Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) are an effective anti-neoplastic treatment modality delivered via non-invasive application of low intensity, intermediate frequency (e.g., 100-500 kHz), alternating electric fields. TTFields exert directional forces on polar microtubules and interfere with the normal assembly of the mitotic spindle. Such interference with microtubule dynamics results in abnormal spindle formation and subsequent mitotic arrest or delay. Cells can die while in mitotic arrest or progress to cell division leading to the formation of either normal or abnormal aneuploid progeny. The formation of tetraploid cells can occur either due to mitotic exit through slippage or can occur during improper cell division. Abnormal daughter cells can die in the subsequent interphase, can undergo a permanent arrest, or can proliferate through additional mitosis where they will be subjected to further TTFields assault. Giladi M et al. Sci Rep. 2015; 5:18046.
In the in vivo context, TTFields therapy can be delivered using a wearable and portable device (Optune®). The delivery system includes an electric field generator, 4 adhesive patches (non-invasive, insulated transducer arrays), rechargeable batteries and a carrying case. The transducer arrays are applied to the skin and are connected to the device and battery. The therapy is designed to be worn for as many hours as possible throughout the day and night.
In the preclinical setting, TTFields can be applied in vitro using, for example, the Inovitro™ TTFields lab bench system. Inovitro™ includes a TTFields generator and base plate containing 8 ceramic dishes per plate. Cells are plated on a cover slips placed inside each dish. TTFields are applied using two perpendicular pairs of transducer arrays insulated by a high dielectric constant ceramic in each dish. The orientation of the TTFields in each dish is switched 90° every 1 second, thus covering different orientation axes of cell divisions.
Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and deadliest malignant brain cancer in adults despite surgery and aggressive chemoradiotherapy. Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) have been approved in combination with adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy for newly diagnosed GBM. The addition of TTFields resulted in a significant improvement in overall survival. TTFields are low-intensity alternating electric fields that are thought to disturb mitotic macromolecules' assembly, leading to disrupted chromosomal segregation and cell death. However, treatment resistance develops in many TTFields responders.
Several human GBM cell lines were developed that demonstrated relative resistance to the cytotoxic effects of TTFields compared to the parental cells.
Methods of reducing viability of TTFields-resistant cancer cells in a subject by recommending administering a Prostaglandin E Receptor 3 (PTGER3) inhibitor to the subject, and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells of the subject are provided. The alternating electric field has a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
In some instances, methods of preventing cancer cells of a subject from developing resistance to alternating electric fields by recommending administering a PTGER3 inhibitor to the subject, and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells of the subject are provided. The alternating electric field has a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
In some instances, methods of restoring sensitivity to TTFields in TTFields-resistant cancer cells of a subject by recommending administering a PTGER3 inhibitor to the subject are provided. In this aspect, sensitivity to TTFields in the TTFields-resistant cancer calls of the subject is substantially restored.
In some instances, methods of preventing cancer cells of a subject from developing resistance to alternating electric fields by prescribing a PTGER3 inhibitor for the subject and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells are provided. The alternating electric field has a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
In some instances, methods of restoring sensitivity to TTFields in TTFields-resistant cancer cells of a subject by prescribing a PTGER3 inhibitor for the subject. In this aspect, sensitivity of the TTFields-resistant cancer cells of the subject to TTFields is restored after the PTGER3 inhibitor is administered to the subject.
In some instances, methods of reducing viability of TTFields-resistant cancer cells in a subject by recommending administering an inhibitor of a target in the EP3-controlled resistance pathway to the subject, and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells of the subject are provided. The alternating electric field has a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
TTFields are an effective anti-neoplastic treatment modality delivered via non-invasive application of low intensity, intermediate frequency (e.g., 100-500 kHz), alternating electric fields. However, in certain circumstances, tumor cells can develop resistance to TTFields treatment leading to a reduction in efficacy in these circumstances. In some aspects, resistance to TTFields is termed an increase in “stemness” or a phenotype similar to stem cells. Stemness can be measured by expression of stemness markers such as CD44 and by the ability to grow in serum-free media in 3D spheres and to form brain tumors when implanted into the brain of immunosuppressed mice.
