linifanib (ABT-869)

With the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer database, we found that the gastric adenocarcinoma patients with high risk-score may be sensitive to Pazopanib, XMD8.85, Midostaurin, HG.6.64.1, Elesclomol, Linifanib, AP.24534, Roscovitine, Cytarabine, and Axitinib. The gene signature consisting of the NDUFA4L2, ANKRD45, and AQP3 genes is a promising biomarker to distinguish the prognosis, the molecular and immune characteristics, the depressive risk, and the therapy candidates for gastric adenocarcinoma patients.

Linifanib was a potential drug for high-risk populations...A nomogram provided a clinical practice reference. We constructed an HPRGS for HCC, which can accurately predict OS and guide the treatment decisions for patients with HCC.

The growth inhibitory effect of these final shortlisted compounds was examined on a panel of GBM cell lines and compared with temozolomide through the drug sensitivity EC50 values and AUC from the PRISM Repurposing Secondary Screen, and the IC50 values were obtained from GDSC portal...Our results show GSK-2126458/omipalisib, linifanib, drospirenone, eltrombopag, nilotinib, and PD198306 as candidate drugs which can be further evaluated for their anti-tumor potential against GBM. Through this work, we identified repurposed candidate therapeutics against GBM utilizing a GSC inclusive targeting approach, which demonstrated high in vitro efficacy and can prospectively evade drug resistance. These drugs have the potential to be developed as individual or combination therapy to improve GBM outcomes.

In addition, drug sensitivity analysis identified 3 compounds, including BMS-754807, cytochalasin b, and linifanib, that could have a potential therapeutic effect on patients with the BLIS subtype. The risk prognosis model showed good prognostic value for the BLIS subtype patients, and the ten lncRNAs may be potential therapeutic targets.

In vitro drug screening showed that midostaurin, BAY-61-3606, GSK690693, and linifanib inhibited the growth of RCC cells with low BBOX1 expression. Low BBOX1 expression in patients with RCC is related to short survival time and reduced CD8+ T cells; midostaurin, among other drugs, may have enhanced therapeutic effects in this context.

In addition, NLRP3 mutation-sensitive drugs (VNLG/124, sunitinib, linifanib) may have better clinical benefits in the high-risk group. All in all, the crLncRNAs model has excellent specificity and sensitivity, which can be used for classifying the therapy-sensitive population and predicting the prognosis of HCC patients.

The proposed systems' biomedicine-oriented multi-omics data integration for drug repurposing to provide promising results for the construction of effective clinical therapeutics. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study reporting epigenome- and transcriptome-based drug repositioning for NF-PitNETs using in silico confirmations.

Finally, drug sensitivity testing suggested that the low-expression SLC25A21 group is sensitive to doxorubicin, mitomycin C, linifanib but resistant to JQ1, belinostat, and dasatinib. Hence, our study demonstrated that a low expression level of SLC25A21 predicts an unfavourable prognosis in patients with AML.

Giltertinib (n=3 studies) was the most frequently studied type 1 inhibitor, and quizartinib (n=6) and sorafenib (n=5) were the most frequently studied type 2 inhibitors...The highest ORR was for gilteritinib (68%; 95% CI, 61-73%) among type 1 and sorafenib (99%; 95% CI, 81-100%), linifanib (99%; 95% CI, 89-100%), and tandutinib (100%; 95% CI, 93-100%) for type 2 (Fig...The highest CRc was for midostaurin (98%; 95% CI, 79-100%) among type 1 and sorafenib (97%; 95% CI, 68-100%), tandutinib (98%; 95% CI, 72-100%), and semaxinib (98%; 78-100%) among type 3 (Fig... Both type 1 and 2 inhibitors are effective as monotherapy in R/R AML and HR-MDS patients. Though not statistically significant, better ORR for type 2 than for type 1 inhibitors in the R/R setting provides a Background to explore the biological heterogeneity of response and preferential sensitivity to ITD-targeted therapy alone rather than the dual inhibitor. More prospective randomized study designs comparing type 1 and 2 inhibitors in the R/R and de novo setting are needed.