Abstract
Despite the availability of technological advances in traditional anti-cancer therapies, there is a need for more precise and targeted cancer treatment strategies. The wide-ranging shortfalls of conventional anticancer therapies such as systematic toxicity, compromised life quality, and limited to severe side effects are major areas of concern of conventional cancer treatment approaches. Owing to the expansion of knowledge and technological advancements in the field of cancer biology, more innovative and safe anti-cancerous approaches such as immune therapy, gene therapy and targeted therapy are rapidly evolving with the aim to address the limitations of conventional therapies. The concept of immunotherapy began with the capability of coley toxins to stimulate toll-like receptors of immune cells to provoke an immune response against cancers. With an in-depth understating of the molecular mechanisms of carcinogenesis and their relationship to disease prognosis, molecular targeted therapy approaches, that inhibit or stimulate specific cancer-promoting or cancer-inhibitory molecules respectively, have offered promising outcomes. In this review, we evaluate the achievement and challenges of these technically advanced therapies with the aim of presenting the overall progress and perspective of each approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Cells acquire a cancerous phenotype due to a multitude of aberrant changes that manifest at the levels of proteins, RNA, or DNA. The year 2020 witnessed staggering statistics from the World Health Organization (WHO)—one-sixth of global deaths were attributed to cancer, underscoring the urgent necessity for safer, personalized, and more effective treatment modalities. While conventional anticancer methods such as surgery, radiotherapy, and hormonal therapy [1] have shown advancements, the realm of cancer therapeutics is abuzz with exploration aimed at enhancing survival rates. Within this landscape, emerging treatment avenues including immunotherapy, gene therapy, and molecular targeted therapy are offering promising prospects. These innovative therapeutic paradigms have historical roots, but it’s the availability of comprehensive genomic and individualized data that has truly refined their applications. The core objective of these groundbreaking treatments is to overcome the limitations inherent in traditional anticancer approaches—adverse treatment effects and long-term side effects.
In spite of these strides, cancer stands as the second leading cause of mortality, prompting an urgent quest for precise, targeted anticancer interventions to improve tolerance and mitigate both immediate and enduring side effects. The pursuit of better outcomes steers oncologists towards a strategy of integrated disease management, entailing dynamic treatment regimens that optimize cancer management. This article delves into anti-cancer therapeutic methods—immunotherapy, gene therapy, and molecular targeted therapy—tracing their historical development, assessing present progress, and outlining the potential they hold for the future (Fig. 1).
Immunotherapy
The immunotherapy concept is based on directing one’s own immune response specifically towards cancerous cells [2]. With fewer off-targets compared to chemotherapy, immunotherapy magnetized its consideration for treating cancers. Various strategies have been ascertained to achieve activation or boosting of the immune system for fighting cancers.
Immunostimulant
Immunostimulants work by exciting the immune system through various dynamics, such as the production of cytokines and specific antibodies, the release of α and γ interferons, and the activation of B and T lymphocytes [3]. In the early twentieth century, Coley observed a reduction in sarcoma size after injecting it with gram-positive bacteria. This observation led to the discovery of Coley toxin, a bacterial product that became the first known immunostimulant for cancers [4] (Fig. 2). However, its acceptance in the medical community and widespread use were encumbered by several reasons, such as inconsistent results and inadequately designed studies.
Later, in the 1960s, the recognition of the effectiveness of immunostimulants such as Bacillus Calmette–Guerin (BCG) in managing solid tumors, and its subsequent approval for some malignancies such as bladder cancer, sparked interest in exploring the potential of immunotherapy in treating cancer [5]. Subsequent studies on interferon-α (IFN-α), a cytokine, further demonstrated antitumoral activity in melanoma, hairy cell leukemia, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and other solid tumors [6]. In 1986, IFN-α2 was approved to cure hairy cell leukemia, and it was developed as the first immunotherapy for adjuvant treatment of stage IIB/III melanoma in the USA in 1995 [7]. Soon after, another cytokine, interleukin-2 (IL-2), was approved by the FDA due to its anticancer activity in RCC and melanoma (Table 1). However, a high dosage of IL-2 was found to be associated with severe adversities, such as hemodynamic complications requiring hospitalization in an intensive care facility [8].
Bacterial products such as BCG, recombinant cytokines like interleukin and interferons, animal and plant-originated products, and synthetic drugs including levamisole, immunocynin, bestatin, and CpG oligonucleotides, as well as imiquimod, are being utilized for their immunostimulating function in cancer treatment [3] (Fig. 3).
Cancer vaccination
The use of anti-tumor peptides as cancer vaccination emerged from the identification of various tumor antigens (TAs) that have the ability to stimulate T-cells against cancer [9]. Somatic mutations generate tumor-specific antigens, also known as neoantigens, while non-mutated but abnormal proteins due to misfolding, truncation, or abnormal post-translational modification are distinguished as tumor-associated protein [10]. These TAs stimulate cellular and/or humoral responses, giving rise to antigenic determinants presented as major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules at the surface of tumor cells to incite CD8+ T cells [11]. In addition, MHC class II fragments, either presented by antigen-presenting cells (APC) or tumor cells, are recognized and responded to by CD4+ T cells. However, being a fragment of MHC class I or class II, TAs can bind to specific MHC molecules and hold great clinical significance only for those who express that particular MHC molecule [9]. Some peptides from TAs can engage MHC class I and MHC class II molecules, building the foundation for the development of peptide- and protein-based vaccines for multiple cancer types [11] (Fig. 3).
A number of vaccines have been synthesized and tested for their effectiveness in different cancers. The limited clinical significance of first-generation vaccines was observed in a small group of patients in advanced stages of cancer [12]. However, it provided useful insight into the reactivity of tumor cells to counterbalance the immunization effects induced by protein and peptide vaccines.
To maximize specificity and effectiveness, many modifications have been proposed for peptide and protein-based vaccines, such as the utilization of immunological adjuvants that help the gradual discharge and consequent amplification of antigens to induce an immune response. Commonly used adjuvants include aluminum salts, oil-in-water emulsion (MF59), nontoxic derivatives from Salmonella (MPL), water-in-oil emulsions (Montanide ISA 51 and ISA 720), and the saponins (ISCOM, QS-21, AS01, and AS02) [13].
Another modification proposed in protein- and peptide-based vaccines is the insertion of toll-like receptor ligands (TLRL) such as TLR3L, TLR4L, TLR7/8L (imiquimod, resiquimod) and TLR9L (CpG), activating APCs [14]. Some TLRL, such as TLR3L, exhibited stimulatory potentials for APC and natural killer (NK) cells initiating tumor cell death [14]. TLR9L has been found to effectively stimulate the induction of TA-specified CD8+ T cells in advanced cancer patients [15]. Alternatively, granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) has been ascertained to weaken the vaccine-induced immune response for multi-peptide vaccines [16].
