British journal of cancer · 2010
Single agent and combination studies of pralatrexate and molecular correlates of sensitivity.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Serova M, Bieche I, Sablin M-P, Pronk G J, Vidaud M, Cvitkovic E, Faivre S, Raymond E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pralatrexate is a dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) inhibitor with high affinity for reduced folate carrier 1 (RFC-1) and folylpolyglutamate synthetase (FPGS), resulting in extensive internalization and accumulation in tumour cells. Pralatrexate is approved in the US for the treatment of relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma and is being investigated in various malignancies. Here, we evaluated molecular correlates of sensitivity to pralatrexate and explored combinations with a variety of anticancer agents.
METHODS: Antiproliferative effects of pralatrexate were evaluated in 15 human-cancer cell lines using the MTT assay. Gene expression was evaluated using qRT-PCR.
RESULTS: Pralatrexate and methotrexate had a similar pattern of cytotoxicity, pralatrexate being more potent. Pralatrexate potentiated the effects of platinum drugs, antimetabolites and EGFR inhibitors. Dose- and time-dependent cytotoxicity of pralatrexate correlated with high mRNA expression of FPGS. Acquired resistance to pralatrexate was associated with decreased RFC-1 expression, whereas methotrexate resistance correlated with increased DHFR expression, suggesting different mechanisms of acquired resistance.
CONCLUSION: Pralatrexate was more potent than methotrexate in a panel of solid tumour lines. Our findings support the further clinical development of pralatrexate in combination with certain cytotoxics and targeted therapies, and suggest that RFC-1, FPGS and DHFR may be potential biomarkers of outcome.
METHODS: Antiproliferative effects of pralatrexate were evaluated in 15 human-cancer cell lines using the MTT assay. Gene expression was evaluated using qRT-PCR.
RESULTS: Pralatrexate and methotrexate had a similar pattern of cytotoxicity, pralatrexate being more potent. Pralatrexate potentiated the effects of platinum drugs, antimetabolites and EGFR inhibitors. Dose- and time-dependent cytotoxicity of pralatrexate correlated with high mRNA expression of FPGS. Acquired resistance to pralatrexate was associated with decreased RFC-1 expression, whereas methotrexate resistance correlated with increased DHFR expression, suggesting different mechanisms of acquired resistance.
CONCLUSION: Pralatrexate was more potent than methotrexate in a panel of solid tumour lines. Our findings support the further clinical development of pralatrexate in combination with certain cytotoxics and targeted therapies, and suggest that RFC-1, FPGS and DHFR may be potential biomarkers of outcome.