Corrected on Jul 1, 2024.

Source: the publisher, via Crossref · checked Oct 15, 2026 · Read the notice

Cancer chemotherapy and beyond: Current status, drug candidates, associated risks and progress in targeted therapeutics

Uttpal Anand, Abhijit Dey, Arvind K. Singh Chandel and 11 more

Genes & Diseases · 2023 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1016/j.gendis.2022.02.007

Abstract

Cancer is an abnormal state of cells where they undergo uncontrolled proliferation and produce aggressive malignancies that causes millions of deaths every year. With the new understanding of the molecular mechanism(s) of disease progression, our knowledge about the disease is snowballing, leading to the evolution of many new therapeutic regimes and their successive trials. In the past few decades, various combinations of therapies have been proposed and are presently employed in the treatment of diverse cancers. Targeted drug therapy, immunotherapy, and personalized medicines are now largely being employed, which were not common a few years back. The field of cancer discoveries and therapeutics are evolving fast as cancer type-specific biomarkers are progressively being identified and several types of cancers are nowadays undergoing systematic therapies, extending patients' disease-free survival thereafter. Although growing evidence shows that a systematic and targeted approach could be the future of cancer medicine, chemotherapy remains a largely opted therapeutic option despite its known side effects on the patient's physical and psychological health. Chemotherapeutic agents/pharmaceuticals served a great purpose over the past few decades and have remained the frontline choice for advanced-stage malignancies where surgery and/or radiation therapy cannot be prescribed due to specific reasons. The present report succinctly reviews the existing and contemporary advancements in chemotherapy and assesses the status of the enrolled drugs/pharmaceuticals; it also comprehensively discusses the emerging role of specific/targeted therapeutic strategies that are presently being employed to achieve better clinical success/survival rate in cancer patients.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 15, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

1Cancer is a heterogeneous and multifactorial disease in which a series of genomic/molecular alterations cause the uncontrolled growth and proliferation of the cells, causing a rapid increase in tissue mass in the affected parts of the body. Under normal conditions, a cell gets signals to die and to supplant the organism with a young and healthier cell. Cancer cells grow using the body's oxygen and supplements, depriving other cells of regular supplements and growth factors. These cells can turn the microenvironment in their favor, deceive the immune system of the body, and can exploit the physiology of other cells to accommodate their needs.,,,,, Some of the biomarkers which are currently been used to detect cancer including human epididymis protein 4 (HE4), carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), legumain, mesothelin, osteopontin, and vitamin E-binding plasma protein. A plethora of anti-cancer drugs and natural medicinal compounds have been devised over the years, which can suppress tumor growth through diverse mechanisms. Some of the drugs/compounds work on crucial cellular enzymes, while others may alter cell metabolism. They have also shown the potential to interfere with some critical cellular processes, e.g., programmed cell death/apoptosis, drug resistance, DNA damage, DNA replication, or immune reactions. These drugs have distinct modes of action and selectivity for multiple cancer types,,,,,; however, subtle alteration to their chemical structure could abolish their anti-cancer potency.,

2The idea of chemotherapy (utilizing toxic compounds and drugs to destroy cancerous cells) came into existence after the reports of mustard gas killing lymphatic tissues and bone marrow. The effects were later validated in mice using an effective derivative of the gas (nitrogen mustard) that showed effective regression of lymphoma tissues.,, The first patient receiving this nitrogen mustard was forty-eight years old lymphosarcoma patient whose cancer softened and cleared initially. Unfortunately, later he died after relapsing, but this secret military trial at Yale University paved the way for chemicals in treating cancers and developing the field of cancer chemotherapy for treating a variety of cancers.,,,

3Chemotherapy primarily works by circumventing the cancer cells from further growth and division. Cancer cells usually divide and grow at a much-accelerated rate than normal cells and are physiologically possess very high endogenous stress. Therefore, the drugs can destroy them rapidly and more effectively in comparison to other surrounding cells. Some of the promising inhibitor therapies which have been used to treat solid cancers are polyadenosine diphosphate-ribose polymerase inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors, histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, poly (adenosine di-phosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, p53/mouse double minute 2 homolog (MDM2) inhibitors, hedgehog pathway blockers, tyrosine kinase inhibitors and proteasome inhibitors., Chemotherapy may have different variations, which can affect the target cells in distinct manners. Some of the treatments may directly alter the quality of cellular proteins, rendering them non-functional and affecting major cellular physiological pathways. Major chaperone repressors, autophagy suppressors, or proteasome inhibitors belong to these classes of molecules.,,,,,, Other drugs may target some essential hormones and interfere with the body's overall metabolism., The 2018 Nobel Prize attributed to immune checkpoint therapy research has highlighted the importance of immunotherapy, which underlies the possibilities of modulating our immune system in our favor to cope up with the cancer-like conditions and fight back against the disease.,

4The selection of chemo-preventive drugs or a combination of drugs is mostly based on the type and stage of cancer. The primary objective of these drugs is to neutralize the cancerous cells and ameliorate the stress caused by the tumor's growth. The dosage and timespan of the treatment are two important points of consideration. It has been observed that the medications are given at very high doses causing numerous side effects and harm to other healthy cells. One major challenge is the relapse of the disease. During reoccurrence, it has been widely observed that the cancer cells attain drug resistance following longer exposure to the drugs. Despite enormous applications, most chemotherapies are given to prolong and ease the patient's survival, hence called palliative chemotherapy. However, prolonged exposure to these drugs may have excessively adverse effects on a patient's physical and mental health, making it difficult to continue the ongoing treatment. Oncologists, for the most part, provide these medications with possible time intervals in between, which also gives non-transformed cells a chance to mend. In most cases, a team of specialists, including radiologists, nutritionists, psychologists, and the primary consultant collectively decide the treatment plans that include drug combinations, dosage, duration of cycles, and additional supplements.

5This report mainly reviews various aspects of cancer chemotherapy, including various applications of the drugs/chemotherapeutic agents that are already in practice. We also succinctly discussed various side effects and drawbacks of these treatment plans and further provided an overview of recent advancements in interventional strategies by focusing on targeted drug therapy, immunotherapy, personalized and integrative medicines. Figure 1 depicts the significant intrinsic and extrinsic cellular and molecular events causing the transformation of a normal cell to a cancer cell and its distinct hallmarks.

Cancer chemotherapeutics: what is known so far?

6The idea of cancer as a disease was known to Hippocrates, the father of medicine, around 400 BC. He later coined the term ‘carcinos’ due to the similarity of cancer tissue growths with crabs. The term was later replaced with the Latin word cancer by Celsus. Many ancient pieces of literature have described several kinds of malignancies in humans, and multiple treatment approaches were also in use in different parts of the ancient world, as found in the literature of that era., However, the progress of strategies to treat the disease was more or less static until the beginning of the twentieth century. The extract of the plant Colchicum autumnale was used by Greek physicians to dissolve the tumor mass. Interestingly, in the 1930s, the active compound in the extract, colchicine, was reported that can interfere with microtubule assembly and may work as a potential drug. Vincristine and vinblastine are other similar compounds that were medicinally recognized as possible anti-tumor agents a long time ago. The ancient pieces of the literature suggest that the Greek and Roman physicians have contributed enormously to the identification and characterization of disease. Arabic, Indian, and Chinese medicinal archives have also paved the way for multiple medieval and modern approaches to understand and treat the disease. Interestingly, for centuries, most of the approaches remain limited to cauterization, bloodletting, surgery, herbal medicine, etc. In modern onco-medicine, which was evolved during the Second World War, many active compounds were reported following the detailed characterization of the disease at the genetic and molecular level. The initial decades have seen enormous debate on the use of cytotoxic agents as drug candidates; however, advancements were made, and success came in the form of Eli Lily introducing Vinca alkaloids in the 1960s, which was then followed by procarbazine. In the following years, the idea of combination therapy was introduced for acute lymphocytic leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients that were also supplemented with supportive medical care to enhance the quality of life.

7In the second half of the twentieth century, a series of reports have identified numerous mutations, external stimuli (toxic chemicals, viruses, etc.), metabolic alterations, etc. as the underlying causes of cancer., Identification of a plethora of cellular pathways that are affected in various cancer types has given different molecular alternatives to target and develop effective drugs (Fig. 2).,, Several modes of medications have also been introduced and tried for drug administration based on the types and stages of the diagnosed cancer. Here, we discuss the available drug medications, following which we have revisited the chemotherapeutic agents, which have substantially pushed the field forward and extended the lives of millions in the past several decades.

8Intravenous (IV) chemotherapy requires drug infusion straightforwardly into the patient's veins that may take from minutes to a few hours. Some medications can also be given either as pills or fluid regularly or at some intervals. Intramuscular shots and intra-abdominal administration are other methods of giving chemotherapeutic medications to target the specific locations of tumor mass. In addition, a new technology called pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy has been developed to efficiently deliver intraperitoneal chemotherapy for end-stage peritoneal metastases patients. Topical treatment methods imply providing drugs through the skin surface. The anti-cancer compounds derived from either natural sources or their synthetic chemical analogs can kill cancer cells or stop their development.,, Notably, various other approaches are emerging to treat the cancer cells, including small molecule inhibitors, a combination of anti-cancer agents and immunotherapy, nanotechnology-based drugs,,, and organo-seleno compounds (Fig. 2).

9Nevertheless, the selectivity of most drug particles is restricted, and such medications are considered one of the most harmful medications utilized in the treatment., Since the initial findings of modern anticancer drug discoveries in the 1940s, continuous efforts are being made to treat this life-threatening disease. Advances in scientific methods and techniques have brought new treatment and diagnostic tools and advanced patient care measures (Fig. 2).,,,,,,, Treatment plans may have palliation as one strategy that may lead to shrinkage of the obvious tumor, easing side effects, and increasing the life quality of patients. Figure 2 describes various ways of providing anti-cancer medications to patients depending upon their type and stage of the disease.

10Along with primary treatment, adjuvant therapy is also given to the patients for additionally combating the disease through supportive strategies., Surgery and radiation can be given to patients to supplement a chemotherapeutic plan to curb the disease by destroying shrouded cancer cells that could not be targeted otherwise. Sometimes adjuvant chemotherapy is given to patients after surgery or radiation or both to lessen the chances of recurrence.,, Adjuvant chemotherapy starts typically within three to five weeks of the surgical removal of a tumor and has distinctive treatment lengths relying upon the disease. Although chemotherapy has significantly improved overall survival, patients experience a wide range of physical and psychological symptoms that impact their quality of life. Symptoms seldom occur in isolation. Chemotherapy-induced hair loss remains greatly feared, with a negative impact on the well-being of many cancer patients. Cancer- and chemotherapy-induced poor appetite is usually the result of taste changes, mouth sores, nausea and vomiting, increased satiety, medication side effects, pain, fatigue, depressed mood, and anxiety.

Basic principles of chemotherapy: years of research, miles to go

11The cancer cell metabolic mechanisms functionally overlap with the host cells, so cancer treatment is very challenging., Designing drugs or therapeutics mainly focuses on selectivity, which can specifically kill the cancerous cells without affecting the non-cancerous cells (Fig. 2). In a way, the anti-cancer therapy may resemble antimicrobials, but the cancerous cells and the bacterial cells have differences in terms of the metabolic and physiological characters.,, For our immune cells, bacterial cell recognition is straightforward, while our transformed cells can hide cell surface receptors to evade the immune system. Early-stage detection of cancers increases the chances of treatment and survival. Therefore, recognizing and diagnosing those transformed cells remains one of the most challenging tasks in oncological research. At early stages, most known biomarkers remain undetectable, and cancer cells' ability to hide from immune cells freezes our immune responses.,

12In a tumor subpopulation, transformed cells differ drastically from the other cells in terms of physiology, metabolism, proliferation rate, etc.,, Besides that, the genetic diversity may pose additional challenges to target all kinds of cells in a particular tissue mass owing to the tumor heterogeneity., A combination of drug therapy is applied to address this challenge, and the regime is devised according to the cancer phase and type (Fig. 2).,

13In the subsequent section, we provide a comprehensive overview of various chemotherapeutic agents which have served the purpose for several decades in different cancer types. These drugs could be classified in different ways based on their chemical nature/source, molecular target, mechanism/mode of action, or effectiveness in model systems against various malignancies/cancer types (Table 1).

Alkylating agents

14One major class of the current drugs belongs to alkylating agents, which can interfere with the formation/linkage of DNA double strands. These drugs can cause it by transferring one alkyl group to the guanidine base in DNA (Fig. 2). Cross-linking of nucleic acids with proteins or peptides can likewise affect the DNA geometry, cause erroneous base pairing and DNA strand breakage, and eventually preventing the cell division and causing irreversible senescence. Mechanistically, alkylating agents in their electrophilic forms interact with cellular DNA and form covalent adducts, underlying their broader utility. Therefore, alkylating drugs are the frontline chemotherapeutic agents given against most of the cancer types, yet the greatest therapeutic value of their inhibition is known for slow-growing cancers. In Table 1, we described the common chemotherapeutic alkylating agents including the altretamine, chlorambucil, platinum drugs (cisplatin, carboplatin, oxaliplatin), doxorubicin, epirubicin, etoposide, mitoxantrone, cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and busulfan that are in clinical practice and also provided details of their molecular targets, mode of action, and studied model systems in various malignancies/cancer-types.

Antimetabolites

15Antimetabolites are the next class of substances that may compete, replace, or inhibit some specific metabolites inside the cells and thus meddle with the cellular metabolism (Fig. 2). These molecules mostly possess a structure similar to a cellular metabolite or enzyme–substrate, usually identified and processed by an enzyme to meet the cellular needs. Tetrahydrofolates are formed from unreduced dietary folates by the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase. For example, various medications, such as aminopterin, methotrexate (amethopterin), pyrimethamine, trimethoprim, and triamterene, act directly on the production of these metabolites, hindering the enzyme from producing folate insufficiency. Methotrexate, an antifolate drug, is one of the exceptionally successful anti-cancer medications that represses dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) and obstructs the transformation of dihydrofolic acid (DHFA) into tetrahydrofolic acid (THFA). This coenzyme activity is indispensable to the cells as they are essential for the nucleotide synthesis pathways. Methotrexate is an anti-inflammatory molecule and is hence used as a medication for many other inflammatory diseases, like rheumatoid arthritis and extreme psoriasis, apart from various cancer types. A detailed description of common antimetabolites is comprehensively provided in Table 1.

