Literature DB >> 30953269

Safety and clinical activity of the Notch inhibitor, crenigacestat (LY3039478), in an open-label phase I trial expansion cohort of advanced or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma.

C Even1, U Lassen2, J Merchan3, C Le Tourneau4,5,6, J-C Soria1,7, C Ferte1, F Ricci4, J T Diener8, E Yuen8, C Smith8, G J Oakley8, K A Benhadji8, Christophe Massard9.   

Abstract

Background Deregulated Notch signaling is implicated in multiple cancers. The phase I trial (I6F-MC-JJCA) investigated the safety and anti-tumor activity of crenigacestat (LY3039478), a selective oral Notch inhibitor, in an expansion cohort of patients with adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) who received the dose-escalation-recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), established previously (Massard C, et al., Annals Oncol 2018, 29:1911-17). Methods Patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, measurable disease, ECOG-PS ≤1, and baseline tumor tissue were enrolled. Primary objectives were to identify a safe RP2D, confirm this dose in expansion cohorts, and document anti-tumor activity. Secondary objectives included safety and progression-free survival (PFS). The ACC expansion cohort received the RP2D regimen of 50 mg crenigacestat thrice per week in a 28-day cycle until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Results Twenty-two patients with ACC were enrolled in the expansion cohort (median age of 60 years). Median treatment duration was 3 cycles with 6 patients remaining on treatment. There were no objective responses; 1 (5%) patient had an unconfirmed partial response. Disease control rate was 73% and 4 patients had stable disease ≥6 months. Median PFS was 5.3 months (95%CI: 2.4-NE)) for the 22 patients; and 7.7 months (95%CI: 4.0-NR) and 2.4 months (95%CI: 1.1-NE) in the subgroup of patients in second-line (n = 7) or ≥ third-line (n = 9), respectively. Frequent treatment-related-adverse events (all grades) included diarrhea, fatigue, vomiting, decreased appetite, dry mouth, and dry skin. There were no new safety signals. Conclusion The crenigacestat RP2D regimen induced manageable toxicity and limited clinical activity, without confirmed responses, in heavily pretreated patients with ACC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adenoid cystic carcinoma; Crenigacestat; LY3039478; Notch pathway; Phase 1

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30953269      PMCID: PMC7066312          DOI: 10.1007/s10637-019-00739-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest New Drugs        ISSN: 0167-6997            Impact factor:   3.850


Introduction

Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) is a rare form of carcinoma characterized by slow growth, frequent recurrences, and a high incidence of metastasis. Surgical resection followed by radiation is the most common treatment protocol; to date, no chemotherapy or drug combination is effective [1, 2]. Notch signaling is an evolutionarily conserved pathway that plays an integral role in development and tissue homeostasis [3, 4]. The oncogenic functions of Notch signaling include the inhibition of apoptosis and the promotion of cell proliferation [5-13]. Recent studies suggest that Notch1 plays a key role in the cell growth and metastasis of ACC, and patients with Notch1 mutations appear to have a more aggressive disease with a distinct pattern of metastasis and worse prognosis [14-16]. Thus, targeting Notch1 represents a potential therapeutic strategy. Crenigacestat is a potent small molecule inhibitor of Notch cleavage that prevents release of the notch intracellular domain (NICD) by inhibiting proteolytic activity of γ-secretase complex and thereby decreasing Notch signaling and its downstream biologic effects. Crenigacestat inhibits tumor growth in patient-derived tumors representing colon, lung, ovarian, gastric, breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and glioblastoma [17]. Study I6F-MC-JJCA was designed and conducted as a phase 1, nonrandomized, open-label, multicenter trial that evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of crenigacestat in patients with advanced or metastatic cancers. In the dose escalation part of this trial, crenigacestat was well tolerated at doses engaging the Notch receptor in heavily pre-treated patients, including patients with ACC [18]. Crenigacestat exposure was dose proportional. Preliminary pharmacodynamic analyses showed that at a starting dose of 45 mg administered 3 times per week (TIW) in a 28-day cycle, crenigacestat inhibits Notch-regulated gene expression by approximately 50%. Compared with the 75 mg dose, the 50 mg dose was associated with milder to moderate severity of adverse events, commonly diarrhea and vomiting, and a few grade 3 or 4 events. Clinical benefit was observed in 11% of the patients. Thus, given the relative safety/tolerability and potential for clinical benefit/anti-tumor activity, the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of crenigacestat monotherapy was determined as 50 mg administered 3 TIW in a 28-day cycle [18]. Here, we report the safety, tolerability and anti-tumor activity of crenigacestat monotherapy in the confirmatory, expansion cohort of patients with ACC enrolled in I6F-MC-JJCA who were treated with the RP2D.