In 1986, gp96, an endoplasmic reticulum-residing member of HSP90 (heat shock proteins), was isolated from fibrosarcomas of mice after stimulation with methylcholanthrene A and was found to function as a tumor rejection antigen [17]. Extracellular HSP has been observed to play a stimulatory role for the immune system against tumorous tissue either by displaying immunogenic peptides originating from tumors or integrating innate and adaptive immunity through the secretion of chemokines, cytokines, and nitric oxide [18]. The gp96 and HSP70 peptide-based vaccines extracted from autologous tumor lysate were introduced in late-stage melanoma, metastatic colorectal cancer, glioma, and renal cell carcinoma patients [19].
Although HSP–peptide complex treatment incited the immune response in a majority of the patients, however, the response remained limited to certain patient subgroups. A clinical trial study with twelve brain tumor patients treated with recombinant HSP70 in an intra-tumoral manner after surgery exhibited complete clinical response (CR) along with the buildup of Th1 cell-mediated immune response and decline in immunosuppressive Treg cell population [20]. Another clinical setting with twelve patients with non-resectable or reiterated HCV-related hepatocellular carcinoma advocates the effectiveness of the treatment [21].
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)
Monoclonal antibody (mAbs) development represents a pivotal aspect of immunotherapeutic strategies aimed at suppressing the immunosuppressive influence of cancer cells [22] (Fig. 3). Köhler and Milstein [23] demonstrated the production of high-quantity mAbs displaying identical antigens in 1975. Since then various mAbs with diverse mechanisms of action have been developed, including those opposing neoplastic activity, neutralizing trophic signaling, or stimulating the immune system against tumor cells [24]. The initial investigation for the therapeutic role of mAbs failed most possibly due to the incompatibility of mice mAbs to recruit human immune effector molecules [22]. Initial investigations into the therapeutic role of mAbs faced challenges, possibly due to the incompatibility of mouse-derived mAbs with human immune effector molecules [22].
However, the development of chimeric or fully humanized mAbs has strengthened their efficacy, with studies validating their effectiveness in hematological and solid tumors [25]. The response rate to tumor-associated specific mAbs (e.g., trastuzumab) was observed at 35% in patients with advanced metastatic breast cancer when administered alone [25]. However, a marked increase in the survival rate, along with an improvement in the duration of response, was observed by combining trastuzumab with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy [25].
Bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized mAb, binds vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF) and inhibits angiogenesis [26]. It is approved for the treatment of colorectal cancer, glioblastoma (GB), non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and breast cancer [26]. Cetuximab, a recombinant chimeric mAb, targets EGFR, HER-1, and c-ErbB-1, preventing the binding of EGF with its ligand and promoting tumorigenesis [27]. Panitumumab, a recombinant human anti-EGFR mAb, competitively binds with EGFR, inhibiting the attachment of EGF and TGFα to the receptor [28]. Trastuzumab binds to the extracellular domain of EGFR-2 protein (HER-2) and is recommended for breast cancer patients [25]. Rituximab targets CD20 antigen of B lymphocytes, showing significance for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), Hodgkin lymphoma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) [22] (Table 1).
Immune checkpoint proteins, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death (PD-1), play a crucial role in regulating T cell activation by balancing pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory signalling [29]. PD-1 has two ligands, PD-L1 and PD-L2, with PD-L1 expressed on both tumor and immune cells. When coupled with PD-1, it inhibits T cell multiplication and cytotoxicity [29]. Blocking these inhibitors with their antibodies resulted in satisfactory outcomes in in-vivo studies.
Since 2010, FDA-approved mAb drugs include Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4), Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, and Cemiplimab (anti-PD-1), as well as Atezolimumab, Durvalumab, and Avelumab (anti PD-L). Ipilimumab and tremelimumab are mAb formulated to counteract the activity of CTLA-4 (molecule downregulating the activation of T cells through a homeostatic feedback loop) thus allowing the prolonged activation of T cells, restoration of proliferative potentials of T cells to enhance T-cell mediated immunity along with patient’s anti-tumor immune response [30]. However, clinical trial data indicate low efficacy and high toxicity in patients treated with anti-CTLA-4 [31] and resistance development in those treated with anti-PD-1 therapy [32] (Table 1). Mechanisms of non-responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitors include tumor mutational burden, PD-L expression, interferon signaling, and MHC-1 loss [29].
Ibritumomab and tositumomab radioconjugates deliver radioactive isotopes to intended cells [33]. Tositumomab radio-conjugate, a murine IgG2a-λ mAb, binds CD20 antigen expressed on B lymphocytes [33]. Iodine-131 tositumomab is a radio-iodized product of tositumomab covalently attached to iodine-131 [33]. Ibritumomab, an anti-CD20 mAb, is linked with the chelator tiuxetan, acting as a specific chelation site for yttrium-90 [33]. Alemtuzumab, that binds to CD52 and leads to cellular lysis [34]. It is recommended by the FDA for fludarabine-refractory CLL, with reported clinical significance for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, peripheral T-cell lymphoma, and T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia.
Ipilimumab and tremelimumab are mAbs formulated to counteract CTLA-4 activity, allow prolonged activation of T cells, restore proliferative potentials and enhance T-cell mediated immunity [30].
With increased response rate and disease-free survival compared to chemotherapy, milder side effects generally caused by an allergic reaction due to the introduction of foreign proteins are observed [35]. However, the infrequent acute adverse effects such as arterial thromboembolic in patients treated with Bevacizumab- a mAb targeting VEGF [36] and autoimmune colitis caused by CTLA4 specific mAbs ipilimumab and tremelimumab [37] have been observed.
Dendritic cell induction
Dendritic cells play a key role in mediating innate immunity and stimulating adaptive immunity (Fig. 3). The dysfunction of endogenous DCs in cancer patients has prompted the development of ex-vivo DCs with controlled loading of antigens, enhancing the specificity and magnitude of the T-cell response [38]. The ex-vivo generation of DCs allows the incorporation of supplementary features, such as tumor-relevant homing signals that direct the trafficking of immune cells toward potential metastatic sites. In-vivo DCs have the potential to acquire resistance to inhibitory factors like IL-10, TGF-β, VEGF, and IL-6 [38]. However, a notable increase in Tregs is observed in response to cancer vaccines, compromising the effectiveness of the vaccine [38].
