Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 490

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 140 of the 140 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unravelling the biology of SCLC: implications for therapy

Open access
Sabari, Joshua K., Lok, Benjamin H., Laird, James H., Poirier, John T., Rudin, Charles M.·2017·Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive malignancy associated with a poor prognosis. First-line treatment has remained unchanged for decades, and a paucity of effective treatment options exists for recurrent disease. Nonetheless, advances in our understanding of SCLC biology have led to the development of novel experimental therapies. Poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase (PARP) inhibitors have shown promise in preclinical models, and are under clinical investigation in combination with cytotoxic therapies and inhibitors of cell-cycle checkpoints.Preclinical data indicate that targeting of histone-lysine N-methyltransferase EZH2, a regulator of chromatin remodelling implicated in acquired therapeutic resistance, might augment and prolong chemotherapy responses. High expression of the inhibitory Notch ligand Delta-like protein 3 (DLL3) in most SCLCs has been linked to expression of Achaete-scute homologue 1 (ASCL1; also known as ASH-1), a key transcription factor driving SCLC oncogenesis; encouraging preclinical and clinical activity has been demonstrated for an anti-DLL3-antibody–drug conjugate. The immune microenvironment of SCLC seems to be distinct from that of other solid tumours, with few tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and low levels of the immune-checkpoint protein programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1). Nonetheless, immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors holds promise for patients with this disease, independent of PD-L1 status. Herein, we review the progress made in uncovering aspects of the biology of SCLC and its microenvironment that are defining new therapeutic strategies and offering renewed hope for patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.71

Cites

140 of 140 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 140 references

Cited by

See all 490

Metadata

Authors
Sabari, J. K., Lok, B. H., Laird, J. H., Poirier, J. T., & Rudin, C. M.
Venue
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Published
2017-05-23
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
549-561
ISSN
  • 1759-4774 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4782
OpenAlex
W2617007913
Cited by
490
References
140
FWCI
4.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unravelling the biology of SCLC: implications for therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.71
The paper
Sabari, J. K., Lok, B. H., Laird, J. H., Poirier, J. T., & Rudin, C. M. (2017). Unravelling the biology of SCLC: implications for therapy. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.71

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.