Pyrimidine-derived antimetabolites (pyrimidine antagonists) and Vinca alkaloids

16Pyrimidine-derived antimetabolites are a group of chemotherapeutic agents that interrupt DNA synthesis and exert their cytotoxicity to cancer cells (Fig. 2). For instance, cytarabine also known as cytosine arabinoside or Ara C interrupts DNA as well as RNA synthesis by displacing the cytosine with itself (that differs merely by its base sugar arabinose). Cytarabine/cytosine arabinoside is enrolled frequently in clinics to treat leukemia or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Some other notably pyrimidine-derived antimetabolites include fluorouracil, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), capecitabine, floxuridine, gemcitabine, decitabine, raltitrexed, and tegafur (Table 1).,,,,, Being as pyrimidine or purine analogs having altered chemical groups, these drugs/compounds induce apoptosis while progressing through the S phase of the cell cycle by their misincorporation to RNA and DNA or by inhibiting the key enzymes required for nucleic acid synthesis. Among these enzymes, DNA polymerases, ribonucleotide reductase, and thymidylate synthetase are the main intracellular targets of the pyrimidine antimetabolites. 5-FU has been a promising pyrimidine analog that largely interrupts DNA and RNA synthesis. 5-FU that dependents on its incorporation to DNA inhibits mitosis and stimulates cell death in the dividing cells.

17Vinca alkaloids, primarily extracted from several species under the Vinca genus, are mainly cell division inhibitors, which can interact with microtubular protein tubulin to obstruct its polymerization and meddle with the cytoskeleton, leading to stalling of mitotic division. The chromosomes do not separate efficiently during cell division, leading to metaphase capture. Vincristine and vinblastine are primary examples of this drug class with different degrees and ranges of anti-tumor activity (Table 1)., Cancers treated with these drugs include acute leukemia, Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, neuroblastoma, Wilms' tumor, miscellaneous myeloma, chronic leukemia, thyroid cancer, brain tumors, and several blood-related disorders.

Other antineoplastic drugs/agents

18Besides these three established classes, several other antineoplastic agents are also enrolled in the clinical practice of cancer chemotherapy (Table 1). Given their clinical promises, in the subsequent section, we described the biological activities, targets, and mechanisms of key chemotherapeutic drugs that may belong to one or multiple drug classes and can affect more than one cellular pathway in the cancer cells and induce apoptosis by different mechanisms (Fig. 2). A succinct review of well-known anti-cancer drugs that are in routine clinical practice is provided as follows.

Paclitaxel/Taxol

19It is a complex diterpene taxane ring-containing drug acquired from the bark of the Western yew tree (Taxus brevifolia), which induces cytotoxic activity by a novel system. It increases the polymerization of tubulin, thereby inducing a mechanism inverse to that of the aforementioned alkaloids. It forestalls the microtubule's structural adjustment and depolymerization, bringing an inherent cytotoxic activity to the paclitaxel due to the significance of tubulin-microtubule dynamics. The confirmed antagonistic impacts of paclitaxel are reported on the metastatic ovarian and bosom carcinomas after the disappointment from first-line chemotherapy and backslide cases. It has also shown efficacy against the advanced stage tumors of the head and neck disease, small cell lung cancer, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, and prostate cancer (Table 1)., Docetaxel is a more potent relative of paclitaxel with a comparable activity. It has been shown to provide benefits against the bosom and ovarian cancers, which get resistant to first-line chemotherapeutic drugs. Unfortunately, many side effects have been reported from the long exposure to these drugs, which mainly include neutropenia, arrhythmia, neuropathy, and cardiovascular breakdown (Table 2).,

Etoposide

20Etoposide is a semi-synthetic derivative of a plant glycoside called podophyllotoxin., It causes DNA damage by altering DNA topoisomerase-II function, and posing G2 cell cycle arrest. Etoposide creates a ternary complex with DNA and the topoisomerase–II complex, preventing the latter's binding to the DNA strands, while in doing so, it causes damage to DNA strands. Cancer cells depend on this enzyme more than healthy cells, as they divide more quickly; therefore, it causes defects in DNA synthesis that promotes apoptosis of the cancer cells. Etoposide is effective against several aggressive malignancies including Kaposi's sarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, testicular disease, lung disease, lymphoma, non-lymphocytic leukemia, and glioblastoma multiforme (Table 1).

Camptothecin and its derivatives

21Camptothecin is a long-known topoisomerase inhibitory compound of natural origin. It was initially extracted from the bark of the tree Camptotheca acuminata., Camptothecin is a cytotoxic alkaloid comprised of a pentacyclic ring structure containing a pyrrole (3,4-β) quinoline moiety, an S-configured alpha-hydroxy lactone form, and a carboxylate form. In later years, many more effective derivatives of this topoisomerase inhibitor have been synthesized and are effectively being applied in cancer chemotherapy. The most recognized drug of this class, topotecan, is used against the advanced cancers of the ovary and lung. It targets topoisomerase-I, an enzyme responsible for easing the torsional strain in DNA by inducing single-strand breaks during replication. The inhibition of topoisomerase-I by the active compounds may lead to sudden inhibition of DNA replication and transcription, causing growth arrest (Table 1). In the physiological conditions, topotecan remains in equilibrium with its carboxylate structure. Its active lactone can intercalate between DNA bases in the topoisomerase-I cleavage complex. The coupling site of topotecan in the cleavage complex interferes with the topoisomerase-I while reiterating the scratched DNA strand in the wake of releasing the strain. Such intercalation traps the topoisomerase-I in the cleavage complex bound to the DNA. Another well-known drug of this class is irinotecan that has shown efficacy against late-stage colorectal carcinoma, aggressive growths in cancers of the lung, cervix, ovary, colon, etc.,

Actinomycin D (dactinomycin)

22A transcription inhibitor chromopeptide molecule actinomycin D (also called dactinomycin) binds to DNA while initiating transcription at initiation complex and inhibits RNA elongation steps. It can intercalate, preferably between guanidine and cytosine, or bind the DNA strand's minor grooves to form a highly stable drug-DNA complex, preventing DNA unwinding and thus stalling the progress of the RNA chain. Dactinomycin was initially obtained from Streptomyces sp., identified as an antibiotic agent, but later its anti-tumor potential was recognized, and thus it was inducted in the chemotherapy as an anticancer antibiotic to treat Ewing's sarcoma, Wilms' tumor, rhabdomyosarcoma, trophoblastic neoplasm, testicular and ovarian cancers, etc (Table 1).

Mitomycin C

23Mitomycins, a class of natural quinones, are also derived from Streptomyces caespitosus and are known for their transformation and competence, enhancing potential in bacterial cells. It is also a known antineoplastic agent as it slows down fibroblast cell growth in glaucoma., These bioreductive alkylating agents (especially mitomycin C derivatives) are also utilized as anti-cancer therapeutics because their structural modification impedes the cell cycle during G1 and S phase transitions. Its reduction to form mitosene can lead to the N-alkylation of DNA bases. It can lead to inhibition of replication by cross-linking at adenine N6 and guanine O6 and N2. It is effectively used in the palliative treatment of non-small cell lung carcinoma and other solid tumors of breast, colorectal, oesophageal, pancreatic, and cervical origins. Porfiromycin is an N-methyl derivative of mitomycin C that is found effective against cancer of head and neck regions (Table 1).

Daunorubicin (rubidomycin)

24Daunorubicin causes a break in DNA strands by actuating topoisomerase-II and producing quinone-type free radicals. Daunorubicin, otherwise called daunomycin, is a chemotherapy medicine used to treat cancer growth in acute myeloid leukemia (AML), acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), and Kaposi's sarcoma, etc., It is applied by infusion into a vein, and following its intercalation with DNA, it hinders macromolecular biosynthesis. This predominantly obstructs the movement of the enzyme topoisomerase-II, which loosens up the DNA supercoiling. Daunorubicin impedes the topoisomerase–II complex after it unties the DNA chain for replication and thereby it represses the DNA double helix from resealing and therefore interferes with the replication to proceed (Table 1).,

Bleomycin

25Another Streptomyces compound with anti-tumor activity bleomycin is mostly used against Hodgkin's lymphoma, ovarian and testicular cancers. It chelates copper or iron, produces superoxide radicals, and intercalates between DNA strands – causes chain scission. Emerging evidence proposes that bleomycin also hinders the consolidation of thymidine into DNA strands, and the cleavage of DNA relies upon oxygen and metal particles in vitro. The specific mechanism of DNA strand scission is uncertain, yet it has been proposed that bleomycin chelates metal particles (principally iron), delivering a pseudoenzyme that responds with oxygen to create superoxide and hydroxide free radicals that divide DNA; however, little myelosuppression is the unique highlight. The drug has also been effective against squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, and cancers of the mouth, head, neck, genitourinary tract, and throat (Table 1).

Lateral damage: Putting multiple organs at risk

26Aggressive tumors are primarily marked with uncontrolled and extensive cell division that may compromise the normal physiology of other non-transformed cells in the vicinity of affected organs/tissues. In many ways, cancer cells achieve super-specialized metabolic and survival potential with the capacity to tolerate extreme stresses like low oxygen and nutrient supplies. Cancers might start from mutation of one type or the other, but as the disease progresses,, multiple mutations and genetic abnormalities accumulate that lead to increased tumor heterogeneity. The heterogeneous nature of tumor mass plays a vital role in developing resistance against most of the drugs that we have described here. This leads to a challenge of its kind, leaving doctors with the only option of changing the medication after certain intervals as one type of drug stops acting against tumors. In many cases, the combination therapy that includes more than one drug at a time could be an effective strategy against some form/type of cancers, such as cancers affecting bone marrow (leukemia) and lymph nodes (lymphoma). Clinical trials help a lot in understanding the effects of new combinations and thus have rapidly improved the cancer chemotherapy paradigm.

27The sustainability of chemotherapy relies upon its continuous effect on cell division and tumor growth. As discussed above, the majority of the treatments work by compromising the stability or integrity of nucleic acids that tend to stall the cell cycle or activate programmed cell death pathways. Other drugs may act by generating extreme proteotoxic stress inside the cells by interfering with the protein folding or degradation machinery, including chaperone, proteasome, and autophagy.,,, The idea is to generate cellular stresses so that the cancer cells that are already under compromised physiology may die while other cells can survive. However, it is evident from the above descriptions that most of these drugs act by interfering with one or multiple cellular pathways of extreme importance. Therefore, chemotherapeutic drugs are mostly referred to as cytotoxic agents, causing a plethora of side effects. In most cases, long-term treatments may lead to enormous toxicity causing severe damage or failure of multiple organs. This may lead to enormous physiological and psychological stress to the patients under chemotherapeutic medication. Table 2 summarizes the adverse effects of various chemotherapeutic agents and the current stage of their clinical progress. The side effects of these drugs may depend on many factors and variables, such as type, stage, and location of the tumor, along with age, health, and other clinical aspects of the patients. The most common and readily visible side effects originate from the gut that may lead to nausea, vomiting, constipation, and diarrhea., Most of the anticancer drugs can directly interrupt the cell division pathways; therefore, the first line of affected organs may also include those which are formed with continuously dividing cells, such as skin, hair, and intestinal linings., Skin rashes, alopecia, and mucositis are the most visible side effects that one can observe in patients undergoing chemotherapy., Radiation also contributes significantly to these debilitating changes. A general problem observed in many patients is fatigue that can occur due to multiple factors, including depression, anemia, high doses of radiation therapy, etc.

28Chemotherapeutic drugs may also directly injure the bone marrow and cause a steep decline in blood cell count, exposing patients to several other types of possible infections. Thrombocytopenia, a condition of excessive bleeding because of lower platelet numbers, is observed more frequently in patients taking alkylating and/or antimetabolites agents. Alkylating agents may further trigger conditions, such as hemorrhagic cystitis leading to microscopic haematuria, nocturia, dysuria, etc. along with mild or intense suprapubic pain. Whereas, antimetabolites can generate enormous toxicity in vital organs, like the liver and kidneys., The most devastating of all is their direct impact on cardiovascular health. Different classes of chemotherapeutic drugs have varying impacts on cardiac cells, leading to multiple types of systemic conditions adversely affecting patients' survival. Loss of libido and sexual dysfunctions are other conditions caused due to long-term exposure to these drugs, which affects not only physical well-being but also the patient's psychological health (Table 2).,

29These drugs and radiation therapies may have several direct or indirect impacts on cognitive functioning leading to a condition, which is now commonly referred to as chemo brain., This is a condition of the inability of someone undergoing chemo-drug therapies to do their routine cognitive functions, which may be related to their memory, cognition, and behavior. The drugs may adversely impact communication, reasoning, learning, problem-solving, memory storage, concentration, following commands, etc. Damage of optic and the ocular motor nerves is also observed in several patients taking antineoplastic drugs that may lead to the weakening of vision as well., The majority of chemotherapeutic agents affect these tissues in a dose-dependent manner; though, there are differences in their sensitivity to individuals due to enormous factors such as metabolism efficiency, genetic makeup, other medication, and environmental factors (Table 2). Despite enormous toxicities and side effects prevalent in the public domain, the chemotherapy medicines remained the most immediate and viable therapeutic option in most cases, where we can see the cancer cells but cannot remove them through surgery or source of radiation. To address various above-described detrimental physical and psychological changes, modern-day clinical practices involve a comprehensive team of doctors and specialists for the patients who are undergoing long-term treatments and are more prone to develop severe physiological complications.

Recent advancements and next-generation therapeutic approaches

30Since the early 19th century, rigorous investigations and clinical studies were carried out around the world. Several research groups have made landmark discoveries during and after the Second World War. Following the development of a fundamental description of the disease and associated pathways, the focus shifted majorly towards advancing the diagnosis and treatment methods of the disease. Despite enormous progress being made in the second half of the last century, not much could have been achieved in successfully curing most of the cancers. One primary reason behind the failures is our inability to diagnose the oncogenic changes inside the body at the early stages of cancer development. In recent years, the concept of liquid biopsies has emerged that primarily relies on the screening of mutated DNAs, proteins, RNAs, and other genetic markers in the patient's blood samples.,, This practice can help diagnose the disease at a much earlier stage than we do now, using the traditional tissue biopsies and imaging methods. New technological tools, like advanced software and robotic platforms, have also speeded cancer diagnosis and treatment. In this subsequent section taking chemotherapy into account, we compressively reviewed the recent progress made in the targeted drug delivery, personalized medication, and immunotherapy (Fig. 3).