Following its success in melanoma and follicular lymphoma, the clinical use of partially mature “first-generation” DCs has been explored in various tumor types [38]. However, the expression of costimulatory molecules and immunogens remained below the optimal level as compared to those arising from mature “second-generation” DCs. To address this, an improvement in the macrophage-conditioned medium and in the cytokine cocktail, including IL-1α, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), IL-6, and PGE2, was introduced to stimulate DCs and promote high expression of costimulatory molecules [38]. Compared to immature DCs, this cocktail exhibited enhanced immunogenic function along with an upgraded migratory response to lymph nodes [38].
Genetic immunization of cancers
Various strategies have been proposed for genetically immunizing solid tumors, including cytokine gene therapy and plasmid-based immunization (Fig. 3). Previous attempts, such as injecting plasmid DNA encoding cytokines to stimulate an immune response against tumor cells, faced challenges due to a limited immunogenic response [39]. However, the plasmid-based immunization process, delivering antigens through viral and microbial vectors, has shown promising outcomes by eliciting both antibodies and cellular responses in mice [40].
Clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of self-TAs, such as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) against colorectal cancer, confirmed the safety of DNA immunization [41]. Yet, the responsiveness to CEA varied among patients, with only four out of seventeen showing an immune response, highlighting the inadequacy of plasmid DNA immunization in stimulating a T-cell response [41]. Similarly, a study involving MART-1 plasmid injection intramuscularly in melanoma patients reported no increase in immunity [42]. The challenge lies in achieving a balanced response between neutralizing antibodies and the expanding population of Treg cells to self-antigens, hindering the improvement of immunity against cancer [43]. A study utilizing an alpha-virus plasmid carrying the CEA antigen gene enveloped in virus-like replicon particles (VRP) claimed a reduction in the neutralization effect caused by antibodies and Treg cells, leading to an improvement in immunotherapeutic treatment and overall survival rate [43].
Tumor-associated macrophages
Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are immune cells abundantly present in the tumor microenvironment (TME) [44]. They play a dual role, acting as tumor inhibitors during initiation stages and as tumor promoters in advanced stages [44]. The presence of macrophages contributes synergistically to therapeutic responses, such as increased sensitization to 5-FU adjuvant therapy [44]. Although strategies to inactivate or deplete macrophages have been employed, these attempts were unsuccessful due to an attenuated immune response and significant repression of intra-tumor neutrophils [44]. Consequently, the idea of readjusting macrophages from a pro-tumor to an anti-tumor state gained momentum.
Two categories of macrophage reprogramming include pan-reprogramming and function-based reprogramming (Fig. 3) [44]. Pan-reprogramming targets signaling pathways aiding polarization to a pro-tumor state or those preferentially expressed in TAMs. Histone deacetylases (HDACs), phosphoinositide 3-kinase gamma (PI3Kγ), leukocyte immunoglobulin-like receptors B-2 (LILRB-2), and macrophage receptors with a collagenous structure (MARCO) are utilized in this approach [44]. On the other hand, function-based reprogramming targets specific roles of macrophages such as immunosuppression and phagocytosis [44]. The function-based reprogramming strategy targets the tumor-macrophage axis, such as the antiphagocytic signal CD47-SIRP1α, β2-M-LILRB1, and CD24-SIGLEC-10, proving effective in various cancers [44].
Chimeric antigen receptor therapy (CAR therapy)
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy is gaining widespread acceptance due to its durable and effective CRs. Engineered synthetic receptors direct lymphocytes, typically T cells, to recognize and eradicate cells expressing specific antigens (Fig. 3). Since 2017, various CAR-T products have received approval from the FDA. Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) target the CD19 antigen in patients with large B-cell Lymphoma (Table 1). However, antigen escape, a phenomenon observed in patients treated with single antigen-targeting CAR-T, results in complete or partial loss of that antigen in 30% of relapsed/recurrence cases [45]. B cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and CD38 are identified as target antigens for multiple myelomas. Treating relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma patients with BCMA-CD38-CAR-T therapy yielded a high response rate and low recurrence rate [46]. Clinical trials for various solid malignancies, including GB, renal cell carcinoma, lung cancer, and hepatocarcinoma, are ongoing.
Second, third, and fourth-generation CAR-T cells are not only generated but are undergoing continuous refinement and enhancement. These iterations of CAR-T cell therapies represent progressive advancements in the design and functionality of CAR-T cells. Second-generation CAR-T cells were characterized by the addition of one co-stimulatory domain to the original CAR structure, improving their efficacy. Third-generation CAR-T cells incorporated multiple co-stimulatory domains, further enhancing their activation and persistence within the TME. The fourth generation introduces additional features, such as cytokine secretion or genetic modifications, aiming to address challenges like antigen escape and the hostile conditions of the TME. These advancements signify a dynamic field of research and development, continually pushing the boundaries of CAR-T cell therapy for improved outcomes in cancer treatment.
Despite attempts to stimulate the immune system through various approaches, challenges in the form of generating autoimmune disorders exist. While CAR-T displays promising outcomes for hematological malignancies, its effectiveness in solid tumors remains compromised. Cytokine-release syndrome and on-target off-tumor toxicities are major challenges that need to be resolved for effective CAR-T therapy. Current research is focused on improving immunotherapy and addressing the issues of autoimmune disorders. Moreover, with successful immunotherapy, the chances of cancer recurrence will diminish, making the dream of cancer-free survival a reality. Furthermore, the high cost and labor-intensive process involved in generating CAR-T cells render it inaccessible to many patients.
Gene therapy
Gene therapy holds great promise for treating cancer, employing various approaches that stimulate immune responses against cancer cells, utilize oncolytic viruses to kill cancerous cells, and suppress cancer survival and supportive activities. This article will discuss these strategies in detail.
Genetic modulation of the immune system
A phase I study investigating the safety and efficacy of poxviral vaccine-based treatment containing genes for CEA and MUC-1 together with TRICOM (a triad of co-stimulatory molecules) comprising B7-1, ICAM-u1, and LFA-3 engineered in vaccinia and fowl pox determined the increased endured response by the immune system in patients with ovarian cancer and breast cancer [47].
