4.7 Review

Taxane resistance in castration-resistant prostate cancer: mechanisms and therapeutic strategies

期刊

ACTA PHARMACEUTICA SINICA B
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 518-529

出版社

INST MATERIA MEDICA, CHINESE ACAD MEDICAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsb.2018.04.007

关键词

Castration-resistant prostate cancer; Drug efflux transporters; Taxane resistance; Androgen receptor; PI3K/AKT pathway.; Microtubules; Cancer stem cells; Efflux transporter

资金

  1. NIH [1R01CA148706, 1R01CA193609]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite its good initial response and significant survival benefit in patients with castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), taxane therapy inevitably encounters drug resistance in all patients. Deep understandings of taxane resistant mechanisms can significantly facilitate the development of new therapeutic strategies to overcome taxane resistance and improve CRPC patient survival. Multiple pathways of resistance have been identified as potentially crucial areas of intervention. First, taxane resistant tumor cells typically have mutated microtubule binding sites, varying tubulin isotype expression, and upregulation of efflux transporters. These mechanisms contribute to reducing binding affinity and availability of taxanes. Second, taxane resistant tumors have increased stem cell like characteristics, indicating higher potential for further mutation in response to therapy. Third, the androgen receptor pathway is instrumental in the proliferation of CRPC and multiple hypotheses leading to this pathway reactivation have been reported. The connection of this pathway to the AKT pathway has received significant attention due to the upregulation of phosphorylated AKT in CRPC. This review highlights recent advances in elucidating taxane resistant mechanisms and summarizes potential therapeutic strategies for improved treatment of CRPC. (C) 2018 Chinese Pharmaceutical Association and Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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