Targeted drug delivery

31The major drawback of most chemotherapeutic treatment plans is their non-specificity or inability to ascertain and target cancerous cells directly. Therefore, this lack of specificity poses a major therapeutic limit reflected in the failure of delivering drugs locally to the cancer tissue mass. In the past few decades, many new approaches have been constituted and tested, and have given hopes for future drug delivery (Fig. 3A). Nanoparticle-based delivery methods, targeted antibodies, aptamer functionalization, and specific drugs like Herceptin (in breast cancer) offered the promise that can harness great success in the upcoming years.,, Cancer cell-directed antibodies are at the forefront of targeted drug delivery methods and have accelerated the hunt for more effective or potentially improvised approaches., Different types of nanocarriers and formulations of nano-drugs have also improved the delivery of drug compounds to the cancer cells.,, The most significant advantage of targeted drug deliveries is that the enormous drug-mediated toxicities on other adjacent tissues and organs can be minimized. We can also avoid most of the collateral damage leading to stress and organ failures. However, the effectiveness of many of these delivery methods in patients is still under clinical evaluation. Further details regarding these delivery systems can be accessed in the previously published reports.,

Personalized medication

32Given the heterogeneity of tumor cells, the cancer of one patient is different from that of another in terms of accumulated genetic abnormalities, its pace and progression, the response to the treatment, and the chances of developing resistance to the administered drugs. The current technologies have made it possible to get insights into this disease heterogeneity or explore molecular variations at the individual level, thereby tailoring the treatment regime as per the personalized needs of every cancer patient., This helps in choosing the most appropriate drugs and their dosages for a better outcome in cancer management. For instance, dabrafenib and vemurafenib are directed against BRAF gene mutation, while trastuzumab works well against HER-2 mutated cells.,, The idea here is to dive deep into the omics (genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic, etc.) data of the patient to identify the major molecular players fostering the transformed cells, and design the treatments against these clinically actionable targets (Fig. 3B).,, Different types of mutations have been observed to be frequent in specific subtypes of cancer. Therefore, measuring and manipulating these driver mutations based on an individual patient is expected to yield better results. Following are some examples of drugs that are potentially effective in patients harbouring some specific type of genomic alteration. A mutation in anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) was reported to drive tumor formation in 5% of the non-small-cell lung cancer population and led to the discovery of ALK blockers such as crizotinib and ceritinib. An oral BRAF inhibitor, namely vemurafenib has been shown to possess a greater affinity for the mutant BRAFV600E than the wildtype BRAF, and therefore was recommended to the patients carrying the above mutation in the tumors. Several potential targets for novel drugs have been identified using high-throughput screening technologies, and various compounds against them have been recently approved or are under investigation. Similarly, alterations in phosphoinositide 3-kinases (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT)/mTOR pathway have also been frequently found in many solid tumors. Among these, activation of phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) and loss of phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) mutations are the most common. Basket trials have been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of adding alpelisib, a specific p110α PIK3CA inhibitor to the hormonal treatment for PIK3CA mutant luminal breast cancer patients. The results emphasize the importance of checking for this molecular alteration in patients and following the tested treatment regime for better anti-tumor response. Next, aberrant changes in the fibroblast growth factors (FGF) signaling pathway have also been associated with the initiation and progression of oncogenic events. Different types of genetic alterations in FGF receptor amplification, mutations, and gene-fusion have been shown to respond variably to certain drugs, and hence demand molecular profiling for the selection of effective drugs., Another promising example is of using poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib for the treatment of breast cancer susceptibility gene (BRCA)-mutant cancers for better targeting of cancer cells, without much effect on the normal cells., On the cytoprotective side, recently a natural alkylated withanolide viz. 2,3-Dihydro-3beta-methoxy withaferin-A was shown to protect normal cells against a variety of stresses enrolled in cancer therapeutics. The idea of precision or personalized medicine is new but has been beneficial for lots of patients; however, the cost of these new generation approaches for genome profiling is still high, making it unaffordable for a large population of the world.

Antimicrobial peptides

33Advances in cancer therapy have prompted scientists to look for natural tumoricidal chemicals, such as antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), that could be used for cancer treatment.,, In addition to antibacterial action, several AMPs have been shown to have intrinsic anticancer potential., These molecules constitute an intriguing new resource for anticancer drugs, and they provide several distinct therapeutic advantages over other anticancer treatments since they do not bind directly to any particular receptor in cancer cells. The polycationic and amphipathic character of AMPs has been postulated as a possible explanation for the preferential interaction of AMPs with cancer cells, as compared to normal cells., Membrane disruption has been identified as a critical stage in the microbial killing mechanism of several AMPs. These anticancer effects of AMPs are unaffected by molecular heterogeneity inside a tumor or across tumors, nor are they counteracted by cancer cells' flexibility and alternate survival pathways, as is commonly found in cancer resistance (Fig. 4).,,

34Cathelicidins are members of the antimicrobial peptide family found in granules of vertebrate neutrophils. The only human cathelicidin is the cationic peptide LL-37. Cathelicidins are composed of a highly conserved N-terminal signal peptide including a cathelin domain and a C-terminal cationic antimicrobial peptide. Apart from their antimicrobial activity, cathelicidin-derived antimicrobial peptides exhibit a range of biological roles, including antiviral, antifungal, anticancer, and immunomodulatory properties., LL-37 exhibits anticancer activity against oral cancer cells and has been identified as a molecular target for colon cancer. Immunohistochemical staining of colon cancer tissue showed that LL-37 is abundantly expressed in normal colon mucosa but downregulated in colon cancer tissues due to DNA methylation in the LL-37 promoter.

35In human oral squamous cell carcinoma SAS-H1 cells, the active domain of LL-37 induces mitochondrial depolarization, which results in caspase-independent apoptosis. Furthermore, mice lacking cathelicidin are more susceptible to azoxymethane-induced colon carcinogenesis.

36Many important advancements have been achieved using antimicrobial peptides against colorectal cancer. Using LL-37 on the surface of magnetic nanoparticles led to a significant reduction in cell viability of colon cancer cell lines, inducing apoptosis at a much higher rate than in the case of LL-37 peptide alone.

37Fan et al created a biodegradable and injectable thermosensitive hydrogel containing docetaxel and LL-37 polymeric nanoparticles. Intraperitoneal injection of this hydrogel substantially inhibited the development of HCT116 carcinomatosis in a mouse model of colorectal carcinoma.

38In comparison to existing chemotherapeutic agents, the flexible nature of peptide structures, along with non-receptor activity, might confer strategic benefits on AMPs for the treatment of colon cancer in the future. New treatment approaches for patients with advanced-stage, unresectable melanomas continue to be of significant clinical interest, as these patients cannot be treated surgically and have only a modest or temporary response to chemotherapy and radiation. In phase 1 clinical trial NCT02225366, intra-tumoral injections of LL-37 are being explored for melanoma patients with cutaneous metastases to determine the most effective dose of LL-37 that could be administered. Patients will receive weekly intra-tumoral injections of LL-37 (starting dose, 250 μg/tumor) every 7 days for up to 8 weeks. Researchers are also interested in understanding whether LL37 can activate the immune system, which could help in the control of the disease.

39Although AMPs have the potential to develop into a more effective and safer alternative to conventional cancer therapy, future research and development of anticancer peptide therapeutics will most likely focus on the poor pharmacokinetics, the control of selectivity, toxicity, and routes of administration through the establishment of appropriate in vivo models.

Immunotherapy

40Supplementing our immune system by devising immunotherapy strategies is another highly-specific and largely promising approach to address the problem of late-stage cancer therapeutics., Several new approaches have been developed in the last decade to modify and train a patient's immune system to search, identify and target the transformed cells inside the body by recognizing multiple cell surface markers. For instance, supplementing the treatment regime with immunotherapy has significantly improved the success rate of the chemotherapeutic drugs in many cancer types, especially the triple-negative breast cancers.,, The immunotherapy drugs are given alone or in combination with chemotherapy drugs to achieve better clinical outcomes. Prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines have been developed to help patients' immune systems towards learning to tackle the transformed cells. Atezolizumab is an example of an anti-cancer immune drug that helps to dissolve hard-to-treat breast cancers.,, Tisagenlecleucel, an FDA-approved drug, treats B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia by effectively engineering the chimeric T cell receptor (CAR-T) of the patient (Fig. 3C). Some treatment plans also include interferons and interleukins to jump-start the fight against cancer cells by boosting the patient's immune system. Moreover, the field of immunotherapy is gradually evolving and is beyond the scope of our present article.

Combination therapy

41Combination therapy may offer the advantages of the fast tumor regression of targeted therapies with the long-lasting responses induced by immunotherapy. Immunotherapy may be able to consolidate the dramatic tumor responses achieved with targeted therapy into durable, long-lasting remissions, in which sustained host responses targeting multiple antigens may reduce the risk of developing potentially lethal drug-resistant clones. Combining cancer vaccines with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) such as those targeting cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) is one approach to avoid T cell anergy., Moreover, T-cell and NK-cell invasion may be facilitated by targeted drugs that modify the tumor endothelium. Gemcitabine, for example, is a deoxycytidine analog that induces tumor cell death, which results in antigen cross-presentation and cross-priming., Carboplatin, pemetrexed, and pembrolizumab are now commonly used in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer as first-line agents. For triple-negative breast cancer, nab-paclitaxel and atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) were recently authorized based on an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) over chemotherapy.

42Adenosine receptor antagonists (ARs) are involved in regulating tumor progression. The four ARs discovered so far, A1, A2A, A2B and A3, belong to the class A family of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). The A2BR seems more promising as a target in chemotherapeutic interventions, whereas the A2AR is the main target in the immunotherapeutic approach., The existence of dual compounds, i.e., molecules acting on the A2AR and on the A2BR, has prompted their use in both immunotherapeutic and chemotherapeutic interventions.,

43Epigenetic modulators may have a dual function in the tumor microenvironment, boosting both antigen expression and T cell effector activity., ICI-induced reactivation of exhausted T cells is linked with considerable chromatin remodeling, indicating that epigenetic modification may relieve certain patients with exhausted T cell function.,

44While many strategies focus on modifying the native tumor microenvironment, an alternative strategy involves the direct infusion of engineered immune cells or cellular receptors into the patient via adoptive cellular therapy with the goal of increasing the number of effector cells that recognize tumor-expressed antigens. Upon reinfusion, lymphocytes grown ex vivo may respond more potently to tumor antigen since they have not been continuously exposed to tolerogenic microenvironmental signals. Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) treatment, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) engineered T-cells,, and TCR-engineered cell therapy, are the three main forms of adoptive T cell therapy currently being investigated.,,

45Injecting oncolytic viruses directly into the tumor microenvironment is an alternate technique for improving tumor antigen recognition and strengthening T cell responses. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) is a modified herpes simplex virus that is injected intra-lesionally into the melanoma tumor in individuals who have failed to get their tumor removed. It induces immediate lysis of tumor cells and the production of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), which serves as a cytokine to stimulate the recruitment, maturation, and activity of antigen presenting cells (APCs).

46Several studies combining immunotherapy with molecularly targeted treatment, either concurrently or sequentially, have shown hepatotoxicity as a major concern. Combinations of dabrafenib, trametinib, and anti-PD-1 treatment have been associated with a greater risk of grade 3/4 adverse events in melanoma than would be expected with targeted therapy alone.

47Emerging drugs are beginning to take a more comprehensive perspective of the tumor microenvironment (TME) and are revealing complementary techniques to simultaneously restore and enhance immune activity and promote therapeutic synergy., Future research of combined therapy should continue to concentrate on exploring the intricate interplay between targeted drugs and immunotherapy, as well as optimizing parameters such as administration time, dose, and sequencing that may enhance the therapeutic index.

Conclusions and future perspectives

48Chemotherapy is a largely investigated and clinically assessed approach in cancer therapeutics. In this report, we summarized the present status of chemotherapy and several drugs/agents presently enrolled in the clinical practice to provide an overview of how the field has evolved over the years and has traced the possibilities and druggability of diverse cancers in the clinic. New trends are evolving in the drug discovery paradigm that includes designing new derivatives of old drugs with high efficacy and lower toxicities., Several natural compounds isolated from microbial, plants, or natural sources were suggested to hold enormous potential to target stress response pathways by mounting a hyperactive response instigating cancer cell death.,,, Natural compounds/agents as chemotherapeutic drugs demonstrated several advantages over synthetic ones, owing to their less cytotoxicity, cost, and straightforward production/extraction process.,, Therefore, recognition and attenuation of treatment toxicity in cancer chemotherapy will be a key factor in determining the success of its regimes in the future.

49Revised clinical strategies further underlined that combination therapy could emerge as a promising therapeutic approach to treat diverse cancers in the future. Combination strategies comprise an obvious overlap of the chemotherapeutic regimes with the targeted drug delivery, personalized medicine, and immunotherapy. It may not only improve the efficacy of enrolled treatment but can also elicit the responsiveness of certain tumors towards their effective therapeutic targeting in the clinic. Among these, personalized combination therapies that target individual tumor types based on their molecular signatures may offer a great promise. With acquiring more personalized insights in the chemotherapeutic treatments, a greater emphasis will be on individual regimes that could meet a high clinical success. Therefore, chemotherapy beyond its conventional clinical efficacy offers to improve the clinical outcome in combination therapies. Translation of these combined approaches in the clinics is yet to see a complete success and thus warrants more clinical investigations.

50Conclusively, clinical practice of cancer chemotherapy has achieved considerable success, however, it still holds scope to improve, particularly in terms of efficacy and safety of enrolled chemotherapeutic regimes. Therefore, it further requires concerted efforts and careful investigations assessing the efficacy of combined therapeutic regimes. In summary, more investigative focus on drug design in individual or combined regimes and rigor on their clinical trials involving careful patient selection and stratification are warranted to achieve the greater therapeutic success of chemotherapeutic regimens in the clinic.

Conflict of interests

51The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Funding

52This research was funded by "Agencia Canaria de Investigación, Innovación y Sociedad de la Información (10.13039/501100007757ACIISI) del Gobierno de Canarias” (No. ProID2020010134), and óCaja Canarias (Project No. 2019SP43).

