The insulin like growth factor (IGF) axis plays a fundamental role in normal growth and development, and when deregulated makes an important contribution to disease. Here, we review the functions mediated by ligand-induced IGF axis activation, and discuss the evidence for the involvement of IGF signaling in the pathogenesis of cancer, endocrine disorders including acromegaly, diabetes and thyroid eye disease, skin diseases such as acne and psoriasis, and the frailty that accompanies aging. We discuss the use of IGF axis inhibitors, focusing on the different approaches that have been taken to develop effective and tolerable ways to block this important signaling pathway. We outline the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and discuss progress in evaluating these agents, including factors that contributed to the failure of many of these novel therapeutics in early phase cancer trials. Finally, we summarize grounds for cautious optimism for ongoing and future studies of IGF blockade in cancer and non-malignant disorders including thyroid eye disease and aging.

Inhibition of type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF-1R) enhances tumor cell sensitivity to ionizing radiation. It is not clear how this effect is mediated, nor whether this approach can be applied effectively in the clinic. We previously showed that IGF-1R depletion delays repair of radiation-induced DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), unlikely to be explained entirely by reduction in homologous recombination (HR) repair. The current study tested the hypothesis that IGF-1R inhibition induces a repair defect that involves non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). IGF-1R inhibitor AZ12253801 blocked cell survival and radiosensitized IGF-1R-overexpressing murine fibroblasts but not isogenic IGF-1R-null cells, supporting specificity for IGF-1R. IGF-1R inhibition enhanced radiosensitivity in DU145, PC3 and 22Rv1 prostate cancer cells, comparable to effects of Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated inhibition. AZ12253801-treated DU145 cells showed delayed resolution of γH2AX foci, apparent within 1 h of irradiation and persisting for 24 h. In contrast, IGF-1R inhibition did not influence radiosensitivity or γH2AX focus resolution in LNCaP-LN3 cells, suggesting that radiosensitization tracks with the ability of IGF-1R to influence DSB repair. To differentiate effects on repair from growth and cell-survival responses, we tested AZ12253801 in DU145 cells at sub-SF₅₀ concentrations that had no early (48 h) effects on cell cycle distribution or apoptosis induction. Irradiated cultures contained abnormal mitoses, and after 5 days IGF-1R-inhibited cells showed enhanced radiation-induced polyploidy and nuclear fragmentation, consistent with the consequences of entry into mitosis with incompletely repaired DNA. AZ12253801 radiosensitized DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK)-proficient but not DNA-PK-deficient glioblastoma cells, and did not radiosensitize DNA-PK-inhibited DU145 cells, suggesting that in the context of DSB repair, IGF-1R functions in the same pathway as DNA-PK. Finally, IGF-1R inhibition attenuated repair by both NHEJ and HR in HEK293 reporter assays. These data indicate that IGF-1R influences DSB repair by both major DSB repair pathways, findings that may inform clinical application of this approach.

Purpose: Cross-talk between type I IGF receptor (IGF1R), insulin receptor (INSR), and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mediates resistance to individual receptor blockade. This study aimed to determine the MTD, safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary antitumor activity of linsitinib, a potent oral IGF1R/INSR inhibitor, with EGFR inhibitor erlotinib. Experimental Design: This open-label, dose-escalation study investigated linsitinib schedules S1: once daily intermittent (days 1–3 weekly); S2, once daily continuous; S3, twice-daily continuous; each with erlotinib 100–150 mg once daily; and a non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) expansion cohort. Results: Ninety-five patients were enrolled (S1, 44; S2, 24; S3, 12; expansion cohort, 15) and 91 treated. Seven experienced dose-limiting toxicities: QTc prolongation (3), abnormal liver function (2), hyperglycemia (1), and anorexia (1). Common adverse events included drug eruption (84%), diarrhea (73%), fatigue (68%), nausea (58%), vomiting (40%). MTDs for linsitinib/erlotinib were 450/150 mg (S1), 400/100 mg (S2). On the basis of prior monotherapy data, S3 dosing at 150 mg twice daily/150 mg once daily was the recommended phase II dose for the expansion cohort. There was no evidence of drug–drug interaction. Pharmacodynamic data showed IGF-1 elevation and reduced IGF1R/INSR phosphorylation, suggesting pathway inhibition. Across schedules, 5/75 (7%) evaluable patients experienced partial responses: spinal chordoma (268+ weeks), rectal cancer (36 weeks), three NSCLCs including 2 adenocarcinomas (16, 72 weeks), 1 squamous wild-type EGFR NSCLC (36 weeks). Disease control (CR+PR+SD) occurred in 38 of 75 (51%), and 28 of 91 (31%) patients were on study >12 weeks. Conclusions: The linsitinib/erlotinib combination was tolerable with preliminary evidence of activity, including durable responses in cases unlikely to respond to erlotinib monotherapy. Clin Cancer Res; 22(12); 2897–907. ©2016 AACR.

