Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36077823›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Determining the Potential of DNA Damage Response (DDR) Inhibitors in Cervical Cancer Therapy.

Santu Saha, Stuart Rundle, Ioannis C Kotsopoulos, Jacob Begbie, Rachel Howarth, Isabel Y Pappworth, Asima Mukhopadhyay, Ali Kucukmetin, Kevin J Marchbank, Nicola Curtin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Targeting the DNA damage response for cancer therapy.Biochemical Society transactions · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Santu SahaTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.
Stuart RundleThe Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre (NGOC), Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NE9 6SX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0977-3347
Ioannis C KotsopoulosUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 250 Euston Rd, London NW1 2PG, UK.
Jacob BegbieAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Rachel HowarthTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.
Isabel Y PappworthTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, National Renal Complement Therapeutics Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.
Asima MukhopadhyayKolkata Gynecological Oncology Trials and Translational Research Group, Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, Kolkata 700026, India.
Ali KucukmetinThe Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre (NGOC), Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NE9 6SX, UK.
Kevin J MarchbankTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, National Renal Complement Therapeutics Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1312-5411
Nicola CurtinTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Framlington Place, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1369-1843
Newcastle University · GBQueen Elizabeth Hospital · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBJames Cook University Hospital · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Academy of Medical Sciences NIF\R5A\0027Medical Research Council MR/S025502/1Union for International Cancer Control UICC-TF/17/551072Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust NU-009842
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cisplatin-based chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) is the standard treatment for advanced cervical cancer (CC) but the response rate is poor (46-72%) and cisplatin is nephrotoxic. Therefore, better treatment of CC is urgently needed. We have directly compared, for the first time, the cytotoxicity of four DDR inhibitors (rucaparib/PARPi, VE-821/ATRi, PF-477736/CHK1i and MK-1775/WEE1i) as single agents, and in combination with cisplatin and radiotherapy (RT) in a panel of CC cells. All inhibitors alone caused concentration-dependent cytotoxicity. Low ATM and DNA-PKcs levels were associated with greater VE-821 cytotoxicity. Cisplatin induced ATR, CHK1 and WEE1 activity in all of the cell lines. Cisplatin only activated PARP in S-phase cells, but RT activated PARP in the entire population. Rucaparib was the most potent radiosensitiser and VE-821 was the most potent chemosensitiser. VE-821, PF-47736 and MK-1775 attenuated cisplatin-induced S-phase arrest but tended to increase G2 phase accumulation. In mice, cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury was associated with oxidative stress and PARP activation and was prevented by rucaparib. Therefore, while all inhibitors investigated may increase the efficacy of CRT, the greatest clinical potential of rucaparib may be in limiting kidney damage, which is dose-limiting.

Indexed as

cervical cancercisplatinDDR inhibitorskidney toxicityradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID36077823
PMCPMC9454916
OpenAlexW4294133009

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.