References 360

1.
The immune system in cancer metastasis: friend or foe? · 2017
No notice
2.
Laplagne C., Domagala M., le Naour A., et al. Latest advances in targeting the tumor microenvironment for tumor suppression. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(19):4719.
Not in our library10.3390/ijms20194719
3.
Biophysics of Tumor Microenvironment and Cancer Metastasis - A Mini Review · 2018
No notice
4.
Costa A., Scholer-Dahirel A., Mechta-Grigoriou F. The role of reactive oxygen species and metabolism on cancer cells and their microenvironment. Semin Cancer Biol. 2014;25:23-32.
Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2013.12.007
5.
ATP in the tumour microenvironment drives expression of nfP2X7, a key mediator of cancer cell survival · 2018
No notice
6.
Pfirschke C., Siwicki M., Liao H.W., Pittet M.J. Tumor microenvironment: no effector T cells without dendritic cells. Cancer Cell. 2017;31(5):614-615.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2017.04.007
7.
Bedoui S., Herold M.J., Strasser A. Emerging connectivity of programmed cell death pathways and its physiological implications. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020;21(11):678-695.
Not in our library10.1038/s41580-020-0270-8
8.
Rodrigues D., Souza T., Jennen D.G.J., Lemmens L., Kleinjans J.C.S., de Kok T.M. Drug-induced gene expression profile changes in relation to intestinal toxicity: state-of-the-art and new approaches. Cancer Treat Rev. 2019;77:57-66.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.06.004
9.
Delou J.M.A., Souza A.S.O., Souza L.C.M., Borges H.L. Highlights in resistance mechanism pathways for combination therapy. Cells. 2019;8(9):1013.
Not in our library10.3390/cells8091013
10.
Kalra R.S., Bapat S.A. Enhanced levels of double-strand DNA break repair proteins protect ovarian cancer cells against genotoxic stress-induced apoptosis. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6(1):66.
Not in our library10.1186/1757-2215-6-66
11.
Caccuri F., Sommariva M., Marsico S., et al. Inhibition of DNA repair mechanisms and induction of apoptosis in triple negative breast cancer cells expressing the human herpesvirus 6 U94. Cancers. 2019;11(7):1006.
Not in our library10.3390/cancers11071006
12.
Expression proteomics predicts loss of RXR-γ during progression of epithelial ovarian cancer. · 2013
Not checked
13.
Huang C., Vaishnavi K., Kalra R. 3β-methoxy derivation of withaferin-a attenuates its anticancer potency: bioinformatics and molecular evidences. Med Aromatic Plants. 2015;4(219).
Not in our library
14.
Chaudhary A., Kalra R.S., Malik V., et al. 2, 3-dihydro-3β-methoxy withaferin-A lacks anti-metastasis potency: bioinformatics and experimental evidences. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):17344.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-019-53568-6
15.
Chen Y., Jia Y., Song W., Zhang L. Therapeutic potential of nitrogen mustard based hybrid molecules. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:1453.
Not in our library10.3389/fphar.2018.01453
16.
Needham D.M., Cohen J.A., Barrett A.M. The mechanism of damage to the bone marrow in systemic poisoning with mustard gas. Biochem J. 1947;41(4):631-639.
Not in our library10.1042/bj0410631
17.
Ghanei M. Delayed haematological complications of mustard gas. J Appl Toxicol. 2004;24(6):493-495.
Not in our library10.1002/jat.1006
18.
Cairns J. The treatment of diseases and the war against cancer. Sci Am. 1985;253(5):51-59.
Not in our library10.1038/scientificamerican1185-51
19.
Duffy M.J. The war on cancer: are we winning? Tumour Biol. 2013;34(3):1275-1284.
Not in our library10.1007/s13277-013-0759-2
20.
Christakis P. The birth of chemotherapy at Yale. Bicentennial lecture series: surgery Grand Round. Yale J Biol Med. 2011;84(2):169-172.
Not in our library
21.
DeVita V.T., Chu E. A history of cancer chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2008;68(21):8643-8653.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-6611
22.
Sawyers C. Targeted cancer therapy. Nature. 2004;432(7015):294-297.
Not in our library10.1038/nature03095
23.
Dewanjee S., Vallamkondu J., Kalra R.S., et al. The emerging role of HDACs: pathology and therapeutic targets in diabetes mellitus. Cells. 2021;10(6):1340.
Not in our library10.3390/cells10061340
24.
Mattheolabakis G., Rigas B., Constantinides P.P. Nanodelivery strategies in cancer chemotherapy: biological rationale and pharmaceutical perspectives. Nanomedicine. 2012;7(10):1577-1590.
Not in our library10.2217/nnm.12.128
25.
Leu J.I.J., Pimkina J., Pandey P., Murphy M.E., George D.L. HSP70 inhibition by the small-molecule 2-phenylethynesulfonamide impairs protein clearance pathways in tumor cells. Mol Cancer Res. 2011;9(7):936-947.
Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-11-0019
26.
Wu W.K., Wu Y.C., Yu L., Li Z.J., Sung J.J., Cho C.H. Induction of autophagy by proteasome inhibitor is associated with proliferative arrest in colon cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;374(2):258-263.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.07.031
27.
Selimovic D., Porzig B.B.O.W., El-Khattouti A., et al. Bortezomib/proteasome inhibitor triggers both apoptosis and autophagy-dependent pathways in melanoma cells. Cell Signal. 2013;25(1):308-318.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cellsig.2012.10.004
28.
Regulation of autophagy by polyphenolic compounds as a potential therapeutic strategy for cancer · 2014
No notice
29.
Sannino S., Guerriero C.J., Sabnis A.J., et al. Compensatory increases of select proteostasis networks after Hsp70 inhibition in cancer cells. J Cell Sci. 2018;131(17):jcs217760.
Not in our library10.1242/jcs.217760
30.
Zhu K., Dunner K., McConkey D.J. Proteasome inhibitors activate autophagy as a cytoprotective response in human prostate cancer cells. Oncogene. 2010;29(3):451-462.
Not in our library10.1038/onc.2009.343
31.
Autophagy Induced by Proteasomal DUB Inhibitor NiPT Restricts NiPT-Mediated Cancer Cell Death · 2020
Not checked
32.
Stewart D.A., Winnike J.H., McRitchie S.L., Clark R.F., Pathmasiri W.W., Sumner S.J. Metabolomics analysis of hormone-responsive and triple-negative breast cancer cell responses to paclitaxel identify key metabolic differences. J Proteome Res. 2016;15(9):3225-3240.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00430
33.
Sun H., Zhang A.H., Liu S.B., et al. Cell metabolomics identify regulatory pathways and targets of magnoline against prostate cancer. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 2018;1102–1103:143-151.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jchromb.2018.10.017
34.
Kroemer G., Zitvogel L. Immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Exp Med. 2021;218(3).
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20201979
35.
Torino F., Barnabei A., Paragliola R., Baldelli R., Appetecchia M., Corsello S.M. Thyroid dysfunction as an unintended side effect of anticancer drugs. Thyroid. 2013;23(11):1345-1366.
Not in our library10.1089/thy.2013.0241
36.
Mahner S., Eulenburg C., Staehle A., et al. Prognostic impact of the time interval between surgery and chemotherapy in advanced ovarian cancer: analysis of prospective randomised phase III trials. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(1):142-149.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2012.07.023
37.
di Lonardo A., Nasi S., Pulciani S. Cancer: we should not forget the past. J Cancer. 2015;6(1):29-39.
Not in our library10.7150/jca.10336
38.
Papac R.J. Origins of cancer therapy. Yale J Biol Med. 2001;74(6):391-398.
Not in our library
39.
Morrison W.B. Cancer chemotherapy: an annotated history. J Vet Intern Med. 2010;24(6):1249-1262.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1939-1676.2010.0590.x
40.
Riddle J.M. Ancient and medieval chemotherapy for cancer. Isis. 1985;76(3):319-330.
Not in our library10.1086/353876
41.
Lee C.T., Huang Y.W., Yang C.H., Huang K.S. Drug delivery systems and combination therapy by using Vinca alkaloids. Curr Top Med Chem. 2015;15(15):1491-1500.
Not in our library10.2174/1568026615666150414120547
42.
Lau Y.C., Lip G.Y.H. New advances in the treatment of atrial fibrillation: focus on stroke prevention. Expet Opin Pharmacother. 2014;15(15):2193-2204.
Not in our library10.1517/14656566.2014.948418
43.
DeVita V.T., Hellman S., Rosenberg S.A. 2018.
Not in our library
44.
Hanahan D., Weinberg R.A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144(5):646-674.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
45.
Caon I., Bartolini B., Parnigoni A., et al. Revisiting the hallmarks of cancer: the role of hyaluronan. Semin Cancer Biol. 2020;62:9-19.
Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.07.007
46.
Dieci M.V., Arnedos M., Andre F., Soria J.C. Fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors as a cancer treatment: from a biologic rationale to medical perspectives. Cancer Discov. 2013;3(3):264-279.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-12-0362
47.
Holderfield M., Deuker M.M., McCormick F., McMahon M. Targeting RAF kinases for cancer therapy: BRAF-mutated melanoma and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14(7):455-467.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3760
48.
Kalra R.S., Chaudhary A., Yoon A.R., et al. CARF enrichment promotes epithelial-mesenchymal transition via Wnt/β-catenin signaling: its clinical relevance and potential as a therapeutic target. Oncogenesis. 2018;7(5):39.
Not in our library10.1038/s41389-018-0048-4
49.
Chua T.C., Yan T.D., Saxena A., Morris D.L. Should the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis by cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy still be regarded as a highly morbid procedure?: a systematic review of morbidity and mortality. Ann Surg. 2009;249(6):900-907.
Not in our library10.1097/sla.0b013e3181a45d86
50.
Jin J.F., Zhu L.L., Chen M., et al. The optimal choice of medication administration route regarding intravenous, intramuscular, and subcutaneous injection. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:923-942.
Not in our library10.2147/ppa.s87271
51.
Giger-Pabst U., Bucur P., Roger S., et al. Comparison of tissue and blood concentrations of oxaliplatin administrated by different modalities of intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(13):4445-4451.
Not in our library10.1245/s10434-019-07695-z
52.
Anticancer Activity of Natural Compounds from Plant and Marine Environment · 2018
No notice
53.
Weaver B.A. How Taxol/paclitaxel kills cancer cells. Mol Biol Cell. 2014;25(18):2677-2681.
Not in our library10.1091/mbc.e14-04-0916
54.
Omar A., Kalra R.S., Putri J., Elwakeel A., Kaul S.C., Wadhwa R. Soyasapogenol-A targets CARF and results in suppression of tumor growth and metastasis in p53 compromised cancer cells. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):6323.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-020-62953-5
55.
Sun G., Rong D., Li Z., et al. Role of small molecule targeted compounds in cancer: progress, opportunities, and challenges. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:694363.
Not in our library10.3389/fcell.2021.694363
56.
Apetoh L., Ladoire S., Coukos G., Ghiringhelli F. Combining immunotherapy and anticancer agents: the right path to achieve cancer cure? Ann Oncol. 2015;26(9):1813-1823.
Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdv209
57.
Piktel E., Niemirowicz K., Wątek M., Wollny T., Deptuła P., Bucki R. Recent insights in nanotechnology-based drugs and formulations designed for effective anti-cancer therapy. J Nanobiotechnol. 2016;14(1):39.
Not in our library10.1186/s12951-016-0193-x
58.
Anand U., Carpena M., Kowalska-Góralska M., et al. Safer plant-based nanoparticles for combating antibiotic resistance in bacteria: a comprehensive review on its potential applications, recent advances, and future perspective. Sci Total Environ. 2022;153472.
Not in our library10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153472
59.
Combating Drug-Resistant Bacteria Using Photothermally Active Nanomaterials: A Perspective Review · 2021
Not checked
60.
Mitra A.K., Agrahari V., Mandal A., et al. Novel delivery approaches for cancer therapeutics. J Contr Release. 2015;219:248-268.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.09.067
61.
Large D.E., Soucy J.R., Hebert J., Auguste D.T. Advances in receptor-mediated, tumor-targeted drug delivery. Adv Ther. 2019;2(1):1800091.
Not in our library10.1002/adtp.201800091
62.
Yarchoan M., Agarwal P., Villanueva A., et al. Recent developments and therapeutic strategies against hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2019;79(17):4326-4330.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-19-0803
63.
Vaidyanathan R., Soon R.H., Zhang P., Jiang K., Lim C.T. Cancer diagnosis: from tumor to liquid biopsy and beyond. Lab Chip. 2018;19(1):11-34.
Not in our library10.1039/c8lc00684a
64.
Bera K., Schalper K.A., Rimm D.L., Velcheti V., Madabhushi A. Artificial intelligence in digital pathology - new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16(11):703-715.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-019-0252-y
65.
Charmsaz S., Prencipe M., Kiely M., Pidgeon G.P., Collins D.M. Innovative technologies changing cancer treatment. Cancers. 2018;10(6):208.
Not in our library10.3390/cancers10060208
66.
Markham M.J., Wachter K., Agarwal N., et al. Clinical cancer advances 2020:annual report on progress against cancer from the American society of clinical oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(10):1081.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.19.03141
67.
Jaffee E.M., van Dang C., Agus D.B., et al. Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a lancet oncology commission. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(11):e653-e706.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30698-8
68.
Zhao J., Dean D.C., Hornicek F.J., Yu X., Duan Z. Emerging next-generation sequencing-based discoveries for targeted osteosarcoma therapy. Cancer Lett. 2020;474:158-167.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2020.01.020
69.
Coccia M. Deep learning technology for improving cancer care in society: new directions in cancer imaging driven by artificial intelligence. Technol Soc. 2020;60:101198.
Not in our library
70.
Patel S. Emerging adjuvant therapy for cancer: propolis and its constituents. J Diet Suppl. 2016;13(3):245-268.
Not in our library10.3109/19390211.2015.1008614
71.
Grob J.J., Garbe C., Ascierto P., Larkin J., Dummer R., Schadendorf D. Adjuvant melanoma therapy with new drugs: should physicians continue to focus on metastatic disease or use it earlier in primary melanoma? Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(12):e720-e725.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30596-5
72.
Benson A.B., Schrag D., Somerfield M.R., et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(16):3408-3419.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2004.05.063
73.
