumours this ‘protective’ role can switch to a pro-survival function as, when cancer cells are stressed, autophagy can enable the tumour to respond to its environmental conditions through reducing growth and by increasing the catabolic turnover of unnecessary proteins and organelles. Under these conditions inhibition of autophagy may actually help overcome resistance to chemotherapy [ 68 ].
Tumours show considerable heterogeneity in the extent to which they use these mechanisms [ 12 , 15 ]: and it is likely that there is also considerable intra-tumoural heterogeneity, given the presence of multiple clones within tumours [ 64 ].
Use of multiple mechanisms
Cancers can employ several resistance mechanisms, either sequentially or concurrently to evade drug treatment. Four examples are described to illustrate this point, including classical chemotherapy and targeted agents: Topoisomerase II inhibitors remain a mainstay of both haematological and solid tumour therapy, but their clinical efficacy is often limited by resistance. Many mechanisms may contribute to this resistance including reduced drug accumulation and/or increased efflux, site specific mutations affecting drug-induced topo II mediated DNA damage, post-translational modifications resulting in altered DNA damage and downstream cytotoxic responses [ 12 , 15 ]. Anti-HER2 antibodies such as Herceptin develop acquired resistance through a variety of mechanisms, including activation of tyrosine kinase in CSCs, upregulation of HER3, activating mutations in the p110a subunit of PIKK (PIK3CA), enhanced HER-ligand autocrine signaling and alterations in apoptotic pathways [ 69 ]. HER3 has now also been proposed as potentially driving survival of HER2+ cells once they have developed resistance to HER2 inhibitors such as lapatinib and trastuzumab [ 69 ]. Bortezomib was the first proteasome inhibitor to enter practice. Again a wide range of mechanisms have been reported in acquired resistance to this drug, which has an important role in the treatment of several haematological cancers. These include mutations in proteasome subunits, unfolded protein response, XBP1 and MARCKS proteins, aggresomes, the role of constitutive and immunoproteasomes, alterations in pro-survival signalling pathways, changes in bone marrow microenvironment and autophagy as well as other multidrug resistance mechanisms [ 70 , 71 ]. Antibody-drug conjugates can also be limited by acquired resistance [ 72 ]. As with small molecules, this resistance is multifactorial and can include altered interaction with the target, altered apoptosis pathways and altered survival pathways. In addition, the payload for any antibody drug conjugate approach is likely to be sensitive to the same range of resistance mechanisms described for small molecule drugs.
It is clear that understanding these mechanisms has enabled the field to undertake more rational development of the next generation of drugs to overcome clinical resistance. Beyond chemical modification of a drug, advances in other technologies are also looking promising. For example nanoparticle delivery systems to allow better targeting or addressing specific molecular alterations in resistant tumours [ 73 ]. It may also be possible to develop multifunctional nanoparticles able to simultaneously target multiple resistance mechanisms.
Strategies to overcome resistance
Understanding of resistance mechanisms has now advanced to the point where experimental approaches can now start to predict clinical drug resistance. In vitro these approaches include target-based mutagenesis, use of isogenic tumour cell lines, both gain and loss of function resistance screens, and in depth analysis (cellular, genomic and molecular) of drug-resistant tumours. Further information will be gained from both genetically-engineered mouse models, patient-derived xenografts, and ex vivo primary cell culture models. A number of strategies have been used in cancer treatment to overcome the problem of resistance. The development of new synthetic analogues of existing drugs has been the usual response to try to circumvent resistance. It is possibly best exemplified in the vinca alkaloid derived drugs, where greater potency has been achieved by chemical alteration of molecules [ 74 , 75 ]. In some cases however, this approach has been less than successful, as it tends to increase toxicity. Combinations have been used in oncology since multiple drugs became available. Most combinations have been developed empirically, on the basis that if two drugs are active, then the combination should be more active still. This has been a successful approach, but as the number of possible combinations has risen, the number of expensive clinical trials required to fine-tune such combinations has made this approach less attractive. Cell lines have been used to design combinations, with some success, but the reality is that highly passaged cell lines are poor models of cancer cell behavior [ 76 , 77 ]. We have previously used primary cell culture to develop new combinations, with considerable success [ 78 ]. It is clearly important to stratify patients based on whether they are likely to respond to a particular therapy or combination. Although cell lines can provide a useful first step they are unable to effectively model the complex tumour–stroma interactions that contribute to the development of drug resistance. It is now suggested that combining therapies that target two or more