Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24377088›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2013

The unpluggable in pursuit of the undruggable: tackling the dark matter of the cancer therapeutics universe.

Richard J Epstein

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Breast Cancer Predisposition Genes and Synthetic Lethality.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Cancer Epigenomics and Beyond: Advancing the Precision Oncology Paradigm.Journal of immunotherapy and precision oncology · 2020
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Targeting tumor suppressor genes for cancer therapy.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2015
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Richard J EpsteinLaboratory of Genome Evolution & Informatics, The Kinghorn Cancer Centre, and Clinical Informatics & Research Centre, Department of Oncology, St Vincent's Hospital, UNSW Clinical School , Sydney, NSW , Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The notion that targeted drugs can unplug gain-of-function tumor pathways has revitalized pharmaceutical research, but the survival benefits of this strategy have so far proven modest. A weakness of oncogene-blocking approaches is that they do not address the problem of cancer progression as selected by the recessive phenotypes of genetic instability and apoptotic resistance which in turn arise from loss-of-function - i.e., undruggable - defects of caretaker (e.g., BRCA, MLH1) or gatekeeper (e.g., TP53, PTEN) suppressor genes. Genetic instability ensures that rapid cell kill is balanced by rapid selection for apoptotic resistance and hence for metastasis, casting doubt on the assumption that cytotoxicity ("response") remains the best way to identify survival-enhancing drugs. In the absence of gene therapy, it is proposed here that caretaker-defective (high-instability) tumors may be best treated with low-lethality drugs inducing replicative (RAS-RAF-ERK) arrest or dormancy, causing "stable disease" rather than tumorilytic remission. Gatekeeper-defective (death-resistant) tumors, on the other hand, may be best managed by combining survival (PI3K-AKT-mTOR) pathway blockade with metronomic or sequential pro-apoptotic drugs.

Indexed as

apoptosiscarcinogenesisdrug developmentgenetic instabilitytumor suppressor genes

Identifiers

PMID24377088
PMCPMC3859984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.