Cancer Stem Cells—Origins and Biomarkers: Perspectives for Targeted Personalized Therapies

Abstract

The use of biomarkers in diagnosis, therapy and prognosis has gained increasing interest over the last decades. In particular, the analysis of biomarkers in cancer patients within the pre- and post-therapeutic period is required to identify several types of cells, which carry a risk for a disease progression and subsequent post-therapeutic relapse. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are a subpopulation of tumor cells that can drive tumor initiation and can cause relapses. At the time point of tumor initiation, CSCs originate from either differentiated cells or adult tissue resident stem cells. Due to their importance, several biomarkers that characterize CSCs have been identified and correlated to diagnosis, therapy and prognosis. However, CSCs have been shown to display a high plasticity, which changes their phenotypic and functional appearance. Such changes are induced by chemo- and radiotherapeutics as well as senescent tumor cells, which cause alterations in the tumor microenvironment. Induction of senescence causes tumor shrinkage by modulating an anti-tumorigenic environment in which tumor cells undergo growth arrest and immune cells are attracted. Besides these positive effects after therapy, senescence can also have negative effects displayed post-therapeutically. These unfavorable effects can directly promote cancer stemness by increasing CSC plasticity phenotypes, by activating stemness pathways in non-CSCs, as well as by promoting senescence escape and subsequent activation of stemness pathways. At the end, all these effects can lead to tumor relapse and metastasis. This review provides an overview of the most frequently used CSC markers and their implementation as biomarkers by focussing on deadliest solid (lung, stomach, liver, breast and colorectal cancers) and hematological (acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia) cancers. Furthermore, it gives examples on how the CSC markers might be influenced by therapeutics, such as chemo- and radiotherapy, and the tumor microenvironment. It points out, that it is crucial to identify and monitor residual CSCs, senescent tumor cells, and the pro-tumorigenic senescence-associated secretory phenotype in a therapy follow-up using specific biomarkers. As a future perspective, a targeted immune-mediated strategy using chimeric antigen receptor based approaches for the removal of remaining chemotherapy-resistant cells as well as CSCs in a personalized therapeutic approach are discussed.

Introduction

In 2018, according to the GLOBOCAN study, the malignant neoplasms with the highest mortality were lung (1.76 million deaths), stomach (783,000 deaths), liver (782,000 deaths), breast (627,000 deaths), and colorectal cancers (551,000 deaths) as well as blood cancers including leukemia (309,000 deaths) (1). All of these cancers are heterogeneous tumors containing cells with various stem cell properties, as described below. Already in 1877, Virchow's student Cohnheim noticed this cell population and pointed out that it possesses an embryonic character (2). Today, those cells are called cancer stem cells (CSCs) or tumor-initiating cells (TICs) and are seen as drivers of tumor establishment and growth (2–5), often correlated to aggressive, heterogeneous and therapy-resistant tumors (6, 7). Upon application of therapeutic regimens such as chemo- or radiotherapy the composition of tumor cell subpopulations changes (6, 8). At first, tumor cells with a high proliferative capacity are targeted and depleted causing a decrease in tumor size while CSCs survive (9). Additionally, some tumor cells will become senescent [therapy-induced senescence (TIS)], and subsequently can cause a change in the tumor microenvironment (TME) with tumor promoting effects due to the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) (6, 10–12).

It is well-known that CSCs are resistant to treatment and can cause tumor relapses (13). However, under the therapeutic pressure and changed microenvironment CSCs can be newly generated. In this case, these cells do originate from non-CSCs or from therapy-induced senescent tumor cells (14–18). It is therefore of importance to characterize these cells in detail and to understand their origin at the time of tumor initiation and tumor relapse.

This review underlines the role for a thorough investigation of tumors especially in the post-therapeutic period. Such post-therapeutic or therapy follow-up diagnostics are not conducted in the clinic on a regular basis, yet. The importance of specific biomarkers that analyze several parameters, such as CSCs phenotypes, senescence and TME composition, will allow the detection of therapy-resistant CSCs that cause tumor recurrence. A precise elimination of those cells of risk in a timely fashion using targeted cellular therapeutic approaches as the second line therapy is discussed in this study.

CSCs and Their Origin at Tumor Initiation

Tumor initiation can either be driven by transformed differentiated cells or transformed tissue resident stem cells (19) (compare Figure 1). The transformation can take place during tissue regeneration and can additionally, be initiated and/or accelerated as a response to infections, toxins, radiation or metabolic influences causing mutations (20, 21). During the transformation process, oncogenes are overexpressed and tumor suppressors are inactivated promoting uncontrolled growth of the cells (19). As a consequence, cells de-differentiate and acquire stem cell characteristics (19). The transformation of tissue resident stem cells or their progeny is believed to presuppose a different set of genomic changes allowing uncontrolled, niche-independent proliferation (5, 22). As stem cells already possess unlimited growth potential, it is believed that the transformation of stem cells and their progeny requires only few genomic changes (5, 22, 23). For example, the low mutagenic changes, identified in more than 10% of gastric cancers suggest that these tumors arise from tissue resident stem cell populations (24). Two stem cell populations have been identified in gastric cancers: slow cycling cells expressing the transcription factor Mist1 in the gastric corpus and Leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein coupled receptor 5 (Lgr5)-expressing cells in the gastric antrum (25–27). Both populations have been linked to cancer generation in mouse models (24, 26, 27). In colon cancers, recent studies in mice have shown that even differentiated intestinal epithelial cells can be potential CSCs (28). The fact that adult differentiated cells, tissue resident stem cells or their progeny can promote tumor generation has also been shown in the liver. Cell tracking, in vitro and in vivo studies showed that liver cancer can originate from adult hepatocytes (29–32) as well as from hepatoblasts and hepatic progenitors (31, 32).

Figure 1

Tumor type, prognosis and aggressiveness are also influenced by the origin of the tumor, as analyzed for instance in breast cancers (33–35). Breast tumors originating from luminal progenitors are associated with a good prognosis, except those overexpressing Her2 (34, 36). Tumors originating from basal-like progenitors show a very aggressive phenotype (34).

In squamous cell carcinomas the differentiation phenotype seems to be influenced by the cell of origin and the kind of driver mutation, both responsible for the invasiveness and aggressiveness of the tumor (37, 38). Loss of the phosphatase and tensin homolog (Pten) as well as the liver kinase B1 (Lkb1) in lung epithelia causes tumor formation of highly penetrant tumors. These tumors are rarely metastatic and are characterized by a differentiated phenotype (37). Basal cells located within the trachea and main bronchi have been shown to self-renew and to form heterogeneous spheres (39). These basal stem cells can cause basal cell hyperplasia or epithelial hypoplasia, finally resulting in squamous cell metaplasia or dysplasia, which are discussed as precursors of squamous cell lung carcinomas (SCC) (39, 40). Studies by Fukui et al. suggest that high basal cell signatures correlate to a clinically aggressive phenotype in lung adenocarcinoma (40). Adenocarcinomas are considered to originate from sub-segmental airways of the bronchioalveolar stem cells or Type I and Type II pneumocytes (39). These bronchioalveolar stem cells are quiescent in healthy lungs but can enter proliferation cycles and could be targets of mutations causing transformation (39, 41). In mouse models, data indicate that small cell lung cancers (SCLC) can also originate from other cell types, i.e., neuroendocrine cells (42).

While in solid tumors the origin is heavily discussed, in hematological tumors the situation seems to be clearer. In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the cell of origin is thought to be a hematopoietic stem or progenitor cell (43). However, a subgroup of human AML has been shown to share expression profiles with lymphoid T-cell progenitors. The authors showed that under oncogenic conditions, DN2 (double negative 2) T-cell progenitors process into lymphoid, biphenotypic, and myeloid leukemia cells (43–45). In chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), the cell of origin is characterized by the expression of the Bcr-Abl oncogene, generated from a chromosomal translocation between chromosome 9 and 22 (46, 47). This molecular aberration defines the chronic phase in CML, which progresses into blast crisis upon additional mutations that promote self-renewal (46, 47). While leukemic stem cells (LSCs) are well-defined and characterized in AML and CML, the concept of CSCs in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and also in non-hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) is less established (48–50).

Tumors generated on the basis of CSCs are believed to follow a unidirectional hierarchy, in which only the CSC population is able to initiate tumor growth (51). At the time point of tumor initiation, it is suggested that cancer stem cells divide asymmetrically to maintain the CSC pool (52). These asymmetric divisions generate transient amplifying cells, which are undergoing symmetric divisions; therefore having a high proliferative capacity (51, 52). Based on recent data from hematological cancers (AML), the hierarchical model proposed by Bonnet and Dick (43) is most likely a simplified description. It is now believed that the organization of CSCs (in solid as well as in hematological cancers) is more complex (52–56). In contrast to the CSC model in which only a small subpopulation of cells is able to promote tumor initiation and growth, the clonal evolution model states that genetically unstable cells accumulate genomic and genetic alterations over time causing an increase in tumor aggressiveness, resistance and heterogeneity (5, 57). Both models are not mutually exclusive, which can be explained by the cellular plasticity (plasticity model) that suggests, that different cellular states can interconvert (as explained later) (5, 57).

Because CSCs have been shown to cause tumor initiation and tumor relapses, the search for biomarkers that characterize these cells and allow therapeutic as well as prognostic prediction or follow-up is ongoing. The most prominent markers of solid and hematological tumors are described in the following section.

Biomarkers for CSC Populations in Solid Cancers

In solid cancers, the clinical use of CSC specific biomarkers is very limited, besides the use of the carcinoembryonic antigen (CAE), fragments of the cytokeratin 19 (YFRA 21-1) (58) and the alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) that is expressed by cancer stem cells (58, 59). Importantly, most markers expressed in CSCs can also be found in adult tissue resident stem cell populations, human embryonic stem cells (hESC) or adult tissues (60). Additionally, most markers label heterogeneous stem cell populations pointing to the fact that their characterization and isolation has to be based on marker combinations using several surface markers or combinations of extracellular as well as intracellular markers; to identify and isolate cells that promote tumor initiation, resistance and relapse.

Below, a short summary of the most prominent markers is provided. CSC markers that could have potential usefulness within therapeutic, diagnostic, and prognostic approaches are pointed out (compare Tables 1–7) and focus on most deadliest tumors of lung, liver, breast, stomach, and colorectal as well as AML and CML. Tables 1–7 provide an extensive list of markers expressed in CSCs. A comparison shows that several markers are expressed in several tumor types.

CD44

CD44 is a biomarker which is not only expressed in solid but also in hematological cancers (see below). Its expression is associated with increased proliferation, self-renewal and metastasis (61, 149, 462, 463). For example, in colorectal cancers, expression of CD44/CD166 characterizes a cell population able to form tumor spheres, suggesting anchorage-independent proliferation of these cells (333). In other studies, CD44^high/CD133^high cells showed increased tumorigenic capabilities (334). Also in breast cancers, the percentage of CD44⁺/CD24⁻/CK⁺/CD45⁻ cells was shown to be increased in malignant lesions compared to non-malignant lesions (139). A significant decrease in proliferation and migration of breast cancer cells was observed after the knock-down of CD44 (140). In gastric cancers, the knock-down of CD44 reduced sphere formation and caused decreased tumor growth in severe combined immunodeficiency mice (246). In many tumors (e.g., breast and liver), CD44 is expressed as isoform and its expression has been associated with increased cancer stem cell properties (141). In lung cancers, CD44v9 expression correlates significantly with early-stage lung adenocarcinoma and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations (464). Variants of CD44 are also expressed in gastric cancers and promote tumor initiation (248).

The CSC marker CD44 has been indicated as a biomarker for diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic approaches (compare Tables 1–5). In gastric cancer patients, CD44⁺ circulating tumor cells correlated with a poor prognosis (465). In colorectal cancers, a prognostic quantitative real-time PCR was established to analyze the expression of CD44v2 showing that a high expression correlated with a worse prognosis (339). In gastric cancers, the expression of CD44 and CD90 correlated with distant metastasis and could therefore be used as a diagnostic biomarker (251) and was suggested as a biomarker for treatment response (253). Therapeutic approaches targeting CD44 have been made using e.g. adenoviral delivery of siRNA in vitro (337). Furthermore, CD44-targeting drug conjugated aptamers (76) or hyaluronic acid coated onto nanoparticles have been in the focus of research (155). Antibody-based photosensitizer conjugates for combined fluorescent detection and photo-immunotherapy (PIT) of CD44-expressing cells in triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) (150) or other antibody-based approaches tested in safety studies (466–468).

CD133

The biomarker CD133 (Prominin-1) is expressed on hESCs and rarely found on normal tissue cells (60). The marker has been additionally identified in tumors of breast, liver, stomach, and colon (compare Tables 1–5) and has also been described as a marker that characterizes cells with high tumorigenicity and a high ability to form spheroids (184, 469). In breast cancers, its expression correlates with N-cadherin expression that was found to be significantly higher in patients with metastasis (191). In lung cancers, the expression of CD133 has been correlated to epithelial to mesenchymal transitions (EMT), in combination with other additional stem cell markers, such as BMI1 (84).

The expression of CD44 and CD133 in colorectal cancers can predict metastasis (470), however, no correlation to patient outcome could be detected (471). In breast cancers, CD133 mRNA was suggested to be suitable for prognosis prediction (193, 472) and CD133 protein has been correlated to a poor prognosis (193). Pre-clinical therapeutic approaches cover antibody-based targeting of colorectal (341, 342) as well as breast cancers (188) (compare Tables 1–5).

EpCAM

The epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM, CD326) is expressed on CSCs in various tumor types including colon and hepatocellular cancers (473–476). Furthermore, it is expressed in non-transformed tissues such as epithelial cells (476), and various stem and progenitor cells (477, 478). EpCAM is involved in proliferation and differentiation as well as in cell signaling and formation and maintenance of organ morphology (479). In cancer tissue, EpCAM is homogeneously expressed on the cell surface, while in epithelia it is expressed on the basolateral side (476).

In breast cancers, the expression of EpCAM is correlated to CSC-like phenotypes that promote formation of bone metastases in mice (480). In lung cancers, the expression of EpCAM is often associated with the expression of CD44 and CD166. Triple positive cells show increased clonogenicity, spheroid formation, self-renewal capacity, and show increased resistance to both 5-fluouracil and cisplatin (62).

As one of the first CSC markers, EpCAM has been evaluated as a therapeutic biomarker (compare Tables 1–5). Targeting EpCAM with different antibody formats has been performed in colorectal as well as breast cancers (347). In colorectal cancers, a therapeutic approach targeting EpCAM⁺ cells with aptamers has been performed in pre-clinical conditions (345, 346).

Intracellular Biomarkers as Regulators of Stemness in Solid Cancers

Both embryonic and CSCs show unlimited growth, invasive capacity and are characterized by an undifferentiated cellular state (481). This feature depends on transitions between epithelial and mesenchymal states, regulated by a network of intracellular pluripotency transcription factors. As reviewed by Hadjimichael et al. and also described by others pluripotency in ESC is regulated by a core-network of transcription factors, consisting amongst others of Oct-3/4, Sox2, Nanog, Klf4, and c-MYC as well as signaling pathways such as the Jak/Stat, Wnt/ß-catenin, Hedgehog/Notch, TGF-ß as well as FGF signaling pathways (367, 482, 483). The core-pluripotency network consisting of Nanog, Oct-3/4 and Sox2 (described in detail below) activates genes of self-renewal and suppresses genes involved in differentiation (482). Pluripotency factors as well as signaling pathways have been indicated as biomarkers for CSCs as shortly described below (compare Tables 1–5). Of note, the tables do not include all biomarkers, however describe the most abundant ones reported in the literature.