orthogonal, ‘independent’ pathways, will be preferable to attempting to hit two or more targets on the same pathway. It is hoped that this approach will reduce the tumour’s ability to mount an effective resistance campaign. Sequential strategies have much to recommend them, both to increase efficacy and reduce toxicity. Despite some success, relatively few sequential combinations have entered clinical practice, as until recently the molecular understanding of their efficacy has been lacking [ 79 ]. DNA and RNA sequencing technologies are now at a point where they can be used as companion diagnostic technologies, and the effects of sequential drug administration can be predicted [ 80 ]. Synthetic lethality is used to describe a mechanistic approach to combination and sequence design. Tumour-specific genetic changes can make cancer cells more vulnerable to synthetic-lethality strategies and so enable the clinician to target tumour cells while sparing normal cells. These mutations in cancer genes may be either loss or gain of function and the concept can be extended to contextual synthetic lethality to include defects in metabolic processes and rewiring signaling networks and tumour-associated hypoxia [ 81 ]. Nevertheless, even with a new generation of novel targeted cancer therapies based on the concept of synthetic lethality, the potential for secondary acquired resistance remains. Mutation or inactivation of P53 is usually thought to be anti-apoptotic, allowing cells to avoid the induction of apoptosis. However, chemosensitivity experiments in ovarian cancer showed that this was not always the case [ 82 ], and subsequent studies have shown that under certain conditions, mutation of P53 can confer susceptibility to apoptosis [ 60 ]. It is increasingly clear that such approaches to synthetic lethality are achievable with sufficient knowledge of the molecular makeup of individual cancers [ 60 ]. In high grade serous ovarian cancer, characterised by P53 mutation, 20% of patients have BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations rendering them susceptible to PARP inhibitors, and methylation of the BRCA1 promoter has a similar effect [ 83 ]. Drug development and companion diagnostic development strategies need to be aligned, and tested in a variety of pre-clinical settings before use in man. Immunotherapy has long been suggested as a solution to many of the problems of anti-cancer drug resistance. The advent of anti-CTLA antibody treatment with ipilimumab in melanoma [ 84 ] showed that the promise was likely to be fulfilled, and the success of anti-PD1 and anti-PDL1 antibodies alone and in combination with anti-CTLA4 antibody treatment is nothing short of a revolution in melanoma and lung cancer, to mention but two target cancers of the many that are likely to benefit from these agents. Understanding of resistance to these agents is at an early stage [ 85 ], and the benefits of combination or sequential use of immunotherapeutics with chemotherapy or targeted agents has yet to be established. However, it is already clear that PDL1 expression by the neoplastic cells is useful as a companion diagnostic, despite difficulties of implementation [ 86 ]. Neo-antigen load is related to mutational load [ 87 ], and cancers with high mutational load seem to respond well to immunotherapy [ 88 , 89 ]. It is entirely possible that accurate immune profiling of tumours will require multiple methods.
Genetic and epigenetic events, as well as extracellular signals, can activate pathways that enable cancer cells to become chemoresistant to therapeutic agents. This situation has encouraged a more systematic approach to identifying those signaling pathways that might confer resistance to cancer drugs. This approach will not only help stratify patients into groups either more or less likely to respond, but also will help design drug combinations that act simultaneously on multiple cancer cell dependencies and resistant pathways.
Molecular pathology
Alterations of proteins and nucleic acids can be identified with increasing accuracy, and their concentration measured accurately and precisely using a variety of different methods [ 90 , 91 ], some of which can be applied to blood samples without ever needing a biopsy of the tumour. Implementation of these methods in pathology departments is proceeding rapidly [ 90 ], and the measurements are increasingly used by oncologists to tailor treatment to individual measurements. The challenge to the diagnostic pathologist is to go beyond diagnosis to provide the information needed to treat the patient [ 92 ], while the challenge to the oncologist is to understand the information provided and adopt a strategy that gives the patient the longest possible survival with the greatest possible quality of life [ 93 , 94 ]. The use of specific TKIs is often guided by closely linked companion diagnostics, such as EGFR or KRAS mutation status according to the licensed indication [ 92 ]. Late resistance mechanisms often involve further mutations, and these may require more extensive testing. In contrast to companion diagnostics, the term ‘complementary diagnostics’ describes a broader group of diagnostics associated with a class of drugs, unconstrained by drug license and used to guide therapy [ 95 ]. As the number of drugs and targets increase, use of complementary diagnostics are likely to be required to optimise therapy, based on methods such as targeted next generation sequencing [ 80 ].