Numerous attempts to manipulate the immune response have been reported in the literature [48]. Strengthening the immune response involves directing immune cells against cancer cells through the enhanced production of proinflammatory, immune-stimulating molecules initiated by incorporating one or more genes into cancer cells [48]. Transfusion of mononuclear circulating blood cells modified with an immunostimulatory gene or TA into the patient’s body triggers an immune system response targeting cancer cells [49]. For instance, a study involving TG01 (the first immunotherapy drug targeting KRAS mutations) along with GM-CSF and gemcitabine in an adjuvant setting for patients with resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma demonstrated increased activation of the immune response, extension in overall survival, and disease-free survival rate with improved tolerance [50]. A Phase I study assessed the safety and efficacy of a poxviral vaccine-based treatment. This treatment included genes for CEA and MUC-1, along with TRICOM (a triad of co-stimulatory molecules: B7-1, ICAM-u1, and LFA-3) engineered in vaccinia and fowlpox. The study determined an enhanced and sustained immune response in patients with ovarian cancer and breast cancer [47].
Oncolytic gene therapy
Oncolytic gene therapy entails the introduction of genetically modified viruses into the body to eliminate cancerous cells, either through the expression of cytotoxic proteins or cytolysis induced by the virus’s propagation (Fig. 3). Viruses such as vaccinia, adenovirus, herpes simplex virus type I (HSV-1), reovirus, and Newcastle disease virus are chosen for their inherent ability to infect cancer cells or due to their easy genetic manipulation [51]. In various animal models, including murine and canine studies, a noteworthy increase in the survival rate coupled with a reduction in metastasis has been reported, demonstrating the potential of oncolytic gene therapy [52]. An overview of oncolytic gene therapy agents, either FDA-approved or under current investigation, is provided in Table 1.
The oncolytic adenovirus (OAd) Delta-24-RGDOX, expressing OX40L (an immune co-stimulator) alongside an anti-PD-L1 antibody in glioma-bearing mice, significantly prolonged the survival rate to 85%, compared to the control survival rate of 28% [53]. Utilizing a humanized monoclonal CTLA-4 antibody expressing oncolytic adenovirus Ad5/3-Δ24aCTLA4 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) of four cancer patients in advanced stages achieved increased activation of T cells, evidenced by a rise in IL-2 [54]. A recent study featuring rAd.sT (telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter-regulated oncolytic adenovirus) combined with a soluble transforming growth factor receptor II and human IgG Fc fragment (sTGFβRIIFc) gene demonstrated dose-dependent cytotoxicity in breast and kidney cancer patients [55]. Furthermore, the intratumoral introduction of rAd.sT in the immunocompetent breast cancer mice model impeded tumor progression and metastasis in lungs and liver synergistically with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies [55].
The modeling of HSV-1 positions it as an effective and selective eradicator of cancerous cells. A recent study focusing on metastatically advanced pediatric glioma revealed the efficacy of G207 (genetically modified HSV-1), either alone or accompanied by radiation with manageable consequences [56]. In a phase I/II investigation with NV1020 (recombinant HSV-1) on colorectal cancer patients experiencing high-grade metastasized disease, it exhibited potential for stabilizing hepatic metastasis and intensifying responsiveness to cancers by enhancing the sensitivity of tumorous cells to chemotherapy and inciting a tumor-lytic immune response [57]. Enhanced controlled cytotoxicity is achieved by equipping oncolytic (HSV-1) with a bi-specific T cell engager (BiTE) connecting PD-L1 (expressed on tumor cells) and CD3ε (expressed on T cells) in malignant hydroperitoneum derived from patients with different cancers [58].
Gene transfer strategic approach
Gene transfer offers another avenue for cancer treatment by facilitating the introduction of foreign genes into either cancerous cells or surrounding tissues. Suicide genes, anti-angiogenesis genes, and genes promoting cellular stasis have been proposed as favorable choices for impeding cancer progression [59]. Various methods including viral transfer, naked DNA transfer, oligodendromer DNA coating and electroporation are recognized as practical [59]. However, the chosen delivery method influences expression duration and specifications for gene transfer therapy. For example, adenoviral vectors are commonly selected to deliver HSVtk gene for transient expression required to induce cellular mortality. In contrast, to counteract angiogenesis, prolonged expression of sFLT-1 and statin-AE genes is essential. Therefore, their delivery is carried out through plasmids containing transposons for gene insertion into cellular DNA [60]. A clinical study involving TNFerade biologic (adenovector delivering tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) to tumor cells) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients confirmed its safety but failed to demonstrate an extension in survival [61].
Rexin-G is a gene therapy with a broad spectrum of tumoricidal activity designed to target lesions by binding to unusual signature (SIG) proteins in the tumorous microenvironment. It encodes a cytocidal dominant-negative mutant construct of cyclin G1 (dnG1) in tumorous cells, disrupting the activity of wild-type cyclin G1, eventually causing cell growth arrest [62].
Another gene transfer approach involves the introduction of HSV-tk followed by the administration of ganciclovir (GCV), an anti-herpetic prodrug that exhibits no toxicity for human cells unless phosphorylated by HSVtk [63]. A Phase 1 study with locally relapsed prostate cancer established its safety profile along with anti-tumorigenic activity [64]. Furthermore, an unsystematic study on high-grade glioma revealed an 81% improvement in survival rates with no serious health hazards [65].
Approximately 50% of cancers carry mutated p53 genes to evade apoptosis apoptosis [66]. INGN-201, an adenovector, was developed to deliver p53 to cancerous cells. Clinical testing of INGN-201 in prostate cancer exhibited a high safety profile with increased expression of p53 in cancerous tissue, compelling them to undergo apoptosis [64]. Additionally, the efficacy of Ad-p53 has been noted NSCLC with a significant regression of the disease either given singly or in combination with radiation and chemotherapy [67]. Gendicine, a recombinant adenovirus transferring p53, accompanied by chemotherapy, enhanced therapeutic significance while reducing the harmful consequences of chemotherapeutic agents in head and neck cancer patients [68].
Molecular targeted therapy
Targeting molecules crucial for cancer progression and survival allows for specific cancer treatment. Numerous molecular targets have undergone clinical assessment for their anti-cancer potential, leading to the approval of various molecular therapies by FDA. These therapies have demonstrated remarkable success in treating diverse cancers, including breast, lung, ovarian, leukemia, and colorectal cancers [69].
Inducing apoptosis through molecular targeting
To induce apoptosis in cancerous tissues, several molecules have been identified as potential targets. HER2 is critical in 15–20% of breast cancers, regulating key cell proliferation pathways such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)–AKT [70]. Molecular therapies targeting HER2 include mAbs (Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab), an antibody–drug conjugate (T-DM1), and small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (Lapatinib, Neratinib, and Afatinib) are approved by FDA (Table 1). Co-administration of trastuzumab with chemotherapeutic drugs in an adjuvant setting improves the survival rates [71].