Sox2

The transcription factor Sox2 belongs to the SRY-related HMG-box (SOX) family, and is involved in the maintenance of an undifferentiated cellular phenotype (367). Its aberrant expression in cancers often leads to increased chemotherapy resistance and asymmetric divisions, as observed in colorectal cancers (368). In those, Sox2 expression correlates with a stem cell state and with a decreased expression of the caudal-related homeobox transcription factor 2 (CDX2), which could serve as a prognostic marker for a poor prognosis (367, 368). In gastric cancers, expression of Sox2 correlates with the tumor stage as well as with a poor prognosis (247, 288). The formation of tumor spheroids in vitro also correlates to the overexpression of CD44 and CD133 as well as the transcription factors Sox2, Nanog and Oct-3/4 (247). However, in another study, Sox2 levels were downregulated in gastric cancers in comparison to normal tissue and high Sox2 expression correlated with decreased metastasis and a better prognosis for the patient due to increased p21 levels (293). Therefore, the oncogenic functions of Sox2 are controversially discussed in gastric cancers, in which Sox2 might also have tumor-suppressor functions. These different functions seem to depend on the cancer origin and cellular context (484).

Oct-3/4

Oct-3/4, also known as POU5F1, belongs to the POU homeobox gene family and is also a regulator of pluripotency in mammalian stem cell population. Oct-3/4 is upregulated in several cancers and may support the neoplastic transformation and resistance (485). In colorectal cancer cells, Oct-3/4 causes increased migration and liver metastasis (363, 486) correlating with poor survival (365). As reviewed by Prabavathy et al. Oct-3/4 expression is correlated to increased self-renewal and metastasis in lung cancer cells (67). A meta-analysis showed that Oct-3/4 expression in lung cancer was associated with poor outcomes concerning the differentiation degree, the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors (TNM) and lymphatic metastasis (136). In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) Oct-3/4 expression was correlating with tumor size and recurrence (309).

Nanog

Nanog is a homeobox domain transcription factor widely expressed in human cancers (487). In colorectal tumors its expression was significantly increased in CD133⁺ cells, and on the basis of a univariate analysis, Nanog expression correlated linearly to liver and lymph node metastasis and the TNM stage. It might therefore be useful as a prognostic biomarker in post-operative liver metastasis (362). In breast cancer, expression of Nanog and Oct-3/4 has been correlated to a poor prognosis of the patient as well as EMT (220, 221). In HCC cell lines Nanog expression drives selfrenewal and invasion, metastasis, and drug resistance (298).

Biomarkers for CSC Populations in Hematological Cancer

CSC biomarkers of AML and CML have been listed in Tables 6, 7. They indicate commonly used markers and point out possible functions of these markers as biomarkers in prognosis, therapy, and diagnosis. Below a short introduction of the most relevant markers is given.

CD44

As mentioned above, CD44 is a common marker shared by many cancers (60). In hematological cancers, CD44 expression is functionally associated with chemotherapy resistance (488, 489). The expression of CD44 in AML is significantly correlated with a poor overall survival (OS) (490). Furthermore, CD44 was shown to be significantly higher expressed in non-remission AML patients (490). A highly relevant function of CD44 for LSCs is the adhesion to the bone marrow niche (491).

CD123 and CD33

In hematological malignancies, such as AML, CD123 as well as CD33 have been described as the “classical” CSC markers (492, 493). CD123 is a marker expressed on LSCs (395, 397, 494), but not exclusively (395, 398). In AML patients, CD123 expression correlates to the therapy response rate (413, 495), the relapse risk (403), and a shorter disease-free period and OS (399, 413). CD123 has been associated with increased proliferation and differentiation (494, 496).

CD33 is historically, the most commonly used marker for AML stem cells, with clinical implementation of CD33 targeting, dating back to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) in 2000 (497). CD33 is highly expressed on blasts in around 85–90% of AML patients (433, 438, 497) and also expressed at higher densities in CML (433, 438) but less on healthy hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). These cells are additionally characterized by expression of CD25, CD26, and Interleukin-1 receptor accessory protein (IL-1RAP) and also other markers (440).

CLL-1

The C-type lectin-like molecule-1 (CLL-1) is a promising alternative to the “classical” LSC targets (414). The majority of AML patients shows CLL-1⁺ LSCs, a marker not being expressed on HSCs (370, 414–416). Compared to CD33, CLL-1 was not only more frequently and stronger expressed on LSCs, but also not or more weakly expressed on normal tissues leading to reduced off-target effects after treatment with a respective antibody-drug conjugate. Therefore, CLL-1 might be a more suitable and specific LSC target than CD33 (414). A high expression of CLL-1 is associated with poor prognosis (420) and a faster relapse (415) in AML. Interestingly, controversial observations have been made using CLL-1 as a biomarker after chemotherapy. The diagnostic value of CLL-1 is discussed controversially: while Zhang et al. showed that CLL-1 was increased after chemotherapy (371), others showed that there is no difference between CLL-1 expression at diagnosis and at relapse (415) or even detected a decreased CLL-1 expression at relapse (370). The relevance of CLL-1 as a prognostic biomarker for chemotherapy failure or relapse is therefore still unclear. Its expression is not detectablewithin the chronic phase of CML (440).

TIM-3

Another “non-classical” LSC biomarker is T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin 3 (TIM-3), that is highly expressed on LSCs but not expressed on healthy HSCs (498). It is correlated to a poor prognosis (420) and treatment failure (423). Stem cell properties of TIM-3⁺ cells were confirmed by engraftment in a xenograft mouse model (421).

Intracellular Biomarkers as Regulators of Stemness in Hematological Cancers

The core-network of pluripotency associated transcription factors as well as signaling pathways have also been analyzed in hematological cancers. Fifty AML patients have been analyzed for the expression of Sox proteins, which are overexpressed in 10–22% of the patients. The analysis showed that high levels of Sox proteins may have a prognostic value (432). The analysis of Oct-3/4 expression correlated with an unfavorable prognosis and is associated with FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3-internal tandem duplications (FLT3-ITD) (430).

Activation of stemness-associated pathways especially in CML has been shown to promote extensive proliferation and has been linked to the onset of blast crisis, which is associated with a loss of differentiation of the leukemia initiating cells. An important impact on this effect has the Wnt/ß-catenin pathway (46) that promotes HSC proliferation, independent of the bone marrow niche (5, 22, 499). Especially, resistance to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib has been shown to correlate to an increased nuclear localization of ß-catenin (454, 458, 500). Inhibitors targeting the Wnt pathway have been shown to be of advantage for example in long-term cell cultures (500). Additionally, the hedgehog pathway has been suggested to be involved in chemotherapeutic resistance in CML, which is also characteristic for chronic phase CML cells (47). Mouse studies also indicate the involvement of the hedgehog pathway (46, 47), which has been implicated as a therapeutic biomarker for CML (456, 461).

To summarize, CSCs at tumor initiation originate from either differentiated cells or adult tissue resident stem cells (5, 19, 22). Several data indicate that the origin strongly correlates to the aggressiveness of the tumor. Therefore, extra- and intracellular biomarkers that characterize CSCs have been identified and implemented to be of diagnostic and prognostic advantage. However, stem cells are subject to a high degree of plasticity modulated by the TME (19), that is significantly changed by chemo- and radiotherapies and composed of several different cell types. In the following section, focus will be laying on senescent tumor cells as part of the TME as they have long-term influence on TME and CSC development and progression.

The Escape of Cancer Stem Cells From Therapy

At the moment first-line therapeutic treatments in progressed tumors include in the most cases surgery, chemo- as well as radiotherapies (501) (compare Figure 2). Those have been shown to induce DNA damage and to trigger senescence in cancer cells, a process known as therapy-induced senescence (TIS) (10, 502, 503). TIS will cause a decreased tumor size and attracts immune cells such as neutrophils, monocytes as well as T-cells toward senescent tumor site (503). However, over a long-term period the anti-tumorigenic effects of TIS are lost and the cancer might gain stemness causing tumor relapses (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Therapy-Induced Senescence: Its Hallmarks, Biomarkers, and Its Role in CSC Generation

Agents that induce DNA damage such as chemo- and radiation therapies have been identified to trigger senescence in differentiated cancer cells (10). TIS has been in the research focus, because it significantly contributes to the long-term outcome of patients (12). The DNA damage response ultimately activates one or several tumor suppressors pathways [p53, p16 (Ink4a), p21 (Waf1), and retinoblastoma (RB)], that trigger and maintain the senescence growth arrest (504). However, it is important to mention that the senescence phenotype can also be induced in cancer cells which lack functional p53 and RB protein (504). TIS and senescence in general, are recognized as a double-edged sword, that on the one hand leads to the attraction of immune cells, inflammation, and elimination of senescent tumor cells and correlates with a positive post-treatment prognosis and treatment outcome (505–507). On the other hand, senescence can play a strong pro-tumorigenic role that supports CSC generation, as described below.

Senescent cells are characterized by biochemical and morphological changes such as flattening and/or nuclear enlargement (508). There are several classical biomarkers of cellular senescence and they comprise: senescence-associated beta-galactosidase (SA-ß-gal) activity, expression of p53 protein, the amount of p53 in the nucleus, increase in expression of p14 (Arf), p16 (Ink4a) and p21 (Waf1), SASP, and often senescence-associated heterochromatic foci (SAHF) (12, 505, 507, 509–515). Furthermore, senescent cells display low Ki67 levels and show levels of heterochromatin protein 1 (HP1) gamma (516), as well as di- or tri-methylated lysine 9 of histone H3 (H3K9Me2/3) and histone H2A variant (macroH2A) (505, 517, 518). The usefulness of telomere length as a biomarker of senescence has been questioned (505).

Biomarkers that underline the effect of a therapeutic approach based on the induction of senescence have to be evaluated carefully and quite often simultaneously. The investigation of senescence markers after post-operative chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) revealed that the simultaneous expression of several markers involved in the p53 pathway has to be checked to correctly assess the pathological outcome of MIBC (509). The analysis revealed that the expression of p14 (Arf) was associated with an impaired response to chemotherapy and poor prognosis, whereas p21 (Waf1) expression was related to reduced tumor cell proliferation (509).

TIS can play an anti-cancerous role (503). As demonstrated in our studies in premalignant and malignant liver disease, the induction of senescence leads to a so-called “senescence surveillance” mechanism, which relies on innate and adaptive immune cells. These cells clear senescent premalignant cells, thereby protecting premalignant liver from cancer development (535, 536). Interestingly, in further studies, we could show that the chemokine (monocyte chemoattractant protein 1, MCP-1) axis is of importance for the induction and maintenance of senescence and for the sufficient immune surveillance in the liver (525). Several biomarkers of senescence were found to correlate with a disease-free survival or with an improved OS in several solid cancers (516, 524). One such indicator, a lysosomal-beta-galactosidase (GLB1) that hydrolyzes beta-galactose from glycoconjugates and represents the origin of SA-ß-gal, was reported as a reliable senescence biomarker in prostate cancer (516). Inhibition of the cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK)-RB pathway by a novel drug, SHR6390, resulted in reducing the levels of Ser780-phosphorylated RB protein and correlated with the G1 arrest as well as with cellular senescence in a wide range of human RB⁺ tumor cells in vitro (520). Xiang et al. identified seven senescence-associated genes (SAGs, Table 8) significantly decreased in senescent cells and increased in HCC tissues (524). Interestingly, those SAGs were strongly associated with OS, especially in Asian populations, and had a better predictive accuracy in comparison to serum AFP in predicting OS of HCC patients (524). Recently, Smolle et al. reviewed and underlined the role of members of the inhibition of growth (ING) family. These act as tumor suppressors, regulating cell cycle, apoptosis, and cellular senescence. The authors proposed them as clinically useful biomarkers in the detection and prognosis of lung cancer (523).

In line with the positive role of senescence, evidence exists regarding the role of TIS in turning “cold” tumors toward a “hot” phenotype that results in activating immune responses against tumor antigens (503). As reported in Her2⁺ breast cancer patients treated with Trastuzumab and chemotherapy, the treatment-induced epitope spreading was characterized by increased antibody responses not only to the tumor antigen Her2, but also to endogenous CEA, insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 2 (IGFBP2), and p53 (521).

TIS is a very important protective mechanism that is induced immediately after chemo- or radiation therapy. TIS mediates the recognition and clearance of senescent tumor cells by immune cells (503, 535). Induction of TIS after the therapy is associated with a better prognosis and OS (524). However, if senescent tumor cells are not cleared in a timely fashion, their role at a later time points shifts from positive to negative, as discussed in the section below.

Negative Role of TIS: Cancer Progression

Several studies report a pro-tumorigenic effect of TIS leading to cancer recurrence and support of tumor development (503). Uncleared senescent cells acquire additional mutations, thereby escaping the cell cycle arrest and transform into malignant cells (536). Moreover, factors secreted by senescent cells are also reported to play a strong tumor-promoting role (526).

Was et al. suggested that senescent human colon cancer cells (HCT116) that appear during a doxorubicin-based therapy enter a “dormant” cellular state, survive the treatment, and cause tumor re-growth (537). Importantly, the recent findings by Scuric et al. suggest a long-term effect of chemotherapy and/or radiation exposure upon TIS (11). In this study, markers of cellular senescence, including higher DNA damage and lower telomerase activity, were observed many years later in breast cancer survivors (11). Elevated levels of a soluble tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-receptor-II, a pro-inflammatory biomarker and one of the main SASP molecules, were also detected (11). A negative effect of SASP was correlated to a p53 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at codon 72 which is correlated to increased risk of breast cancers (538). Using a humanized mouse model, Gunaratna et al. showed that SASP caused an increased invasion of pro-inflammatory macrophages (522). However, the inflammation proceeded into a chronic inflammation with pro-tumorigenic action and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) contributed to angiogenesis and increased tumor growth rates (522). Also, senescent cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and, in particular, expression of Caveolin-1 (CAV1) promote tumor invasion in pancreatic cancer (539). Moreover, in clinicopathological characteristics of patients, a high CAV1 expression directly correlates with higher levels of serum tumor antigens, with the rate of advanced tumor stage, and with significantly worse outcomes in both overall and disease-free survival (539).

It has been suggested that cancer therapies, especially chemo- and radiotherapies, possess long- and late-term pro-tumorigenic side effects and could therefore contribute to the relapse of the malignant disease they were intended to treat (540). Such long-term effects could be caused by the decreased removal of senescent cells, as described below.

Cancer Stemness: Senescence Escape

As mentioned above, cells undergoing senescence can still escape the senescence program and become malignant while acquiring additional mutations (519, 535, 536) (Figure 2). In our studies, we observed a spontaneous mutation [a deficiency in p19 (Arf)] in Ras-expressing hepatocytes, which resulted in a full-blown HCC development using a Ras-induced precancerous liver disease model (535, 536). The reversibility of TIS can be caused through the inactivation of tumor suppressors p53, p16 (Ink4A), p19 (Ink4d), and/or RB (504, 507, 519). Additionally, the over-expression of CDC2/CDK1 and survivin can promote cancer stem cell survival and can also promote the development of polyploidy (507). In general, mutations in CDKN2A, coding for p16 (Ink4a, CDKN2A), p21 (Waf1, CDKN1A), and p27 (Kip1, CDKN1B) as well as E2F3 and EZH2, and a high c-MYC expression might result in low percentages of senescent cells (504, 519). Moreover, particular mutations completely protect melanoma cells from cell cycle arrest upon chemotherapy: DMBC29 melanoma cells that carried a EZH2^S412C mutation, expressed c-MYC at a low level and a wild type of CDKN2A did not undergo senescence, in contrast to many melanoma cells treated with vemurafenib and trametinib (519).

An escape of cells from senescence was also identified by Milanovic et al. in B-cell lymphoma studies (14). In those studies, the researchers showed that senescent cells substantially upregulated an adult tissue stem cell signature and activated Wnt signaling (14). This senescence-associated stemness was an unexpected cell-autonomous phenotype that caused the generation of cells with a higher tumorigenic potential in vitro (14).