Conclusions
Cancer teams need to learn to play molecular chess – effectively outthinking the cancer’s likely response to any treatment used, and to be ready for it. The tools provided by the pharmaceutical industry to allow this have never been better, and coupled with increasingly sophisticated radiotherapy and surgery, allow many patients to survive for years and even decades with cancers that would have killed them rapidly just 30 years ago. The principles of drug resistance – or perhaps the rules of molecular chess – are increasingly clear and can improve patient care.
Abbreviations
ATP-binding cassette
ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 1
Anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase
Adenosine triphosphate
Breast cancer related protein ( ABCG2 )
B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase
BRCA, DNA repair associated
Cyclofosfamide, Methotrexate and 5-Fluorouracil
Cancer stem cell
Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4
Dexoxyribose nucleic acid
Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor
Epithelial mesenchymal transition
Gastrointestinal stromal tumour
Gluthathione S-transferase
Human epidermal growth factor receptor
Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog
Myristoylated alanine rich protein kinase C substrate
Multidrug resistance (MDR)
MET proto-oncogene, receptor tyrosine kinase
Mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein
Multiple Myeloma
multidrug resistance related protein ( ABCC1 )
Nf-E2 related factor 2
Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
Tumor protein p53
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1
Programmed cell death protein 1
Programmed death ligand 1 (B7-H1, CD274)
p-glycoprotein
p110a subunit of PIKK
Receptor-interacting protein kinase 1
Receptor-interacting protein kinase 3
Ribonucleic acid
Tyrosine kinase inhibitor
X-box binding protein 1
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all those who have contributed through discussion and collaboration over many years to make personalised medicine a reality.
Funding
None.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions
IC and PC conceived the idea and co-wrote the paper. Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Authors’ information
IC is a molecular pathologist, and holds honorary chairs at UCL and Coventry University. He chairs the research committee of the Royal College of Pathologists.
PC was formerly Director of Biology at Xenova Ltd and VP Biology at Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Europe). He is currently a Venture Partner at Imperial Innovations and has an honorary chair at the University of Warwick.
Competing interests
IC has shares in CanTech Ltd, and has acted as a consultant to the pharmaceutical and diagnostics industry on personalised medicine, including Astra-Zeneca, Amgen, Pfizer, Merck, MSD, Biocartis, Novartis and Roche.
PC previously worked for Xenova and Vertex Pharmaceuticals. He is currently a Venture Partner at Imperial Innovations and advises companies on cancer drug development.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
References
1. Jacobson LO Spurr CL Guzman ES Barron ES Smith T Lushbaugh C Dick GF Nitrogen mustard therapy. Studies on the Effect of Methyl-Bis (Beta-Chloroethyl) Amine Hydrochloride on Neoplastic Diseases and Allied Disorders of the Hemopoietic System JAMA 1946 132 5 263 71 10.1001/jama.1946.02870400011003 20997209
2. Rhoads CP Nitrogen mustards in the treatment of neoplastic disease JAMA 1946 131 656 8 10.1001/jama.1946.02870250010003 20984885
3. Goodman LS Wintrobe MM Nitrogen mustard therapy; use of methyl-bis (beta-chloroethyl) amine hydrochloride and tris (beta-chloroethyl) amine hydrochloride for Hodgkin’s disease, lymphosarcoma, leukemia and certain allied and miscellaneous disorders J Am Med Assoc 1946 132 126 32 10.1001/jama.1946.02870380008004 20997191
4. Woodside GL Kelton DE Combination chemotherapy of mouse tumors with 8-azaguanine and flavotin Cancer Res 1955 15 6 390 3 13240678
5. Mantel N An experimental design in combination chemotherapy Ann N Y Acad Sci 1958 76 3 909 14 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1958.tb54909.x 13627918