Methods

Study design and treatment

I6F-MC-JJCA was a phase 1 multi-center, nonrandomized, open-label, first-in-man trial of oral crenigacestat (LY3039478), in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01695005). Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety of crenigacestat in a dose-escalation phase and determine a RP2D, to confirm the RP2D of crenigacestat in the expansion cohort, and to document anti-tumor activity. Secondary objectives included characterizing the safety and toxicity profile of crenigacestat and assessing the duration of response and progression-free survival (PFS). Exploratory objectives examined potential predictive biomarkers, pharmacodynamic effects of crenigacestat, and utility of positron emission tomography (PET) scan to assess the treatment effect of crenigacestat. In the confirmatory, expansion cohort, patients received the RP2D of 50 mg crenigacestat TIW in 28-day cycles until symptomatic or confirmed progressive disease, unacceptable toxicity, or other study drug discontinuation criteria were met. This study was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences International Ethical Guidelines, International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, and applicable local regulations. The ethics committees of all participating centers approved the protocol, and all patients provided written informed consent before study entry.

Patients

Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years of age and had histological evidence of advanced or metastatic ACC. All patients had measurable disease or reliable biomarker measure. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score of ≤1, adequate organ and hematologic functions. Patients were excluded from the study if they had received treatment with a drug that had not received regulatory approval for any indication within 14 or 21 days of the initial dose of study drug and had any serious pre-existing medical conditions. Patients were also excluded if they had any central nervous system malignancy, acute leukemia, or if they had undergone any autologous or allogeneic stem-cell transplantation.

Study assessments

Efficacy assessments

Tumor responses were measured using the appropriate guidelines (RECIST 1.1) [19]. Objective response rate (ORR) was the proportion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD) out of all the patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug. Best response was determined from a sequence of responses assessed. Minimum change in tumor size from baseline was presented in a waterfall plot for patients with measureable lesion. Use of PET scan to assess treatment effect of crenigacestat was mandatory for the ACC expansion cohort. Partial metabolic response by PET scan was defined as a minimum of 15% in tumor [18F]-FDG SUV after 1 cycle of therapy and greater than 25% after more than 1 treatment cycle, according to PET response criteria of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [20].

Safety assessments

All adverse events (AEs) were coded according to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities, version 19.0 and graded by National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) 4.0. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as an AE during Cycle 1 that is related to crenigacestat and fulfills any one of the following criteria using the NCI CTCAE v 4.0: ≥3 CTCAE Grade 3 nonhematological toxicity (exceptions made for nausea, vomiting, or constipation that lasts <72 h and can be controlled with treatment; transient Grade 3 elevations of ALT and/or AST), CTCAE Grade 4 hematological toxicity of >5 days duration, any febrile neutropenia, Grade 3 thrombocytopenia with bleeding or Grade 4 thrombocytopenia, and other significant toxicity deemed to be dose limiting by investigator.

Pharmacokinetic assessments

Crenigacestat PK parameter estimates for patients were summarized and compared to PK parameters from the dose-escalation phase of the trial. Plasma samples were collected up to 4 h after the first dose for PK evaluation.

Exploratory biomarker assessments

Patients in the study submitted representative pre-treatment archival diagnostic biopsies as formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, with some patients submitting pre- and post-treatment biopsies collected in formalin or PAXgene® Tissue Fix. Specimens were sectioned at 4–5 μm (if submitted as blocks) onto positively charged slides and baked at 60 °C for at least 15 min or until dry. De-paraffinization and antigen retrieval were accomplished using EnVision™ FLEX Target Retrieval Solution, High pH (K8000; Dako, Carpinteria, CA, USA) in a Dako PT Link unit reaching 97 °C for 20 min. The retrieved NICD was detected using the Dako EnVision™ FLEX+ Rabbit visualization system (K8009) on the Dako Autostainer Link 48 automated slide stainer with proprietary 1.5 μg/mL N1ICD, 2.0 μg/mL N2ICD, or 2.0 μg/mL N3ICD antibody developed for Eli Lilly and Company. Results were interpreted and scored by a board-certified pathologist (GJO). Specimens were scrutinized for the level of endogenous background signal by examining additional sections using an isotype control. Control tissues were processed in parallel with tissues exposed to primary antibody. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) results were scored by a qualitative method based on an assessment of the immunoreactivity observed in the specimen using a scale of 0 to 3+ translating to no (0), weak (1+), moderate (2+), or intense (3+) staining, respectively. A cut-off of ≥10% tumor cells with specific nuclear staining with ≥1+ immunoreactivity was used to determine positive immunoreactivity.

