4.6 Article

Alectinib, an Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Inhibitor, Abolishes ALK Activity and Growth in ALK-Positive Neuroblastoma Cells

期刊

FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00579

关键词

neuroblastoma; alectinib; anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK); resistant mutations; xenograft; crizotinib; ALK inhibitors

类别

资金

  1. Swedish Cancer Society [BH CAN15/775, RP CAN15/391]
  2. Swedish Childhood Cancer Foundation [BH 2015-80, BH 2014-150, RP 2015-96]
  3. Swedish Research Council [RP 2015-04466, BH 521-2012-2831]
  4. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research [RB13-0204]
  5. Goran Gustafsson Foundation [RP2016]
  6. Vinnova [2015-04466] Funding Source: Vinnova
  7. Swedish Research Council [2015-04466] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases including anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) are implicated in numerous solid and hematologic cancers. ALK mutations are reported in an estimated 9% of neuroblastoma and recent reports indicate that the percentage of ALK-positive cases increases in the relapsed patient population. Initial clinical trial results have shown that it is difficult to inhibit growth of ALK positive neuroblastoma with crizotinib, motivating investigation of next generation ALK inhibitors with higher affinity for ALK. Here, alectinib, a potent next generation ALK inhibitor with antitumor activity was investigated in ALK-driven neuroblastoma models. Employing neuroblastoma cell lines and mouse xenografts we show a clear and efficient inhibition of ALK activity by alectinib. Inhibition of ALK activity was observed in vitro employing a set of different constitutively active ALK variants in biochemical assays. The results suggest that alectinib is an effective inhibitor of ALK kinase activity in ALK addicted neuroblastoma and should be considered as a potential future therapeutic option for ALK-positive neuroblastoma patients alone or in combination with other treatments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据