Importantly, TTFields-induced chromosomal instability such as the formation of cytoplasmic micronuclei was preserved in resistant cells compared to their sensitive counterparts, indicating resistance to TTFields is mediated through a non-biophysical mechanism. Indeed, TTFields-induced inflammatory response was severely suppressed in resistant cells, supporting the hypothesis that that resistance to TTFields is conferred by a selective loss of the deleterious effects induced by the biophysical insults. This acquired TTFields resistance phenotype was associated with a transition to a stem-like state as determined by a standard neurosphere assay.
Recently, the immune sensing molecule cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS)-Stimulator of Interferon Genes (STING, encoded by TMEM 173) pathway was identified as an important component of cytosolic DNA sensing and plays an important role in mediating the immune response in cells. Ghaffari et al., British Journal of Cancer, volume 119, pages 440-449 (2018); see, e.g.,
Prostaglandin E receptor 3 (PTGER3) is a G-protein coupled receptor and one of four receptors for prostaglandin E2. PTGER3 is implicated in biological systems and diseases related to inflammation, cancer, digestion, the nervous system, kidney function, blood pressure, and uterine contraction.
PTGER3 inhibitors include NSAID (e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen), cox2 inhibitor (e.g., celecoxib, valdecoxib, rofecoxib), L798,106, and DG041. NSAIDs are common over-the-counter medications used for pain relief and reducing inflammation.
Aspects described herein used a systems approach, aided by a suite of innovative computational platforms, to understand “stemness” development in resistant cells and identify master regulators of the resistance mechanism. Three networks were found disrupted, including nervous system developmental regulation, inflammatory response and cell-cell adhesion, all of which play roles in GBM stem-like cells.
Utilizing a unique master regulator ranking system, the Prostaglandin E Receptor 3 (PTGER3) was identified as a key master regulator at the apex of these pathways and responsible for the TTFields-resistant phenotype. PTGER3 is rapidly upregulated in GBM cells when exposed to TTFields, and channels treated cells away from the beneficial inflammatory pathways that TTFields also activates in parallel.
The PTGER3 signal transduction pathway is upregulated via interaction with Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). Combination of TTFields and aspirin or other traditional NSAIDs (e.g., cox2 inhibitors) can prevent PGE2 biosynthesis and therefore the activation of PTGER3 signaling. Alternatively, PTGER3 receptor antagonists (e.g. L798,106,106, ONO-AE3-240, and DG-O41) can be used along or in combination with other PTGER3 antagonists and inhibitors. Such combinations can be used restore the sensitivity to TTFields in cells that developed resistance.
In addition, GBM cells treated with a PTGER3 inhibitor while exposed to TTFields can prevent the cells from developing resistance to TTFields, for example, from about 3 weeks later to greater than 5 weeks later.
Methods of reducing viability of TTFields-resistant cancer cells in a subject by recommending administering a Prostaglandin E Receptor 3 (PTGER3) inhibitor to the subject, and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells of the subject are provided. The alternating electric field can have a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
The term “reducing viability,” as used herein, refers to decreasing proliferation, inducing apoptosis, or killing cancer cells. The term “TTFields-resistant cancer cells,” as used herein, refers to cancer cells showing a 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 100% reduction in sensitivity to TTFields treatment compared to TTFields-sensitive cancer cells. The term “sensitivity,” as used herein, refers responsiveness to TTFields treatment as measured by, for example, a reduction in cell number following treatment with TTFields.
The term “recommending” refers to a suggestion or instruction from, for example, a medical professional such as a doctor, physician assistant, nurse, nurse practitioner, etc., to a subject such as a patient.
In some instances, the PTGER3 inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of one or more of an NSAID (e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen), cox2 inhibitor (e.g., celecoxib, valdecoxib, rofecoxib), L798,106, and DG041. In one aspect, the PTGER3 inhibitor is aspirin.
In some instances, a recommended concentration of the PTGER3 inhibitor in the subject is from about 1 to 500 nanomolar for L798,106, 0.1 to 2 millimolar for aspirin, 0.5 to 50 nanomolar for DG041, or 1 to 500 nanomolar for celecoxib. The term “recommended concentration” can refer to a recommended dose sufficient to provide intermittent or sustained level of a PTGER3 inhibitor in a subject. In some instances, the recommended concentration of the PTGER3 inhibitor in the subject is maintained for at least about 3 days to 5 weeks. In some instances, the cancer cells are selected from glioblastoma, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer cells.