Statistical analyses

Data from all patients who received at least 1 dose of crenigacestat treatment were included in summaries of safety and efficacy. Analyses of safety and efficacy were based on October 2016 data transfer. Change in tumor size was assessed in each patient with measurable disease using radiographic imaging. The minimum change in tumor size was summarized for all patients with a pre- and post-treatment assessment using a waterfall plot. For patients evaluated by PET scan, the minimum change in SUVmax was summarized using a waterfall plot. ORR and PET metabolic response rates were summarized descriptively. Descriptive analyses of PFS and OS were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method. Plasma and urine concentrations were measured using validated LC/MS/MC methods.

Results

Patient characteristics

Twenty-two patients with ACC were treated with crenigacestat monotherapy (Table 1) of which 13 (59%) were male and 9 (41%) were female. The majority (82%) of patients had ECOG-PS 1. Median age was 60 years (range 41–82). 20 (91%) patients had prior radiotherapy and 9 (41%) patients received two or more prior systemic treatments. All patients had metastatic disease and 14 (64%) patients were positive for Notch 1.
Table 1

Patient and disease characteristics

CharacteristicsN = 22, n (%)
Gender
 Male13 (59%)
 Female9 (41%)
Age, years, median (range)60 (41–82)
Race
 White19 (86%)
 African American1 (5%)
 Missing2 (9%)
ECOG
 04 (18%)
 118 (82%)
Prior therapy
 Surgery14 (64%)
 Radiotherapy20 (91%)
 Prior systemic treatments
  06 (27%)
  17 (32%)
   ≥ 29 (41%)
Metastatic Disease22 (100%)
 Sites of metastases
  Lung20 (91%)
  Bone8 (36%)
  Liver5 (23%)
  Lymph node5 (23%)
Notch ICD IHC
 Positive14 (64%)
 Negative8 (36%)

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; NICD, Notch-1 intracellular domain

Patient and disease characteristics ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; NICD, Notch-1 intracellular domain

Efficacy

Median treatment duration was 3 cycles (range 1–10) with 6 patients remaining on treatment. 1 (5%) patient had an unconfirmed partial response. A total of 15 (68%) patients had stable disease of which 4 patients had stable disease for ≥6 months. 5 (23%) patients had progressive disease. Disease control rate (DCR) was 73% (16 out of 22 patients) (Table 2). In the overall group (n = 22), median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.4-NE) (Fig. 1). Median PFS was 7.7 (95% CI: 4.0-NE) for patients in second line therapy (n = 7), while it was 2.4 (95% CI: 1.1- NE) for patients in third line or more (n = 9). In patients without prior systemic therapy (n = 6), median PFS could not be estimated since 4 of those patients were censored (Fig. 2).
Table 2

Summary of best overall response

N = 22n (%)
Partial response (unconfirmed)1 (5%)
Stable disease (SD)15 (68%)a
Progressive disease (PD)5 (23%)
Not evaluable1
Disease control rate (CR + PR + SD)16 (73%)

a4 patients had stable disease ≥6 months

Fig. 1

Progression-free survival

Fig. 2

Progression-free survival by lines of prior systemic therapies

Summary of best overall response a4 patients had stable disease ≥6 months Progression-free survival Progression-free survival by lines of prior systemic therapies

Patient disposition

At the time of data cut off, 6 out of 22 patients were still on treatment and 16 patients had discontinued the treatment (Fig. 3). A total of 8 patients discontinued due to progressive disease while 4 patients discontinued due to investigator’s decision. Other reasons for discontinuation were AEs (n = 2; 1 patient discontinued due to emergence of a squamous cell skin carcinoma), withdrawal by subject (n = 1), or death (n = 1; sudden death unrelated to study drug).
Fig. 3

