4.8 Review

Biological and clinical implications of FGFR aberrations in paediatric and young adult cancers

期刊

ONCOGENE
卷 42, 期 23, 页码 1875-1888

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41388-023-02705-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

FGFR pathway mutations in paediatric cancers can potentially be targeted with inhibitors, and the complete spectrum of these mutations is emerging. The challenge lies in determining when FGFR overexpression indicates true oncogenic activity.
Rare but recurrent mutations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathways, most commonly in one of the four FGFR receptor tyrosine kinase genes, can potentially be targeted with broad-spectrum multi-kinase or FGFR selective inhibitors. The complete spectrum of these mutations in paediatric cancers is emerging as precision medicine programs perform comprehensive sequencing of individual tumours. Identification of patients most likely to benefit from FGFR inhibition currently rests on identifying activating FGFR mutations, gene fusions, or gene amplification events. However, the expanding use of transcriptome sequencing (RNAseq) has identified that many tumours overexpress FGFRs, in the absence of any genomic aberration. The challenge now presented is to determine when this indicates true FGFR oncogenic activity. Under-appreciated mechanisms of FGFR pathway activation, including alternate FGFR transcript expression and concomitant FGFR and FGF ligand expression, may mark those tumours where FGFR overexpression is indicative of a dependence on FGFR signalling. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and mechanistic overview of FGFR pathway aberrations and their functional consequences in paediatric cancer. We explore how FGFR over expression might be associated with true receptor activation. Further, we discuss the therapeutic implications of these aberrations in the paediatric setting and outline current and emerging therapeutic strategies to treat paediatric patients with FGFRdriven cancers. [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.8
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