6. Frei E 3rd A comparative study of two regimens of combination chemotherapy in acute leukemia Blood 1958 13 12 1126 48 13596417
7. Cree IA Chemosensitization of solid tumors by modulation of resistance mechanisms Curr Opin Investig Drugs 2002 3 4 634 40 12090736
8. Cree IA Chemosensitization of solid tumor cells by alteration of their susceptibility to apoptosis Curr Opin Investig Drugs 2002 3 4 641 7 12090737
9. Gros P Isolation and expression of a complementary DNA that confers multidrug resistance Nature 1986 323 6090 728 31 10.1038/323728a0 3022150
10. Vasiliou V Vasiliou K Nebert DW Human ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter family Hum Genomics 2009 3 3 281 90 10.1186/1479-7364-3-3-281 19403462 PMC2752038
11. Cree IA Correlation of the clinical response to chemotherapy in breast cancer with ex vivo chemosensitivity Anticancer Drugs 1996 7 6 630 5 10.1097/00001813-199608000-00002 8913430
12. Di Nicolantonio F Cancer cell adaptation to chemotherapy BMC Cancer 2005 5 78 10.1186/1471-2407-5-78 16026610 PMC1199589
13. Parker KA The molecular basis of the chemosensitivity of metastatic cutaneous melanoma to chemotherapy J Clin Pathol 2010 63 11 1012 20 10.1136/jcp.2010.080119 20924094
14. Glaysher S Molecular basis of chemosensitivity of platinum pre-treated ovarian cancer to chemotherapy Br J Cancer 2010 103 5 656 62 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605817 20700122 PMC2938260
15. Glaysher S Resistance gene expression determines the in vitro chemosensitivity of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) BMC Cancer 2009 9 300 10.1186/1471-2407-9-300 19712441 PMC2739227
16. Bello DM Dematteo RP Ariyan CE The GIST of targeted therapy for malignant melanoma Ann Surg Oncol 2014 21 6 2059 67 10.1245/s10434-013-3373-z 24531699 PMC4041068
17. Demetri GD Identification and treatment of chemoresistant inoperable or metastatic GIST: experience with the selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib mesylate (STI571) Eur J Cancer 2002 38 Suppl 5 S52 9 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)80603-7 12528773
18. Mahadevan D A novel tyrosine kinase switch is a mechanism of imatinib resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors Oncogene 2007 26 27 3909 19 10.1038/sj.onc.1210173 17325667
19. Demetri GD Targeting c-kit mutations in solid tumors: scientific rationale and novel therapeutic options Semin Oncol 2001 28 5 Suppl 17 19 26 10.1053/sonc.2001.29181 11740803
20. George S Desai J Management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the era of tyrosine kinase inhibitors Curr Treat Options Oncol 2002 3 6 489 96 10.1007/s11864-002-0068-2 12392638
21. Antonescu CR Acquired resistance to imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor occurs through secondary gene mutation Clin Cancer Res 2005 11 11 4182 90 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2245 15930355
22. Lasota J Miettinen M KIT and PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) Semin Diagn Pathol 2006 23 2 91 102 10.1053/j.semdp.2006.08.006 17193822
23. Wardelmann E Polyclonal evolution of multiple secondary KIT mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors under treatment with imatinib mesylate Clin Cancer Res 2006 12 6 1743 9 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1211 16551858
24. Gounder MM Maki RG Molecular basis for primary and secondary tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumor Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2011 67 Suppl 1 S25 43 10.1007/s00280-010-1526-3 21116624 PMC3275340
25. Lynch TJ Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib N Engl J Med 2004 350 21 2129 39 10.1056/NEJMoa040938 15118073
26. Kobayashi S An alternative inhibitor overcomes resistance caused by a mutation of the epidermal growth factor receptor Cancer Res 2005 65 16 7096 101 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-1346 16103058
27. Costa DB Effects of erlotinib in EGFR mutated non-small cell lung cancers with resistance to gefitinib Clin Cancer Res 2008 14 21 7060 7 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1455 18981003 PMC2596582
28. Dearden S Mutation incidence and coincidence in non small-cell lung cancer: meta-analyses by ethnicity and histology (mutMap) Ann Oncol 2013 24 9 2371 6 10.1093/annonc/mdt205 23723294 PMC3755331
