Combining CDK4/6 inhibitors ribociclib and palbociclib with cytotoxic agents does not enhance cytotoxicity

Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) play critical roles in the G1 to S checkpoint of the cell cycle and have been shown to be overactive in several human cancers. Small-molecule inhibitors of CDK4/6 have demonstrated significant efficacy against many solid tumors. Since CDK4/6 inhibition is th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPloS one Vol. 14; no. 10; p. e0223555
Main Authors Jin, Dan, Tran, Nguyen, Thomas, Nagheme, Tran, David D.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Public Library of Science 10.10.2019
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0223555

Cover

More Information
Summary:Cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) play critical roles in the G1 to S checkpoint of the cell cycle and have been shown to be overactive in several human cancers. Small-molecule inhibitors of CDK4/6 have demonstrated significant efficacy against many solid tumors. Since CDK4/6 inhibition is thought to induce cell cycle arrest at the G1/S checkpoint, much interest has been focused on combining CDK4/6 inhibitors with cytotoxic agents active against the S or M phase of the cell cycle to enhance therapeutic efficacy. However, it remains unclear how best to combine these two classes of drugs to avoid their potentially antagonistic effects. Here, we test various combinations of highly selective and potent CDK4/6 inhibitors with commonly used cytotoxic drugs in several cancer cell lines derived from lung, breast and brain cancers, for their cell-killing effects as compared to monotherapy. All combinations, either concurrent or sequential, failed to enhance cell-killing effects. Importantly, in certain schedules, especially pre-treatment with a CDK4/6 inhibitor, combining these drugs resulted in reduced cytotoxicity of cytotoxic agents. These findings urge cautions when combining these two classes of agents in clinical settings.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: D.D.T reports grants and personal fees from Novocure, personal fees from Monteris, grants from Merck, grants from Novartis, grants from VBL, grants from Stemline, grants from NWBiotechnology, grants from Lacerta Therapeutics, grants from Tocagen, outside the submitted work; In addition, D.D.T has a patent Master regulators of GBM pending, a patent GeneRep and nSCORE pending, a patent Methods of Cancer Screening and Monitoring pending, a patent AAV variants targeting GBM pending, a patent Mechanism of resistance to TTFields in GBM pending, a patent Methods for Targeted Treatment and Prediction of Patient Survival in Cancer pending, and a patent Chemotherapeutic Resensitization of Disseminated Cancer Stem Cells through Reactivation by P38 Inhibition and IL-6 Inhibition - Chemotherapeutic Methods pending. However, this does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Current address: Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Erie, PA, United States of America
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0223555