Tumor response over time. uPR = unconfirmed partial response, SD = stable disease, PD = progressive disease, NA = not available

Tumor response over time. uPR = unconfirmed partial response, SD = stable disease, PD = progressive disease, NA = not available

Safety and tolerability

The majority of AEs in all the patients receiving crenigacestat were mild to moderate in severity, with a few patients experiencing Grade 3/4 events. 3 (13.6%) patients experienced Grade 3/4 diarrhea. Hypophosphatemia, colitis, nausea, fatigue, increased ALT, increased AST, increased blood creatinine, and dehydration were the most common Grade 3/4 AEs, which occurred in at least 1 patient. There were 2 (9.1%) patients who reported Grade 3/4 squamous cell carcinoma of skin. Most frequent treatment-emergent drug related adverse events (all grades) occurring in ≥10% of patients were diarrhea (n = 12; 55%), fatigue (n = 10; 45%), vomiting (n = 8; 36%), dry mouth (n = 6; 27%), decreased appetite (n = 6; 27%), dry skin (n = 5; 23%), hypophosphatemia (n = 4; 18%), stomatitis (n = 4; 18%), nausea (n = 4; 18%), dysgeusia (n = 4; 18%), hair color changes (n = 4; 18%), pyrexia (n = 3; 14%), increased ALT (n = 3; 14%), decreased weight (n = 3; 14%), alopecia (n = 3; 14%), and rashes (n = 3; 14%) (Table 3).
Table 3

Most frequent related adverse events (≥10% of patients)

Adverse eventsInvestigator-determinedMaximum CTC Grade, n (%)N = 22n (%)
Grade 1Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4
Diarrhea3 (14)6 (27)3 (14)12 (55)
Fatigue6 (27)3 (14)1 (5)10 (45)
Vomiting4 (18)4 (18)8 (36)
Dry mouth6 (27)6 (27)
Decreased appetite3 (14)3 (14)6 (27)
Dry skin4 (18)1 (5)5 (23)
Hypophosphatemia2 (9)2 (9)4 (18)
Dysgeusia4 (18)4 (18)
Stomatitis3 (14)1 (5)4 (18)
Nausea2 (9)2 (9)4 (18)
Hair color changes3 (14)1 (5)4 (18)
Pyrexia3 (14)3 (14)
ALT increased1 (5)1 (5)1(5)3 (14)
Weight decreased1 (5)2 (9)3 (14)
Alopecia3 (14)3 (14)
Rash3 (14)3 (14)

ALT, Alanine aminotransferase

Most frequent related adverse events (≥10% of patients) ALT, Alanine aminotransferase

Pharmacokinetics

PK was assessed in 17 patients, with maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) occurring approximately 2 h post-dose following 50 mg TIW oral doses of crenigacestat. The geometric mean Cmax was approximately 418 ng/mL and area under the plasma concentration time curve from time 0 to 4 h [AUC(0–4)] was approximately 1070 ng*h/mL. These PK parameters appeared similar to those calculated from patients who underwent intensive PK sampling in the dose-escalation portion of I6F-MC-JJCA and the exposures achieved were similar to other patients with advanced cancer.

Exploratory biomarker and pharmacodynamics analyses

Pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies were assessed for alterations in the Notch pathway. Notch activation via detection of the active NICD fragment by IHC was found in a number of pre-treatment samples. 14 out of 22 (64%) patients with evaluable samples were positive for Notch 1 IHC. Two patients had pre- and post-treatment biopsies, which were evaluable. In the post-treatment samples, 1 patient was negative for Notch staining and the other was positive. Duration of stable disease in these patients was 3.5 months and 6 months, respectively. Pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies (histology and CD8IHC) are illustrated in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4

Pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies (Notch IHC). Duration of stable disease 3.5 months. *This was accessed only in one patient. So, further evaluation in future is needed

Pre- and post-treatment tumor biopsies (Notch IHC). Duration of stable disease 3.5 months. *This was accessed only in one patient. So, further evaluation in future is needed In preliminary analysis, 16 patients were assessed for minimum change in SUVmax by PET, of which 2 (13%) had unconfirmed partial metabolic response (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5