Phosphoinositide 3-kinases alpha and delta (PI3Kα, PI3δ) play a crucial role in regulating cell death and growth. Idelalisib, a PI3Kδ inhibitor, was approved by the FDA in 2004 to treat CLL patients. Copanlisib, a co-inhibitor for PI3Kα and PI3δ, received FDA approval in 2017 for patients with follicular lymphoma [72]. Inhibiting AKT is achieved with MK-2206 (an AKT inhibitor). Everolimus and Temsirolimus, mTOR inhibitors, have shown efficacy in treating specific cancers [73, 74].
Crizotinib, a kinase inhibitor, is approved for NSCLC patients with ALK and ROS1 positive tumors. It has demonstrated increased survival rates in ALK-positive progressive NSCLC [75]. Inhibiting Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases (PARP) is significant in treating cancers carrying BRCA mutations. Olaparib, Niraparib, Talazoparib, and Rucaparib are developed for inhibiting PARP in cancers with mutated BRCA gene [76] (Table 1).
Our recent findings highlight the atypical involvement of PI3K-Akt kinases and p53 in triggering both cell death and resistance, facilitated by the FDA-approved thymosin beta 4 (Tβ4) drug in medulloblastoma (MB) cells [77, 78]. The success of these groundbreaking studies, unraveling Tβ4’s influence on MB and GB cells, sets the stage for future investigations into the intricate roles of p53 and PI3K/AKT in cancer cells characterized by elevated p53 levels [79]. This research is poised to guide the development of methodologies assessing p53 levels in patient specimens and potentially pave the way for the clinical application of Tβ4.
B cell lymphoma 2 (BCL2) is a critical regulator of cell death. The inhibitors for BCL2 have been tested for their clinical significance in NHL, chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) and acute myeloid lymphoma (AML). In 2016, FDA approved Venetoclax for CLL patients having a deletion of the shorter arm of chromosome 17. Co-inhibitors for BCL2 and BCLX including ABT-737 and ABT-263 have been developed [80]. ABT-737 monotherapy is effective in suppressing tumor progression in NSCLC and lymphomas [81]. Clinical trials with ABT-263 yielded a response in 34.6% of patients while its combination with Rituximab significantly improved the response rate [82].
Inhibiting murine double minute (MDM2), an inhibitor of TP53, is of particular interest in developing anti-cancer therapies. Molecules like Nutlin 3a, RG7112, RG7388, AMG-232, APG-115, BI-907828, CGM097, DS-3032, and HDM201 have been synthesized to disrupt the MDM2-TP53 regulatory loop, inducing death in cancer cells [83] (Table 1). These targeted therapies showcase promising avenues for precise cancer treatment.
Targeting key molecules of angiogenesis
Targeting angiogenesis to deprive cancerous cells of essential nutritional resources has emerged as an effective strategy for eradicating cancer. Bevacizumab, the first humanized mAB, binds to the circulating VEGF-A isoform, preventing its interaction with VEGFR and inhibiting the activation of VEGF signaling crucial for neovascularization. Combining bevacizumab with chemotherapy has shown promising outcomes in treating various solid tumors, including colorectal cancer [84], NSCLC [84], breast cancer [84], renal cell adenocarcinoma [84], ovarian tumor [85] and GB [86]. Another humanized mAB, Ramucirumab, engages VEGFR, leading to the inhibition of neovascularization. Clinical trials such as REACH for malignant hepatoma, RAINBOW, and REGARD for gastric cancer demonstrated encouraging outcomes when combining Ramucirumab with chemotherapeutic agents [87].
Inhibitors targeting biomarkers overexpressed in cancer cells have gained attention, particularly EGFR. EGFR inhibitors like Erlotinib, Afatinib, Gefitinib, and Cetuximab are commonly used (Table 1). A study administering Erlotinib to NSCLC patients previously treated with chemotherapy revealed a survival advantage with a significant improvement in the quality of life [88]. Pancreatic carcinoma patients treated with Erlotinib plus gemcitabine showed clinically favorable outcomes compared to gemcitabine alone [89]. The LUX-Lung 5 trial demonstrated improved outcomes when patients with resistance to Erlotinib or Gefitinib were treated with Afatinib and Paclitaxel [90]. Cetuximab has been observed to enhance survival and quality of life in colorectal cancer patients unresponsive to other therapeutic options [91] (Table 1). Targeting these key molecules involved in angiogenesis holds promise for effective cancer treatment.
Targeting proliferation
An exciting anticancer strategy involves impeding the progression of the cell cycle through the inhibition of cell cycle regulatory proteins. CDK inhibitors, including Palbociclib, Ribociclib, and Abemaciclib, have been developed and are being evaluated for their clinical potentials [92]. For instance, Palbociclib, an anti-CDK4/6 inhibitor, when combined with letrozole (a hormone-based therapeutic agent), demonstrates a delay in disease progression beyond what is achieved with letrozole alone in ER+HER2 metastatic breast cancer (Table 1). However, it’s essential to note that the combination treatment does come with pronounced myelosuppression [93]. Nevertheless, the FDA has approved Palbociclib for treating HER2 and HR-positive metastasized breast cancer in combination with hormonal therapy, highlighting its clinical significance [92].
In a similar manner, inhibitors for WEE, such as AZD1775 and ZN-c3, have been developed and are currently under evaluation in clinical trials [94]. While molecular targeted therapy has facilitated the personalization of medicine, the persistent challenge of drug resistance remains. Additionally, it can lead to clonal selection, allowing other molecular subtypes to flourish, ultimately resulting in the rapid progression of cancer. Addressing these challenges is crucial for ensuring the long-term efficacy of targeted proliferation therapies.