However, escape from senescence is not the only pathway that promotes an increase in the cancer stemness phenotype. Stemness within the tumor tissue is also regulated indirectly by signaling molecules which support the maintenance of stemness in CSCs as well as non-CSCs, as described in the following sections.

Cancer Stemness: SASP and CSC Maintenance

The stemness phenotype within a tumor can also be mediated via SASP (526). Several studies address the strong pro-tumorigenic phenotype (526) whose cytokines can mediate the maintenance of CSCs. The most prominent interleukins (IL) of SASP are IL-1,−6, and−8 (526). These cytokines can influence the CSC phenotype and functionality and therefore influence the plasticity phenotype of CSCs.

Using breast cancer cell lines, Di et al. showed that an induction of senescence in mesenchymal stem cells by hydrogen peroxide treatment causes an increased secretion of the inflammatory cytokine IL-6, which led to a higher migratory capacity of breast cancer cells in vitro as well as in xenotransplants (541). An increase in the aggressive metastatic chemoresistant phenotype upon inflammatory cytokine stimulation such as IL-1ß, IL-6, and RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed, and secreted) was also observed by others (533, 534). Our own work indicated that IL-8 blocks differentiation of hepatocellular premalignant cells, a pathway mediated via mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) kinase, that causes an increase in chemotherapy resistance (532). An increase in tumorigenicity and EMT of breast cancer cells has been shown to correlate to an increased expression of CD44 or CSC-like properties and be caused by the senescence-associated IL-8 and IL-6 (527–529). Pathways that might be involved in such cellular reprogramming processes are the JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway (542), the IL-6/STAT3 and NOTCH cross-talk signaling (187, 530) as well NFκB-IL-6 signaling axis, responsible for the generation of CSCs (531). Interestingly, interference with those pathways by aspirin increased chemosensitivity and decreased self-renewal in breast cancer cells (531). In colorectal cancer cells the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 mediates deacetylation, which subsequently activates NANOG transcription and accumulation of stemness phenotypes, correlating with malignant progression and poor prognosis (543).

To summarize, TIS on the one hand has positive effects that eliminates differentiated tumor cells and also causes invasion of immune cells with anti-tumorigenic functions. On the other hand, senescence causes negative effects that are reflected by pro-tumorigenic functions causing CSC development and a gain of cancer stemness (Figure 2).

An additional level of complexity is added by the plasticity of CSCs as well as non-CSCs, which also causes increased cancer stemness, resistance, and relapse. Examples are given in the next paragraph.

Cancer Stemness: Plasticity of CSCs and Non-CSCs

Cancer stemness is not only triggered by senescence escape and acquisition of stemness phenotypes or supported by maintenance of stemness (544) but also by the plasticity of CSCs and non-CSCs, altogether causing tumor relapses after treatment, as described below.

Plasticity is regulated by the TME that is very heterogeneous and consists of CAFs, TAMs, and neutrophils as well as of cancer-associated adipocytes, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and cancer cells with or without stem cell characteristics (545). Therefore, a clear separation between SASP effects and plasticity cannot be made as several direct and also indirect regulatory networks are involved (Figure 2).

Mechanistically, plasticity of cells is a characteristic that ensures robust tissue regeneration and homeostasis (546, 547) and describes the phenotypic and molecular changes of tumor cells increasing stemness and reflecting the tumor's ability to self-renew (18, 548). This phenotype is ultimately closely linked to EMT (15, 548). As described, the transition from the epithelial to mesenchymal state is associated with defined regulatory networks, chromatin remodeling and gene expression programs that are specific to the epithelial, mesenchymal or hybrid cellular state (15–18). Plasticity increases the complexity by suggesting that CSCs can switch between different cellular states, characterized by the expression of surface markers as well as transcription factors (18, 56). Examples for this come from the analysis of different tumor cells: Chaffer et al. demonstrated that CD44^low cells (non-CSCs) can switch to a CD44^high phenotype (CSCs) resulting in mammosphere formation, a phenotype that could be induced by upregulation of the zinc finger E-box binding homeobox 1 (ZEB1) protein expression induced by TGF-ß (548), which is a major cytokine of the TME (545). In NSCLC cell lines, two distinct CSC subpopulations have been described by expression of CD133 and the aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) (549). ALDHs compose an enzyme superfamily with metabolic functions. The analysis of its activity is often used to identify CSCs (550, 551). Analyzing CD133 and ALDH activity, Akunuru et al. separated cancer stem/progenitor cells (CD133⁺, ALDH^high) from non-CSCs (CD133⁻ or ALDH^low) and showed that non-CSCs can interconvert into CSCs. The latter process is activated by TGF-ß signaling or signaling by the zinc finger protein SNAI (Snail) transcription factor family. The described process underlines the dynamic plasticity of CSC/non-CSCs cells (549). After TGF-ß treatment, the authors observed an increase in IL-1ß and IL-6 as well as an increase in CD133⁺ and ALDH^high subpopulations (549).

Interferon-ß (IFN-ß) as well as Oncostatin M (OSM), also cytokines within the TME, have been shown to regulate CSC phenotypes (552). Activation of IFN-ß signaling pathways in non-CSCs blocks the expression of CD44 and Snail, which causes a decrease tumor sphere formation and additionally inhibits invasion (552). In contrast, OSM induces a stemness phenotype in non-CSCs (552). One of the major regulators of colorectal tumor plasticity (either CSCs or cancer cells) are the Wnt-ß-catenin and the KRAS/BRAF/ERK pathways, which have been implicated to regulate tumorsphere formation, self-renewal as well as resistance, as reviewed by Pereira et al. (553) and Zhan et al. (554). Activation of Wnt-signaling increased sphere and clone formation as well as drug resistance (555, 556). Acquisition of stemness was also described by Perekatt et al. using transgenic mice to analyze the function of Wnt-signaling in tumorigenesis and de-differentiation in the gut (28). The authors show that the inactivation of Smad 4, a factor that regulates the differentiation program, promoted the development of adenomas with characteristics of activated Wnt signaling over long-term periods (28). Such Wnt activation can correlate with increased treatment resistance as reviewed by Mohammed et al. (557). Also in gastric cancer, activation of the Wnt pathway causes an increase in CD44 as well as Oct-3/4 expression and correlates with an increased proliferation (558).

As described above, a gain of stemness due to SASP and CSC maintenance or by plasticity of CSCs and non-CSCs, can cause increased resistance (Figure 2). CSCs (pre-existing or post-therapeutically generated de novo) can escape the treatment by the expression of drug exporters and detoxification proteins, entrance into dormancy as well as resistance to DNA damage induced cell death (4, 15, 185, 559, 560). Their survival causes tumor relapses (Figure 2). To interfere with the relapse, several strategies have been under investigation to block CSC resistance and growth (9, 13), as described below (Figures 3, 4).

Figure 3

Figure 4

Eradication of CSCs: New Targeted Approaches

Targeting CSCs has been in the focus of research for many years (13). As reviewed by Shibata and Hoque, the combination of CSC-targeted therapies and conventional non-targeted therapies can result in a decreased chemoresistance (9). Approaches of CSC-targeted therapies include kinase inhibitors as well as targeting stem cell associated pathways such as Wnt and β-catenin, some of which have already entered the clinical phase (9, 13). Immunological approaches that target CSCs via MHC-restricted killing include adoptive cell transfer, targeting checkpoint inhibitors as well as antibody-based approaches and vaccination. MHC-unrestricted killing based on NK-, γδT-, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell approaches have been established (561, 562). Currently, these approaches are performed after failures of the first-line therapies.

Based on the promising results of CAR T-cellular therapy in treating hematological diseases, CAR T-cell-based approaches have also moved forward into the therapy of solid cancers (563, 564). Although, CAR T-cell-based approaches face difficulties in treating solid cancers, their therapeutic use could be a promising alternative (563, 564).

CAR Therapies Targeting CSCs

Targeting CD133⁺ CSCs

Targeting CD133⁺ CSCs in solid cancers has shown quite promising preclinical results either using monotherapeutic approaches (565, 566) or using combinational approaches together with cytostatic agents (567). Recently, a clinical trial testing CD133-directed CAR T-cells in patients with ALL, AML, breast, brain, liver, pancreatic and ovarian cancers as well as colorectal cancers has been completed (NCT02541370, Table 9). Initial results showed feasibility, safety, and efficacy of CD133-directed CAR T-cells in patients. Especially, HCC patients who were not responsive to sorafenib showed a median progression-free survival of 7 months (568). In all patients the duration of response ranged from 9 to 63 weeks; three patients showed a continued response at the time of publication. Stable disease was observed in 14 out of 23 patients for 9 weeks to 15.7 months and 21 patients did not show detectable signs of metastasis (568).

Additional studies (Table 9) are ongoing for the treatment of relapsed or refractory AML (NCT03473457), relapsed or late staged sarcoma (NCT03356782), as well as glioma (NCT03423992). A case study of a patient receiving CD133-directed CAR T-cells after previous chemo- and radiotherapy as well as EGFR-directed CAR T-cell therapy reported a partial response for a period of 4.5 months (569). However, severe toxicities affecting the skin, the oral mucosa, and the gastrointestinal tract were reported (569).

Targeting CD44⁺ CSCs

Although CD44 is a very prominent CSC antigen, only few CAR-based approaches targeting CD44 have been developed. Early approaches that entered clinical trials included monoclonal antibodies and antibody-conjugates. First studies involving ¹⁸⁶Re-conjugated antibody against the splice variant CD44v6 showed advantageous effects at first, however a long-term stable disease was only observed in one patient (570, 571). Likewise, the CD44-directed monoclonal antibody RG7356 showed only modest success in clinical trials with AML patients (572) and solid tumors (468). Tijink et al. coupled the CD44v6-directed antibody bivatuzumab to the cytotoxic antimicrotubule agent mertansine to produce an antibody-prodrug conjugate (573). Bivatuzumab mertansine was administered to seven patients and two of them showed stable disease during the therapy phase. However, one patient with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus died after treatment due to toxic epidermal necrolysis, which caused the premature cancelation of this trial (573). Because of this fatality, two clinical trials that were conducted in parallel for patients with metastatic breast cancer (574) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (575) had to be terminated.

Still, there are some promising approaches involving CD44v6-directed CAR therapies. For instance, cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cells carrying a CAR against CD44v6 showed anti-cancer effects against sarcoma in vitro and in vivo (576). Furthermore, a phase I/IIa clinical trial using CD44v6-directed CAR T-cells for AML and multiple myeloma patients is currently recruiting (NCT04097301) (Table 9).

Targeting EpCAM⁺ CSCs

Pre-clinical as well as clinical studies targeting EpCAM⁺ cancer cells using monoclonal antibodies or CAR constructs have been performed to date using co-culture and xenograft approaches (577–579) (Table 9). Combination therapy of EpCAM-directed CAR NK-92-cells and regorafenib, a potent multikinase inhibitor, resulted in a synergistic antitumor effect using for example colorectal cancer cells or xenograft models (580). CAR T-cells targeting EpCAM have been shown to significantly block tumor growth in xenografts and to secrete cytotoxic cytokines, including interferon-γ (IFN-γ) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) in vitro (579). Additionally, an injection of EpCAM-directed CAR T-cells led to delayed disease progression in immunodeficient mice with peritoneal ovarian and colorectal xenografts (581). Currently, there are several clinical trials with EpCAM-directed CAR T-cells listed for patients with various malignancies: three trials are ongoing (NCT02915445, NCT03563326, and NCT03013712), one trial is not yet recruiting (NCT04151186), and four trials are listed with unknown status (NCT02725125, NCT02728882, NCT02735291, and NCT02729493) (Table 9).

LSC-Directed CAR Therapies

In the field of CAR therapeutics, CD123 and CD33 are frequent targets for AML-specific CAR cells (Table 9). CAR T- and CAR NK-92-cells redirected against CD33 have entered clinical trials (Table 9). Case reports show a good tolerability of CD33-directed CAR NK-92-cells (372), but disease progression after treatment with CD33-directed CAR T-cells was still present (387). Currently, numerous clinical trials using CAR T-cells targeting CD123 are ongoing. NCT03672851 with two participants had to be terminated due to adverse effects (582). Furthermore, first studies implement CLL-1 as a target of CAR T-cells [Table 9; (419), NCT04010877 and NCT03222674].

Next Generation CARs and Targeting of CSCs in Combinational Therapies

For the more efficient CSC elimination, different approaches that have been developed can be used, i.e., tandem CAR T-cells (TanCAR) (583) as well as single universal (U) tricistronic transgene CAR T-cells (UCAR T-cells) (584). Multi-targeting of Her2, IL-13 receptor subunit alpha-2 (IL13Rα2), and ephrin-A2 (EphA2) was shown to overcome antigenic heterogeneity in 15 primary GBM samples and to increase the therapeutic success using xenograft models (584). Targeting two or more antigens may increase the risk for on-target/off-tumor toxicity, since most of the antigens are not only expressed on malignant cells, but also on healthy cells (60, 585). Improved safety, specificity, and flexibility can be obtained using universal CARs (UniCAR) or split, universal and programmable (SUPRA) CARs (585–589). Both consist of an inert and universal CAR construct without a single chain variable fragment (scFv) adaptor molecule domain in combination with a multiple tumor-targeting scFv adaptor molecule (585, 588, 589). In both cases, the activity of CAR T-cells can be regulated by the dosage of the scFv adaptor molecules or by introducing competitive molecules, such as leucine zippers as a regulator for the SUPRA CARs (588, 589). Additional safety of CAR T-cells can be achieved by the induction of suicide genes, e.g., iCasp9 (590, 591) or by inhibitory CAR (iCAR) constructs, in which signaling domains consist of an immuno-inhibitory receptor [e.g., CTLA-4 or PD-1; (592)]. An antigen only expressed on the surface of healthy cells is a target of iCAR and therefore the the attack of non-tumorigenic cells is greatly reduced (592). Specificity can be improved by using synthetic Notch (synNotch) receptors. The binding of synNotch specific to the antigen induces the cleavage of an intracellular domain and activates in turn the transcription of a second CAR, specific to another tumor antigen (593).

To enhance the targeting of solid tumors using CAR-based approaches, the combination treatment with conventional chemotherapeutic drugs could be a novel strategy to enhance antitumor response. To test this approach, NK-92 cells were modified with an EGFR-directed CAR construct against renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cell lines (594). In combination with the multikinase inhibitor cabozantinib, EGFR-directed CAR NK-92 cells showed synergistic effects in vitro and in vivo (594). Cabozantinib also caused a decrease of the anti-inflammatory PD-L1 surface expression in renal cell carcinoma cell lines (594). Furthermore, cabozantinib is known to reduce tumor infiltration of immuno-modulatory subpopulations like regulatory T-cells (Tregs) and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) (594, 595).

The combination of the multikinase inhibitor sunitinib and CAR T -cells targeting carbonic anhydrase IX (CAIX) has been shown to be of advantage as sunitinib reduces immunosuppressive components of the TME (596). Improvements could also be made using Her2-directed CAR NK-92-cells (92/5.137.z) in combination with apatinib (597). Treatment with CAR NK-92 alone resulted in an efficient elimination of small Her2⁺ tumor xenografts in vivo, but not in an elimination of larger solid tumors in gastric cancers (597). A combinatorial treatment with apatinib increased CAR NK-92 cell infiltration into these larger tumor xenografts and resulted in an enhanced antitumor efficacy of the cells (597).