Matei D., Filiaci V., Randall M.E., et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy plus radiation for locally advanced endometrial cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(24):2317-2326.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1813181
74.
Cao L., Xu C., Cai G., et al. How does the interval between completion of adjuvant chemotherapy and initiation of radiotherapy impact clinical outcomes in operable breast cancer patients? Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(4):2155-2168.
Not in our library10.1245/s10434-020-09026-z
75.
Salazar M.C., Rosen J.E., Wang Z., et al. Association of delayed adjuvant chemotherapy with survival after lung cancer surgery. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(5):610-619.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5829
76.
Kalyanaraman B. Teaching the basics of cancer metabolism: developing antitumor strategies by exploiting the differences between normal and cancer cell metabolism. Redox Biol. 2017;12:833-842.
Not in our library10.1016/j.redox.2017.04.018
77.
Moore A. Metabolic cycles in cancer cells? Bioessays. 2020;42(4):e2000048.
Not in our library10.1002/bies.202000048
78.
A Comprehensive Review on Medicinal Plants as Antimicrobial Therapeutics: Potential Avenues of Biocompatible Drug Discovery · 2019
No notice
79.
Alibek K., Bekmurzayeva A., Mussabekova A., Sultankulov B. Using antimicrobial adjuvant therapy in cancer treatment: a review. Infect Agents Cancer. 2012;7(1):33.
Not in our library10.1186/1750-9378-7-33
80.
Shoshan-Barmatz V., Anand U., Nahon-Crystal E., di Carlo M., Shteinfer-Kuzmine A. Adverse effects of metformin from diabetes to COVID-19, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and aging: is VDAC1 a common target? Front Physiol. 2021;12:730048.
Not in our library10.3389/fphys.2021.730048
81.
The immune system · 2016
No notice
82.
Gonzalez H., Hagerling C., Werb Z. Roles of the immune system in cancer: from tumor initiation to metastatic progression. Genes Dev. 2018;32(19–20):1267-1284.
Not in our library10.1101/gad.314617.118
83.
Whiteside T.L. Immune responses to cancer: are they potential biomarkers of prognosis? Front Oncol. 2013;3:107.
Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2013.00107
84.
Adapt and conquer: Metabolic flexibility in cancer growth, invasion and evasion · 2020
No notice
85.
Metabolic reprogramming: the emerging concept and associated therapeutic strategies · 2015
No notice
86.
Wadhwa R., Kalra R.S., Kaul S.C. CARF is a multi-module regulator of cell proliferation and a molecular bridge between cellular senescence and carcinogenesis. Mech Ageing Dev. 2017;166:64-68.
Not in our library10.1016/j.mad.2017.07.008
87.
Mroz E.A., Rocco J.W. The challenges of tumor genetic diversity. Cancer. 2017;123(6):917-927.
Not in our library10.1002/cncr.30430
88.
Gambara G., Gaebler M., Keilholz U., Regenbrecht C.R.A., Silvestri A. From chemotherapy to combined targeted therapeutics: in vitro and in vivo models to decipher intra-tumor heterogeneity. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:77.
Not in our library10.3389/fphar.2018.00077
89.
Palmer A.C., Sorger P.K. Combination cancer therapy can confer benefit via patient-to-patient variability without drug additivity or synergy. Cell. 2017;171(7):1678-1691.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.009
90.
Ke X., Shen L. Molecular targeted therapy of cancer: the progress and future prospect. Front Lab Med. 2017;1(2):69-75.
Not in our library
91.
DNA Damage Induced by Alkylating Agents and Repair Pathways · 2010
No notice
92.
Qiu H., Wang Y. Exploring DNA-binding proteins with in vivo chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry. J Proteome Res. 2009;8(4):1983-1991.
Not in our library10.1021/pr8009319
93.
Molecular features that predict the response to antimetabolite chemotherapies · 2017
Not checked
94.
Katzung B.G. 2008.
Not in our library
95.
Lambie D.G., Johnson R.H. Drugs and folate metabolism. Drugs. 1985;30(2):145-155.
Not in our library10.2165/00003495-198530020-00003
96.
DHFR Inhibitors: Reading the Past for Discovering Novel Anticancer Agents · 2019
No notice
97.
Löwenberg B., Pabst T., Vellenga E., et al. Cytarabine dose for acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(11):1027-1036.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1010222
98.
Grem J.L. 5-Fluorouracil: forty-plus and still ticking. A review of its preclinical and clinical development. Invest N Drugs. 2000;18(4):299-313.
Not in our library10.1023/a:1006416410198
99.
Masuda N., Lee S.J., Ohtani S., et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(22):2147-2159.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1612645
100.
Dyawanapelly S., Kumar A., Chourasia M.K. Lessons learned from gemcitabine: impact of therapeutic carrier systems and gemcitabine's drug conjugates on cancer therapy. Crit Rev Ther Drug Carrier Syst. 2017;34(1):63-96.
Not in our library10.1615/critrevtherdrugcarriersyst.2017017912
101.
Malik P., Cashen A.F. Decitabine in the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia in elderly patients. Cancer Manag Res. 2014;6:53-61.
Not in our library10.2147/cmar.s40600
102.
Liu Y., Wu W., Hong W., Sun X., Wu J., Huang Q. Raltitrexed-based chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2014;38(2):219-225.
Not in our library10.1016/j.clinre.2013.11.006
103.
Hasegawa K., Saiura A., Takayama T., et al. Oral adjuvant chemotherapy using uracil-tegafur (UFT) with leucovorin (LV) after resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases: long-term survival results of the phase III UFT/LV study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:672.
Not in our library
104.
Moudi M., Go R., Yien C.Y., Nazre M. Vinca alkaloids. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4(11):1231-1235.
Not in our library
105.
Bates D., Eastman A. Microtubule destabilising agents: far more than just antimitotic anticancer drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;83(2):255-268.
Not in our library10.1111/bcp.13126
106.
Habli Z., Toumieh G., Fatfat M., Rahal O.N., Gali-Muhtasib H. Emerging cytotoxic alkaloids in the battle against cancer: overview of molecular mechanisms. Molecules. 2017;22(2):250.
Not in our library10.3390/molecules22020250
107.
Evolution of Cancer Pharmacological Treatments at the Turn of the Third Millennium · 2018
No notice
108.
Schneider F., Pan L., Ottenbruch M., List T., Gaich T. The chemistry of nonclassical taxane diterpene. Acc Chem Res. 2021;54(10):2347-2360.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.accounts.0c00873
109.
Fanale D., Bronte G., Passiglia F., et al. Stabilizing versus destabilizing the microtubules: a double-edge sword for an effective cancer treatment option? Anal Cell Pathol. 2015;2015:690916.
Not in our library10.1155/2015/690916
110.
Leung J.C., Cassimeris L. Reorganization of paclitaxel-stabilized microtubule arrays at mitotic entry: roles of depolymerizing kinesins and severing proteins. Cancer Biol Ther. 2019;20(10):1337-1347.
Not in our library10.1080/15384047.2019.1638678
111.
Schwab C.L., English D.P., Roque D.M., Santin A.D. Taxanes: their impact on gynecologic malignancy. Anti Cancer Drugs. 2014;25(5):522-535.
Not in our library10.1097/cad.0000000000000057
112.
Paclitaxel’s Mechanistic and Clinical Effects on Breast Cancer · 2019
No notice
113.
Progress in research on paclitaxel and tumor immunotherapy · 2019
No notice
114.
Mahalaxmi I., Devi S.M., Kaavya J., Arul N., Balachandar V., Santhy K.S. New insight into NANOG: a novel therapeutic target for ovarian cancer (OC). Eur J Pharmacol. 2019;852:51-57.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.03.003
115.
Postma T.J., Vermorken J.B., Liefting A.J., Pinedo H.M., Heimans J.J. Paclitaxel-induced neuropathy. Ann Oncol. 1995;6(5):489-494.
Not in our library10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a059220
116.
Das T., Anand U., Pandey S.K., et al. Therapeutic strategies to overcome taxane resistance in cancer. Drug Resist Updates. 2021;55:100754.
Not in our library10.1016/j.drup.2021.100754
117.
Stähelin H.F., von Wartburg A. The chemical and biological route from podophyllotoxin glucoside to etoposide: ninth Cain memorial Award lecture. Cancer Res. 1991;51(1):5-15.
Not in our library
118.
Green J.A., Tarpey A.W., Warenius H.M. Pharmacokinetic study of high dose etoposide infusion in patients with small cell lung cancer. Acta Oncol. 1988;27(6b):819-822.
Not in our library10.3109/02841868809094365
119.
Infante Lara L., Fenner S., Ratcliffe S., et al. Coupling the core of the anticancer drug etoposide to an oligonucleotide induces topoisomerase II-mediated cleavage at specific DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(5):2218-2233.
Not in our library10.1093/nar/gky072
120.
Pommier Y., Leo E., Zhang H., Marchand C. DNA topoisomerases and their poisoning by anticancer and antibacterial drugs. Chem Biol. 2010;17(5):421-433.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chembiol.2010.04.012
121.
Bruni E., Reichle A., Scimeca M., Bonanno E., Ghibelli L. Lowering etoposide doses shifts cell demise from caspase-dependent to differentiation and caspase-3-independent apoptosis via DNA damage response, inducing AML culture extinction. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:1307.
Not in our library10.3389/fphar.2018.01307
122.
Hande K.R. Etoposide: four decades of development of a topoisomerase II inhibitor. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34(10):1514-1521.
Not in our library10.1016/s0959-8049(98)00228-7
123.
Wall M.E. Camptothecin and taxol: discovery to clinic. Med Res Rev. 1998;18(5):299-314.
Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1098-1128(199809)18:5<299::aid-med2>3.0.co;2-o
124.
Martino E., Della Volpe S., Terribile E., et al. The long story of camptothecin: from traditional medicine to drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2017;27(4):701-707.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bmcl.2016.12.085
125.
Yu S., Huang Q.Q., Luo Y., Lu W. Total synthesis of camptothecin and SN-38. J Org Chem. 2012;77(1):713-717.
Not in our library10.1021/jo201974f
126.
Li F., Jiang T., Li Q., Ling X. Camptothecin (CPT) and its derivatives are known to target topoisomerase I (Top1) as their mechanism of action: did we miss something in CPT analogue molecular targets for treating human disease such as cancer? Am J Cancer Res. 2017;7(12):2350-2394.
Not in our library
127.
Guo Y., Shi M., Shen X., Yang C., Yang L., Zhang J. Capecitabine plus irinotecan versus 5-FU/leucovorin plus irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2014;13(2):110-118.
Not in our library10.1016/j.clcc.2013.12.004
128.
Herben V.M., ten Bokkel Huinink W.W., Beijnen J.H. Clinical pharmacokinetics of topotecan. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1996;31(2):85-102.
Not in our library10.2165/00003088-199631020-00001
129.
Pommier Y. Topoisomerase I inhibitors: camptothecins and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6(10):789-802.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc1977
130.
Tomicic M.T., Christmann M., Kaina B. Topotecan-triggered degradation of topoisomerase I is p53-dependent and impacts cell survival. Cancer Res. 2005;65(19):8920-8926.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-0266
131.
Bailly C. Irinotecan: 25 years of cancer treatment. Pharmacol Res. 2019;148:104398.
Not in our library10.1016/j.phrs.2019.104398
132.
Sawada S., Yokokura T., Miyasaka T. Synthesis of CPT-11 (irinotecan hydrochloride trihydrate). Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1996;803:13-28.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1749-6632.1996.tb26372.x
133.
Sobell H.M. Actinomycin and DNA transcription. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1985;82(16):5328-5331.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.82.16.5328
134.
Avendaño C., Menéndez J.C. 2008.
Not in our library
135.
Arndt C., Hawkins D., Anderson J.R., Breitfeld P., Womer R., Meyer W. Age is a risk factor for chemotherapy-induced hepatopathy with vincristine, dactinomycin, and cyclophosphamide. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(10):1894-1901.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2004.08.075
136.
Al-Hazmi A., Zwaan J., Awad A., Al-Mesfer S., Mullaney P.B., Wheeler D.T. Effectiveness and complications of mitomycin C use during pediatric glaucoma surgery. Ophthalmology. 1998;105(10):1915-1920.
Not in our library10.1016/s0161-6420(98)91041-7
137.
Crooke S.T., Bradner W.T. Mitomycin C: a review. Cancer Treat Rev. 1976;3(3):121-139.
Not in our library10.1016/s0305-7372(76)80019-9
138.
Tomasz M. Mitomycin C: small, fast and deadly (but very selective). Chem Biol. 1995;2(9):575-579.
Not in our library10.1016/1074-5521(95)90120-5
139.
Noll D.M., Mason T.M., Miller P.S. Formation and repair of interstrand cross-links in DNA. Chem Rev. 2006;106(2):277-301.
Not in our library10.1021/cr040478b
140.
Haffty B.G., Wilson L.D., Son Y.H., et al. Concurrent chemo-radiotherapy with mitomycin C compared with porfiromycin in squamous cell cancer of the head and neck: final results of a randomized clinical trial. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2005;61(1):119-128.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ijrobp.2004.07.730
141.
Murphy T., Yee K.W.L. Cytarabine and daunorubicin for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Expet Opin Pharmacother. 2017;18(16):1765-1780.
Not in our library10.1080/14656566.2017.1391216
142.
Tan C., Tasaka H., Yu K.P., Murphy M.L., Karnofsky D.A. Daunomycin, an antitumor antibiotic, in the treatment of neoplastic disease. Clinical evaluation with special reference to childhood leukemia. Cancer. 1967;20(3):333-353.
Not in our library10.1002/1097-0142(1967)20:3<333::aid-cncr2820200302>3.0.co;2-k
143.
Fornari F.A., Randolph J.K., Yalowich J.C., Ritke M.K., Gewirtz D.A. Interference by doxorubicin with DNA unwinding in MCF-7 breast tumor cells. Mol Pharmacol. 1994;45(4):649-656.
Not in our library
144.
Bodley A., Liu L.F., Israel M., et al. DNA topoisomerase II-mediated interaction of doxorubicin and daunorubicin congeners with DNA. Cancer Res. 1989;49(21):5969-5978.
Not in our library
145.
Zhang G., Fang L., Zhu L., et al. Syntheses and biological activities of disaccharide daunorubicins. J Med Chem. 2005;48(16):5269-5278.
Not in our library10.1021/jm050144u
146.
Yu Z., Yan B., Gao L., et al. Targeted delivery of bleomycin: a comprehensive anticancer review. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2016;16(6):509-521.
Not in our library10.2174/1568009616666151130213910
147.
Lown J.W., Sim S.K. The mechanism of the bleomycin-induced cleavage of DNA. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1977;77(4):1150-1157.
Not in our library10.1016/s0006-291x(77)80099-5
148.
Weber G.F. Molecular Therapies of Cancer. 2015.
Not in our library
149.
Meldrum C., Doyle M.A., Tothill R.W. Next-generation sequencing for cancer diagnostics: a practical perspective. Clin Biochem Rev. 2011;32(4):177-195.