Further aspects provide methods of preventing cancer cells of a subject from developing resistance to alternating electric fields, by recommending administering a Prostaglandin E Receptor 3 inhibitor to the subject and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells of the subject. The alternating electric field having a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz. In some instances, the alternating electric field has a frequency between 100 and 300 kHz.
In some instances, the PTGER3 inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of one or more of an NSAID (e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen), cox2 inhibitor (e.g., celecoxib, valdecoxib, rofecoxib), L798,106, and DG041. In one aspect, the PTGER3 inhibitor is aspirin.
In some instances, a recommended concentration of the PTGER3 inhibitor in the subject is from about 1 to 500 nanomolar for L798,106, 0.1 to 2 millimolar for aspirin, 0.5 to 50 nanomolar for DG041, or 1 to 500 nanomolar for celecoxib. The term “recommended concentration” can refer to a recommended dose sufficient to provide intermittent or sustained level of a PTGER3 inhibitor in a subject. In some instances, the recommended concentration of the PTGER3 inhibitor in the subject is maintained for at least about 3 days to 5 weeks. In some instances, the cancer cells are selected from glioblastoma, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer cells.
Further aspects provide methods of restoring sensitivity to TTFields in TTFields-resistant cancer cells of a subject by recommending administering a PTGER3 inhibitor to the subject, wherein sensitivity to TTFields is substantially restored in the TTFields-resistant cancer calls of the subject.
The term “restoring sensitivity” refers to re-establishing the responsiveness of TTFields-resistant cells to the responsiveness of the TTFields-sensitive cells. In this aspect, “responsiveness” is measured by counting the number of cells before and after exposure to TTFields. The term “substantially restored” refers to increasing the responsiveness of TTFields-resistant cells. In some instances, the responsiveness of TTFields-resistant cells is restored by at least 10%. In some instances, the responsiveness of TTFields-resistant cells is restored by at least 25%. In some instances, the responsiveness of TTFields-resistant cells is restored by at least 50%.
In some instances, the PTGER3 inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of one or more of an NSAID (e.g., aspirin, ibuprofen), cox2 inhibitor (e.g., celecoxib, valdecoxib, rofecoxib), L798,106, and DG041. In one aspect, the PTGER3 inhibitor is aspirin.
In some instances, a recommended concentration of the PTGER3 inhibitor in the subject is from about 1 to 500 nanomolar for L798,106, 0.1 to 2 millimolar for aspirin, 0.5 to 50 nanomolar for DG041, or 1 to 500 nanomolar for celecoxib. The term “recommended concentration” can refer to a recommended dose sufficient to provide intermittent or sustained level of a PTGER3 inhibitor in a subject. In some instances, the recommended concentration of the PTGER3 inhibitor in the subject is maintained for at least about 3 days to 5 weeks. In some instances, the cancer cells are glioblastoma cells.
Yet another aspect provides methods of reducing viability of TTFields-resistant cancer cells in a subject, the method by prescribing a PTGER3 inhibitor to the subject, and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells. The alternating electric field can have a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
The term “prescribing,” as used herein, refers to a medical professional authorized to write a prescription providing a prescription for a drug to a subject or communicating a prescription to a pharmacy or other medicinal dispensary.
Further aspects provide methods of preventing cancer cells of a subject from developing resistance to alternating electric fields by prescribing a PTGER3 inhibitor for the subject, and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells. The alternating electric field can have a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
Yet another aspect provides methods of restoring sensitivity to TTFields in TTFields-resistant cancer cells of a subject by prescribing a PTGER3 inhibitor for the subject wherein sensitivity of the TTFields-resistant cancer cells of the subject to TTFields is restored after the PTGER3 inhibitor is administered to the subject.
In some instances, methods of reducing viability of TTFields-resistant cancer cells in a subject by recommending administering an inhibitor of a target in the EP3-controlled resistance pathway to the subject, and applying an alternating electric field to the cancer cells of the subject are provided. The alternating electric field has a frequency between 100 and 500 kHz.