In AML, early approaches focused on the targeting of single markers; combinatorial therapies, targeting more than one marker, have been tested here as well (598). Haubner et al. analyzed optimal combinations of different LSC markers and concluded that CD33/TIM-3 or CLL-1/TIM-3 combinatorial targeting is most suitable since these markers maximally cover AML cells and are minimally co-expressed on HSCs (370). Interestingly, the combination of CD33 and CD123 was found unsuitable (370). Approaches that already implement combinatorial targeting of AML LSCs include tri-specific killer engagers against CD33 and CD123 (373), compound CAR T-cells against CD33 and CD123 (374) or CLL-1 and CD33 (i.e., NCT03795779), universal CAR T-cells against CD33 and CD123 (375), and CAR CIK-cells against CD33 and CD123 (376).

Future Perspectives

Studies obtained in the last 5–10 years confirmed the importance and the urgent need of diagnostic screening of the TME not only before the treatment, but also at several stages in the post-therapeutic period. This is within the context of personalized therapies that are based on the idea to identify the best therapeutic approach for the patient. This approach should be based on the tumors molecular signature, involving the TME. The best and the most appropriate therapeutic options, which match each individual patient's requirements will increase the therapeutic efficacy and will cause fewer side effects.

The particular value of post-therapeutic local biopsies is that they enable the evaluation of tumor relapse risk on the basis of multivariate biomarkers and also provide information on therapeutically addressable targets within the remaining tumor tissue. In-time detection of tumor-promoting cells, which re-emerge in the post-therapeutic period (Figure 3), will allow an application of the individualized and precise second-line therapy in a timely fashion. Detection of tumor cells with stemness phenotypes will allow for their directed and specific targeting using the second-line treatments, depending on a different mode of action (4, 560). This secondary specific therapy can include, targeted therapies such as e.g., immunotherapies, CAR NK-, and CAR T-cells that mediate a precise eradication of several types of cells: CSCs, CAFs, and/or remaining senescent cells. To increase the specificity and therapeutic outcome and to decrease severe side effects, CAR-based therapeutics are constantly being optimized, as discussed in the section above. Special needs are: improvement of target specificity in combination with decreased off-target effects. In addition, secondary therapies could also include senolytic drugs that selectively kill senescent cells as it was discussed in a recent comprehensive review by Short et al. (599). These therapies cause very low or minor side-effects after their administration (599). In the post-therapeutic period, however, it is important to focus on the biomarkers of CSCs as well as the biomarkers of senescent tumor cells, tumor-promoting SASP molecules, CAFs and TAMs. These cells and molecules strongly influence tumor relapse and their monitoring and their in-time elimination is crucial (Figure 3). As currently available blood test systems are not sensitive enough to detect local changes in the TME, other methods for instance local biopsies and subsequent multivariant analysis of obtained tissues should be used whenever possible and even after many years upon the first-line therapy (Figure 3).

The analysis of multivariant biomarker, however is not only of importance within the post-therapeutic situation. A detailed understanding of the tumor composition before the treatment could allow straight forward first line therapies (Figure 4). Target analysis includes CSCs, CAFs, tumors cells and TAMs, and other tumor-promoting cells. Therapeutic options such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy in combination with small molecules and immunotherapies (CAR cells) could tremendously improve the outcome of the first-line approaches and predict relapses (Figure 4). Combinations already in the first-line therapy are especially required in advanced stages of malignant disease.

In conclusion, our review gives an overview of the most important biomarkers of CSCs in the TME. Furthermore, we underline the value of local biopsies and precise diagnostics and screening of biomarkers in both pre- and post-therapeutic situations (Figures 3, 4). We suggest the implementation of those strategies in the first and second-line personalized therapy required to eradicate the remaining tumor-promoting senescent tumor cells, CAFs, TAMs, and finally CSCs to protect from tumor recurrence.

The high costs are one point of contention regarding the biopsies and their analysis as well as the implementation of immunotherapies into the first and secondary line targeted therapies. However, considering the costs for therapies, comprising resection, and medication strategies, as well as the patient's sufferings due to a re-emerged full-blown cancer, the targeted therapy will help to save the patients and clinics from high personnel, emotional, and medicinal costs.

References

• 1.

  BrayFFerlayJSoerjomataramISiegelRLTorreLAJemalA. Global cancer statistics 2018: globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2018) 68:394–424. 10.3322/caac.21492

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2.

  CappJ-P. Cancer stem cells: from historical roots to a new perspective. J Oncol. (2019) 2019:5189232. 10.1155/2019/5189232

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3.

  SpillaneJBHendersonMA. Cancer stem cells: a review. ANZ J Surg. (2007) 77:464–8. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2007.04096.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4.

  PhiLTSariINYangY-GLeeS-HJunNKimKSet al. Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs) in drug resistance and their therapeutic implications in cancer treatment. Stem Cells Int. (2018) 2018:5416923. 10.1155/2018/5416923

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5.

  ReyaTMorrisonSJCLarkeMFWeissmanIL. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature. (2001) 414:105–11. 10.1038/35102167

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6.

  AyobAZRamasamyTS. Cancer stem cells as key drivers of tumour progression. J Biomed Sci. (2018) 25:20. 10.1186/s12929-018-0426-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7.

  KuşogluABirayAvci Ç. Cancer stem cells: a brief review of the current status. Gene. (2019) 681:80–5. 10.1016/j.gene.2018.09.052

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8.

  ArnoldCRMangesiusJSkvortsovaI-IGanswindtU. The role of cancer stem cells in radiation resistance. Front. Oncol. (2020) 10:164. 10.3389/fonc.2020.00164

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9.

  ShibataMHoqueMO. Targeting cancer stem cells: a strategy for effective eradication of cancer. Cancers. (2019) 11:732. 10.3390/cancers11050732

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10.

  ZengSShenWHLiuL. Senescence and cancer. Cancer Transl Med. (2018) 4:70–4. 10.4103/ctm.ctm_22_18

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11.

  ScuricZCarrollJEBowerJERamos-PerlbergSPetersenLEsquivelSet al. Biomarkers of aging associated with past treatments in breast cancer survivors. NPJ Breast Cancer.3:1–7. 10.1038/s41523-017-0050-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12.

  FanDNSchmittCA. Detecting markers of therapy-induced senescence in cancer cells. In: NikiforovMA editor. Oncogene-Induced Senescence: Methods and Protocols. New York, NY: Humana Press (2017). p. 41–52.

  • Google Scholar

• 13.

  DesaiAYanYGersonSL. Concise reviews: cancer stem cell targeted therapies: toward clinical success. Stem Cells Transl Med. (2019) 8:75–81. 10.1002/sctm.18-0123

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14.

  MilanovicMFanDNBelenkiDDäbritzJHZhaoZYuYet al. Senescence-associated reprogramming promotes cancer stemness. Nature. (2018) 553:96–100. 10.1038/nature25167

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15.

  GuptaPBPastushenkoISkibinskiABlanpainCKuperwasserC. Phenotypic plasticity: driver of cancer initiation, progression, and therapy resistance. Cell Stem Cell. (2019) 24:65–78. 10.1016/j.stem.2018.11.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16.

  PoliVFagnocchiLZippoA. Tumorigenic cell reprogramming and cancer plasticity: interplay between signaling, microenvironment, and epigenetics. Stem Cells Int. (2018) 2018:4598195. 10.1155/2018/4598195

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17.

  AngelisML deFrancescangeliFLa TorreFZeunerA. Stem cell plasticity and dormancy in the development of cancer therapy resistance. Front. Oncol. (2019) 9:626. 10.3389/fonc.2019.00626

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18.

  YuanSNorgardRJStangerBZ. Cellular plasticity in cancer. Cancer Discov. (2019) 9:837–51. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19.

  HanahanDWeinbergRA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. (2011) 144:646–74. 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20.

  BasuAK. DNA damage, mutagenesis and cancer. Int J Mol Sci. (2018) 19:970. 10.3390/ijms19040970

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21.

  BlackadarCB. Historical review of the causes of cancer. World J Clin Oncol. (2016) 7:54–86. 10.5306/wjco.v7.i1.54

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22.

  LiLNeavesWB. Normal stem cells and cancer stem cells: the niche matters. Cancer Res. (2006) 66:4553–7. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3986

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23.

  SellS. Cellular origin of cancer: dedifferentiation or stem cell maturation arrest?Environ Health Perspect. (1993) 101(Suppl. 5):15–26. 10.1289/ehp.93101s515

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24.

  HayakawaYFoxJGWangTC. The origins of gastric cancer from gastric stem cells: lessons from mouse models. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. (2017) 3:331–8. 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.01.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25.

  KoulisABuckleABoussioutasA. Premalignant lesions and gastric cancer: current understanding. World J Gastroentero Oncol. (2019) 11:665–78. 10.4251/wjgo.v11.i9.665

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26.

  HataMHayakawaYKoikeK. Gastric stem cell and cellular origin of cancer. Biomedicines. (2018) 6:100. 10.3390/biomedicines6040100

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27.

  LiX-BYangGZhuLTangY-LZhangCJuZet al. Gastric Lgr5+ stem cells are the cellular origin of invasive intestinal-type gastric cancer in mice. Cell Res. (2016) 26:838–49. 10.1038/cr.2016.47

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28.

  PerekattAOShahPPCheungSJariwalaNWuAGandhiVet al. SMAD4 suppresses WNT-driven dedifferentiation and oncogenesis in the differentiated gut epithelium. Cancer Res. (2018) 78:4878–90. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29.

  MuXEspañol-SuñerRMederackeIAffòSMancoRSempouxCet al. Hepatocellular carcinoma originates from hepatocytes and not from the progenitor/biliary compartment. J Clin Invest. (2015) 125:3891–903. 10.1172/JCI77995

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30.

  JörsSJeliazkovaPRingelhanMThalhammerJDürlSFerrerJet al. Lineage fate of ductular reactions in liver injury and carcinogenesis. J Clin Invest. (2015) 125:2445–57. 10.1172/JCI78585

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31.

  HolczbauerÁFactorVMAndersenJBMarquardtJUKleinerDERaggiCet al. Modeling pathogenesis of primary liver cancer in lineage-specific mouse cell types. Gastroenterology. (2013) 145:221–31. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.03.013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32.

  OikawaT. Cancer stem cells and their cellular origins in primary liver and biliary tract cancers. Hepatology. (2016) 64:645–51. 10.1002/hep.28485

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33.

  PolyakK. Breast cancer: origins and evolution. J Clin Invest. (2007) 117:3155–63. 10.1172/JCI33295

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34.

  ZarzynskaJM. Chapter 12: The role of stem cells in breast cancer. In: Van PhamP editor. Breast Cancer - From Biology to Medicine.VNU-HCM University of Science; INTECH Open. (2017) 231–49. 10.5772/66904

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35.

  ZhouJChenQZouYChenHQiLChenY. Stem cells and cellular origins of breast cancer: updates in the rationale, controversies, and therapeutic implications. Front. Oncol. (2019) 9:820. 10.3389/fonc.2019.00820

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36.

  WangJXuB. Targeted therapeutic options and future perspectives for HER2-positive breast cancer. Sig Transduct Target Ther. (2019) 4:1–22. 10.1038/s41392-019-0069-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37.

  Sánchez-DanésABlanpainC. Deciphering the cells of origin of squamous cell carcinomas. Nat Rev Cancer. (2018) 18:549–61. 10.1038/s41568-018-0024-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38.

  YamanoSGiMTagoYDoiKOkadaSHirayamaYet al. Role of deltaNp63(pos)CD44v(pos) cells in the development of n-nitroso-tris-chloroethylurea-induced peripheral-type mouse lung squamous cell carcinomas. Cancer Sci. (2016) 107:123–32. 10.1111/cas.12855

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39.

  HardavellaGGeorgeRSethiT. Lung cancer stem cells—characteristics, phenotype. Transl Lung Cancer Res. (2016) 5:272–9. 10.21037/tlcr.2016.02.01

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40.

  FukuiTShaykhievRAgosto-PerezFMezeyJGDowneyRJTravisWDet al. Lung adenocarcinoma subtypes based on expression of human airway basal cell genes. Eur Respir J. (2013) 42:1332–44. 10.1183/09031936.00144012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41.

  KimCFJacksonELWoolfendenAELawrenceSBabarIVogelSet al. Identification of bronchioalveolar stem cells in normal lung and lung cancer. Cell. (2005) 121:823–35. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.03.032

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42.

  SutherlandKDProostNBrounsIAdriaensenDSongJ-YBernsA. Cell of origin of small cell lung cancer: inactivation of trp53 and rb1 in distinct cell types of adult mouse lung. Cancer Cell. (2011) 19:754–64. 10.1016/j.ccr.2011.04.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43.

  BonnetDDickJE. Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. (1997) 3:730–7. 10.1038/nm0797-730

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44.

  CzehMRosenbauerF. Uncovering a new cellular origin for acute myeloid leukemia with lineage plasticity. Mol Cell Oncol. (2017) 4:e1268241. 10.1080/23723556.2016.1268241

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45.

  RiemkePCzehMFischerJWalterCGhaniSZepperMet al. Myeloid leukemia with transdifferentiation plasticity developing from T-cell progenitors. EMBO J. (2016) 35:2399–416. 10.15252/embj.201693927

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46.

  StuartSAMinamiYWangJY. The CML stem cell: evolution of the progenitor. Cell CyCLe. (2009) 8:1338–43. 10.4161/cc.8.9.8209

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47.

  ZhouHXuR. Leukemia stem cells: the root of chronic myeloid leukemia. Protein Cell. (2015) 6:403–12. 10.1007/s13238-015-0143-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48.

  EbingerSÖzdemirEZZiegenhainCTiedtSCastro AlvesCGrunertMet al. Characterization of rare, dormant, and therapy-Resistant cells in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer Cell. (2016) 30:849–62. 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.11.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49.

  Martinez-CLimentJAFontanLGascoyneRDSiebertRProsperF. Lymphoma stem cells: enough evidence to support their existence?Haematologica. (2010) 95:293–302. 10.3324/haematol.2009.013318

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50.

  LangFWojcikBRiegerMA. Stem cell hierarchy and clonal evolution in acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Stem Cells Int. (2015) 2015:137164. 10.1155/2015/137164

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51.

  AfifySMSenoM. Conversion of stem cells to cancer stem cells: undercurrent of cancer initiation. Cancers. (2019) 11:345. 10.3390/cancers11030345

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52.

  BuPChenK-YLipkinSMShenX. Asymmetric division: a marker for cancer stem cells?Oncotarget. (2013) 4:950–1. 10.18632/oncotarget.1029

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53.

  GoardonNMarchiEAtzbergerAQuekLSchuhASonejiSet al. Coexistence of lMPP-like and gMP-like leukemia stem cells in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Cell. (2011) 19:138–52. 10.1016/j.ccr.2010.12.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54.

  QuekLOttoGWGarnettCLhermitteLKaramitrosDStoilovaBet al. Genetically distinct leukemic stem cells in human CD34- acute myeloid leukemia are arrested at a hemopoietic precursor-like stage. J Exp Med. (2016) 213:1513–35. 10.1084/jem.20151775

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55.

  ChopraMBohlanderSK. The cell of origin and the leukemia stem cell in acute myeloid leukemia. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. (2019) 58:850–8. 10.1002/gcc.22805

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56.

  CabreraMCHollingsworthREHurtEM. Cancer stem cell plasticity and tumor hierarchy. World J Stem Cells. (2015) 7:27–36. 10.4252/wjsc.v7.i1.27

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57.

  RichJN. Cancer stem cells: understanding tumor hierarchy and heterogeneity. Medicine. (2016) 95:S2–7. 10.1097/MD.0000000000004764

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58.

  BergerDPMertelsmannR editors. Das Rote Buch: Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie. Landsberg am Lech: ecomed MEDIZIN (2017). p. 1400.

  • Google Scholar

• 59.

  SellS. Alpha-fetoprotein, stem cells and cancer: how study of the production of alpha-fetoprotein during chemical hepatocarcinogenesis led to reaffirmation of the stem cell theory of cancer. Tumour Biol. (2008) 29:161–80. 10.1159/000143402

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60.

