Ecancermedicalscience is the peer-reviewed open access cancer journal founded by the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. We consider articles on all aspects of research relating to cancer, including molecular biology, genetics, pathophysiology, epide

Ecancermedicalscience is the peer-reviewed open access cancer journal founded by the European Institute of Oncology in Milan. We consider articles on all aspects of research relating to cancer, including molecular biology, genetics, pathophysiology, epide

The International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) is an active network of cancer research funding organizations, sharing information about funded research projects in a common database. Data are publicly available to enable the cancer research community to find potential collaborators and avoid duplication. This study presents an aggregated analysis of projects funded by 120 partner organizations and institutes in 2006-2018, to highlight trends in cancer research funding. Overall, the partners’ funding for cancer research increased from $5.562 billion (bn) US dollars (USD) in 2006 to $8.511bn USD in 2018, an above-inflation increase in funding. Analysis by the main research focus of projects using Common Scientific Outline categories showed that Treatment was the largest investment category in 2018, followed by Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis; Cancer Biology; Etiology; Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes; and Prevention. Over the 13 years covered by this analysis, research funding into Treatment and Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis had increased in terms of absolute investment and as a proportion of the portfolio. Research funding in Cancer Biology and Etiology declined as a percentage of the portfolio, and funding for Prevention and Control, Survivorship and Outcomes remained static. In terms of cancer site–specific research, funding for breast cancer and colorectal cancer had increased in absolute terms but declined as a percentage of the portfolio. By contrast, investment for brain cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer increased both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the portfolio.

Background: Drug repurposing can speed up access to new therapeutic options for cancer patients. With more than 2000 drugs approved worldwide and 6 relevant targets per drug on average, the potential is quantitatively important. In this paper, we have attempted to quantify the number of non-cancer drugs supported by either preclinical or clinical cancer data. Methods: A PubMed search was performed to identify non-cancer drugs which could be repurposed in one or more cancer types. Drugs needed at least one peer-reviewed article showing an anticancer effect in vitro, in vivo or in humans. Results: A total of 235 eligible non-cancer drugs were identified (Table 1). Main charateirstics of the drugs are summarized in Table 2. 67 (29%) are on the WHO list of essential medicines and 176 (75%) are off-patent. 133 (57%) had human data in cancer patient(s). Four were listed in clinical guidelines, namely thalidomide, all-trans retinoic acid, zoledronic acid and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID). Several drugs have shown a survival benefit in randomized trials such as cimetidine (colorectal cancer), progesterone (breast cancer) or itraconazole (lung cancer). Several other drugs induced responses in rare tumours, like clarithromycin, timolol or propranolol. Conclusion: We have found that the number of off-patent repurposing opportunities is large and increasing. Joint non-commercial clinical development (academics, governments, charities) may bring new therapeutic options to patients at low cost, especially in indications for which the industry has no incentive to invest in.

Preclinical data support the activity of celecoxib and fluvastatin in high-grade (HGG) and low-grade gliomas (LGG). A phase I trial (NCT02115074) was designed to evaluate the safety of this combination in children with refractory/relapsed HGG and LGG using four dose levels of fluvastatin with a fixed daily dose of celecoxib. A Continual Reassessment Method was used for fluvastatin dose escalation. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were determined on the first treatment cycle. Twenty patients were included. Ten LGG and ten HGG patients received a median of 3.5 treatment cycles. Two DLTs were reported: one grade 3 maculopapular rash (4 mg/kg dose level) and one grade 4 increase of Creatine Phospho-Kinase (6 mg/kg dose level). We identified the dose of 6 mg/kg/day as the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of fluvastatin with celecoxib. Four patients with LGG continued treatment beyond 12 cycles because of stable disease, including one patient who received 23 treatment cycles. In children with refractory/relapsed glioma, the RP2D of fluvastatin with celecoxib is 6 mg/kg/day. The long-term stable diseases observed in LGG suggest a possible role of the combination in a maintenance setting, given its good tolerance and low cost for children living in low- and middle-income countries.