ArticleInvestigational new drugs2017
Anti-invasive effects of CXCR4 and FAK inhibitors in non-small cell lung carcinomas with mutually inactivated p53 and PTEN tumor suppressors.
Article in Investigational new drugs, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Network and functional analyses of differentially expressed genes in gastric cancer provide new biomarkers associated with disease pathogenesis.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Therapeutic Perspectives of HIV-Associated Chemokine Receptor (CCR5 and CXCR4) Antagonists in Carcinomas.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Targeting the Extra-Cellular Matrix-Tumor Cell Crosstalk for Anti-Cancer Therapy: Emerging Alternatives to Integrin Inhibitors.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Review
- The roles of nuclear focal adhesion kinase (FAK) on Cancer: a focused review.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2019Review
- The p53 Protein Family in the Response of Tumor Cells to Ionizing Radiation: Problem Development.Acta naturaeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer. At the time of diagnosis, a large percentage of NSCLC patients have already developed metastasis, responsible for extremely high mortality rates. CXCR4 receptor and focal adhesion kinase (FAK) are known to regulate such invasive cancer behavior. Their expression is downregulated by p53 and PTEN tumor suppressors which are commonly co-inactivated in NSCLC patients and contribute to metastasis. Therefore, targeting CXCR4 or FAK seems to be a promising strategy in suppressing metastatic spread of p53/PTEN deficient NSCLCs. In this study, we first examined the invasive characteristics of NSCLC cells with suppressed p53 and PTEN activity using wound healing, gelatin degradation and invasion assays. Further, changes in the expression of CXCR4 and FAK were evaluated by RT-qPCR and Western Blot analysis. Finally, we tested the ability of CXCR4 and FAK inhibitors (WZ811 and PF-573228, respectively) to suppress the migratory and invasive potential of p53/PTEN deficient NSCLC cells, in vitro and in vivo using metastatic models of human NSCLC. Our results showed that cells with mutually inactive p53 and PTEN have significantly increased invasive potential associated with hyperactivation of CXCR4 and FAK signaling pathways. Treatments with WZ811 and PF-573228 inhibitors significantly reduced migratory and invasive capacity in vitro and showed a trend of improved survival in vivo. Accordingly, we demonstrated that p53/PTEN deficient NSCLCs have extremely invasive phenotype and provided a rationale for the use of CXCR4 or FAK inhibitors for the suppression of NSCLC dissemination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.