In some instances, the target in the EP3-controlled resistance pathway is selected from the group consisting of ZNF488 and PRDM8. Examples of inhibitors of PRDM8 include, but are not limited to, azacytidine and decitabine.
As shown in
For the experiments summarized in
Human GBM cell lines were treated with and without TTFields for 1 week (TTF=sensitive cells; R-TTF=resistant cells) at a frequency of 200 kHz (
Aspirin significantly reduces resistance to TTFields in TTFields-resistant cells.
Therefore, patients who develop resistance to TTFields treatments (e.g., over the course of long term use) can reduce resistance to TTFields by taking an aspirin (e.g., daily) enabling TTFields treatment to be more effective for a longer period of time. Without being bound by theory, it is believed that this approach can improve the effectiveness of TTFields in patients who develop resistance.
For example, in U87R resistant cells, TTFields reduced the live cell count from 150 k/dish to 125 k/dish. When aspirin was provided to the cells, the live cell count was reduced from 150 k/dish to 100 k/dish. In LN428R resistant cells, TTFields reduced the live cell count from 85 k/dish to 70 k/dish. When aspirin was provided to the cells, the live cell count was reduced from 85 k/dish to 40 k/dish. In LN827R cells, TTFields increased the live cell count slightly. When aspirin was provided to the cells, the live cell count was reduced from around 125 k/dish to 90 k/dish.
PTGER3 inhibitors can restore sensitivity to TTFields. Resistant human GBM cells were treated with either the vehicle control or an EP3 (PTGER3) inhibitor (L798,106 (left panel) or DG041 (right panel) separately with or without TTFields at 200 kHz for 3 days (
As shown in
Forced PTGER3 expression in TTFields-sensitive GBM cells confers resistance to TTFields. As shown in
The resistant cell line generation experiment using the original human GBM cell lines from
The results shown in
Without being bound by theory, it is believed that EP3 is upregulated and either present or translocated to the nucleus upon exposure to TTFields providing a mechanism whereby EP3 can regulate other genes directly or indirectly through other transcription factors, such as the neuronal stem factor ZNF488. Therefore, it is believed that EP3 regulates resistance to TTFields by promoting the development and enrichment of GBM stem cells, which, due to their slow recycling rates and other survival and anti-apoptotic pathways, are resistant to many treatment modalities (e.g., TTFields).
A shown in
As shown in
While the present invention has been disclosed with reference to certain embodiments, numerous modifications, alterations, and changes to the described embodiments are possible without departing from the sphere and scope of the present invention, as defined in the appended claims. Accordingly, it is intended that the present invention not be limited to the described embodiments, but that it has the full scope defined by the language of the following claims, and equivalents thereof.
This Application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application 62/826,078 (filed Mar. 29, 2019), and 62/849,535 (filed May 17, 2019), each of which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. All patents, patent applications, and publications cited herein are incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6868289 | Palti | Mar 2005 | B2 |
7016725 | Palti | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7089054 | Palti | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7136699 | Palti | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7333852 | Palti | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7467011 | Palti | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7519420 | Palti | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7565205 | Palti | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7565206 | Palti | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7599745 | Palti | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7599746 | Palti | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7706890 | Palti | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7715921 | Palti | May 2010 | B2 |
7805201 | Palti | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7890183 | Palti et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7912540 | Palti | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7917227 | Palti | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8019414 | Palti | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8027738 | Palti | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8170684 | Palti | May 2012 | B2 |
8175698 | Palti et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8229555 | Palti | Jul 2012 | B2 |
RE43618 | Palti | Aug 2012 | E |
8244345 | Palti | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8406870 | Palti | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8447395 | Palti et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8447396 | Palti et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8465533 | Palti | Jun 2013 | B2 |
