Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38254735›Full record

ReviewCancers2024

Harnessing Sulforaphane Potential as a Chemosensitizing Agent: A Comprehensive Review.

Bethsebie Lalduhsaki Sailo, Le Liu, Suravi Chauhan, Sosmitha Girisa, Mangala Hegde, Liping Liang, Mohammed S Alqahtani, Mohamed Abbas, Gautam Sethi, Ajaikumar B Kunnumakkara

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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 4 countries.

Bethsebie Lalduhsaki SailoCancer Biology Laboratory, Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India.
Le LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen Hospital, Southern Medical University, Shenzhen 518001, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9270-9951
Suravi ChauhanCancer Biology Laboratory, Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India.
Sosmitha GirisaCancer Biology Laboratory, Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India.
Mangala HegdeCancer Biology Laboratory, Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India.
Liping LiangGuangzhou Key Laboratory of Digestive Diseases, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Guangzhou Digestive Disease Center, Guangzhou First People's Hospital, School of Medicine, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510180, China.
Mohammed S AlqahtaniRadiological Sciences Department, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7425-3578
Mohamed AbbasElectrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-3141-2900
Gautam SethiDepartment of Pharmacology and NUS Centre for Cancer Research, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117600, Singapore.
Ajaikumar B KunnumakkaraCancer Biology Laboratory, Department of Biosciences and Bioengineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India.
Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati · INKing Khalid University · SAGuangzhou First People's Hospital · CNNational University of Singapore · SGSouthern Medical University Shenzhen Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in oncological research have highlighted the potential of naturally derived compounds in cancer prevention and treatment. Notably, sulforaphane (SFN), an isothiocyanate derived from cruciferous vegetables including broccoli and cabbage, has exhibited potent chemosensitizing capabilities across diverse cancer types of bone, brain, breast, lung, skin, etc. Chemosensitization refers to the enhancement of cancer cell sensitivity to chemotherapy agents, counteracting the chemoresistance often developed by tumor cells. Mechanistically, SFN orchestrates this sensitization by modulating an array of cellular signaling pathways (e.g., Akt/mTOR, NF-κB, Wnt/β-catenin), and regulating the expression and activity of pivotal genes, proteins, and enzymes (e.g., p53, p21, survivin, Bcl-2, caspases). When combined with conventional chemotherapeutic agents, SFN synergistically inhibits cancer cell proliferation, invasion, migration, and metastasis while potentiating drug-induced apoptosis. This positions SFN as a potential adjunct in cancer therapy to augment the efficacy of standard treatments. Ongoing preclinical and clinical investigations aim to further delineate the therapeutic potential of SFN in oncology. This review illuminates the multifaceted role of this phytochemical, emphasizing its potential to enhance the therapeutic efficacy of anti-cancer agents, suggesting its prospective contributions to cancer chemosensitization and management.

Indexed as

cancerchemoresistancechemosensitizationphytochemicalssulforaphane

Identifiers

PMID38254735
PMCPMC10814109
OpenAlexW4390608603

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.