Not in our library
150.
Kalra R.S., Cheung C.T., Chaudhary A., Prakash J., Kaul S.C., Wadhwa R. CARF (Collaborator of ARF) overexpression in p53-deficient cells promotes carcinogenesis. Mol Oncol. 2015;9(9):1877-1889.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molonc.2015.07.003
151.
Joshi V., Upadhyay A., Prajapati V.K., Mishra A. How autophagy can restore proteostasis defects in multiple diseases? Med Res Rev. 2020;40(4):1385-1439.
Not in our library10.1002/med.21662
152.
Mishra R., Upadhyay A., Prajapati V.K., Mishra A. Proteasome-mediated proteostasis: novel medicinal and pharmacological strategies for diseases. Med Res Rev. 2018;38(6):1916-1973.
Not in our library10.1002/med.21502
153.
Upadhyay A., Amanullah A., Chhangani D., Joshi V., Mishra R., Mishra A. Ibuprofen induces mitochondrial-mediated apoptosis through proteasomal dysfunction. Mol Neurobiol. 2016;53(10):6968-6981.
Not in our library10.1007/s12035-015-9603-6
154.
Na Y., Kaul S.C., Ryu J., et al. Stress chaperone mortalin contributes to epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer metastasis. Cancer Res. 2016;76(9):2754-2765.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-15-2704
155.
Bapat S.A., Krishnan A., Ghanate A.D., Kusumbe A.P., Kalra R.S. Gene expression: protein interaction systems network modeling identifies transformation-associated molecules and pathways in ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70(12):4809-4819.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-0447
156.
Stringer A.M., Gibson R.J., Logan R.M., et al. Irinotecan-induced mucositis is associated with changes in intestinal mucins. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009;64(1):123-132.
Not in our library10.1007/s00280-008-0855-y
157.
Thorpe D., Stringer A., Butler R. Chemotherapy-induced mucositis: the role of mucin secretion and regulation, and the enteric nervous system. Neurotoxicology. 2013;38:101-105.
Not in our library10.1016/j.neuro.2013.06.007
158.
Mitchison T.J. The proliferation rate paradox in antimitotic chemotherapy. Mol Biol Cell. 2012;23(1):1-6.
Not in our library10.1091/mbc.e10-04-0335
159.
Chemotherapy-Induced Constipation and Diarrhea: Pathophysiology, Current and Emerging Treatments · 2016
No notice
160.
Bower J.E. Cancer-related fatigue: mechanisms, risk factors, and treatments. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11(10):597-609.
Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.127
161.
Wang Y., Probin V., Zhou D. Cancer therapy-induced residual bone marrow injury-Mechanisms of induction and implication for therapy. Curr Cancer Ther Rev. 2006;2(3):271-279.
Not in our library10.2174/157339406777934717
162.
Kuter D.J. Managing thrombocytopenia associated with cancer chemotherapy. Oncology. 2015;29(4):282-294.
Not in our library
163.
Manikandan R., Kumar S., Dorairajan L.N. Hemorrhagic cystitis: a challenge to the urologist. Indian J Urol. 2010;26(2):159-166.
Not in our library10.4103/0970-1591.65380
164.
Horie S., Oya M., Nangaku M., et al. Guidelines for treatment of renal injury during cancer chemotherapy 2016. Clin Exp Nephrol. 2018;22(1):210-244.
Not in our library10.1007/s10157-017-1448-z
165.
Maor Y., Malnick S. Liver injury induced by anticancer chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Int J Hepatol. 2013;2013:815105.
Not in our library10.1155/2013/815105
166.
Yeh E.T., Tong A.T., Lenihan D.J., et al. Cardiovascular complications of cancer therapy: diagnosis, pathogenesis, and management. Circulation. 2004;109(25):3122-3131.
Not in our library10.1161/01.cir.0000133187.74800.b9
167.
Schover L.R., van der Kaaij M., van Dorst E., Creutzberg C., Huyghe E., Kiserud C.E. Sexual dysfunction and infertility as late effects of cancer treatment. EJC Suppl. 2014;12(1):41-53.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejcsup.2014.03.004
168.
Voznesensky M., Annam K., Kreder K.J. Understanding and managing erectile dysfunction in patients treated for cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(4):297-304.
Not in our library10.1200/jop.2016.010678
169.
Mitchell T., Turton P. 'Chemobrain': concentration and memory effects in people receiving chemotherapy - a descriptive phenomenological study. Eur J Cancer Care. 2011;20(4):539-548.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1365-2354.2011.01244.x
170.
Moore H.C. An overview of chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction, or ‘chemobrain. Oncology. 2014;28(9):797-804.
Not in our library
171.
Dutta V. Chemotherapy, neurotoxicity, and cognitive changes in breast cancer. J Cancer Res Therapeut. 2011;7(3):264-269.
Not in our library10.4103/0973-1482.87008
172.
Omoti A., Omoti C. Ocular toxicity of systemic anticancer chemotherapy. Pharm Pract. 2006;4:55-59.
Not in our library
173.
Al-Tweigeri T., Nabholtz J.M., MacKey J.R. Ocular toxicity and cancer chemotherapy. A review. Cancer. 1996;78(7):1359-1373.
Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19961001)78:7<1359::aid-cncr1>3.0.co;2-g
174.
Curigliano G., Cardinale D., Suter T., et al. Cardiovascular toxicity induced by chemotherapy, targeted agents and radiotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(Suppl 7):vii155-vii166.
Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mds293
175.
Cohen J.D., Li L., Wang Y., et al. Detection and localization of surgically resectable cancers with a multi-analyte blood test. Science. 2018;359(6378):926-930.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aar3247
176.
Alix-Panabières C., Pantel K. Clinical applications of circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA as liquid biopsy. Cancer Discov. 2016;6(5):479-491.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-15-1483
177.
Li L., Gao R., Yu Y., et al. Tumor suppressor activity of miR-451:identification of CARF as a new target. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):375.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-18559-5
178.
Shohdy K.S., West H.J. Circulating tumor DNA testing-liquid biopsy of a cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6(5):792.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0346
179.
Vivek R., Thangam R., NipunBabu V., et al. Multifunctional HER2-antibody conjugated polymeric nanocarrier-based drug delivery system for multi-drug-resistant breast cancer therapy. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2014;6(9):6469-6480.
Not in our library10.1021/am406012g
180.
Alley S.C., Okeley N.M., Senter P.D. Antibody-drug conjugates: targeted drug delivery for cancer. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2010;14(4):529-537.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.06.170
181.
Wang X., Wang Y., Chen Z.G., Shin D.M. Advances of cancer therapy by nanotechnology. Cancer Res Treat. 2009;41(1):1-11.
Not in our library10.4143/crt.2009.41.1.1
182.
Targeted drug delivery for cancer therapy: the other side of antibodies · 2012
No notice
183.
Kutova O.M., Guryev E.L., Sokolova E.A., Alzeibak R., Balalaeva I.V. Targeted delivery to tumors: multidirectional strategies to improve treatment efficiency. Cancers. 2019;11(1):68.
Not in our library10.3390/cancers11010068
184.
Cho K., Wang X., Nie S., Chen Z.G., Shin D.M. Therapeutic nanoparticles for drug delivery in cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(5):1310-1316.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-1441
185.
Progress and challenges towards targeted delivery of cancer therapeutics · 2018
No notice
186.
Sutradhar K.B., Amin M.L. Nanotechnology in cancer drug delivery and selective targeting. ISRN Nanotechnol. 2014;2014:939378.
Not in our library
187.
Lammers T., Kiessling F., Ashford M., Hennink W., Crommelin D., Storm G. Cancer nanomedicine: is targeting our target? Nat Rev Mater. 2016;1(9):16069.
Not in our library10.1038/natrevmats.2016.69
188.
El-Readi M.Z., Althubiti M.A. Cancer nanomedicine: a new era of successful targeted therapy. J Nanomater. 2019;2019:4927312.
Not in our library
189.
Dias-Santagata D., Akhavanfard S., David S.S., et al. Rapid targeted mutational analysis of human tumours: a clinical platform to guide personalized cancer medicine. EMBO Mol Med. 2010;2(5):146-158.
Not in our library10.1002/emmm.201000070
190.
Dong L., Wang W., Li A., et al. Clinical next generation sequencing for precision medicine in cancer. Curr Genom. 2015;16(4):253-263.
Not in our library10.2174/1389202915666150511205313
191.
Fedorenko I.V., Gibney G.T., Sondak V.K., Smalley K.S.M. Beyond BRAF: where next for melanoma therapy? Br J Cancer. 2015;112(2):217-226.
Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2014.476
192.
Targeting Oncogenic BRAF: Past, Present, and Future · 2019
No notice
193.
André F., Ciruelos E., Rubovszky G., et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(20):1929-1940.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1813904
194.
Kalra R.S., Bapat S.A. 2019;1-14.
Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4939-9585-1_1
195.
Soda M., Choi Y.L., Enomoto M., et al. Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature. 2007;448(7153):561-566.
Not in our library10.1038/nature05945
196.
Hyman D.M., Puzanov I., Subbiah V., et al. Vemurafenib in multiple nonmelanoma cancers with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(8):726-736.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1502309
197.
Babina I.S., Turner N.C. Advances and challenges in targeting FGFR signalling in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(5):318-332.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2017.8
198.
Tutt A., Robson M., Garber J.E., et al. Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9737):235-244.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60892-6
199.
Fong P.C., Boss D.S., Yap T.A., et al. Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):123-134.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa0900212
200.
Chaudhary A., Kalra R.S., Huang C., Prakash J., Kaul S.C., Wadhwa R. 2, 3-dihydro-3β-methoxy withaferin-A protects normal cells against stress: molecular evidence of its potent cytoprotective activity. J Nat Prod. 2017;80(10):2756-2760.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.jnatprod.7b00573
201.
Friedman A.A., Letai A., Fisher D.E., Flaherty K.T. Precision medicine for cancer with next-generation functional diagnostics. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015;15(12):747-756.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc4015
202.
de la Fuente-Núñez C., Silva O.N., Lu T.K., Franco O.L. Antimicrobial peptides: role in human disease and potential as immunotherapies. Pharmacol Ther. 2017;178:132-140.
Not in our library10.1016/j.pharmthera.2017.04.002
203.
Peptides with Dual Antimicrobial and Anticancer Activities · 2017
No notice
204.
Hilchie A.L., Hoskin D.W., Power Coombs M.R. Anticancer activities of natural and synthetic peptides. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1117:131-147.
Not in our library10.1007/978-981-13-3588-4_9
205.
Mwangi J., Hao X., Lai R., Zhang Z.Y. Antimicrobial peptides: new hope in the war against multidrug resistance. Zool Res. 2019;40(6):488-505.
Not in our library10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2019.062
206.
Qin Y., Qin Z.D., Chen J., et al. From antimicrobial to anticancer peptides: the transformation of peptides. Recent Pat Anti-Cancer Drug Discov. 2019;14(1):70-84.
Not in our library10.2174/1574892814666190119165157
207.
Lei J., Sun L., Huang S., et al. The antimicrobial peptides and their potential clinical applications. Am J Transl Res. 2019;11(7):3919-3931.
Not in our library
208.
Roudi R., Syn N.L., Roudbary M. Antimicrobial peptides as biologic and immunotherapeutic agents against cancer: a comprehensive overview. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1320.
Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2017.01320
209.
Antimicrobial Peptides as Anticancer Agents: Functional Properties and Biological Activities · 2020
No notice
210.
Exploring Phytochemicals for Combating Antibiotic Resistance in Microbial Pathogens · 2021
No notice
211.
Cathelicidins: Immunomodulatory Antimicrobials · 2018
No notice
212.
Wang G., Narayana J.L., Mishra B., et al. 2019;215-240.
Not in our library10.1007/978-981-13-3588-4_12
213.
Fabisiak A., Murawska N., Fichna J. LL-37:cathelicidin-related antimicrobial peptide with pleiotropic activity. Pharmacol Rep. 2016;68(4):802-808.
Not in our library10.1016/j.pharep.2016.03.015
214.
Chen X., Ji S., Si J., et al. Human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide suppresses proliferation, migration and invasion of oral carcinoma HSC-3 cells via a novel mechanism involving caspase-3 mediated apoptosis. Mol Med Rep. 2020;22(6):5243-5250.
Not in our library10.3892/mmr.2020.11629
215.
Porter R.J., Murray G.I., Alnabulsi A., et al. Colonic epithelial cathelicidin (LL-37) expression intensity is associated with progression of colorectal cancer and presence of CD8+ T cell infiltrate. J Pathol Clin Res. 2021;7(5):495-506.
Not in our library10.1002/cjp2.222
216.
Wang J., Cheng M., Law I.K.M., Ortiz C., Sun M., Koon H.W. Cathelicidin suppresses colon cancer metastasis via a P2RX7-dependent mechanism. Mol Ther Oncolytics. 2019;12:195-203.
Not in our library10.1016/j.omto.2019.01.004
217.
Antimicrobial Peptides and Nanotechnology, Recent Advances and Challenges · 2018
No notice
218.
Niemirowicz K., Prokop I., Wilczewska A.Z., et al. Magnetic nanoparticles enhance the anticancer activity of cathelicidin LL-37 peptide against colon cancer cells. Int J Nanomed. 2015;10:3843-3853.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s76104
219.
Fan R., Tong A., Li X., et al. Enhanced antitumor effects by docetaxel/LL37-loaded thermosensitive hydrogel nanoparticles in peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. Int J Nanomed. 2015;10:7291-7305.
Not in our library10.2147/ijn.s89066
220.
Chauhan S., Dhawan D.K., Saini A., Preet S. Antimicrobial peptides against colorectal cancer-a focused review. Pharmacol Res. 2021;167:105529.
Not in our library10.1016/j.phrs.2021.105529
221.
Dolkar T., Trinidad C.M., Nelson K.C., et al. Dermatologic toxicity from novel therapy using antimicrobial peptide LL-37 in melanoma: a detailed examination of the clinicopathologic features. J Cutan Pathol. 2018;45(7):539-544.
Not in our library10.1111/cup.13262
222.
Divyashree M., Mani M.K., Reddy D., et al. Clinical applications of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs):where do we stand now? Protein Pept Lett. 2020;27(2):120-134.
Not in our library10.2174/0929866526666190925152957
223.
Karlitepe A., Ozalp O., Avci C.B. New approaches for cancer immunotherapy. Tumour Biol. 2015;36(6):4075-4078.
Not in our library10.1007/s13277-015-3491-2
224.
Weiner L.M., Murray J.C., Shuptrine C.W. Antibody-based immunotherapy of cancer. Cell. 2012;148(6):1081-1084.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.034
225.
Human Tumor Antigens and Cancer Immunotherapy · 2015
No notice
226.