8706261 | Palti | Apr 2014 | B2 |
8715203 | Palti | May 2014 | B2 |
8718756 | Palti | May 2014 | B2 |
8764675 | Palti | Jul 2014 | B2 |
9023090 | Palti | May 2015 | B2 |
9023091 | Palti | May 2015 | B2 |
9039674 | Palti et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9056203 | Palti et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9440068 | Palti et al. | Sep 2016 | B2 |
9655669 | Palti et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
9750934 | Palti et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9910453 | Wasserman et al. | Mar 2018 | B2 |
10188851 | Wenger et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10441776 | Kirson et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
20060167499 | Palti | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070225766 | Palti | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070239213 | Palti | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20090076366 | Palti | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20100074896 | Dore et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20120029419 | Paiti | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120283726 | Palti | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20130244932 | Keller et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140330268 | Palti et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20170120041 | Wenger et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170215939 | Palti et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170281934 | Giladi et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20180001075 | Kirson et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180008708 | Giladi et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180050200 | Wasserman et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180160933 | Urman et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180202991 | Giladi et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20190117956 | Wenger et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190117963 | Travers et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190307781 | Krex et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190308016 | Wenger et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20200001069 | Kirson et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200009376 | Chang et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200009377 | Chang et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200016067 | Gotlib et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200023179 | Bomzon et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200061360 | Hagemann et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
20200061361 | Hagemann et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
20200069937 | Naveh et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200078582 | Alon et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200108031 | Borst et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200121728 | Wardak et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200129761 | Bomzon et al. | Apr 2020 | A1 |
20200146586 | Naveh et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200155835 | Wasserman et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200171297 | Kirson et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200179512 | Giladi et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200219261 | Shamir et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2010118010 | Oct 2010 | WO |
2019029351 | Feb 2019 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Webpage printout of Pubmed.com, search of “PTGER3 and cancer”, pp. 1-2, accessed Sep. 6, 2022. (Year: 2022). |
Webpage printout of Pubmed.com, search “aspirin and cancer”, pp. 1-6, accessed Sep. 6, 2022. (Year: 2022). |
Pozzoli et al. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234:15459-15471. (Year: 2019). |
Rehman et al. Neurosurg Focus 38 (3):E14, pp. 2015. (Year: 2015). |
Webpage printout of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_cell_cycle_arrest, accessed Sep. 6, 2022, pp. 1-10. (Year: 2022). |
Webpage printout of https://www.aatbio.com/data-sets/prostanoid-ep3-receptor-inhibitors-ic50-ki, accessed Sep. 6, 2022, pp. 1-4. (Year: 2022). |
Rehman et al., Neurosurg Focus 2015 38(3), E14. (Year: 2015). |
Carlson et al., “Numerical stimulation of tumor treating fields effects on cell structures: Mechanism and signaling pathway candidates,” Proceedings of the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Mar. 29-Apr. 3, 2019, Atlanta, Georgia, Abstract nr3725. |
Diamant et al., “Evaluating the compatability of tumor treating electric fields with key anti-tumoral immune functions,” Proceedings of the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Mar. 29-Apr. 3, 2019, Atlanta, Georgia, Abstract nr3954. |
Giladi et al., “Tumor treating fields (TTFields) delay DNA damage repair following radiation treatment of glioma cells,” Radiation Oncology, vol. 12, No. 206, pp. 1-13, 2017. |