Conclusion
Until now multiple therapeutic strategies have been devised to treat cancer. While conventional therapies have served as a cornerstone in cancer management, their limitations, such as the development of treatment resistance and tumor relapse, have paved the way for advanced therapeutic approaches. These innovative strategies aim to address the challenges posed by traditional treatments. Recognizing the pivotal role of the immune system in cancer progression, scientists have explored the modulation of immune cells to achieve targeted immune responses against circulating cancer cells. The inherent heterogeneity of cancer cells and the concept of personalized medicine have further propelled the exploration of gene and targeted molecular therapies in cancer treatment. The integration of advanced therapies has not only enhanced the ability of clinicians to manage cancer effectively but has also provided researchers with the opportunity to refine these approaches for optimal anti-cancer solutions. Despite inherent shortcomings in each proposed solution, the current management of cancer involves the judicious utilization of both traditional and advanced approaches to treat various forms of cancer. The inclusion of advanced therapies has shown significant improvements in cancer management, leading to enhanced survival rates. However, the ultimate goal of achieving disease-free survival for all cancer patients, irrespective of tumor grade and stage, remains a formidable challenge yet to be fully realized.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
References
Zafar A, Khan MJ, Abu J, Naeem A (2023) Progress and challenges of anti-cancerous strategies: surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and hormonal therapy. Mol Biol Report. In review
Borghaei H, Smith MR, Campbell KS (2009) Immunotherapy of cancer. Eur J Pharmacol 625(1–3):41–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2009.09.067
Jain P, Darji P, Thakur BS, Jain A, Jain PK, Khare B (2022) Immunostimulants: concepts, types and functions. Asian J Dent Health Sci 2(4):26–34. https://doi.org/10.22270/ajdhs.v2i4.22
Zerbini A, Pilli M, Ferrari C, Missale G (2006) Is there a role for immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma? Dig Liver Dis 38(4):221–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2005.12.004
Guallar-Garrido S, Julián E (2020) Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) therapy for bladder cancer: an update. ImmunoTargets Ther 9:1–11. https://doi.org/10.2147/ITT.S202006
Talmadge JE (1989) Therapeutic properties of biological response modifiers. A discussion of preclinical and clinical studies. Contrib Gynecol Obstet 17:49–62
Sanlorenzo M, Vujic I, Carnevale-Schianca F et al (2017) Role of interferon in melanoma: old hopes and new perspectives. Expert Opin Biol Ther 17(4):475–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2017.1289169
Atkins MB, Kunkel L, Sznol M, Rosenberg SA (2000) High-dose recombinant interleukin-2 therapy in patients with metastatic melanoma: long-term survival update. Cancer J Sci Am 6(Suppl 1):S11–S14
Tagliamonte M, Petrizzo A, Tornesello ML, Buonaguro FM, Buonaguro L (2014) Antigen-specific vaccines for cancer treatment. Hum Vaccin Immunother 10(11):3332–3346. https://doi.org/10.4161/21645515.2014.973317
Meeusen E, Lim E, Mathivanan S (2017) Secreted tumor antigens—immune biomarkers for diagnosis and therapy. Proteomics 17(23–24):1600442. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201600442
Bachinsky MM, Guillen DE, Patel SR et al (2005) Mapping and binding analysis of peptides derived from the tumor-associated antigen survivin for eight HLA alleles. Cancer Immun 5:6
Dudley ME, Yang JC, Sherry R et al (2008) Adoptive cell therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: evaluation of intensive myeloablative chemoradiation preparative regimens. J Clin Oncol 26(32):5233–5239. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.16.5449
Dubensky TW, Reed SG (2010) Adjuvants for cancer vaccines. Semin Immunol 22(3):155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2010.04.007
Fourcade J, Sun Z, Kudela P et al (2010) Human tumor antigen-specific helper and regulatory T cells share common epitope specificity but exhibit distinct T cell repertoire. J Immunol 184(12):6709–6718. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.0903612
Fourcade J, Kudela P, Andrade Filho PA et al (2008) Immunization with analog peptide in combination with CpG and montanide expands tumor antigen-specific CD8+ T cells in melanoma patients. J Immunother 31(8):781–791. https://doi.org/10.1097/CJI.0b013e318183af0b
Slingluff CL, Petroni GR, Olson WC et al (2009) Effect of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor on circulating CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell responses to a multipeptide melanoma vaccine: outcome of a multicenter randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res 15(22):7036–7044. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1544
Srivastava PK, DeLeo AB, Old LJ (1986) Tumor rejection antigens of chemically induced sarcomas of inbred mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83(10):3407–3411. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.10.3407
Li Y, Subjeck J, Yang G, Repasky E, Wang XY (2006) Generation of anti-tumor immunity using mammalian heat shock protein 70 DNA vaccines for cancer immunotherapy. Vaccine 24(25):5360–5370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.04.028
Wood C, Srivastava P, Bukowski R et al (2008) An adjuvant autologous therapeutic vaccine (HSPPC-96; vitespen) versus observation alone for patients at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase III trial. Lancet 372(9633):145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60697-2
Shevtsov M, Kim A, Samochernych A et al (2014) Pilot study of intratumoral injection of recombinant heat shock protein 70 in the treatment of malignant brain tumors in children. Onco Targets Ther 7:1071–1081. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S62764
Maeda Y, Yoshimura K, Matsui H et al (2015) Dendritic cells transfected with heat-shock protein 70 messenger RNA for patients with hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 1 dose escalation clinical trial. Cancer Immunol Immunother 64(8):1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-015-1709-1
Waldmann TA (2003) Immunotherapy: past, present and future. Nat Med 9(3):269–277. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0303-269
Köhler G, Milstein C (1975) Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity. Nature 256(5517):495–497. https://doi.org/10.1038/256495a0
Vacchelli E, Eggermont A, Galon J et al (2013) Trial watch Oncoimmunology 2(1):e22789. https://doi.org/10.4161/onci.22789
Hall PS, Cameron DA (2009) Current perspective—trastuzumab. Eur J Cancer 45(1):12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.013
Braghiroli MI, Sabbaga J, Hoff PM (2012) Bevacizumab: overview of the literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 12(5):567–580. https://doi.org/10.1586/era.12.13
Bou-Assaly W, Mukherji S (2010) Cetuximab (Erbitux). Am J Neuroradiol 31(4):626–627. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A2054
Keating GM (2010) Panitumumab. Drugs 70(8):1059–1078. https://doi.org/10.2165/11205090-000000000-00000
Shiravand Y, Khodadadi F, Kashani SMA et al (2022) Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy. Curr Oncol 29(5):3044–3060. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29050247
He M, Chai Y, Qi J et al (2017) Remarkably similar CTLA-4 binding properties of therapeutic ipilimumab and tremelimumab antibodies. Oncotarget 8(40):67129–67139. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.18004
Seidel JA, Otsuka A, Kabashima K (2018) Anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 therapies in cancer: mechanisms of action, efficacy, and limitations. Front Oncol 8:86. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00086