  KimW-TRyuCJ. Cancer stem cell surface markers on normal stem cells. BMB Rep. (2017) 50:285–98. 10.5483/BMBRep.2017.50.6.039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61.

  SuJWuSWuHLeLiGuoT. CD44 is functionally crucial for driving lung cancer stem cells metastasis through Wnt/β-catenin-FoxM1-Twist signaling. Mol Carcinog. (2016) 55:1962–73. 10.1002/mc.22443

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62.

  SatarNAFakiruddinKSLimMNMokPLZakariaNFakharuziNAet al. Novel triplepositive markers identified in human nonsmall cell lung cancer cell line with chemotherapy-resistant and putative cancer stem cell characteristics. Oncol Rep. (2018) 40:669–81. 10.3892/or.2018.6461

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63.

  HuBMaYYangYZhangLHanHChenJ. CD44 promotes cell proliferation in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett. (2018) 15:5627–33. 10.3892/ol.2018.8051

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64.

  SudaKMurakamiIYuHKimJTanA-CMizuuchiHet al. CD44 facilitates epithelial-to-Mesenchymal transition phenotypic change at acquisition of resistance to EGFR kinase inhibitors in lung cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. (2018) 17:2257–65. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-1279

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65.

  NishinoMOzakiMHegabAEHamamotoJKagawaSAraiDet al. Variant CD44 expression is enriching for a cell population with cancer stem cell-like characteristics in human lung adenocarcinoma. J Cancer. (2017) 8:1774–85. 10.7150/jca.19732

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66.

  ZakariaNYusoffNMZakariaZLimMNBaharuddinPJFakiruddinKSet al. Human non-small cell lung cancer expresses putative cancer stem cell markers and exhibits the transcriptomic profile of multipotent cells. BMC Cancer. (2015) 15:84. 10.1186/s12885-015-1086-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67.

  PrabavathyDSwaRNAlathaYRamadossN. Lung cancer stem cells-origin, characteristics and therapy. Stem Cell Investig. (2018) 5:6. 10.21037/sci.2018.02.01

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68.

  TestaUCastelliGPelosiE. Lung cancers: molecular characterization, clonal heterogeneity and evolution, and cancer stem cells. Cancers. (2018) 10:248. 10.3390/cancers10080248

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69.

  MaiuthedAChantarawongWChanvorachoteP. Lung cancer stem cells and cancer stem cell-targeting natural compounds. Anticancer Res. (2018) 38:3797–809. 10.21873/anticanres.12663

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70.

  ParkEParkSYSunP-LJinYKimJEJheonSet al. Prognostic significance of stem cell-related marker expression and its correlation with histologic subtypes in lung adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:42502–12. 10.18632/oncotarget.9894

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71.

  AlamgeerMNeil WatkinsDBanakhIKumarBGoughDJMarkmanBet al. A phase IIa study of HA-irinotecan, formulation of hyaluronic acid and irinotecan targeting CD44 in extensive-stage small cell lung cancer. Invest New Drugs. (2018) 36:288–98. 10.1007/s10637-017-0555-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72.

  QuanYHLimJ-YChoiBHChoiYChoiYHParkJ-Het al. Self-targeted knockdown of CD44 improves cisplatin sensitivity of chemoresistant non-small cell lung cancer cells. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. (2019) 83:399–410. 10.1007/s00280-018-3737-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73.

  KawanoYIwamaETsuchihashiKShibaharaDHaradaTTanakaKet al. CD44 variant-dependent regulation of redox balance in EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer: a target for treatment. Lung Cancer. (2017) 113:72–8. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.09.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74.

  HuangXWanJLengDZhangYYangS. Dual-targeting nanomicelles with CD133 and CD44 aptamers for enhanced delivery of gefitinib to two populations of lung cancer-initiating cells. Exp Ther Med. (2020) 19:192–204. 10.3892/etm.2019.8220

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75.

  LuoYWangXDuDLinY. Hyaluronic acid-conjugated apoferritin nanocages for lung cancer targeted drug delivery. Biomater Sci. (2015) 3:1386–94. 10.1039/C5BM00067J

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76.

  AlshaerWHillaireauHVergnaudJIsmailSFattalE. Functionalizing liposomes with anti-CD44 aptamer for selective targeting of cancer cells. Bioconjug Chem. (2015) 26:1307–13. 10.1021/bc5004313

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77.

  SongYCaiHYinTHuoMMaPZhouJet al. PaCLitaxel-loaded redox-sensitive nanopartiCLes based on hyaluronic acid-vitamin E succinate conjugates for improved lung cancer treatment. Int J Nanomed. (2018) 13:1585–600. 10.2147/IJN.S155383

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78.

  ParasharPRathorMDwivediMSarafSA. Hyaluronic acid decorated naringenin nanoparticles: appraisal of chemopreventive and curative potential for lung cancer. Pharmaceutics. (2018) 10:33. 10.3390/pharmaceutics10010033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79.

  TianYZhangHQinYLiDLiuYWangHet al. Overcoming drug-resistant lung cancer by paCLitaxel-loaded hyaluronic acid-coated liposomes targeted to mitochondria. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. (2018) 44:2071–82. 10.1080/03639045.2018.1512613

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80.

  ZhangWXuWLanYHeXLiuKLiangY. Antitumor effect of hyaluronic-acid-modified chitosan nanopartiCLes loaded with siRNA for targeted therapy for non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Nanomedicine. (2019) 14:5287–301. 10.2147/IJN.S203113

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81.

  ShinoharaSHanagiriTTairaATakenakaMOkaSChikaishiYet al. Immunohistochemical expression and serum levels of CD44 as prognostic indicators in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Oncology. (2016) 90:327–38. 10.1159/000445951

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82.

  QiuXWangZLiYMiaoYRenYLuanY. Characterization of sphere-forming cells with stem-like properties from the small cell lung cancer cell line H446. Cancer Lett. (2012) 323:161–70. 10.1016/j.canlet.2012.04.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83.

  YanXLuoHZhouXZhuBWangYBianX. Identification of CD90 as a marker for lung cancer stem cells in a549 and h446 cell lines. Oncol Rep. (2013) 30:2733–40. 10.3892/or.2013.2784

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84.

  KorenARijavecMKernISodjaEKorosecPCuferT. BMI1, ALDH1A1, and CD133 transcripts connect epithelial-mesenchymal transition to cancer stem cells in lung carcinoma. Stem Cells Int. (2016) 2016:9714315. 10.1155/2016/9714315

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85.

  AlamaAGangemiRFerriniSBarisioneGOrengoAMTruiniMet al. CD133-Positive cells from non-Small cell lung cancer show distinct sensitivity to cisplatin and afatinib. Arch Immunol Ther Exp. (2015) 63:207–14. 10.1007/s00005-015-0330-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86.

  EramoALottiFSetteGPilozziEBiffoniMDi VirgilioAet al. Identification and expansion of the tumorigenic lung cancer stem cell population. Cell Death Differ. (2008) 15:504–14. 10.1038/sj.cdd.4402283

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87.

  HuangZYuHZhangJJingHZhuWLiXet al. Correlation of cancer stem cell markers and immune cell markers in resected non-small cell lung cancer. J Cancer. (2017) 8:3190–7. 10.7150/jca.20172

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88.

  LiLLiJ-CYangHZhangXLiuL-LLiYet al. Expansion of cancer stem cell pool initiates lung cancer recurrence before angiogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2018) 115:E8948–57. 10.1073/pnas.1806219115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89.

  LiuXWeiHLiuYZhaoMWuSYangY. Construction of high sensitive CD133 immune PLGA magnetic spheres platform for lung cancer stem cells isolation and its property evaluation. J Biomed Nanotechnol. (2018) 14:1066–74. 10.1166/jbn.2018.2562

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90.

  SuY-JLinW-HChangY-WWeiK-CLiangC-LChenS-Cet al. Polarized cell migration induces cancer type-specific CD133/integrin/Src/Akt/GSK3β/β-catenin signaling required for maintenance of cancer stem cell properties. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:38029–45. 10.18632/oncotarget.5703

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91.

  BertoliniGD'AmicoLMoroMLandoniEPeregoPMiceliRet al. Microenvironment-modulated metastatic CD133+/CXCR4+/EpCAM- lung cancer-Initiating cells sustain tumor dissemination and correlate with poor prognosis. Cancer Res. (2015) 75:3636–49. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-3781

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92.

  ChenYZhangFTsaiYYangXYangLDuanSet al. IL-6 signaling promotes DNA repair and prevents apoptosis in CD133+ stem-like cells of lung cancer after radiation. Radiat Oncol. (2015) 10:227. 10.1186/s13014-015-0534-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93.

  ZhaoWLuoYLiBZhangT. Tumorigenic lung tumorospheres exhibit stem-like features with significantly increased expression of CD133 and ABCG2. Mol Med Rep. (2016) 14:2598–606. 10.3892/mmr.2016.5524

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94.

  KoyamaKKatsuradaNJimboNTachiharaMTamuraDNakataKet al. Overexpression of CD 133 and bCL-2 in non-small cell lung cancer with neuroendocrine differentiation after transformation in ALK rearrangement-positive adenocarcinoma. Pathol Int. (2019) 69:294–9. 10.1111/pin.12782

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95.

  MoroMBertoliniGCaseriniRBorziCBoeriMFabbriAet al. Establishment of patient derived xenografts as functional testing of lung cancer aggressiveness. Sci. Rep. (2017) 7:6689. 10.1038/s41598-017-06912-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96.

  ZhaoCSetrerrahmaneSXuH. Enrichment and characterization of cancer stem cells from a human non-small cell lung cancer cell line. Oncol Rep. (2015) 34:2126–32. 10.3892/or.2015.4163

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97.

  SunF-FHuY-HXiongL-PTuX-YZhaoJ-HChenS-Set al. Enhanced expression of stem cell markers and drug resistance in sphere-forming non-small cell lung cancer cells. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. (2015) 8:6287–300.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 98.

  YuJWangSZhaoWDuanJWangZChenHet al. Mechanistic exploration of cancer stem cell marker voltage-Dependent calcium channel α2δ1 subunit-mediated chemotherapy resistance in small-cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2018) 24:2148–58. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1932

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99.

  SarviSMackinnonACAvlonitisNBradleyMRintoulRCRasslDMet al. CD133+ cancer stem-like cells in small cell lung cancer are highly tumorigenic and chemoresistant but sensitive to a novel neuropeptide antagonist. Cancer Res. (2014) 74:1554–65. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-1541

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100.

  MengXLiMWangXWangYMaD. Both CD133+ and CD133- subpopulations of a549 and h446 cells contain cancer-initiating cells. Cancer Sci. (2009) 100:1040–6. 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2009.01144.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101.

  HuangXHuangJLengDYangSYaoQSunJet al. Gefitinib-loaded DSPE-PEG2000 nanomicelles with CD133 aptamers target lung cancer stem cells. World J Surg Oncol. (2017) 15:167. 10.1186/s12957-017-1230-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102.

  MaJZhuangHZhuangZLuYXiaRGanLet al. Development of docetaxel liposome surface modified with CD133 aptamers for lung cancer targeting. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol. (2018) 46:1864–71. 10.1080/21691401.2017.1394874

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103.

  ZhouJSunJChenHPengQ. Promoted delivery of salinomycin sodium to lung cancer cells by dual targeting PLGA hybrid nanopartiCLes. Int J Oncol. (2018) 53:1289–300. 10.3892/ijo.2018.4474

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104.

  ZhouJSunMJinSFanLZhuWSuiXet al. Combined using of paclitaxel and salinomycin active targeting nanostructured lipid carriers against non-small cell lung cancer and cancer stem cells. Drug Deliv. (2019) 26:281–9. 10.1080/10717544.2019.1580799

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105.

  BertoliniGRozLPeregoPTortoretoMFontanellaEGattiLet al. Highly tumorigenic lung cancer CD133+ cells display stem-like features and are spared by cisplatin treatment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2009) 106:16281–6. 10.1073/pnas.0905653106

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106.

  WangDWenG-MHouWXiaP. The roles of CD133 expression in the patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Biomark. (2018) 22:385–94. 10.3233/CBM-170835

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107.

  MiyataTOyamaTYoshimatsuTHigaHKawanoDSekimuraAet al. The Clinical significance of cancer stem cell markers ALDH1A1 and CD133 in lung adenocarcinoma. Anticancer Res. (2017) 37:2541–7. 10.21873/anticanres.11597

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108.

  SuCXuYLiXRenSZhaoCHouLet al. Predictive and prognostic effect of CD133 and cancer-testis antigens in stage Ib-IIIA non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. (2015) 8:5509–18.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 109.

  QiuZ-XZhaoSMoX-MLiW-M. Overexpression of PROM1 (CD133) confers poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. (2015) 8:6589–95.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 110.

  WenG-MMouF-FHouWWangDXiaP. Integrative analysis of CD133 mRNA in human cancers based on data mining. Stem Cell Rev Rep. (2019) 15:23–34. 10.1007/s12015-018-9865-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111.

  SowaTMenjuTSonobeMNakanishiTShikumaKImamuraNet al. Association between epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer stemness and their effect on the prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Med. (2015) 4:1853–62. 10.1002/cam4.556

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112.

  ChenEZengZBaiBZhuJSongZ. The prognostic value of CSCs biomarker CD133 in NSCLC: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:56526–39. 10.18632/oncotarget.10964

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113.

  ZhaoMZhangYZhangHWangSZhangMChenXet al. Hypoxia-induced cell stemness leads to drug resistance and poor prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. (2015) 87:98–106. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.11.017

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114.

  HanssenAWagnerJGorgesTMTaenzerAUzunogluFGDriemelCet al. Characterization of different CTC subpopulations in non-small cell lung cancer. Sci. Rep. (2016) 6:28010. 10.1038/srep28010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115.

  JahchanNSLimJSBolaBMorrisKSeitzGTranKQet al. Identification and targeting of long-term tumor-Propagating cells in small cell lung cancer. Cell Rep. (2016) 16:644–56. 10.1016/j.celrep.2016.06.021

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116.

  ChenLPengMLiNSongQYaoYXuBet al. Combined use of epCAM and FRα enables the high-efficiency capture of circulating tumor cells in non-small cell lung cancer. Sci. Rep. (2018) 8:1188. 10.1038/s41598-018-19391-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117.

  WitS deRossiEWeberSTammingaMManiconeMSwennenhuisJFet al. Single tube liquid biopsy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Cancer. (2019) 144:3127–37. 10.1002/ijc.32056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118.

  ZamayGSKolovskayaOSIvanchenkoTIZamayTNVeprintsevDVGrigorievaVLet al. Development of DNA aptamers to native EpCAM for isolation of lung circulating tumor cells from human blood. Cancers. (2019) 11:351. 10.3390/cancers11030351

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119.

  RudAKBoyeKFodstadØJuellSJørgensenLHSolbergSet al. Detection of disseminated tumor cells in lymph nodes from patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Diagn Pathol. (2016) 11:50. 10.1186/s13000-016-0504-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120.

  GaoWHuangTYuanHYangJJinQJiaCet al. Highly sensitive detection and mutational analysis of lung cancer circulating tumor cells using integrated combined immunomagnetic beads with a droplet digital PCR chip. Talanta. (2018) 185:229–36. 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.03.083

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121.

  AlibolandiMRamezaniMAbnousKSadeghiFAtyabiFAsouriMet al. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of therapy targeting epithelial-cell adhesion-molecule aptamers for non-small cell lung cancer. J Control Release. (2015) 209:88–100. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2015.04.026

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122.

  ThompsonJCFanRBlackTYuGHSavitchSLChienAet al. Measurement and immunophenotyping of pleural fluid epCAM-positive cells and CLusters for the management of non-small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer. (2019) 127:25–33. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.11.020

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123.