Giladi et al., “Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Delay DNA Damage Repair Following Radiation Treatment of Glioma Cells: Implications for Irradiation Through TTFields Transducer Arrays,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics, vol. 99, Issue 2, p. S32, Oct. 2017. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in application No. PCT/IB2020/052959 dated Jul. 15, 2020. |
Karanam et al., “Exploiting tumor treating fields induced downregulation of BRCA1 pathway for novel combination therapies,” Proceedings of the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Mar. 29-Apr. 3, 2019, Abstract nr3939. |
Karanam et al., “Newly identified role of tumor treating fields in DNA damage repair and replication stress pathways,” Proceedings of the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Chicago, Illinois, Apr. 14-18, 2018, Abstract nr3217. |
Karanam et al., “Tumor Treating Fields Elicit a Conditional Vulnerability in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Lines Through the Down-Regulation of Key DNA Repair and Replication Stress Pathways that When Targeted with Chemoradiation Results in Synergistic Cell Killing,” International Journal of Radiation Onocology Biology Physics, vol. 102, No. 3, p. e184, Nov. 2018. |
Karanam et al., “Tumor Treatment Fields downregulate specific transcription factors leading to reduced DNA repair capacity, increased replication stress, the inhibition of mitophagy and enhanced cell death,” Neuro Onc., vol. 19, Suppl. 6, VI4-VI50, Nov. 2017. |
Karanam et al., “Tumor treatment fields downregulate the BRCA1/FA pathway genes leading to reduced DNA repair capacity, the inhibition of mitophagy and enhanced cell death,” Cancer Research, vol. 77, Suppl. 13, Abstract nr2138, 2017. |
Kirson et al., “Alternating electric fields arrest cell proliferation in animal tumor models and human brain tumors,” PNAS, vol. 104, No. 24, pp. 10152-10157, Jun. 2007. |
Krex et al., “Efficacy of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) and Aurora B kinase inhibtor,” Proceedings of the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Associate for Cancer Research, Apr. 14-18, 2018, Chicago, Illinois, Abstract nr1463. |
Lavy et al., “Cancer cell lines response to tumor treating fields: results of a meta-analysis,” Neruo. Onc., vol. 20, Suppl. 3, p. i282, Sep. 2018. |
Morales et al., “Tumor treating fields (TTFields) significantly alters how tumor cells repair double stranded breaks using homeologous Alu sequences,” Proceedings of the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Mar. 29-Apr. 3, 2019, Atlanta, Georgia, Abstract nr3493. |
Rodriguez-Aguayo et al., “PTGER3 induces ovary tumorigenesis and confers resistance to cisplatin therapy through up-regulation Ras-MAPK/Erk-ETS1-ELK1/CFTR1 axis,” EBioMedicine, vol. 40, pp. 290-304, Jan. 2019. |
Schneiderman et al., “Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Inhibit Cancer Cell Migration and Invasion by Inducing Reorganization of the Actin Cytoskeleton and Formation of Cell Adhesions,” Neuro. Onc., vol. 20, Suppl. 6, p. vi30, Nov. 2018. |
Schneiderman et al., “Tumor Treating Fields affect invasion properties and cell morphology of various cancer cells,” Neruo Onc., vol. 20, Suppl. 3, p. i282, Sep. 2018. |
Shteingauz et al., “Induction of autophagy following TTFields application serves as a survival mechanism mediated by AMPK activation,” Proceedings of the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Apr. 14-18, 2018, Chicago, Illinois, Abstract nr1343. |
Slangen et al., “Cell cycle analysis during TTF to exploit novel targets for increasing treatment efficacy,” Proceedings of the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Mar. 29-Apr. 3, 2019, Atlanta, Georgia, Abstract nr4419. |
Story et al., “Exposure to Tumor Treating Fields Inhibits DNA Repair, Induces Replication Stress and Renders Tumor Cells Sensitive to Agents that Impinge Upon These Pathways,” Neuro. Onc., vol. 20, Suppl. 6, p. vi30, Nov. 2018. |
Tuszynski et al., “An Overview of Sub-Cellular Mechanisms Involved in the Action of TTFields,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 13, p. 1128, 2016. |
Wong et al., “Dexamethasone exerts profound immunologic interference on treatment efficacy for recurrent glioblastoma,” British Journal of Cancer, vol. 113, pp. 232-241, Jul. 2015. |
Wong et al., “Tumor treating fields exert cellular and immunologic effects,” Proceedings of the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, Apr. 14-18, 2018, Chicago, Illinois, Abstract nr1707. |
European Search Report issued in application No. EP21208102 dated Mar. 4, 2022. |
Nakamura, “Cyclooxygenase (COS)-2 selective inhibitors: aspirin, a due COX-1/COX-2 inhibitor to COS-2 Selective Inhibitors,” Nippon Yakurigaku Zassi, Folia Pharmacol. Jpn., vol. 118, pp. 219-230, 2001. |
Wong et al., “Evidence for Improved Patient Outcomes with Adjuvant Celecoxib in Recurrent Glioblastoma Patients Treated with Tumor Treating Fields,” Annals of Neurology, vol. 84, Suppl. 22, p. S124, Abstract S297, 2018. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20200306531 A1 | Oct 2020 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62849535 | May 2019 | US | |
62826078 | Mar 2019 | US |