Champiat S, Dercle L, Ammari S et al (2017) Hyperprogressive disease is a new pattern of progression in cancer patients treated by anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Clin Cancer Res 23(8):1920–1928. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1741
Pouget JP, Navarro-Teulon I, Bardiès M et al (2011) Clinical radioimmunotherapy—the role of radiobiology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 8(12):720–734. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.160
Ravandi F, O’Brien S (2005) Alemtuzumab. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 5(1):39–51. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.5.1.39
Descotes J (2009) Immunotoxicity of monoclonal antibodies. MAbs 1(2):104–111. https://doi.org/10.4161/mabs.1.2.7909
Scappaticci FA, Skillings JR, Holden SN et al (2007) Arterial thromboembolic events in patients with metastatic carcinoma treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(16):1232–1239. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm086
Fong L, Small EJ (2008) Anti–cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 antibody: the first in an emerging class of immunomodulatory antibodies for cancer treatment. J Clin Oncol 26(32):5275–5283. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.17.8954
Kalinski P, Okada H (2010) Polarized dendritic cells as cancer vaccines: directing effector-type T cells to tumors. Semin Immunol 22(3):173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2010.03.002
Mahvi DM, Henry MB, Albertini MR et al (2007) Intratumoral injection of IL-12 plasmid DNA—results of a phase I/IB clinical trial. Cancer Gene Ther 14(8):717–723. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cgt.7701064
Toussaint B, Chauchet X, Wang Y, Polack B, Le GA (2013) Live-attenuated bacteria as a cancer vaccine vector. Expert Rev Vaccines 12(10):1139–1154. https://doi.org/10.1586/14760584.2013.836914
Turriziani M, Fantini M, Benvenuto M et al (2012) Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA)-based cancer vaccines: recent patents and antitumor effects from experimental models to clinical trials. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov 7(3):265–296. https://doi.org/10.2174/157489212801820020
Weber J, Boswell W, Smith J et al (2008) Phase 1 trial of intranodal injection of a Melan-A/MART-1 DNA plasmid vaccine in patients with stage IV melanoma. J Immunother 31(2):215–223. https://doi.org/10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181611420
Morse MA, Hobeika AC, Osada T et al (2010) An alphavirus vector overcomes the presence of neutralizing antibodies and elevated numbers of Tregs to induce immune responses in humans with advanced cancer. J Clin Invest 120(9):3234–3241. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI42672
Lopez-Yrigoyen M, Cassetta L, Pollard JW (2021) Macrophage targeting in cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1499(1):18–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14377
Haradhvala NJ, Leick MB, Maurer K et al (2022) Distinct cellular dynamics associated with response to CAR-T therapy for refractory B cell lymphoma. Nat Med 28(9):1848–1859. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01959-0
Mei H, Li C, Jiang H et al (2021) A bispecific CAR-T cell therapy targeting BCMA and CD38 in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. J Hematol Oncol 14(1):161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-021-01170-7
Marshall JL, Gulley JL, Arlen PM et al (2005) Phase I study of sequential vaccinations with fowlpox-CEA(6D)-TRICOM alone and sequentially with vaccinia-CEA(6D)-TRICOM, with and without granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, in patients with carcinoembryonic antigen–expressing carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 23(4):720–731. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.10.206
Cross D, Burmester JK (2006) Gene therapy for cancer treatment: past, present and future. Clin Med Res 4(3):218–227. https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.4.3.218
Akiyama Y, Watanabe M, Maruyama K, Ruscetti FW, Wiltrout RH, Yamaguchi K (2000) Enhancement of antitumor immunity against B16 melanoma tumor using genetically modified dendritic cells to produce cytokines. Gene Ther 7(24):2113–2121. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3301353
Palmer DH, Valle JW, Ma YT et al (2020) TG01/GM-CSF and adjuvant gemcitabine in patients with resected RAS-mutant adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (CT TG01-01): a single-arm, phase 1/2 trial. Br J Cancer 122(7):971–977. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0752-7
Mullen JT, Tanabe KK (2003) Viral oncolysis for malignant liver tumors. Ann Surg Oncol 10(6):596–605. https://doi.org/10.1245/ASO.2003.07.020
Hemminki A, Kanerva A, Kremer EJ et al (2003) A canine conditionally replicating adenovirus for evaluating oncolytic virotherapy in a syngeneic animal model. Mol Ther 7(2):163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1525-0016(02)00049-7
Jiang H, Rivera-Molina Y, Gomez-Manzano C et al (2017) Oncolytic adenovirus and tumor-targeting immune modulatory therapy improve autologous cancer vaccination. Cancer Res 77(14):3894–3907. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0468
Dias JD, Hemminki O, Diaconu I et al (2012) Targeted cancer immunotherapy with oncolytic adenovirus coding for a fully human monoclonal antibody specific for CTLA-4. Gene Ther 19(10):988–998. https://doi.org/10.1038/gt.2011.176
Yang Y, Xu W, Peng D et al (2019) An oncolytic adenovirus targeting transforming growth factor β inhibits protumorigenic signals and produces immune activation: a novel approach to enhance anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Hum Gene Ther 30(9):1117–1132. https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2019.059
Friedman GK, Johnston JM, Bag AK et al (2021) Oncolytic HSV-1 G207 immunovirotherapy for pediatric high-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med 384(17):1613–1622. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2024947
Geevarghese SK, Geller DA, de Haan HA et al (2010) Phase I/II study of oncolytic herpes simplex virus NV1020 in patients with extensively pretreated refractory colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver. Hum Gene Ther 21(9):1119–1128. https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.2010.020
Khalique H, Baugh R, Dyer A et al (2021) Oncolytic herpesvirus expressing PD-L1 BiTE for cancer therapy: exploiting tumor immune suppression as an opportunity for targeted immunotherapy. J Immunother Cancer 9(4):e001292. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-001292
Patil SD, Rhodes DG, Burgess DJ (2005) DNA-based therapeutics and DNA delivery systems: a comprehensive review. AAPS J 7(1):E61–E77. https://doi.org/10.1208/aapsj070109
Ohlfest JR, Demorest ZL, Motooka Y et al (2005) Combinatorial antiangiogenic gene therapy by nonviral gene transfer using the sleeping beauty transposon causes tumor regression and improves survival in mice bearing intracranial human glioblastoma. Mol Ther 12(5):778–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.07.689
Kang J, Demaria S, Formenti S (2016) Current clinical trials testing the combination of immunotherapy with radiotherapy. J Immunother Cancer 4(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-016-0156-7
Chawla SP, Bruckner H, Morse MA, Assudani N, Hall FL, Gordon EM (2019) A phase I-II study using Rexin-G tumor-targeted retrovector encoding a dominant-negative cyclin G1 inhibitor for advanced pancreatic cancer. Mol Ther Oncolytics 12:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omto.2018.12.005
Nasu Y, Saika T, Ebara S et al (2007) Suicide gene therapy with adenoviral delivery of HSV-tK gene for patients with local recurrence of prostate cancer after hormonal therapy. Mol Ther 15(4):834–840. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mt.6300096