  ZhouNWangHLiuHXueHLinFMengXet al. MTA1-upregulated epCAM is associated with metastatic behaviors and poor prognosis in lung cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. (2015) 34:157. 10.1186/s13046-015-0263-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124.

  WitS devan DalumGLenferinkATTibbeAGHiltermannTJGroenHJet al. The detection of epCAM(+) and epCAM(-) circulating tumor cells. Sci. Rep. (2015) 5:12270. 10.1038/srep12270

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125.

  GaoFZhouBXuJ-CGaoXLiS-XZhuG-Cet al. The role of LGR5 and ALDH1A1 in non-small cell lung cancer: cancer progression and prognosis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2015) 462:91–8. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.04.029

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126.

  KohYWHanJ-HHaamSJungJ. ALDH1 expression correlates with an epithelial-like phenotype and favorable prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma: a study based on immunohistochemistry and mRNA expression data. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2019) 145:1427–36. 10.1007/s00432-019-02906-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127.

  Codony-ServatJCodony-ServatCCardonaAFGiménez-CapitánADrozdowskyjABerenguerJet al. Cancer stem cell biomarkers in EGFR-mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. (2019) 20:167–77. 10.1016/j.CLlc.2019.02.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128.

  JiangFQiuQKhannaAToddNWDeepakJXingLet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 is a tumor stem cell-associated marker in lung cancer. Mol Cancer Res. (2009) 7:330–8. 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-08-0393

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129.

  MascialeVGrisendiGBanchelliFD'AmicoRMaioranaASighinolfiPet al. Isolation and identification of cancer stem-like cells in adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: a Pilot study. Front. Oncol. (2019) 9:1394. 10.3389/fonc.2019.01394

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130.

  Codony-ServatJVerlicchiARosellR. Cancer stem cells in small cell lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res. (2016) 5:16–25. 10.3978/j.issn.2218-6751.2016.01.01

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131.

  RossiAVoigtlaenderMKloseHSchlüterHSchönGLogesSet al. High aldehyde dehydrogenase levels are detectable in the serum of patients with lung cancer and may be exploited as screening biomarkers. J Oncol. (2019) 2019:8970645. 10.1155/2019/8970645

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132.

  LiuXWangLCuiWYuanXLinLCaoQet al. Targeting ALDH1A1 by disulfiram/copper complex inhibits non-small cell lung cancer recurrence driven by ALDH-positive cancer stem cells. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:58516–30. 10.18632/oncotarget.11305

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133.

  KangJHLeeS-HLeeJ-SNamBSeongTWSonJet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase inhibition combined with phenformin treatment reversed nSCLC through aTP depletion. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:49397–410. 10.18632/oncotarget.10354

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134.

  WangN-NWangL-HLiYFuS-YXueXJiaL-Net al. Targeting ALDH2 with disulfiram/copper reverses the resistance of cancer cells to microtubule inhibitors. Exp Cell Res. (2018) 362:72–82. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.11.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135.

  MoriseMHishidaTTakahashiAYoshidaJOheYNagaiKet al. CLinicopathological significance of cancer stem-like cell markers in high-grade neuroendocrine carcinoma of the lung. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2015) 141:2121–30. 10.1007/s00432-015-1985-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136.

  LiS-JHuangJZhouX-DZhangW-BLaiY-TCheG-W. CLinicopathological and prognostic significance of oct-4 expression in patients with non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Dis. (2016) 8:1587–600. 10.21037/jtd.2016.06.01

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137.

  Kouros-MehrHBechisSKSlorachEMLittlepageLEEgebladMEwaldAJet al. GATA-3 links tumor differentiation and dissemination in a luminal breast cancer model. Cancer Cell. (2008) 13:141–52. 10.1016/j.ccr.2008.01.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138.

  BarnawiRAl-KhaldiSColakDTulbahAAl-TweigeriTFallatahMet al. β1 Integrin is essential for fascin-mediated breast cancer stem cell function and disease progression. Int J Cancer. (2019) 145:830–41. 10.1002/ijc.32183

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139.

  Da Cruz PaulaALeitãoCMarquesORosaAMSantosAHRêmaAet al. Molecular characterization of CD44+/CD24-/Ck+/CD45- cells in benign and malignant breast lesions. Virchows Arch. (2017) 470:311–22. 10.1007/s00428-017-2068-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140.

  NamKOhSLeeKMYooSAShinI. CD44 regulates cell proliferation, migration, and invasion via modulation of c-Src transcription in human breast cancer cells. Cell Signal. (2015) 27:1882–94. 10.1016/j.cellsig.2015.05.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141.

  ZhangHBrownRLWeiYZhaoPLiuSLiuXet al. CD44 splice isoform switching determines breast cancer stem cell state. Genes Dev. (2019) 33:166–79. 10.1101/gad.319889.118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142.

  ZhangLXuLZhangFVlashiE. Doxycycline inhibits the cancer stem cell phenotype and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition in breast cancer. Cell Cycle. (2017) 16:737–45. 10.1080/15384101.2016.1241929

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143.

  GeGZhouCRenYTangXWangKZhangWet al. Enhanced SLC34A2 in breast cancer stem cell-like cells induces chemotherapeutic resistance to doxorubicin via SLC34A2-Bmi1-ABCC5 signaling. Tumour Biol. (2016) 37:5049–62. 10.1007/s13277-015-4226-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144.

  ColacinoJAAziziEBrooksMDHarouakaRFouladdelSMCDermottSPet al. Heterogeneity of human breast stem and progenitor cells as revealed by transcriptional profiling. Stem Cell Reports. (2018) 10:1596–609. 10.1016/j.stemcr.2018.03.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145.

  HuJLiGZhangPZhuangXHuG. A CD44v+ subpopulation of breast cancer stem-like cells with enhanced lung metastasis capacity. Cell Death Dis. (2017) 8:e2679. 10.1038/cddis.2017.72

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146.

  JiPZhangYWangS-JGeH-LZhaoG-PXuY-Cet al. CD44hiCD24lo mammosphere-forming cells from primary breast cancer display resistance to multiple chemotherapeutic drugs. Oncol Rep. (2016) 35:3293–302. 10.3892/or.2016.4739

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147.

  LiWMaHZhangJZhuLWangCYangY. Unraveling the roles of CD44/CD24 and ALDH1 as cancer stem cell markers in tumorigenesis and metastasis. Sci. Rep. (2017) 7:13856. 10.1038/s41598-017-14364-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148.

  LouhichiTZiadiSSaadHDhiabMBMestiriSTrimecheM. CLinicopathological significance of cancer stem cell markers CD44 and ALDH1 expression in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. (2018) 25:698–705. 10.1007/s12282-018-0875-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149.

  ChoYLeeH-WKangH-GKimH-YKimS-JChunK-H. Cleaved CD44 intracellular domain supports activation of stemness factors and promotes tumorigenesis of breast cancer. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:8709–21. 10.18632/oncotarget.3325

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150.

  JinJKrishnamacharyBMironchikYKobayashiHBhujwallaZM. Phototheranostics of CD44-positive cell populations in triple negative breast cancer. Sci. Rep. (2016) 6:27871. 10.1038/srep27871

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151.

  QiuYZhouBYangXLongDHaoYYangP. Novel single-cell analysis platform based on a solid-State zinc-Coadsorbed carbon quantum dots electrochemiluminescence probe for the evaluation of CD44 expression on breast cancer cells. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. (2017) 9:16848–56. 10.1021/acsami.7b02793

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152.

  WangZSauSAlsaabHOIyerAK. CD44 directed nanomicellar payload delivery platform for selective anticancer effect and tumor specific imaging of triple negative breast cancer. Nanomedicine. (2018) 14:1441–54. 10.1016/j.nano.2018.04.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153.

  YaghjyanLStollEGhoshKScottCGJensenMRBrandtKRet al. Tissue-based associations of mammographic breast density with breast stem cell markers. Breast Cancer Res. (2017) 19:100. 10.1186/s13058-017-0889-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154.

  YangR-MFuC-PFangJ-ZXuX-DWeiX-HTangW-Jet al. Hyaluronan-modified superparamagnetic iron oxide nanopartiCLes for bimodal breast cancer imaging and photothermal therapy. Int J Nanomedicine. (2017) 12:197–206. 10.2147/IJN.S121249

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155.

  MunTIMaduguEKumarRSaladiSRafeeqiTAKhanW. CD44 targeted chemotherapy for co-eradication of breast cancer stem cells and cancer cells using polymeric nanopartiCLes of salinomycin and paclitaxel. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. (2016) 143:532–46. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.03.075

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156.

  AgrawalSDwivediMAhmadHChadchanSBAryaASikandarRet al. CD44 targeting hyaluronic acid coated lapatinib nanocrystals foster the efficacy against triple-negative breast cancer. Nanomedicine. (2018) 14:327–37. 10.1016/j.nano.2017.10.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157.

  Aguirre-AlvaradoCSegura-CabreraAVelázquez-QuesadaIHernández-EsquivelMAGarcía-PérezCAGuerrero-RodríguezSLet al. Virtual screening-driven repositioning of etoposide as CD44 antagonist in breast cancer cells. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:23772–84. 10.18632/oncotarget.8180

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158.

  ChenJHeHDengCYinLZhongZ. Saporin-loaded CD44 and EGFR dual-targeted nanogels for potent inhibition of metastatic breast cancer in vivo. Int J Pharm. (2019) 560:57–64. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2019.01.040

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159.

  ChenJOuyangJChenQDengCMengFZhangJet al. EGFR and CD44 dual-Targeted multifunctional hyaluronic acid nanogels boost protein delivery to ovarian and breast cancers in vitro and in vivo. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. (2017) 9:24140–7. 10.1021/acsami.7b06879

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160.

  FanWWangXDingBCaiHWangXFanYet al. Thioaptamer-conjugated CD44-targeted delivery system for the treatment of breast cancer in vitro and in vivo. J Drug Target. (2016) 24:359–71. 10.3109/1061186X.2015.1077850

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161.

  FanYWangQLinGShiYGuZDingT. Combination of using prodrug-modified cationic liposome nanocomplexes and a potentiating strategy via targeted co-delivery of gemcitabine and docetaxel for CD44-overexpressed triple negative breast cancer therapy. Acta Biomater. (2017) 62:257–72. 10.1016/j.actbio.2017.08.034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162.

  FuWSunHZhaoYChenMYangLYangXet al. Targeted delivery of CD44s-siRNA by ScFv overcomes de novo resistance to cetuximab in triple negative breast cancer. Mol Immunol. (2018) 99:124–33. 10.1016/j.molimm.2018.05.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163.

  HanN-KShinDHKimJSWeonKYJangC-YKimJ-S. Hyaluronan-conjugated liposomes encapsulating gemcitabine for breast cancer stem cells. Int J Nanomedicine. (2016) 11:1413–25. 10.2147/IJN.S95850

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164.

  LiangD-SZhangW-JWangA-TSuH-TZhongH-JQiX-R. Treating metastatic triple negative breast cancer with CD44/neuropilin dual molecular targets of multifunctional nanopartiCLes. Biomaterials. (2017) 137:23–36. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2017.05.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165.

  XieXHuangXTangHYeFYangLGuoXet al. Diallyl disulfide inhibits breast cancer stem cell progression and glucose metabolism by targeting CD44/PKM2/AMPK signaling. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. (2018) 18:592–9. 10.2174/1568009617666171024165657

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166.

  YangCHeYZhangHLiuYWangWDuYet al. Selective killing of breast cancer cells expressing activated CD44 using CD44 ligand-coated nanopartiCLes in vitro and in vivo. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:15283–96. 10.18632/oncotarget.3681

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167.

  McFarlaneSCoulterJATibbitsPO'GradyAMcFarlaneCMontgomeryNet al. CD44 increases the efficiency of distant metastasis of breast cancer. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:11465–76. 10.18632/oncotarget.3410

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168.

  RicoMJPerroudHAHerreraCAlasinoCMRoggeroEAPezzottoSMet al. Putative biomarkers of response to treatment in breast cancer patients: a pilot assay. Cancer Invest. (2017) 35:377–85. 10.1080/07357907.2017.1309545

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169.

  SanmartínEOrtiz-MartínezFPomares-NavarroEGarcía-MartínezARodrigo-BañosMGarcía-EscolanoMet al. CD44 induces FOXP3 expression and is related with favorable outcome in breast carcinoma. Virchows Arch. (2017) 470:81–90. 10.1007/s00428-016-2045-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170.

  SeoANLeeHJKimEJJangMHKimYJKimJHet al. Expression of breast cancer stem cell markers as predictors of prognosis and response to trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer. Br J Cancer. (2016) 114:1109–16. 10.1038/bjc.2016.101

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171.

  Da Cruz PaulaAMarquesOSampaioRRosaAGarciaJRêmaAet al. Characterization of CD44+ALDH1+Ki-67- cells in non-malignant and neoplastic lesions of the breast. Anticancer Res. (2016) 36:4629–38. 10.21873/anticanres.11013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172.

  RabinovichISebastiãoAPLimaRSUrbanCDJuniorESAnselmiKFet al. Cancer stem cell markers ALDH1 and CD44+/CD24- phenotype and their prognosis impact in invasive ductal carcinoma. Eur J Histochem. (2018) 62:2943. 10.4081/ejh.2018.2943

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173.

  YaghjyanLEsnakulaAKScottCGWijayabahuATJensenMRVachonCM. Associations of mammographic breast density with breast stem cell marker-defined breast cancer subtypes. Cancer Causes Control. (2019) 30:1103–11. 10.1007/s10552-019-01207-w

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174.

  Gómez-MiragayaJPalafoxMParéLYoldiGFerrerIVilaSet al. Resistance to taxanes in triple-negative breast cancer associates with the dynamics of a CD49f+ tumor-Initiating population. Stem Cell Reports. (2017) 8:1392–407. 10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.03.026

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175.

  YeFZhongXQiuYYangLWeiBZhangZet al. CD49f can act as a biomarker for local or distant recurrence in breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. (2017) 20:142–9. 10.4048/jbc.2017.20.2.142

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176.

  Gomez-MiragayaJGonzález-SuárezE. Tumor-initiating CD49f cells are a hallmark of chemoresistant triple negative breast cancer. Mol Cell Oncol. (2017) 4:e1338208. 10.1080/23723556.2017.1338208

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177.

  KrebsbachPHVilla-DiazLG. The role of integrin α6 (CD49f) in stem cells: more than a conserved biomarker. Stem Cells Dev. (2017) 26:1090–9. 10.1089/scd.2016.0319

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178.

  HuTZhouRZhaoYWuG. Integrin α6/Akt/Erk signaling is essential for human breast cancer resistance to radiotherapy. Sci. Rep. (2016) 6:33376. 10.1038/srep33376

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179.

  YeFQiuYLiLYangLChengFZhangHet al. The presence of epCAM(-)/CD49f(+) cells in breast cancer is associated with a poor clinical outcome. J Breast Cancer. (2015) 18:242–8. 10.4048/jbc.2015.18.3.242

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180.

  YeoSKWenJChenSGuanJ-L. Autophagy differentially regulates distinct breast cancer stem-like cells in murine models via EGFR/Stat3 and Tgfβ/Smad signaling. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:3397–410. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2946

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181.

  LiuLYinBYiZLiuXHuZGaoWet al. Breast cancer stem cells characterized by CD70 expression preferentially metastasize to the lungs. Breast Cancer. (2018) 25:706–16. 10.1007/s12282-018-0880-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182.

  WangXLiuYZhouKZhangGWangFRenJ. Isolation and characterization of CD105+/CD90+ subpopulation in breast cancer mDA-MB-231 cell line. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. (2015) 8:5105–12.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 183.

  SansonePBerishajMRajasekharVKCeccarelliCChangQStrillacciAet al. Evolution of cancer stem-like cells in endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancers is mediated by stromal microvesiCLes. Cancer Res. (2017) 77:1927–41. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2129

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184.

