4.6 Review

Can lung cancer stem cells be targeted for therapies?

Journal

CANCER TREATMENT REVIEWS
Volume 38, Issue 6, Pages 580-588

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.02.013

Keywords

Lung cancer; Cancer stem cells; Target; Biomarkers; Signal pathways; Therapy

Categories

Funding

  1. Shanghai Leading Academic Discipline Project [B115]
  2. Fudan University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, with a poor prognosis. Lung cancer stem cells (CSCs) are proposed as one of therapeutic targets for lung cancer. It is important to understand the exact role of lung CSC subpopulations in tumor initiation, recurrence, drug resistance and metastasis and explore biomarkers, signaling pathways and differentiation regulation specific to lung CSCs. Numerous measures targeting lung CSCs, e.g. genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics, have been used to investigate molecular mechanisms, eradicate cancer cells, and improve patient outcome. The present review overviewed the biological functions, biomarkers, signal pathways, differentiation regulation, genomics and proteomics, targeting roles of lung CSCs and related information on other CSCs as references. There are still a number of challenges to translate the research and understanding of lung CSCs to clinical applications and therapies, identify lung CSCs-specific and dynamic network biomarkers, study lung CSCs isolated from human samples, and clarify the source of lung CSCs. It is necessary to design effective therapies to target CSC biomarkers and signaling pathways, reverse drug resistance and induce differentiation of lung CSCs. Thus, lung CSCs as one of therapeutic target candidates for lung cancer need global forces and databases to integrate the genes, proteins, receptors, signal pathways and functions with clinical informatics and phenotypes together. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available