4.7 Article

Pituitary Tumor Suppression by Combination of Cabergoline and Chloroquine

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 102, Issue 10, Pages 3692-3703

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2017-00627

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81471392, 81671371]
  2. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [20161407]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: The dopamine agonist cabergoline (CAB) has been used widely in the treatment of prolactinomas and other types of pituitary adenomas, but its clinical use is hampered by intolerance in some patients with prolactinoma and lack of effectiveness in other pituitary tumor types. Chloroquine (CQ) is an old drug widely used to treat malaria. Recent studies, including our own, have revealed that CAB and CQ are involved in induction of autophagy and activation of autophagic cell death. Objective: To test whether CAB and CQ can function cooperatively to suppress growth of pituitary adenomas as well as other cancers. Results: In vitro studies using the rat pituitary tumor cell lines MMQ and GH3, human pituitary tumor cell primary cultures, and several human cancer cell lines showed that CQ enhanced suppression of cell proliferation by CAB. These results were confirmed in in vivo xenograft models in nude mice and estrogen-induced rat prolactinomas. To understand the mechanism of combined CAB and CQ action, we established a low-CAB-dose condition in which CAB was able to induce autophagy but failed to suppress cell growth. Addition of CQ to low-dose CAB blocked normal autophagic cycles and induced apoptosis, evidenced by the further accumulation of p62/caspase-8/LC3-II. Conclusion: The data suggest that combined use of CAB and CQ may increase clinical effectiveness in treatment of human pituitary adenomas, as well as other cancers, making it an attractive option in tumor and cancer therapies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available