Kim I., Sanchez K., McArthur H.L., Page D. Immunotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: present and future. Curr Breast Cancer Rep. 2019;11(4):259-271.
Not in our library
227.
Recent advances in triple negative breast cancer: the immunotherapy era · 2019
No notice
228.
Current Challenges in Cancer Immunotherapy: Multimodal Approaches to Improve Efficacy and Patient Response Rates · 2019
No notice
229.
Paz-Ares L., Luft A., Vicente D., et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(21):2040-2051.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1810865
230.
Finn O.J. Vaccines for cancer prevention: a practical and feasible approach to the cancer epidemic. Cancer Immunol Res. 2014;2(8):708-713.
Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-14-0110
231.
Pérez-García J., Soberino J., Racca F., Gion M., Stradella A., Cortés J. Atezolizumab in the treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Expet Opin Biol Ther. 2020;20(9):981-989.
Not in our library10.1080/14712598.2020.1769063
232.
Reddy S.M., Carroll E., Nanda R. Atezolizumab for the treatment of breast cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2020;20(3):151-158.
Not in our library10.1080/14737140.2020.1732211
233.
Cyprian F.S., Akhtar S., Gatalica Z., Vranic S. Targeted immunotherapy with a checkpoint inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy: a new clinical paradigm in the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2019;19(3):227-233.
Not in our library10.17305/bjbms.2019.4204
234.
Ledford H. Engineered cell therapy for cancer gets thumbs up from FDA advisers. Nature. 2017;547(7663):270.
Not in our library10.1038/nature.2017.22304
235.
Schirrmacher V. From chemotherapy to biological therapy: a review of novel concepts to reduce the side effects of systemic cancer treatment (Review). Int J Oncol. 2019;54(2):407-419.
Not in our library10.3892/ijo.2018.4661
236.
Vanneman M., Dranoff G. Combining immunotherapy and targeted therapies in cancer treatment. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(4):237-251.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3237
237.
Hughes P.E., Caenepeel S., Wu L.C. Targeted therapy and checkpoint immunotherapy combinations for the treatment of cancer. Trends Immunol. 2016;37(7):462-476.
Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2016.04.010
238.
Grosser R., Cherkassky L., Chintala N., Adusumilli P.S. Combination immunotherapy with CAR T cells and checkpoint blockade for the treatment of solid tumors. Cancer Cell. 2019;36(5):471-482.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2019.09.006
239.
Chiossone L., Dumas P.Y., Vienne M., Vivier E. Natural killer cells and other innate lymphoid cells in cancer. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018;18(11):671-688.
Not in our library10.1038/s41577-018-0061-z
240.
Anyaegbu C.C., Lake R.A., Heel K., Robinson B.W., Fisher S.A. Chemotherapy enhances cross-presentation of nuclear tumor antigens. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e107894.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0107894
241.
Konstantinopoulos P.A., Cheng S.C., Wahner Hendrickson A.E., et al. Berzosertib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(7):957-968.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30180-7
242.
Reck M. Pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Immunotherapy. 2018;10(2):93-105.
Not in our library10.2217/imt-2017-0121
243.
Kang C., Syed Y.Y. Atezolizumab (in combination with nab-paclitaxel):a review in advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Drugs. 2020;80(6):601-607.
Not in our library10.1007/s40265-020-01295-y
244.
Allard B., Allard D., Buisseret L., Stagg J. The adenosine pathway in immuno-oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(10):611-629.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-020-0382-2
245.
Adenosine and Inflammation: Here, There and Everywhere · 2021
No notice
246.
Franco R., Rivas-Santisteban R., Navarro G., Reyes-Resina I. Adenosine receptor antagonists to combat cancer and to boost anti-cancer chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Cells. 2021;10(11):2831.
Not in our library10.3390/cells10112831
247.
Helms R.S., Powell J.D. Rethinking the adenosine-A2AR checkpoint: implications for enhancing anti-tumor immunotherapy. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2020;53:77-83.
Not in our library10.1016/j.coph.2020.07.003
248.
Yu F., Zhu C., Xie Q., Wang Y. Adenosine A2A receptor antagonists for cancer immunotherapy. J Med Chem. 2020;63(21):12196-12212.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c00237
249.
Yan W., Ling L., Wu Y., et al. Structure-based design of dual-acting compounds targeting adenosine A2A receptor and histone deacetylase as novel tumor immunotherapeutic agents. J Med Chem. 2021;64(22):16573-16597.
Not in our library10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c01155
250.
Churov A., Zhulai G. Targeting adenosine and regulatory T cells in cancer immunotherapy. Hum Immunol. 2021;82(4):270-278.
Not in our library10.1016/j.humimm.2020.12.005
251.
Marks D.L., Olson R.L., Fernandez-Zapico M.E. Epigenetic control of the tumor microenvironment. Epigenomics. 2016;8(12):1671-1687.
Not in our library10.2217/epi-2016-0110
252.
Lodewijk I., Nunes S.P., Henrique R., Jerónimo C., Dueñas M., Paramio J.M. Tackling tumor microenvironment through epigenetic tools to improve cancer immunotherapy. Clin Epigenet. 2021;13(1):63.
Not in our library10.1186/s13148-021-01046-0
253.
Pan X., Zheng L. Epigenetics in modulating immune functions of stromal and immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Cell Mol Immunol. 2020;17(9):940-953.
Not in our library10.1038/s41423-020-0505-9
254.
Duan Q., Zhang H., Zheng J., Zhang L. Turning cold into hot: firing up the tumor microenvironment. Trends Cancer. 2020;6(7):605-618.
Not in our library10.1016/j.trecan.2020.02.022
255.
Lim W.A., June C.H. The principles of engineering immune cells to treat cancer. Cell. 2017;168(4):724-740.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.016
256.
The future of cancer immunotherapy: microenvironment-targeting combinations · 2020
No notice
257.
Hulen T.M., Chamberlain C.A., Svane I.M., Met Ö. ACT up TIL now: the evolution of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in adoptive cell therapy for the treatment of solid tumors. Immunology. 2021;1(3):194-211.
Not in our library
258.
Newick K., O'Brien S., Moon E., Albelda S.M. CAR T cell therapy for solid tumors. Annu Rev Med. 2017;68:139-152.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-med-062315-120245
259.
Singh A.K., McGuirk J.P. CAR T cells: continuation in a revolution of immunotherapy. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(3):e168-e178.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30823-x
260.
Jazirehi A.R. Molecular analysis of elements of melanoma insensitivity to TCR-engineered adoptive cell therapy. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(21):11726.
Not in our library10.3390/ijms222111726
261.
Tan E., Gakhar N., Kirtane K. TCR gene-engineered cell therapy for solid tumors. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2021;34(3):101285.
Not in our library10.1016/j.beha.2021.101285
262.
Ö Met, Jensen K.M., Chamberlain C.A., Donia M., Svane I.M. Principles of adoptive T cell therapy in cancer. Semin Immunopathol. 2019;41(1):49-58.
Not in our library10.1007/s00281-018-0703-z
263.
Wolf B., Zimmermann S., Arber C., Irving M., Trueb L., Coukos G. Safety and tolerability of adoptive cell therapy in cancer. Drug Saf. 2019;42(2):315-334.
Not in our library10.1007/s40264-018-0779-3
264.
Kaufman H.L., Maciorowski D. Advancing oncolytic virus therapy by understanding the biology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18(4):197-198.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-021-00490-4
265.
Talimogene Laherparepvec (T-VEC): An Intralesional Cancer Immunotherapy for Advanced Melanoma · 2021
No notice
266.
Lu L., Jiang J., Zhan M., et al. Targeting tumor-associated antigens in hepatocellular carcinoma for immunotherapy: past pitfalls and future strategies. Hepatology. 2021;73(2):821-832.
Not in our library10.1002/hep.31502
267.
Liu Z., Han C., Fu Y.X. Targeting innate sensing in the tumor microenvironment to improve immunotherapy. Cell Mol Immunol. 2020;17(1):13-26.
Not in our library10.1038/s41423-019-0341-y
268.
Bejarano L., Jordāo M.J.C., Joyce J.A. Therapeutic targeting of the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Discov. 2021;11(4):933-959.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-1808
269.
Anand U., Tudu C.K., Nandy S., et al. Ethnodermatological use of medicinal plants in India: from ayurvedic formulations to clinical perspectives - a review. J Ethnopharmacol. 2022;284:114744.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jep.2021.114744
270.
Paul S., Chakraborty S., Anand U., et al. Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal (Ashwagandha):a comprehensive review on ethnopharmacology, pharmacotherapeutics, biomedicinal and toxicological aspects. Biomed Pharmacother. 2021;143:112175.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112175
271.
Natural compounds as potential adjuvants to cancer therapy: Preclinical evidence · 2019
No notice
272.
Nobili S., Lippi D., Witort E., et al. Natural compounds for cancer treatment and prevention. Pharmacol Res. 2009;59(6):365-378.
Not in our library10.1016/j.phrs.2009.01.017
273.
Mitra S., Anand U., Jha N.K., et al. Anticancer applications and pharmacological properties of piperidine and piperine: a comprehensive review on molecular mechanisms and therapeutic perspectives. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:772418.
Not in our library10.3389/fphar.2021.772418
274.
Mitra S., Anand U., Sanyal R., et al. Neoechinulins: molecular, cellular, and functional attributes as promising therapeutics against cancer and other human diseases. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;145:112378.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112378
275.
Bandopadhyay S., Anand U., Gadekar V.S., et al. Dioscin: a review on pharmacological properties and therapeutic values. Biofactors. 2022;48(1):22-55.
Not in our library10.1002/biof.1815
276.
Datta S., Ramamurthy P.C., Anand U., et al. Wonder or evil?: multifaceted health hazards and health benefits of Cannabis sativa and its phytochemicals. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021;28(12):7290-7313.
Not in our library10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.08.036
277.
Dutta T., Anand U., Saha S.C., et al. Advancing urban ethnopharmacology: a modern concept of sustainability, conservation and cross-cultural adaptations of medicinal plant lore in the urban environment. Conserv Physiol. 2021;9(1):coab073.
Not in our library10.1093/conphys/coab073
278.
Tournilhac O., Cazin B., Leprètre S., et al. Impact of frontline fludarabine and cyclophosphamide combined treatment on peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Blood. 2004;103(1):363-365.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2003-05-1449
279.
Chu E., DeVita V.T. 2015.
Not in our library
280.
Yerram P., Reiss S.N., Modelevsky L., Gavrilovic I.T., Kaley T. Evaluation of toxicity of carmustine with or without bevacizumab in patients with recurrent or progressive high grade gliomas. J Neuro Oncol. 2019;145(1):57-63.
Not in our library10.1007/s11060-019-03266-0
281.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of 5-aza-2’-deoxycytidine (decitabine) in the design of its dose-schedule for cancer therapy · 2013
No notice
282.
Vanneste M., Huang Q., Li M., et al. High content screening identifies monensin as an EMT-selective cytotoxic compound. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1200.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-018-38019-y
283.
Rycenga H.B., Long D.T. The evolving role of DNA inter-strand crosslinks in chemotherapy. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2018;41:20-26.
Not in our library10.1016/j.coph.2018.04.004
284.
Samuels B.L., Bitran J.D. High-dose intravenous melphalan: a review. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13(7):1786-1799.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.1995.13.7.1786
285.
Ma M.T., He M., Wang Y., et al. miR-487a resensitizes mitoxantrone (MX)-resistant breast cancer cells (MCF-7/MX) to MX by targeting breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP/ABCG2). Cancer Lett. 2013;339(1):107-115.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2013.07.016
286.
Graham J., Muhsin M., Kirkpatrick P. Oxaliplatin. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2004;3(1):11-12.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd1287
287.
Jacinto F.V., Esteller M. MGMT hypermethylation: a prognostic foe, a predictive friend. DNA Repair. 2007;6(8):1155-1160.
Not in our library10.1016/j.dnarep.2007.03.013
288.
Arrieta O., Lara-Mejía L., Zatarain-Barrón Z.L. Carboplatin plus etoposide or topotecan for small-cell lung cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(9):1132-1134.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30427-7
289.
Hwang D.Y., Kim S.J., Cheong J.W., et al. High pre-transplant serum ferritin and busulfan-thiotepa conditioning regimen as risk factors for hepatic sinusoidal obstructive syndrome after autologous stem cell transplantation in patients with malignant lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2016;57(1):51-57.
Not in our library10.3109/10428194.2015.1041387
290.
D'Incalci M., Badri N., Galmarini C.M., Allavena P. Trabectedin, a drug acting on both cancer cells and the tumour microenvironment. Br J Cancer. 2014;111(4):646-650.
Not in our library10.1038/bjc.2014.149
291.
Maltzman J.S., Koretzky G.A. Azathioprine: old drug, new actions. J Clin Invest. 2003;111(8):1122-1124.
Not in our library10.1172/jci18384
292.
Hasanali Z.S., Saroya B.S., Stuart A., et al. Epigenetic therapy overcomes treatment resistance in T cell prolymphocytic leukemia. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(293):293ra102.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa5079
293.
Bonate P.L., Arthaud L., Cantrell W.R., Stephenson K., Secrist J.A., Weitman S. Discovery and development of clofarabine: a nucleoside analogue for treating cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(10):855-863.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd2055
294.
Ricci F., Tedeschi A., Morra E., Montillo M. Fludarabine in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a review. Therapeut Clin Risk Manag. 2009;5(1):187-207.
Not in our library10.2147/tcrm.s3688
295.
Mini E., Nobili S., Caciagli B., Landini I., Mazzei T. Cellular pharmacology of gemcitabine. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(Suppl 5):v7-v12.
Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdj941
296.
Engels F.K., Sparreboom A., Mathot R.A.A., Verweij J. Potential for improvement of docetaxel-based chemotherapy: a pharmacological review. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(2):173-177.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.bjc.6602698