29. Nazarian R Melanomas acquire resistance to B-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or N-RAS upregulation Nature 2010 468 7326 973 7 10.1038/nature09626 21107323 PMC3143360
30. Turajlic S Whole-genome sequencing reveals complex mechanisms of intrinsic resistance to BRAF inhibition Ann Oncol 2014 25 5 959 67 10.1093/annonc/mdu049 24504448 PMC3999800
31. De P Hasmann M Leyland-Jones B Molecular determinants of trastuzumab efficacy: What is their clinical relevance? Cancer Treat Rev 2013 39 8 925 34 10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.02.006 23562214
32. Arteaga CL Treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: current status and future perspectives Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012 9 1 16 32 10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.177 22124364
33. van der Wekken AJ Resistance mechanisms after tyrosine kinase inhibitors afatinib and crizotinib in non-small cell lung cancer, a review of the literature Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2016 100 107 16 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.01.024 26852079
34. Oser MG Transformation from non-small-cell lung cancer to small-cell lung cancer: molecular drivers and cells of origin Lancet Oncol 2015 16 4 e165 72 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71180-5 25846096 PMC4470698
35. Mitiushkina NV Detection of EGFR mutations and EML4-ALK rearrangements in lung adenocarcinomas using archived cytological slides Cancer Cytopathol 2013 121 7 370 6 10.1002/cncy.21281 23408463
36. Kim S Heterogeneity of genetic changes associated with acquired crizotinib resistance in ALK-rearranged lung cancer J Thorac Oncol 2013 8 4 415 22 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318283dcc0 23344087
37. Colabufo NA EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors and multidrug resistance: perspectives Front Biosci (Landmark Ed) 2011 16 1811 23 10.2741/3823 21196266
38. Azzariti A Tyrosine kinase inhibitors and multidrug resistance proteins: interactions and biological consequences Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2010 65 2 335 46 10.1007/s00280-009-1039-0 19495754
39. Satta T Expression of MDR1 and glutathione S transferase-pi genes and chemosensitivities in human gastrointestinal cancer Cancer 1992 69 4 941 6 10.1002/1097-0142(19920215)69:4<941::AID-CNCR2820690418>3.0.CO;2-H 1735085
40. Singh S Cytoprotective and regulatory functions of glutathione S-transferases in cancer cell proliferation and cell death Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015 75 1 1 15 10.1007/s00280-014-2566-x 25143300
41. Di Pietro G Magno LA Rios-Santos F Glutathione S-transferases: an overview in cancer research Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2010 6 2 153 70 10.1517/17425250903427980 20078251
42. Ruzza P Glutathione transferases as targets for cancer therapy Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2009 9 7 763 77 10.2174/187152009789056895 19538171
43. Hassen W Drug metabolism and clearance system in tumor cells of patients with multiple myeloma Oncotarget 2015 6 8 6431 47 10.18632/oncotarget.3237 25669983 PMC4467447
44. Wyllie AH Kerr JF Currie AR Cell death: the significance of apoptosis Int Rev Cytol 1980 68 251 306 10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62312-8 7014501
45. Kerr JF Wyllie AH Currie AR Apoptosis: a basic biological phenomenon with wide-ranging implications in tissue kinetics Br J Cancer 1972 26 4 239 57 10.1038/bjc.1972.33 4561027 PMC2008650
46. Harrington EA c-Myc-induced apoptosis in fibroblasts is inhibited by specific cytokines EMBO J 1994 13 14 3286 95 8045259 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1994.tb06630.x PMC395225
47. Longley DB Johnston PG Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance J Pathol 2005 205 2 275 92 10.1002/path.1706 15641020
48. Makin G Dive C Modulating sensitivity to drug-induced apoptosis: the future for chemotherapy? Breast Cancer Res 2001 3 3 150 3 10.1186/bcr289 11305949 PMC138679
49. Cassinelli G Targeting the Akt kinase to modulate survival, invasiveness and drug resistance of cancer cells Curr Med Chem 2013 20 15 1923 45 10.2174/09298673113209990106 23410153
