DNA repair pathways and their implication in cancer treatment.
ABSTRACT Many cytotoxic agents used in cancer treatment exert their effects through their ability to directly or indirectly damage DNA and thus resulting in cell death. Major types of DNA damage induced by anticancer treatment include strand breaks (double or single strand), crosslinks (inter-strand, intra-strand, DNA-protein crosslinks), and interference with nucleotide metabolism and DNA synthesis. On the other hand, cancer cells activate various DNA repair pathways and repair DNA damages induced by cytotoxic drugs. The purpose of the current review is to present the major types of DNA damage induced by cytotoxic agents, DNA repair pathways, and their role as predictive agents, as well as evaluate the future perspectives of the novel DNA repair pathways inhibitors in cancer therapeutics.
- SourceAvailable from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: One mechanism of tumor resistance to cytotoxic therapy is repair of damaged DNA. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP)-1 is a nuclear enzyme involved in base excision repair, one of the five major repair pathways. PARP inhibitors are emerging as a new class of agents that can potentiate chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The article reports safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic results of the first-in-class trial of a PARP inhibitor, AG014699, combined with temozolomide in adults with advanced malignancy. Initially, patients with solid tumors received escalating doses of AG014699 with 100 mg/m2/d temozolomide x 5 every 28 days to establish the PARP inhibitory dose (PID). Subsequently, AG014699 dose was fixed at PID and temozolomide escalated to maximum tolerated dose or 200 mg/m2 in metastatic melanoma patients whose tumors were biopsied. AG014699 and temozolomide pharmacokinetics, PARP activity, DNA strand single-strand breaks, response, and toxicity were evaluated. Thirty-three patients were enrolled. PARP inhibition was seen at all doses; PID was 12 mg/m2 based on 74% to 97% inhibition of peripheral blood lymphocyte PARP activity. Recommended doses were 12 mg/m2 AG014699 and 200 mg/m2 temozolomide. Mean tumor PARP inhibition at 5 h was 92% (range, 46-97%). No toxicity attributable to AG014699 alone was observed. AG014699 showed linear pharmacokinetics with no interaction with temozolomide. All patients treated at PID showed increases in DNA single-strand breaks and encouraging evidence of activity was seen. The combination of AG014699 and temozolomide is well tolerated, pharmacodynamic assessments showing proof of principle of the mode of action of this new class of agents.Clinical Cancer Research 01/2009; 14(23):7917-23. · 7.84 Impact Factor
- Genes & Development 05/1999; 13(7):768-85. · 12.44 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate tumor response, pharmacodynamic effects, and safety of a combination of lomeguatrib (LM), an O6-methylguanine DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) inactivator, and temozolomide (TMZ), TMZ alone, and LM/TMZ after disease progression on TMZ alone in patients with advanced melanoma. Patients with unresectable stage III or IV cutaneous melanoma who had no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either 40 to 80 mg LM and 125 mg/m2 TMZ or 200 mg/m2 TMZ on days 1 through 5 of each 28-day treatment cycle. Drugs were administered orally for up to six cycles of treatment. Patients on TMZ alone were offered LM/TMZ at progression, if fit enough to receive treatment. One hundred four patients were enrolled, with 52 in each trial arm. Twenty-seven TMZ-treated patients received LM/TMZ after progression on TMZ. Unexpectedly, analysis of tumor biopsies showed rapid recovery of MGMT after LM/TMZ with 40 mg/d LM. Therefore, doses of LM were escalated to 60 then 80 mg/d. Tumor response rates were 13.5% with LM/TMZ and 17.3% with TMZ alone. No patient responded to LM/TMZ having progressed through TMZ. Median time to disease progression was 65.5 days for LM/TMZ and 68 days for TMZ. All treatments were well tolerated, although hematologic and gastrointestinal adverse events were common. A higher incidence of hematological adverse events was observed in the LM/TMZ combination arm. The efficacy of LM and TMZ in the current dosing schedule is similar to that of TMZ alone. To maintain MGMT depletion in tumor dosing of LM needs to be continued beyond that of TMZ.Journal of Clinical Oncology 07/2007; 25(18):2540-5. · 18.04 Impact Factor