297.
Cohen M.H., Johnson J.R., Massie T., et al. Approval summary: nelarabine for the treatment of T-cell lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(18):5329-5335.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-06-0606
298.
Cannon T., Mobarek D., Wegge J., Tabbara I.A. Hairy cell leukemia: current concepts. Cancer Invest. 2008;26(8):860-865.
Not in our library10.1080/07357900801965034
299.
Wang H., Wang Y. LC-MS/MS coupled with stable isotope dilution method for the quantification of 6-thioguanine and S6-methylthioguanine in genomic DNA of human cancer cells treated with 6-thioguanine. Anal Chem. 2010;82(13):5797-5803.
Not in our library10.1021/ac1008628
300.
Factors determining sensitivity and resistance of tumor cells to arsenic trioxide. · 2012
Not checked
301.
Madaan K., Kaushik D., Verma T. Hydroxyurea: a key player in cancer chemotherapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2012;12(1):19-29.
Not in our library10.1586/era.11.175
302.
Scripture C.D., Szebeni J., Loos W.J., Figg W.D., Sparreboom A. Comparative in vitro properties and clinical pharmacokinetics of Paclitaxel following the administration of taxol(r) and paxene(r). Cancer Biol Ther. 2005;4(5):555-560.
Not in our library10.4161/cbt.4.5.1664
303.
Alken S., Kelly C.M. Benefit risk assessment and update on the use of docetaxel in the management of breast cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2013;5:357-365.
Not in our library10.2147/cmar.s49321
304.
Chan E.S., Cronstein B.N. Mechanisms of action of methotrexate. Bull Hosp Jt Dis. 2013;71(Suppl 1):S5-S8.
Not in our library
305.
Adjei A.A. Pharmacology and mechanism of action of pemetrexed. Clin Lung Cancer. 2004;5(Suppl 2):S51-S55.
Not in our library10.3816/clc.2004.s.003
306.
Weatherstone K., Meyer T. Streptozocin-based chemotherapy is not history in neuroendocrine tumours. Targeted Oncol. 2012;7(3):161-168.
Not in our library10.1007/s11523-012-0224-y
307.
Haque A., Rahman M.A., Faizi M.S.H., Khan M.S. Next generation antineoplastic agents: a review on structurally modified vinblastine (VBL) analogues. Curr Med Chem. 2018;25(14):1650-1662.
Not in our library10.2174/0929867324666170502123639
308.
Beaver C. Vincristine minibag administration: a quality improvement project to minimize medical errors. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2018;22(6):669-672.
Not in our library10.1188/18.cjon.669-672
309.
Mehta-Shah N., Ratner L., Horwitz S.M. Adult T-cell leukemia/lymphoma. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(8):487-492.
Not in our library10.1200/jop.2017.021907
310.
Altinoz M.A., Ozpinar A., Alturfan E.E., Elmaci I. Vinorelbine's anti-tumor actions may depend on the mitotic apoptosis, autophagy and inflammation: hypotheses with implications for chemo-immunotherapy of advanced cancers and pediatric gliomas. J Chemother. 2018;30(4):203-212.
Not in our library10.1080/1120009x.2018.1487149
311.
Jäger U., Barcellini W., Broome C.M., et al. Diagnosis and treatment of autoimmune hemolytic Anemia in adults: recommendations from the first international consensus meeting. Blood Rev. 2020;41:100648.
Not in our library10.1016/j.blre.2019.100648
312.
Kreitman R.J., Arons E. Update on hairy cell leukemia. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2018;16(3):205-215.
Not in our library
313.
Begna K., Abdelatif A., Schwager S., Hanson C., Pardanani A., Tefferi A. Busulfan for the treatment of myeloproliferative neoplasms: the Mayo Clinic experience. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6(5):e427.
Not in our library10.1038/bcj.2016.34
314.
Palmer J., McCune J.S., Perales M.A., et al. Personalizing busulfan-based conditioning: considerations from the American society for blood and marrow transplantation practice guidelines committee. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22(11):1915-1925.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.07.013
315.
Ho G.Y., Woodward N., Coward J.I.G. Cisplatin versus carboplatin: comparative review of therapeutic management in solid malignancies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016;102:37-46.
Not in our library10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.03.014
316.
Lee H.Z., Miller B.W., Kwitkowski V.E., et al. U.S. food and drug administration approval: obinutuzumab in combination with chlorambucil for the treatment of previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(15):3902-3907.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0516
317.
Hew J., Pham D., Matthews Hew T., Minocha V. A novel treatment with obinutuzumab-chlorambucil in a patient with B-cell prolymphocytic leukemia: a case report and review of the literature. J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep. 2018;6.
Not in our library10.1177/2324709618788674
318.
Makovec T. Cisplatin and beyond: molecular mechanisms of action and drug resistance development in cancer chemotherapy. Radiol Oncol. 2019;53(2):148-158.
Not in our library10.2478/raon-2019-0018
319.
Raudenska M., Balvan J., Fojtu M., Gumulec J., Masarik M. Unexpected therapeutic effects of cisplatin. Metallomics. 2019;11(7):1182-1199.
Not in our library10.1039/c9mt00049f
320.
Casak S.J., Lemery S.J., Shen Y.L., et al. U.S. Food and drug administration approval: rituximab in combination with fludarabine and cyclophosphamide for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Oncol. 2011;16(1):97-104.
Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0306
321.
Jiang G., Li R.H., Sun C., Liu Y.Q., Zheng J.N. Dacarbazine combined targeted therapy versus dacarbazine alone in patients with malignant melanoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e111920.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0111920
322.
Metastatic melanoma – a review of current and future drugs · 2012
Not checked
323.
Krauss A.C., Gao X., Li L., et al. FDA approval summary: (daunorubicin and cytarabine) liposome for injection for the treatment of adults with high-risk acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(9):2685-2690.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-2990
324.
Blair H.A. Daunorubicin/cytarabine liposome: a review in acute myeloid leukaemia. Drugs. 2018;78(18):1903-1910.
Not in our library10.1007/s40265-018-1022-3
325.
Dhillon S. Decitabine/cedazuridine: first approval. Drugs. 2020;80(13):1373-1378.
Not in our library10.1007/s40265-020-01389-7
326.
Kanwal U., Irfan Bukhari N., Ovais M., Abass N., Hussain K., Raza A. Advances in nano-delivery systems for doxorubicin: an updated insight. J Drug Target. 2018;26(4):296-310.
Not in our library10.1080/1061186x.2017.1380655
327.
Cagel M., Grotz E., Bernabeu E., Moretton M.A., Chiappetta D.A. Doxorubicin: nanotechnological overviews from bench to bedside. Drug Discov Today. 2017;22(2):270-281.
Not in our library10.1016/j.drudis.2016.11.005
328.
Buzdar A.U., Suman V.J., Meric-Bernstam F., et al. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-75) followed by paclitaxel plus trastuzumab versus paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by FEC-75 plus trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (Z1041):a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(13):1317-1325.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(13)70502-3
329.
Hollingshead L.M., Faulds D. Idarubicin. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential in the chemotherapy of cancer. Drugs. 1991;42(4):690-719.
Not in our library10.2165/00003495-199142040-00010
330.
Matz E.L., Hsieh M.H. Review of advances in uroprotective agents for cyclophosphamide- and ifosfamide-induced hemorrhagic cystitis. Urology. 2017;100:16-19.
Not in our library10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.030
331.
de Man F.M., Goey A.K.L., van Schaik R.H.N., Mathijssen R.H.J., Bins S. Individualization of irinotecan treatment: a review of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2018;57(10):1229-1254.
Not in our library10.1007/s40262-018-0644-7
332.
KuKanich B., Warner M., Hahn K. Analysis of lomustine drug content in FDA-approved and compounded lomustine capsules. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2017;250(3):322-326.
Not in our library10.2460/javma.250.3.322
333.
A systematic analysis of FDA-approved anticancer drugs · 2017
No notice
334.
Fox E.J. Mechanism of action of mitoxantrone. Neurology. 2004;63(12 Suppl 6):S15-S18.
Not in our library10.1212/wnl.63.12_suppl_6.s15
335.
Ibrahim A., Hirschfeld S., Cohen M.H., Griebel D.J., Williams G.A., Pazdur R. FDA drug approval summaries: oxaliplatin. Oncol. 2004;9(1):8-12.
Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.9-1-8
336.
Stein A., Arnold D. Oxaliplatin: a review of approved uses. Expet Opin Pharmacother. 2012;13(1):125-137.
Not in our library10.1517/14656566.2012.643870
337.
Mutter N., Stupp R. Temozolomide: a milestone in neuro-oncology and beyond? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2006;6(8):1187-1204.
Not in our library10.1586/14737140.6.8.1187
338.
Ardizzoni A., Hansen H., Dombernowsky P., et al. Topotecan, a new active drug in the second-line treatment of small-cell lung cancer: a phase II study in patients with refractory and sensitive disease. The European organization for research and treatment of cancer early clinical studies group and new drug development office, and the lung cancer cooperative group. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15(5):2090-2096.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.1997.15.5.2090
339.
Garst J. Topotecan: an evolving option in the treatment of relapsed small cell lung cancer. Therapeut Clin Risk Manag. 2007;3(6):1087-1095.
Not in our library
340.
Eckardt J.R., von Pawel J., Pujol J.L., et al. Phase III study of oral compared with intravenous topotecan as second-line therapy in small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(15):2086-2092.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2006.08.3998
341.
Kokolo M.B., Fergusson D., O'Neill J., et al. Effectiveness and safety of thiotepa as conditioning treatment prior to stem cell transplant in patients with central nervous system lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2014;55(12):2712-2720.
Not in our library10.3109/10428194.2014.889825
342.
Barone A., Chi D.C., Theoret M.R., et al. FDA approval summary: trabectedin for unresectable or metastatic liposarcoma or leiomyosarcoma following an anthracycline-containing regimen. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(24):7448-7453.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-0898
343.
Rosenberg J.D., Burian C., Waalen J., Saven A. Clinical characteristics and long-term outcome of young hairy cell leukemia patients treated with cladribine: a single-institution series. Blood. 2014;123(2):177-183.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2013-06-508754
344.
Zhenchuk A., Lotfi K., Juliusson G., Albertioni F. Mechanisms of anti-cancer action and pharmacology of clofarabine. Biochem Pharmacol. 2009;78(11):1351-1359.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bcp.2009.06.094
345.
Schmiegelow K., Al-Modhwahi I., Andersen M.K., et al. Methotrexate/6-mercaptopurine maintenance therapy influences the risk of a second malignant neoplasm after childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia: results from the NOPHO ALL-92 study. Blood. 2009;113(24):6077-6084.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2008-11-187880
346.
Dillman R.O. Pentostatin (Nipent®) in the treatment of chronic lymphocyte leukemia and hairy cell leukemia. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2004;4(1):27-36.
Not in our library10.1586/14737140.4.1.27
347.
Munshi P.N., Lubin M., Bertino J.R. 6-thioguanine: a drug with unrealized potential for cancer therapy. Oncol. 2014;19(7):760-765.
Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0178
348.
Dent S., Messersmith H., Trudeau M. Gemcitabine in the management of metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;108(3):319-331.
Not in our library10.1007/s10549-007-9610-z
349.
Moysan E., Bastiat G., Benoit J.P. Gemcitabine versus Modified Gemcitabine: a review of several promising chemical modifications. Mol Pharm. 2013;10(2):430-444.
Not in our library10.1021/mp300370t
350.
Matt P., van Zwieten-Boot B., Calvo Rojas G., et al. The European Medicines Agency review of Tegafur/Gimeracil/Oteracil (Teysuno™) for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer when given in combination with cisplatin: summary of the Scientific Assessment of the Committee for medicinal products for human use (CHMP). Oncol. 2011;16(10):1451-1457.
Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0224
351.
Alimoghaddam K. A review of arsenic trioxide and acute promyelocytic leukemia. Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res. 2014;8(3):44-54.
Not in our library
352.
Emadi A., Gore S.D. Arsenic trioxide - an old drug rediscovered. Blood Rev. 2010;24(4–5):191-199.
Not in our library10.1016/j.blre.2010.04.001
353.
Menzin A.W., King S.A., Aikins J.K., Mikuta J.J., Rubin S.C. Taxol (paclitaxel) was approved by FDA for the treatment of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1994;54(1):103.
Not in our library
354.
Li J., Ren J., Sun W. Systematic review of ixabepilone for treating metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2017;24(2):171-179.
Not in our library10.1007/s12282-016-0717-0
355.
Abolmaali S.S., Tamaddon A.M., Dinarvand R. A review of therapeutic challenges and achievements of methotrexate delivery systems for treatment of cancer and rheumatoid arthritis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;71(5):1115-1130.
Not in our library10.1007/s00280-012-2062-0
356.
Moore A.S., Nelson R.W., Henry C.J., et al. Streptozocin for treatment of pancreatic islet cell tumors in dogs: 17 cases (1989-1999). J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2002;221(6):811-818.
Not in our library10.2460/javma.2002.221.811
357.
Said R., Tsimberidou A.M. Pharmacokinetic evaluation of vincristine for the treatment of lymphoid malignancies. Expet Opin Drug Metabol Toxicol. 2014;10(3):483-494.
Not in our library10.1517/17425255.2014.885016
358.
Martino E., Casamassima G., Castiglione S., et al. Vinca alkaloids and analogues as anti-cancer agents: looking back, peering ahead. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2018;28(17):2816-2826.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bmcl.2018.06.044
359.
Smith G.A. Current status of vinorelbine for breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). 1995;9(8):767-773.
Not in our library
360.
Gasparini G., Caffo O., Barni S., et al. Vinorelbine is an active antiproliferative agent in pretreated advanced breast cancer patients: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12(10):2094-2101.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.1994.12.10.2094

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.