Pisters LL, Pettaway CA, Troncoso P et al (2004) Evidence that transfer of functional p53 protein results in increased apoptosis in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 10(8):2587–2593. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-03-0388
Immonen A, Vapalahti M, Tyynelä K et al (2004) AdvHSV-tk gene therapy with intravenous ganciclovir improves survival in human malignant glioma: a randomised, controlled study. Mol Ther 10(5):967–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2004.08.002
Parrales A, Iwakuma T (2015) Targeting oncogenic mutant p53 for cancer therapy. Front Oncol 5:288. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00288
Swisher SG, Roth JA (2002) p53 Gene therapy for lung cancer. Curr Oncol Rep 4(4):334–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-002-0009-z
Li L, Huang Y, Wang L, Li Y, Wen Y, Han B (2006) A combination therapy of selective intraarterial Gendicine infusion with chemotherapy for locally advanced head and neck carcinoma. Mol Ther 13:S20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2006.08.061
Ke X, Shen L (2017) Molecular targeted therapy of cancer: the progress and future prospect. Front Lab Med 1(2):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flm.2017.06.001
Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Hicks DG et al (2013) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 31(31):3997–4013. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984
Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N et al (2011) Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 365(14):1273–1283. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0910383
Castel P, Toska E, Engelman JA, Scaltriti M (2021) The present and future of PI3K inhibitors for cancer therapy. Nat Cancer 2(6):587–597. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-021-00218-4
Xing Y, Lin NU, Maurer MA et al (2019) Phase II trial of AKT inhibitor MK-2206 in patients with advanced breast cancer who have tumors with PIK3CA or AKT mutations, and/or PTEN loss/PTEN mutation. Breast Cancer Res 21(1):78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-019-1154-8
Bakhtiary H, Barzegar M, Shiva S, Poorshiri B, Hajalioghli P, Herizchi GH (2021) The effect of everolimus on subependymal giant cell astrocytoma (SEGA) in children with tuberous sclerosis complex. Iran J Child Neurol 15(4):15–25. https://doi.org/10.22037/ijcn.v15i4.30591
Bebb DG, Agulnik J, Albadine R et al (2019) Crizotinib inhibition of ROS1-positive tumours in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a Canadian perspective. Curr Oncol 26(4):551–557. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.26.5137
Bruin MAC, Sonke GS, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR (2022) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of PARP inhibitors in oncology. Clin Pharmacokinet 61(12):1649–1675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-022-01167-6
Naeem A, Harish V, Coste S et al (2022) Regulation of chemosensitivity in human medulloblastoma cells by p53 and the PI3 kinase signaling pathway. Mol Cancer Res 20(1):114–126. https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-21-0277
Waye S, Naeem A, Choudhry MU et al (2015) The p53 tumor suppressor protein protects against chemotherapeutic stress and apoptosis in human medulloblastoma cells. Aging (Albany NY) 7(10):854–867. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.100831
Naeem A, Knoer G, Laura Avantaggiati M, Rodriguez O, Albanese C (2023) Provocative non-canonical roles of p53 and AKT signaling: a role for thymosin β4 in medulloblastoma. Int Immunopharmacol 116:109785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2023.109785
Perini GF, Ribeiro GN, Pinto Neto JV, Campos LT, Hamerschlak N (2018) BCL-2 as therapeutic target for hematological malignancies. J Hematol Oncol 11(1):65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-018-0608-2
Hann CL, Daniel VC, Sugar EA et al (2008) Therapeutic efficacy of ABT-737, a selective inhibitor of BCL-2, in small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 68(7):2321–2328. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-5031
Kipps TJ, Eradat H, Grosicki S et al (2015) A phase 2 study of the BH3 mimetic BCL2 inhibitor navitoclax (ABT-263) with or without rituximab, in previously untreated B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma 56(10):2826–2833. https://doi.org/10.3109/10428194.2015.1030638
Konopleva M, Martinelli G, Daver N et al (2020) MDM2 inhibition: an important step forward in cancer therapy. Leukemia 34(11):2858–2874. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-020-0949-z
Kazazi-Hyseni F, Beijnen JH, Schellens JHM (2010) Bevacizumab. Oncologist 15(8):819–825. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0317
Perren TJ, Swart AM, Pfisterer J et al (2011) A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 365(26):2484–2496. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1103799
Wick W, Gorlia T, Bendszus M et al (2017) Lomustine and bevacizumab in progressive glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 377(20):1954–1963. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1707358
Aprile G, Fontanella C, Rihawi K, Grossi F, Rijavec E (2014) Ramucirumab: preclinical research and clinical development. Onco Targets Ther 7:1997–2006. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S61132
Bezjak A, Tu D, Seymour L et al (2006) Symptom improvement in lung cancer patients treated with erlotinib: quality of life analysis of the National Cancer Institute of Canada clinical trials group study BR.21. J Clin Oncol 24(24):3831–3837. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.05.8073
Wang JP, Wu CY, Yeh YC et al (2015) Erlotinib is effective in pancreatic cancer with epidermal growth factor receptor mutations: a randomized, open-label, prospective trial. Oncotarget 6(20):18162–18173. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.4216
Schuler M, Yang JCH, Park K et al (2016) Afatinib beyond progression in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer following chemotherapy, erlotinib/gefitinib and afatinib: phase III randomized LUX-Lung 5 trial. Ann Oncol 27(3):417–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv597
Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS et al (2007) Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357(20):2040–2048. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa071834
Braal CL, Jongbloed EM, Wilting SM, Mathijssen RHJ, Koolen SLW, Jager A (2021) Inhibiting CDK4/6 in breast cancer with palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib: similarities and differences. Drugs 81(3):317–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-020-01461-2
Finn RS, Martin M, Rugo HS et al (2016) Palbociclib and letrozole in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375(20):1925–1936. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1607303
Meng X, Gao JZ, Gomendoza SMT, Li JW, Yang S (2021) Recent advances of WEE1 inhibitors and statins in cancers with p53 mutations. Front Med 8:737951. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.737951
Funding
Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AN and AZ designed the study. AZ collected all data and wrote the manuscript. Data Interpretation was done by all authors. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Literature Search: AZ. Funds collection: Not applicable. JA; reviewed and edited the article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zafar, A., Khan, M.J., Abu, J. et al. Revolutionizing cancer care strategies: immunotherapy, gene therapy, and molecular targeted therapy. Mol Biol Rep 51, 219 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-023-09096-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-023-09096-8