  BrugnoliFGrassilliSAl-QassabYCapitaniSBertagnoloV. CD133 in breast cancer cells: more than a stem cell marker. J Oncol. (2019) 2019:7512632. 10.1155/2019/7512632

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185.

  ZhangDSunBZhaoXMaYJiRGuQet al. Twist1 expression induced by sunitinib accelerates tumor cell vasculogenic mimicry by increasing the population of CD133+ cells in triple-negative breast cancer. Mol Cancer. (2014) 13:207. 10.1186/1476-4598-13-207

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186.

  BrugnoliFGrassilliSLanutiPMarchisioMAl-QassabYVezzaliFet al. Up-modulation of pLC-β2 reduces the number and malignancy of triple-negative breast tumor cells with a CD133+/EpCAM+ phenotype: a promising target for preventing progression of TNBC. BMC Cancer. (2017) 17:617. 10.1186/s12885-017-3592-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187.

  SansonePCeccarelliCBerishajMChangQRajasekharVKPeRNAFet al. Self-renewal of CD133(hi) cells by IL6/Notch3 signalling regulates endocrine resistance in metastatic breast cancer. Nat Commun. (2016) 7:10442. 10.1038/ncomms10442

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188.

  SwaminathanSKRogerETotiUNiuLOhlfestJRPanyamJ. CD133-targeted paCLitaxel delivery inhibits local tumor recurrence in a mouse model of breast cancer. J Control Release. (2013) 171:280–7. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2013.07.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189.

  BrugnoliFGrassilliSPiazziMPalombaMNikaEBavelloniAet al. In triple negative breast tumor cells, pLC-β2 promotes the conversion of CD133high to CD133low phenotype and reduces the CD133-related invasiveness. Mol Cancer. (2013) 12:165. 10.1186/1476-4598-12-165

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190.

  LatorreECarelliSRaimondiID'AgostinoVCastiglioniIZucalCet al. The ribonucleic complex HuR-MALAT1 represses CD133 expression and suppresses epithelial-Mesenchymal transition in breast cancer. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:2626–36. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191.

  BockCKuhnCDitschNKreboldRHeubleinSMayrDet al. Strong correlation between n-cadherin and CD133 in breast cancer: role of both markers in metastatic events. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2014) 140:1873–81. 10.1007/s00432-014-1750-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192.

  NozakiYTamoriSInadaMKatayamaRNakaneHMinamishimaOet al. Correlation between c-Met and ALDH1 contributes to the survival and tumor-sphere formation of ALDH1 positive breast cancer stem cells and predicts poor Clinical outcome in breast cancer. Genes Cancer. (2017) 8:628–39. 10.18632/genesandcancer.148

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193.

  JosephCArshadMKurozomiSAlthobitiMMiligyIMAl-IzziSet al. Overexpression of the cancer stem cell marker CD133 confers a poor prognosis in invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2019) 174:387–99. 10.1007/s10549-018-05085-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194.

  ZhangMTsimelzonAChangC-HFanCWolffAPerouCMet al. Intratumoral heterogeneity in a trp53-null mouse model of human breast cancer. Cancer Discov. (2015) 5:520–33. 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-1101

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 195.

  YangLTangHKongYXieXChenJSongCet al. LGR5 promotes breast cancer progression and maintains stem-Like cells through activation of wnt/β-Catenin signaling. Stem Cells. (2015) 33:2913–24. 10.1002/stem.2083

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196.

  WangDCaiCDongXYuQCZhangX-OYangLet al. Identification of multipotent mammary stem cells by protein C receptor expression. Nature. (2015) 517:81–4. 10.1038/nature13851

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197.

  GinestierCHurMHCharafe-JauffretEMonvilleFDutcherJBrownMet al. ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell. (2007) 1:555–67. 10.1016/j.stem.2007.08.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198.

  KimR-JParkJ-RRohK-JChoiA-RKimS-RKimP-Het al. High aldehyde dehydrogenase activity enhances stem cell features in breast cancer cells by activating hypoxia-inducible factor-2α. Cancer Lett. (2013) 333:18–31. 10.1016/j.canlet.2012.11.026

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199.

  Rodriguez-TorresMAllanAL. Aldehyde dehydrogenase as a marker and functional mediator of metastasis in solid tumors. Clin Exp Metastasis. (2016) 33:97–113. 10.1007/s10585-015-9755-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200.

  TomitaHTanakaKTanakaTHaraA. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 in stem cells and cancer. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:11018–32. 10.18632/oncotarget.6920

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201.

  Liu P Kumar IS Brown S Kannappan V Tawari PE Tang JZ . Disulfiram targets cancer stem-like cells and reverses resistance and cross-resistance in acquired paCLitaxel-resistant triple-negative breast cancer cells. Br J Cancer. (2013) 109:1876–85. 10.1038/bjc.2013.534

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202.

  MatsunagaNOginoTHaraYTanakaTKoyanagiSOhdoS. Optimized dosing schedule based on circadian dynamics of mouse breast cancer stem cells improves the antitumor effects of aldehyde dehydrogenase inhibitor. Cancer Res. (2018) 78:3698–708. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-4034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203.

  Charafe-JauffretEGinestierCIovinoFTarpinCDiebelMEsterniBet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1-positive cancer stem cells mediate metastasis and poor Clinical outcome in inflammatory breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2010) 16:45–55. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1630

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204.

  LiuYLvD-lDuanJ-jXuS-lZhangJ-fYangX-jet al. ALDH1A1 expression correlates with CLinicopathologic features and poor prognosis of breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. (2014) 14:444. 10.1186/1471-2407-14-444

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205.

  MarcatoPDeanCALiuR-ZCoyleKMBydounMWallaceMet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A3 influences breast cancer progression via differential retinoic acid signaling. Mol Oncol. (2015) 9:17–31. 10.1016/j.molonc.2014.07.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206.

  KhouryTAdemuyiwaFOChandrasekharRChandraseekharRJabbourMDeleoAet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 expression in breast cancer is associated with stage, triple negativity, and outcome to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod Pathol. (2012) 25:388–97. 10.1038/modpathol.2011.172

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207.

  WoodwardWAKrishnamurthySLodhiAXiaoLGongYCristofanilliMet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase1 immunohistochemical staining in primary breast cancer cells independently predicted overall survival but did not correlate with the presence of circulating or disseminated tumors cells. J Cancer. (2014) 5:360–7. 10.7150/jca.7885

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208.

  ZhongYShenSZhouYMaoFGuanJLinYet al. ALDH1 is a better clinical indicator for relapse of invasive ductal breast cancer than the CD44+/CD24- phenotype. Med Oncol. (2014) 31:864. 10.1007/s12032-014-0864-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209.

  TanEYThikeAATanPH. ALDH1 expression is enriched in breast cancers arising in young women but does not predict outcome. Br J Cancer. (2013) 109:109–13. 10.1038/bjc.2013.297

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210.

  CollinaFDi BonitoMLi BergolisVLaurentiisM deVitaglianoCCerroneMet al. Prognostic value of cancer stem cells markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Biomed Res Int. (2015) 2015:158682. 10.1155/2015/158682

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 211.

  SrinivasanMBharaliDJSudhaTKhedrMGuestISellSet al. Downregulation of BMI1 in breast cancer stem cells suppresses tumor growth and proliferation. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:38731–42. 10.18632/oncotarget.16317

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212.

  KimS-HSinghSV. The role of polycomb group protein BMI-1 and notch4 in breast cancer stem cell inhibition by benzyl isothiocyanate. Breast Cancer Res Treat. (2015) 149:681–92. 10.1007/s10549-015-3279-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213.

  YuanWYuanYZhangTWuS. Role of BMI-1 in regulation of ionizing irradiation-induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition and migration of breast cancer cells. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0118799. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0118799

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214.

  YanYWangYZhaoPMaWHuZZhangK. BMI-1 promotes self-Renewal of radio- and temozolomide (TMZ)-Resistant breast cancer cells. Reprod Sci. (2017) 24:1620–9. 10.1177/1933719117697255

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215.

  GongX-FYuA-LTangJWangC-LHeJ-RChenG-Qet al. MicroRNA-630 inhibits breast cancer progression by directly targeting BMI1. Exp Cell Res. (2018) 362:378–85. 10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.11.039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216.

  GriffithJAndradeDMehtaMBerryWBenbrookDMAravindanNet al. Silencing BMI1 radiosensitizes human breast cancer cells by inducing DNA damage and autophagy. Oncol Rep. (2017) 37:2382–90. 10.3892/or.2017.5478

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217.

  OjoDLinXWuYCockburnJBaneATangD. Polycomb complex protein BMI1 confers resistance to tamoxifen in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Cancer Lett. (2018) 426:4–13. 10.1016/j.canlet.2018.03.048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218.

  ElangoRVishnubalajiRManikandanMBinhamdanSISiyalA-AAlshawakirYAet al. Concurrent targeting of BMI1 and CDK4/6 abrogates tumor growth in vitro and in vivo. Sci. Rep. (2019) 9:13696. 10.1038/s41598-019-50140-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219.

  Janaki RamaiahMVaishnaveS. BMI1 and PTEN are key determinants of breast cancer therapy: a plausible therapeutic target in breast cancer. Gene. (2018) 678:302–11. 10.1016/j.gene.2018.08.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220.

  WangDLuPZhangHLuoMZhangXWeiXet al. Oct-4 and nanog promote the epithelial-mesenchymal transition of breast cancer stem cells and are associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. Oncotarget. (2014) 5:10803–15. 10.18632/oncotarget.2506

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221.

  YangFZhangJYangH. OCT4, SOX2, and NANOG positive expression correlates with poor differentiation, advanced disease stages, and worse overall survival in HER2+ breast cancer patients. Onco Targets Ther. (2018) 11:7873–81. 10.2147/OTT.S173522

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 222.

  D'AngeloRCOuzounovaMDavisAChoiDTchuenkamSMKimGet al. Notch reporter activity in breast cancer cell lines identifies a subset of cells with stem cell activity. Mol Cancer Ther. (2015) 14:779–87. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0228

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223.

  RodillaVDastiAHuygheMLafkasDLaurentCReyalFet al. Luminal progenitors restrict their lineage potential during mammary gland development. PLoS Biol. (2015) 13:e1002069. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pbio.1002069

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224.

  MamaevaVNiemiRBeckMÖzliseliEDesaiDLandorSet al. Inhibiting notch activity in breast cancer stem cells by glucose functionalized nanoparticles carrying γ-secretase inhibitors. Mol Ther. (2016) 24:926–36. 10.1038/mt.2016.42

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225.

  AnjanappaMHaoYSimpsonERBhat-NakshatriPNelsonJBTerseySAet al. A system for detecting high impact-low frequency mutations in primary tumors and metastases. Oncogene. (2018) 37:185–96. 10.1038/onc.2017.322

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226.

  BakerAWyattDBocchettaMLiJFilipovicAGreenAet al. Notch-1-PTEN-ERK1/2 signaling axis promotes hER2+ breast cancer cell proliferation and stem cell survival. Oncogene. (2018) 37:4489–504. 10.1038/s41388-018-0251-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227.

  DiluvioGDel GaudioFGiuliMVFranciosaGGiulianiEPalermoRet al. NOTCH3 inactivation increases triple negative breast cancer sensitivity to gefitinib by promoting eGFR tyrosine dephosphorylation and its intracellular arrest. Oncogenesis. (2018) 7:42. 10.1038/s41389-018-0051-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228.

  RanYHossainFPannutiALessardCBLaddGZJungJet al. γ-Secretase inhibitors in cancer clinical trials are pharmacologically and functionally distinct. Embo Mol Med. (2017) 9:950–66. 10.15252/emmm.201607265

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229.

  SizemoreGMBalakrishnanSHammerAMThiesKATrimboliAJWallaceJAet al. Stromal pTEN inhibits the expansion of mammary epithelial stem cells through jagged-1. Oncogene. (2017) 36:2297–308. 10.1038/onc.2016.383

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230.

  BholaNEJansenVMKochJPLiHFormisanoLWilliamsJAet al. Treatment of triple-Negative breast cancer with TORC1/2 inhibitors sustains a drug-Resistant and notch-dependent cancer stem cell population. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:440–52. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1640-T

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231.

  LeontovichAAJalaliradMSalisburyJLMillsLHaddoxCSchroederMet al. NOTCH3 expression is linked to breast cancer seeding and distant metastasis. Breast Cancer Res. (2018) 20:105. 10.1186/s13058-018-1020-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232.

  DouX-WLiangY-KLinH-YWeiX-LZhangY-QBaiJ-Wet al. Notch3 maintains luminal phenotype and suppresses tumorigenesis and metastasis of breast cancer via trans-activating estrogen receptor-α. Theranostics. (2017) 7:4041–56. 10.7150/thno.19989

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233.

  WielandERodriguez-VitaJLieblerSSMoglerCMollIHerberichSEet al. Endothelial notch1 activity facilitates metastasis. Cancer Cell. (2017) 31:355–67. 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.01.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234.

  GuXLuCHeDLuYJinJLiuDet al. Notch3 negatively regulates chemoresistance in breast cancers. Tumour Biol. (2016) 37. 10.1007/s13277-016-5412-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235.

  JanghorbanMXinLRosenJMZhangXH-F. Notch signaling as a regulator of the tumor immune response: to target or not to target?Front Immunol. (2018) 9:1649. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01649

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236.

  SiddharthSGoutamKDasSNayakANayakDSethyCet al. Nectin-4 is a breast cancer stem cell marker that induces wNT/β-catenin signaling via pi3k/Akt axis. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. (2017) 89:85–94. 10.1016/j.biocel.2017.06.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237.

  JangG-BHongI-SKimR-JLeeS-YParkS-JLeeE-Set al. Wnt/β-catenin small-molecule inhibitor CWP232228 preferentially inhibits the growth of breast cancer stem-like cells. Cancer Res. (2015) 75:1691–702. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-2041

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238.

  ZhangCLiCHeFCaiYYangH. Identification of CD44+CD24+ gastric cancer stem cells. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2011) 137:1679–86. 10.1007/s00432-011-1038-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 239.

  BrungsDAghmeshehMVineKLBeckerTMCarolanMGRansonM. Gastric cancer stem cells: evidence, potential markers, and clinical implications. J Gastroenterol. (2016) 51:313–26. 10.1007/s00535-015-1125-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 240.

  LiKDanZNieY-Q. Gastric cancer stem cells in gastric carcinogenesis, progression, prevention and treatment. World J Gastroenterol. (2014) 20:5420–6. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i18.5420

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 241.

  JiaoX-LZhaoCNiuMChenD. Downregulation of CD24 inhibits invasive growth, facilitates apoptosis and enhances chemosensitivity in gastric cancer AGS cells. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. (2013) 17:1709–15.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 242.

  FujikuniNYamamotoHTanabeKNaitoYSakamotoNTanakaYet al. Hypoxia-mediated CD24 expression is correlated with gastric cancer aggressiveness by promoting cell migration and invasion. Cancer Sci. (2014) 105:1411–20. 10.1111/cas.12522

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 243.

  WuJ-XZhaoY-YWuXAnH-X. CLinicopathological and prognostic significance of CD24 overexpression in patients with gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e114746. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0114746

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 244.

  ZhaoHWenJDongXHeRGaoCZhangWet al. Identification of AQP3 and CD24 as biomarkers for carcinogenesis of gastric intestinal metaplasia. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:63382–91. 10.18632/oncotarget.18817

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 245.

  FuYDuPZhaoJHuC'eQinYHuangG. Gastric cancer stem cells: mechanisms and therapeutic approaches. Yonsei Med J. (2018) 59:1150–8. 10.3349/ymj.2018.59.10.1150

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246.

