Cited by 11Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentPARP inhibition in cancer therapyBRCA gene mutations in cancer

Defining and targeting wild-type BRCA high-grade serous ovarian cancer: DNA repair and cell cycle checkpoints

Ivy, S. Percy, Kunos, Charles A., Arnaldez, Fernanda I., Kohn, Elise C.·2019·Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs

Abstract

Introduction: Molecular analyzes including molecular descriptor/phenotype interactions have led to better characterization of epithelial ovarian cancer patients, including a definition of a BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) phenotype. Understanding how and when to use agents targeted against dependent BRCAwt pathways or other molecular events at disease progression is an important translational and therapeutic direction in ovarian cancer research.Areas covered: In this overview, we provide definitions and descriptions of a BRCAwt genotype and phenotype. We discuss novel investigational drugs that hold promise for the treatment of BRCAwt ovarian cancer, including inhibitors of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase, ribonucleotide reductase, DNA protein kinase-catalytic subunit, ataxia-telangiectasia-mutated kinase (ATM), ataxia-telangiectasia mutated and Rad3-related kinase (ATR), CHK 1/2, cyclin kinases, glutaminase-1, WEE1 kinase, as well as tumor microenvironment and angiogenesis inhibitors. This article explores the known and the emerging areas of clinical research on patients with BRCAwt ovarian cancer.Expert opinion: Discovery of molecular changes tied to annotated disease information, along with an expanding array of pathway targets and targeted therapeutic agents, creates optimism and opportunity for women with ovarian cancer. Using precision oncology approaches, clinical researchers are, and will be, poised to select more effective treatments for ovarian cancer patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13543784.2019.1657403

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ivy, S. P., Kunos, C. A., Arnaldez, F. I., & Kohn, E. C.
Affiliations
National Cancer Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Ivy, S. Percy
Venue
Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs
Published
2019-08-30
Volume
28
Issue
9
Pages
771-785
ISSN
  • 1354-3784 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-7658
OpenAlex
W2970206133
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7
FWCI
0.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › PARP inhibition in cancer therapy
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
Keywords
high-grade serous ovarian cancer, DNA repair, cell cycle checkpoints, PARP inhibitors, ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors, ATM inhibitors, ATR inhibitors, CHK1/2 inhibitor, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors, Wee1 kinase inhibitor, angiogenesis inhibitors, precision oncology, targeted therapy
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Ovarian Epithelial, Animals, Antineoplastic Agents, DNA Repair, Female, Humans, Ovarian Neoplasms, Drugs, Investigational, BRCA1 Protein, BRCA2 Protein, Molecular Targeted Therapy, Cell Cycle Checkpoints, Neoplasm Grading

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