ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026
Autophagy as an adaptive resistance mechanism to epigenetic therapy in cancer.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Epigenetic therapies can reverse malignant transcriptional programs, but their activity is often constrained by adaptive stress responses that allow cancer cells to survive and recover. Autophagy is a central component of this adaptation. By sustaining metabolic homeostasis, mitochondrial fitness, proteostasis, and lysosomal recycling, autophagy can buffer the cellular injury produced by inhibitors of DNA methyltransferases, histone deacetylases, and bromodomain proteins. These observations provide a strong rationale for combining epigenetic therapies with autophagy inhibition. However, the field has too often equated autophagosome accumulation with increased autophagic flux and treatment-induced autophagy with a functional dependency. Moreover, the lysosomotropic agents used in early clinical studies incompletely inhibit autophagy and exert broader effects on lysosomal biology. Consequently, compelling preclinical activity has not translated into consistent clinical benefit. Here, we critically evaluate the mechanisms through which epigenetic therapies engage autophagy, distinguish correlative markers from causal evidence of resistance, and assess the preclinical and clinical data supporting combination strategies. We also define the major barriers to translation, including inadequate pharmacodynamic assays, a lack of predictive biomarkers, context-dependent effects on tumor and immune cells, and the limited potency and selectivity of current autophagy inhibitors. Defining when, where, and how autophagy becomes a targetable dependency will be essential to translate this compelling biology into an effective precision treatment.
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.