50. Glaysher S Activity of EGFR, mTOR and PI3K inhibitors in an isogenic breast cell line model BMC Res Notes 2014 7 397 10.1186/1756-0500-7-397 24964744 PMC4080989
51. Glaysher S Targeting EGFR and PI3K pathways in ovarian cancer Br J Cancer 2013 109 7 1786 94 10.1038/bjc.2013.529 24022196 PMC3790180
52. Kroemer G Classification of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2009 Cell Death Differ 2009 16 1 3 11 10.1038/cdd.2008.150 18846107 PMC2744427
53. Notte A Leclere L Michiels C Autophagy as a mediator of chemotherapy-induced cell death in cancer Biochem Pharmacol 2011 82 5 427 34 10.1016/j.bcp.2011.06.015 21704023
54. Morselli E Anti- and pro-tumor functions of autophagy Biochim Biophys Acta 2009 1793 9 1524 32 10.1016/j.bbamcr.2009.01.006 19371598
55. Su Z Apoptosis, autophagy, necroptosis, and cancer metastasis Mol Cancer 2015 14 48 10.1186/s12943-015-0321-5 25743109 PMC4343053
56. Wesierska-Gadek J Differential Potential of Pharmacological PARP Inhibitors for Inhibiting Cell Proliferation and Inducing Apoptosis in Human Breast Cancer Cells J Cell Biochem 2015 116 12 2824 39 10.1002/jcb.25229 25981734
57. Tewari KS Eskander RN Monk BJ Development of Olaparib for BRCA-Deficient Recurrent Epithelial Ovarian Cancer Clin Cancer Res 2015 21 17 3829 35 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0088 26169965
58. Liu FW Tewari KS New Targeted Agents in Gynecologic Cancers: Synthetic Lethality, Homologous Recombination Deficiency, and PARP Inhibitors Curr Treat Options Oncol 2016 17 3 12 10.1007/s11864-015-0378-9 26931795 PMC5927601
59. Pflaum J Schlosser S Muller M p53 Family and Cellular Stress Responses in Cancer Front Oncol 2014 4 285 10.3389/fonc.2014.00285 25374842 PMC4204435
60. Beckta JM Revisiting p53 for cancer-specific chemo- and radiotherapy: ten years after Cell Cycle 2014 13 5 710 3 10.4161/cc.28108 24526114 PMC3979907
61. Murakami A Hypoxia increases gefitinib-resistant lung cancer stem cells through the activation of insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor PLoS One 2014 9 1 e86459 10.1371/journal.pone.0086459 24489728 PMC3904884
62. Bao B Targeting CSCs in tumor microenvironment: the potential role of ROS-associated miRNAs in tumor aggressiveness Curr Stem Cell Res Ther 2014 9 1 22 35 10.2174/1574888X113089990053 23957937 PMC4493722
63. Carew JS Nawrocki ST Cleveland JL Modulating autophagy for therapeutic benefit Autophagy 2007 3 5 464 7 10.4161/auto.4311 17495516
64. Fisher R Pusztai L Swanton C Cancer heterogeneity: implications for targeted therapeutics Br J Cancer 2013 108 3 479 85 10.1038/bjc.2012.581 23299535 PMC3593543
65. Abdullah LN Chow EK Mechanisms of chemoresistance in cancer stem cells Clin Transl Med 2013 2 1 3 10.1186/2001-1326-2-3 23369605 PMC3565873
66. Vencken SF An integrated analysis of the SOX2 microRNA response program in human pluripotent and nullipotent stem cell lines BMC Genomics 2014 15 711 10.1186/1471-2164-15-711 25156079 PMC4162954
67. Kannan N Nguyen LV Eaves CJ Integrin beta3 links therapy resistance and cancer stem cell properties Nat Cell Biol 2014 16 5 397 9 10.1038/ncb2960 24914436
68. Martinez-Outschoorn UE The autophagic tumor stroma model of cancer or “battery-operated tumor growth”: A simple solution to the autophagy paradox Cell Cycle 2010 9 21 4297 306 10.4161/cc.9.21.13817 21051947 PMC3055183
69. Zhang N HER3/ErbB3, an emerging cancer therapeutic target Acta Biochim Biophys Sin Shanghai 2016 48 1 39 48 26496898 10.1093/abbs/gmv103
70. Huber EM Heinemeyer W Groll M Bortezomib-resistant mutant proteasomes: structural and biochemical evaluation with carfilzomib and ONX 0914 Structure 2015 23 2 407 17 10.1016/j.str.2014.11.019 25599643
71. Verbrugge SE Inactivating PSMB5 mutations and P-glycoprotein (multidrug resistance-associated protein/ATP-binding cassette B1) mediate resistance to proteasome inhibitors: ex vivo efficacy of (immuno)proteasome inhibitors in mononuclear blood cells from patients with rheumatoid arthritis J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2012 341 1 174 82 10.1124/jpet.111.187542 22235146