Minimum Change in SUVmax by PET Assessment

Minimum Change in SUVmax by PET Assessment

Discussion

This report describes the phase I safety, tolerability, and clinical activity of crenigacestat, a highly potent and selective Notch inhibitor of ACC. We have established that crenigacestat can be administered safely on a TIW schedule at a dose of 50 mg in patients with ACC. Grade 3/4 toxicities were low. Similar to the patients in the previously reported dose escalation and other dose expansion cohorts reported for this trial [18, 21], gastrointestinal toxicity (diarrhea and nausea) was the major toxicity observed in these patients. These events were consistent with the previously reported clinical safety profile for Notch pathway inhibitors. There were no objective partial or complete responses. However, a majority of the patients (58%) with ACC achieved stable disease and 4 patients among them had stable disease for more than 6 months despite the patient population being heterogeneous and heavily pretreated, with more than 40% receiving crenigacestat monotherapy as second line or greater. Yet, ACC is unique in its unpredictable, yet slow-growing, nature [22]. Despite this and the fact that these patients were heavily pre-treated, overall, disease control rate was 73% (16/22). Two out of 16 (13%) patients demonstrated unconfirmed partial metabolic response evidenced by reduction in PET SUVmax. The geometric mean Cmax and area under plasma concentration time curve appeared similar to those calculated from patients who underwent intensive PK sampling in the dose-escalation phase. A change in Notch expression pattern was observed in patients who underwent pre- and post-treatment biopsies, which may be consistent with pharmacologic activity; however, samples were submitted in several types of fixative, which could impact the sensitivity and specificity for activation of Notch by IHC. The high level of Notch activation in our patient cohort’s pre-treatment samples is consistent with recent studies of Notch activation prevalence in ACC [23, 24], Differences seen, i.e., the slightly lower percentage observed, however, may be due to fixation techniques and IHC antibody clones. In summary, the results of the ACC expansion cohort in this phase 1 trial demonstrate that crenigacestat has a manageable safety profile and a clinical pharmacodynamic effect on Notch-targeted genes. However, crenigacestat clinical activity was limited at the recommended dose with no confirmed objective response. Trials are ongoing to explore crenigacestat in combination with targeted agents and chemotherapy. Overall, this work supports the rationale for targeting Notch signalling and further implicates Notch signalling in tumor physiology.
  20 in total

Review 1.  Notch signaling: cell fate control and signal integration in development.

Authors:  S Artavanis-Tsakonas; M D Rand; R J Lake
Journal:  Science       Date:  1999-04-30       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Therapeutic antibody targeting of individual Notch receptors.

Authors:  Yan Wu; Carol Cain-Hom; Lisa Choy; Thijs J Hagenbeek; Gladys P de Leon; Yongmei Chen; David Finkle; Rayna Venook; Xiumin Wu; John Ridgway; Dorreyah Schahin-Reed; Graham J Dow; Amy Shelton; Scott Stawicki; Ryan J Watts; Jeff Zhang; Robert Choy; Peter Howard; Lisa Kadyk; Minhong Yan; Jiping Zha; Christopher A Callahan; Sarah G Hymowitz; Christian W Siebel
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PET Study Group.

Authors:  H Young; R Baum; U Cremerius; K Herholz; O Hoekstra; A A Lammertsma; J Pruim; P Price
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 4.  Systemic therapy in the management of metastatic or locally recurrent adenoid cystic carcinoma of the salivary glands: a systematic review.

Authors:  Scott A Laurie; Alan L Ho; Matthew G Fury; Eric Sherman; David G Pfister
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-12-10       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1).

Authors:  E A Eisenhauer; P Therasse; J Bogaerts; L H Schwartz; D Sargent; R Ford; J Dancey; S Arbuck; S Gwyther; M Mooney; L Rubinstein; L Shankar; L Dodd; R Kaplan; D Lacombe; J Verweij
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Whole exome sequencing of adenoid cystic carcinoma.

Authors:  Philip J Stephens; Helen R Davies; Yoshitsugu Mitani; Peter Van Loo; Adam Shlien; Patrick S Tarpey; Elli Papaemmanuil; Angela Cheverton; Graham R Bignell; Adam P Butler; John Gamble; Stephen Gamble; Claire Hardy; Jonathan Hinton; Mingming Jia; Alagu Jayakumar; David Jones; Calli Latimer; Stuart McLaren; David J McBride; Andrew Menzies; Laura Mudie; Mark Maddison; Keiran Raine; Serena Nik-Zainal; Sarah O'Meara; Jon W Teague; Ignacio Varela; David C Wedge; Ian Whitmore; Scott M Lippman; Ultan McDermott; Michael R Stratton; Peter J Campbell; Adel K El-Naggar; P Andrew Futreal
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2013-06-17       Impact factor: 14.808

Review 7.  Oncogenic and tumor suppressor functions of Notch in cancer: it's NOTCH what you think.