Internalization of ligand-activated type I IGF receptor (IGF1R) is followed by recycling to the plasma membrane, degradation or nuclear translocation. Nuclear IGF1R reportedly associates with clinical response to IGF1R inhibitory drugs, yet its role in the nucleus is poorly characterized. Here, we investigated the significance of nuclear IGF1R in clinical cancers and cell line models. In prostate cancers, IGF1R was predominantly membrane localized in benign glands, while malignant epithelium contained prominent internalized (nuclear/cytoplasmic) IGF1R, and nuclear IGF1R associated significantly with advanced tumor stage. Using ChIP-seq to assess global chromatin occupancy, we identified IGF1R–binding sites at or near transcription start sites of genes including JUN and FAM21, most sites coinciding with occupancy by RNA polymerase II (RNAPol2) and histone marks of active enhancers/promoters. IGF1R was inducibly recruited to chromatin, directly binding DNA and interacting with RNAPol2 to upregulate expression of JUN and FAM21, shown to mediate tumor cell survival and IGF-induced migration. IGF1 also enriched RNAPol2 on promoters containing IGF1R–binding sites. These functions were inhibited by IGF1/II–neutralizing antibody xentuzumab (BI 836845), or by blocking receptor internalization. We detected IGF1R on JUN and FAM21 promoters in fresh prostate cancers that contained abundant nuclear IGF1R, with evidence of correlation between nuclear IGF1R content and JUN expression in malignant prostatic epithelium. Taken together, these data reveal previously unrecognized molecular mechanisms through which IGFs promote tumorigenesis, with implications for therapeutic evaluation of anti-IGF drugs. Significance: These findings reveal a noncanonical nuclear role for IGF1R in tumorigenesis, with implications for therapeutic evaluation of IGF inhibitory drugs. Cancer Res; 78(13); 3497–509. ©2018 AACR.

Bone metastases are a frequent complication of cancer that are associated with considerable morbidity. Current treatments may temporarily palliate the symptoms of bone metastases but often fail to delay their progression. Bones provide a permissive environment because they are characterized by dynamic turnover, secreting factors required for bone maintenance but also stimulating the establishment and growth of metastases. Insulin-like growth factors (IGF) are the most abundant growth factors in bone and are required for normal skeletal development and function. Via activation of the IGF-1 receptors (IGF-1R) and variant insulin receptors, IGFs promote cancer progression, aggressiveness, and treatment resistance. Of specific relevance to bone biology, IGFs contribute to the homing, dormancy, colonization, and expansion of bone metastases. Furthermore, preclinical evidence suggests that tumor cells can be primed to metastasize to bone by a high IGF-1 environment in the primary tumor, suggesting that bone metastases may reflect IGF dependency. Therapeutic targeting of the IGF axis may therefore provide an effective method for treating bone metastases. Indeed, anti–IGF-1R antibodies, IGF-1R tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and anti–IGF-1/2 antibodies have demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical models of prostate and breast cancer metastases, either alone or in combination with other agents. Several studies suggest that such treatments can inhibit bone metastases without affecting growth of the primary tumor. Although previous trials of anti–IGF-1R drugs have generated negative results in unselected patients, these considerations suggest that future clinical trials of IGF-targeted agents may be warranted in patients with bone metastases.