72. Awada G Emerging drugs targeting human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in the treatment of breast cancer Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2016 21 1 91 101 10.1517/14728214.2016.1146680 26817602
73. Niazi M Nano-based strategies to overcome p-glycoprotein-mediated drug resistance Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2016 12 1 13 10.1080/17425255.2016.1196186 27267126
74. Bennouna J Vinflunine: a new microtubule inhibitor agent Clin Cancer Res 2008 14 6 1625 32 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-2219 18347163
75. Hill BT Vinflunine, a second generation novel Vinca Alkaloid with a distinctive pharmacological profile, now in clinical development and prospects for future mitotic blockers Curr Pharm Des 2001 7 13 1199 212 10.2174/1381612013397456 11472262
76. Cree IA Glaysher S Harvey AL Efficacy of anti-cancer agents in cell lines versus human primary tumour tissue Curr Opin Pharmacol 2010 10 4 375 9 10.1016/j.coph.2010.05.001 20570561
77. Andreotti PE TCA-100 tumour chemosensitivity assay: differences in sensitivity between cultured tumour cell lines and clinical studies J Biolumin Chemilumin 1994 9 6 373 8 10.1002/bio.1170090604 7879653
78. Cree IA Designing personalised cancer treatments J Control Release 2013 172 2 405 9 10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.07.007 23867286
79. Cella CA Dual inhibition of mTOR pathway and VEGF signalling in neuroendocrine neoplasms: from bench to bedside Cancer Treat Rev 2015 41 9 754 60 10.1016/j.ctrv.2015.06.008 26142874
80. Tops B Development of a semi-conductor sequencing-based panel for genotyping of colon and lung cancer by the Onconetwork consortium BMC Cancer 2015 15 1 26 10.1186/s12885-015-1015-5 25637035 PMC4318366
81. Luoto KR Kumareswaran R Bristow RG Tumor hypoxia as a driving force in genetic instability Genome Integr 2013 4 1 5 10.1186/2041-9414-4-5 24152759 PMC4016142
82. Petty RD Expression of the p53 tumour suppressor gene product is a determinant of chemosensitivity Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1994 199 1 264 70 10.1006/bbrc.1994.1223 8123022
83. Alkema NG Studying platinum sensitivity and resistance in high-grade serous ovarian cancer: Different models for different questions Drug Resist Updat 2016 24 55 69 10.1016/j.drup.2015.11.005 26830315
84. Espinosa E Treatment algorithms in stage IV melanoma Am J Ther 2015 22 1 61 7 10.1097/MJT.0b013e31829e885c 24413374
85. Twyman-Saint Victor C Radiation and dual checkpoint blockade activate non-redundant immune mechanisms in cancer Nature 2015 520 7547 373 7 10.1038/nature14292 25754329 PMC4401634
86. Cree IA PD-L1 testing for lung cancer in the UK: recognizing the challenges for implementation Histopathology 2016 69 2 177 86 10.1111/his.12996 27196116
87. Rizvi NA Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer Science 2015 348 6230 124 8 10.1126/science.aaa1348 25765070 PMC4993154
88. Grigg C Rizvi NA PD-L1 biomarker testing for non-small cell lung cancer: truth or fiction? J Immunother Cancer 2016 4 48 10.1186/s40425-016-0153-x 27532023 PMC4986262
89. Hellmann M Genomic profile, smoking, and response to anti-PD-1 therapy in non-small cell lung carcinoma Mol Cell Oncol 2016 3 1 e1048929 10.1080/23723556.2015.1048929 27308563 PMC4845184
90. Cree IA Guidance for laboratories performing molecular pathology for cancer patients J Clin Pathol 2014 67 923 31 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202404 25012948 PMC4215286
91. Young EC A comparison of methods for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer Diagn Mol Pathol 2013 22 4 190 5 10.1097/PDM.0b013e318294936c 24193010
92. Cree IA Progress and potential of RAS mutation detection for diagnostics and companion diagnostics Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2016 16 1067 72 10.1080/14737159.2016.1221345 27494709
93. Willyard C Cancer therapy: an evolved approach Nature 2016 532 7598 166 8 10.1038/532166a 27075079
94. Dietel M A 2015 update on predictive molecular pathology and its role in targeted cancer therapy: a review focussing on clinical relevance Cancer Gene Ther 2015 22 9 417 30 10.1038/cgt.2015.39 26358176
95. Milne CP Complementary versus companion diagnostics: apples and oranges? Biomark Med 2015 9 1 25 34 10.2217/bmm.14.84 25605453