Authors:  Camille Lobry; Philmo Oh; Iannis Aifantis
Journal:  J Exp Med       Date:  2011-09-26       Impact factor: 14.307

8.  NOTCH1 signaling contributes to cell growth, anti-apoptosis and metastasis in salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma.

Authors:  Bo-Hua Su; Jing Qu; Min Song; Xiao-Yu Huang; Xiao-Meng Hu; Jian Xie; Yong Zhao; Lin-Can Ding; Lin She; Jiang Chen; Li-Song Lin; Xu Lin; Da-Li Zheng; You-Guang Lu
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2014-08-30

9.  Taking it up a NOTCH: a novel subgroup of ACC is identified.

Authors:  Renata Ferrarotto; John V Heymach
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2017-09-14

10.  The mutational landscape of adenoid cystic carcinoma.

Authors:  Allen S Ho; Kasthuri Kannan; David M Roy; Luc G T Morris; Ian Ganly; Nora Katabi; Deepa Ramaswami; Logan A Walsh; Stephanie Eng; Jason T Huse; Jianan Zhang; Igor Dolgalev; Kety Huberman; Adriana Heguy; Agnes Viale; Marija Drobnjak; Margaret A Leversha; Christine E Rice; Bhuvanesh Singh; N Gopalakrishna Iyer; C Rene Leemans; Elisabeth Bloemena; Robert L Ferris; Raja R Seethala; Benjamin E Gross; Yupu Liang; Rileen Sinha; Luke Peng; Benjamin J Raphael; Sevin Turcan; Yongxing Gong; Nikolaus Schultz; Seungwon Kim; Simion Chiosea; Jatin P Shah; Chris Sander; William Lee; Timothy A Chan
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2013-05-19       Impact factor: 38.330

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Therapeutic targeting of the crosstalk between cancer-associated fibroblasts and cancer stem cells.

Authors:  Tu-Xiong Huang; Xin-Yuan Guan; Li Fu
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 6.166

Review 2.  Beyond Surgical Treatment in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Literature Review.

Authors:  Sarah Atallah; Morgane Marc; Antoine Schernberg; Florence Huguet; Isabelle Wagner; Antti Mäkitie; Bertrand Baujat
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2022-06-04       Impact factor: 3.602

Review 3.  Systemic therapies for salivary gland adenoid cystic carcinoma.

Authors:  Sosuke Sahara; Alexandra E Herzog; Jacques E Nör
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 5.942

Review 4.  Top Notch Targeting Strategies in Cancer: A Detailed Overview of Recent Insights and Current Perspectives.

Authors:  Gillian Moore; Stephanie Annett; Lana McClements; Tracy Robson
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-06-20       Impact factor: 6.600

Review 5.  Role of Notch Receptors in Hematologic Malignancies.

Authors:  Laura Gragnani; Serena Lorini; Silvia Marri; Anna Linda Zignego
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 6.600

6.  Targeting Notch Inhibitors to the Myeloma Bone Marrow Niche Decreases Tumor Growth and Bone Destruction without Gut Toxicity.

Authors:  Hayley M Sabol; Adam J Ferrari; Manish Adhikari; Tânia Amorim; Kevin McAndrews; Judith Anderson; Michele Vigolo; Rajwinder Lehal; Meloney Cregor; Sharmin Khan; Pedro L Cuevas; Jill A Helms; Noriyoshi Kurihara; Venkat Srinivasan; Frank H Ebetino; Robert K Boeckman; G David Roodman; Teresita Bellido; Jesus Delgado-Calle
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 12.701

Review 7.  A Mechanistic Overview of Taste Bud Maintenance and Impairment in Cancer Therapies.

Authors:  Dany Gaillard; Linda A Barlow
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 3.160

Review 8.  Oral Cancer Stem Cells: Therapeutic Implications and Challenges.

Authors:  Linah A Shahoumi
Journal:  Front Oral Health       Date:  2021-07-21
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.