  TakaishiSOkumuraTTuSWangSSShibataWVigneshwaranRet al. Identification of gastric cancer stem cells using the cell surface marker CD44. Stem Cells. (2009) 27:1006–20. 10.1002/stem.30

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 247.

  ZhangXHuaRWangXHuangMGanLWuZet al. Identification of stem-like cells and clinical significance of candidate stem cell markers in gastric cancer. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:9815–31. 10.18632/oncotarget.6890

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248.

  LauWMTengEChongHSLopezKATayAYSalto-TellezMet al. CD44v8-10 is a cancer-specific marker for gastric cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. (2014) 74:2630–41. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-13-2309

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 249.

  NguyenPHGiraudJChambonnierLDubusPWittkopLBelleannéeGet al. Characterization of biomarkers of tumorigenic and chemoresistant cancer stem cells in human gastric carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. (2017) 23:1586–97. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2157

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250.

  NosratiANaghshvarFKhanariS. Cancer stem cell markers CD44, CD133 in primary gastric adenocarcinoma. Int J Mol Cell Med. (2014) 3:279–86.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 251.

  ShuXLiuHPanYSunLYuLSunLet al. Distinct biological characterization of the CD44 and CD90 phenotypes of cancer stem cells in gastric cancer cell lines. Mol Cell Biochem. (2019) 459:35–47. 10.1007/s11010-019-03548-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252.

  Bekaii-SaabTEl-RayesB. Identifying and targeting cancer stem cells in the treatment of gastric cancer. Cancer. (2017) 123:1303–12. 10.1002/cncr.30538

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 253.

  WatanabeTOkumuraTHiranoKYamaguchiTSekineSNagataTet al. Circulating tumor cells expressing cancer stem cell marker CD44 as a diagnostic biomarker in patients with gastric cancer. Oncol Lett. (2017) 13:281–8. 10.3892/ol.2016.5432

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254.

  LuLWuMSunLLiWFuWZhangXet al. CLinicopathological and prognostic significance of cancer stem cell markers CD44 and CD133 in patients with gastric cancer: a comprehensive meta-analysis with 4729 patients involved. Medicine. (2016) 95:e5163. 10.1097/MD.0000000000005163

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 255.

  JangEKimESonH-YLimE-KLeeHChoiYet al. Nanovesicle-mediated systemic delivery of microRNA-34a for CD44 overexpressing gastric cancer stem cell therapy. Biomaterials. (2016) 105:12–24. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2016.07.036

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 256.

  YaoH-JZhangY-GSunLLiuY. The effect of hyaluronic acid functionalized carbon nanotubes loaded with salinomycin on gastric cancer stem cells. Biomaterials. (2014) 35:9208–23. 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2014.07.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 257.

  ChenHLinJShanYZhengmaoL. The promotion of nanopartiCLe delivery to two populations of gastric cancer stem cells by CD133 and CD44 antibodies. Biomed Pharmacothe. (2019) 115:108857. 10.1016/j.biopha.2019.108857

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 258.

  KodamaHMurataSIshidaMYamamotoHYamaguchiTKaidaSet al. Prognostic impact of CD44-positive cancer stem-like cells at the invasive front of gastric cancer. Br J Cancer. (2017) 116:186–94. 10.1038/bjc.2016.401

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 259.

  YoonCParkDJSchmidtBThomasNJLeeH-JKimTSet al. CD44 expression denotes a subpopulation of gastric cancer cells in which hedgehog signaling promotes chemotherapy resistance. Clin Cancer Res. (2014) 20:3974–88. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 260.

  SenelFKökenek UnalTDKaramanHInançMAytekinA. Prognostic value of cancer stem cell markers CD44 and ALDH1/2 in gastric cancer cases. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2017) 18:2527–31. 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.9.2527

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 261.

  HowardRAl DiffalhaSPimientoJMejiaJEnderlingHGiulianoAet al. CD133 expression as a helicobacter pylori-independent biomarker of gastric cancer progression. Anticancer Res. (2018) 38:4443–8. 10.21873/anticanres.12746

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 262.

  XiaPSongC-LLiuJ-FWangDXuX-Y. Prognostic value of circulating CD133(+) cells in patients with gastric cancer. Cell Prolif . (2015) 48:311–7. 10.1111/cpr.12175

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 263.

  YimingLYunshanGBoMYuZTaoWGengfangLet al. CD133 overexpression correlates with CLinicopathological features of gastric cancer patients and its impact on survival: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:42019–27. 10.18632/oncotarget.5714

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 264.

  HashimotoKAoyagiKIsobeTKouhujiKShirouzuK. Expression of CD133 in the cytoplasm is associated with cancer progression and poor prognosis in gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. (2014) 17:97–106. 10.1007/s10120-013-0255-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 265.

  ChenX-LChenX-ZWangY-GDuHeLuZ-HLiuKet al. Clinical significance of putative markers of cancer stem cells in gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:62049–69. 10.18632/oncotarget.11384

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 266.

  FujitaTChiwakiFTakahashiR-UAoyagiKYanagiharaKNishimuraTet al. Identification and characterization of CXCR4-Positive gastric cancer stem cells. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0130808. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0130808

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 267.

  XueL-JMaoX-BRenL-LChuX-Y. Inhibition of CXCL12/CXCR4 axis as a potential targeted therapy of advanced gastric carcinoma. Cancer Med. (2017) 6:1424–36. 10.1002/cam4.1085

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 268.

  YangWLaiZLiYMuJYangMXieJet al. Immune signature profiling identified prognostic factors for gastric cancer. Chin J Cancer Res. (2019) 31:463–70. 10.21147/j.issn.1000-9604.2019.03.08

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 269.

  YuCZhangY. Characterization of the prognostic values of CXCR family in gastric cancer. Cytokine. (2019) 123:154785. 10.1016/j.cyto.2019.154785

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 270.

  JiangQSunYLiuX. CXCR4 as a prognostic biomarker in gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis. Biomarkers. (2019) 24:510–6. 10.1080/1354750X.2019.1637941

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 271.

  HanMLvSZhangYYiRHuangBFuHet al. The prognosis and CLinicopathology of CXCR4 in gastric cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Tumour Biol. (2014) 35:4589–97. 10.1007/s13277-013-1603-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 272.

  DaiMYuanFFuCShenGHuSShenG. Relationship between epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) overexpression and gastric cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. (2017) 12:e0175357. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0175357

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 273.

  KnödlerMKörferJKunzmannVTrojanJDaumSSchenkMet al. Randomised phase iI trial to investigate catumaxomab (anti-EpCAM × anti-CD3) for treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis in patients with gastric cancer. Br J Cancer. (2018) 119:296–302. 10.1038/s41416-018-0150-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 274.

  NakajimaTUeharaTMaruyamaYIwayaMKobayashiYOtaH. Distribution of Lgr5-positive cancer cells in intramucosal gastric signet-ring cell carcinoma. Pathol Int. (2016) 66:518–23. 10.1111/pin.12451

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 275.

  XiHQCaiAZWuXSCuiJXShenWSBianSBet al. Leucine-rich repeat-containing g-protein-coupled receptor 5 is associated with invasion, metastasis, and could be a potential therapeutic target in human gastric cancer. Br J Cancer. (2014) 110:2011–20. 10.1038/bjc.2014.112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 276.

  GongXAzhdariniaAGhoshSCXiongWAnZLiuQet al. LGR5-Targeted antibody-drug conjugate eradicates gastrointestinal tumors and prevents recurrence. Mol Cancer Ther. (2016) 15:1580–90. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 277.

  XiH-QCuiJ-XShenW-SWuX-SBianS-BLiJ-Yet al. Increased expression of Lgr5 is associated with chemotherapy resistance in human gastric cancer. Oncol Rep. (2014) 32:181–8. 10.3892/or.2014.3207

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 278.

  LiuX-SLinX-KMeiYAhmadSYanC-XJinH-Let al. Regulatory T cells promote overexpression of Lgr5 on gastric cancer cells via TGF-beta1 and confer poor prognosis in gastric cancer. Front Immunol. (2019) 10:1741. 10.3389/fimmu.2019.01741

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 279.

  HuangTQiuXXiaoJWangQWangYZhangYet al. The prognostic role of leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein-coupled receptor 5 in gastric cancer: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. (2016) 40:246–53. 10.1016/j.CLinre.2015.07.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 280.

  JoJHParkSBParkSLeeHSKimCJungDEet al. Novel gastric cancer stem cell-Related marker lINGO2 is associated with cancer cell phenotype and patient outcome. Int J Mol Sci. (2019) 20:555. 10.3390/ijms20030555

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 281.

  NishikawaSKonnoMHamabeAHasegawaSKanoYOhtaKet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase high gastric cancer stem cells are resistant to chemotherapy. Int J Oncol. (2013) 42:1437–42. 10.3892/ijo.2013.1837

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 282.

  DiWuMouY-PChenKCaiJ-QZhouY-CPanYet al. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 3A1 is robustly upregulated in gastric cancer stem-like cells and associated with tumorigenesis. Int J Oncol. (2016) 49:611–22. 10.3892/ijo.2016.3551

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 283.

  LiHPiaoLXuDXuanY. LETM1 is a potential biomarker that predicts poor prognosis in gastric adenocarcinoma. Exp Mol Pathol. (2019) 112:104333. 10.1016/j.yexmp.2019.104333

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 284.

  YangZLiJShiYLiLGuoX. Increased musashi 2 expression indicates a poor prognosis and promotes malignant phenotypes in gastric cancer. Oncol Lett. (2019) 17:2599–606. 10.3892/ol.2019.9889

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 285.

  WangBChenQCaoYMaXYinCJiaYet al. LGR5 is a gastric cancer stem cell marker associated with stemness and the EMT signature genes NANOG, NANOGP8, PRRX1, TWIST1, and BMI1. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0168904. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0168904

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 286.

  Santaliz-RuizLEXieXOldMTeknosTNPanQ. Emerging role of nanog in tumorigenesis and cancer stem cells. Int J Cancer. (2014) 135:2741–8. 10.1002/ijc.28690

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 287.

  LinTDingY-QLiJ-M. Overexpression of nanog protein is associated with poor prognosis in gastric adenocarcinoma. Med Oncol. (2012) 29:878–85. 10.1007/s12032-011-9860-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 288.

  BasatiGMohammadpourHEmami RazaviA. Association of high expression levels of SOX2, NANOG, and OCT4 in gastric cancer tumor tissues with progression and poor prognosis. J Gastrointest Cancer. (2019) 51:41–7. 10.1007/s12029-018-00200-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 289.

  ChenZXuW-RQianHZhuWBuX-FWangSet al. Oct4, a novel marker for human gastric cancer. J Surg Oncol. (2009) 99:414–9. 10.1002/jso.21270

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 290.

  Carrasco-GarciaEÁlvarez-SattaMGarcía-PugaMRibeiroMLArevaloSArauzo-BravoMet al. Therapeutic relevance of SOX9 stem cell factor in gastric cancer. Expert Opin Ther Targets. (2019) 23:143–52. 10.1080/14728222.2019.1559826

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 291.

  LuoJYanRHeXHeJ. SOX2 inhibits cell proliferation and metastasis, promotes apoptotic by downregulating cCND1 and pARP in gastric cancer. Am J Transl Res. (2018) 10:639–47.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 292.

  HützKMejías-LuqueRFarsakovaKOgrisMKrebsSAntonMet al. The stem cell factor SOX2 regulates the tumorigenic potential in human gastric cancer cells. Carcinogenesis. (2014) 35:942–50. 10.1093/carcin/bgt410

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 293.

  ChenYHuangYZhuLChenMHuangYZhangJet al. SOX2 inhibits metastasis in gastric cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2016) 142:1221–30. 10.1007/s00432-016-2125-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 294.

  TsaiS-CLinC-CShihT-CTsengR-JYuM-CLinY-Jet al. The miR-200b-ZEB1 circuit regulates diverse stemness of human hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol Carcinog. (2017) 56:2035–47. 10.1002/mc.22657

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 295.

  WangRSunQWangPLiuMXiongSLuoJet al. Notch and wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway play important roles in activating liver cancer stem cells. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:5754–68. 10.18632/oncotarget.6805

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 296.

  WangRLiYTsungAHuangHDuQYangMet al. iNOS promotes CD24+CD133+ liver cancer stem cell phenotype through a TACE/ADAM17-dependent notch signaling pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. (2018) 115:E10127–36. 10.1073/pnas.1722100115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 297.

  SukowatiCHC. Heterogeneity of hepatic cancer stem cells. Adv Exp Med Biol. (2019) 1139:59–81. 10.1007/978-3-030-14366-4_4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 298.

  XiangYYangTPangB-YZhuYLiuYN. The progress and prospects of putative biomarkers for liver cancer stem cells in hepatocellular carcinoma. Stem Cells Int. (2016) 2016:7614971. 10.1155/2016/7614971

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 299.

  AsaiRTsuchiyaHAmisakiMMakimotoKTakenagaASakabeTet al. CD44 standard isoform is involved in maintenance of cancer stem cells of a hepatocellular carcinoma cell line. Cancer Med. (2019) 8:773–82. 10.1002/cam4.1968

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 300.

  LiuRShenYNanKMiBWuTGuoJet al. Association between expression of cancer stem cell markers and poor differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis (PRISMA). Medicine. (2015) 94:e1306. 10.1097/MD.0000000000001306

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 301.

  ChoiGHKimGIYooJENaDCHanDHRohYHet al. Increased expression of circulating cancer stem cell markers during the perioperative period predicts early recurrence after curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. (2015) 22(Suppl. 3):S1444–52. 10.1245/s10434-015-4480-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 302.

  LuoYTanY. Prognostic value of CD44 expression in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis. Cancer Cell Int. (2016) 16:47. 10.1186/s12935-016-0325-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 303.

  MorineYImuraSIkemotoTIwahashiSSaitoYuShimadaM. CD44 expression is a prognostic factor in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after surgical resection. Anticancer Res. (2017) 37:5701–5. 10.21873/anticanres.12007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 304.

  KimBHParkJ-WKimJSLeeS-KHongEK. Stem cell markers predict the response to sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut Liver. (2019) 13:342–8. 10.5009/gnl18345

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 305.

  LuoJWangPWangRWangJLiuMXiongSet al. The notch pathway promotes the cancer stem cell characteristics of CD90+ cells in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:9525–37. 10.18632/oncotarget.6672

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 306.

  YoshidaMYamashitaTOkadaHOishiNNioKHayashiTet al. Sorafenib suppresses extrahepatic metastasis de novo in hepatocellular carcinoma through inhibition of mesenchymal cancer stem cells characterized by the expression of CD90. Sci. Rep. (2017) 7:11292. 10.1038/s41598-017-11848-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 307.

  ZhangKCheSSuZZhengSZhangHYangSet al. CD90 promotes cell migration, viability and sphere-forming ability of hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Int J Mol Med. (2018) 41:946–54. 10.3892/ijmm.2017.3314

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 308.

  ZhuLZhangWWangJLiuR. Evidence of CD90+CXCR4+ cells as circulating tumor stem cells in hepatocellular carcinoma. Tumour Biol. (2015) 36:5353–60. 10.1007/s13277-015-3196-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 309.

  ZhaoRCZhouJChenKFGongJLiuJHeJYet al. The prognostic value of combination of CD90 and OCT4 for hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection. Neoplasma. (2016) 63:288–98. 10.4149/neo_2016_036

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 310.

  SuetsuguANagakiMAokiHMotohashiTKunisadaTMoriwakiH. Characterization of CD133+ hepatocellular carcinoma cells as cancer stem/progenitor cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2006) 351:820–4. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.10.128

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 311.

  LiM-MTangY-QGongY-FChengWLiH-LKongF-Eet al. Development of an oncogenic dedifferentiation SOX signature with prognostic significance in hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer. (2019) 19:851. 10.1186/s12885-019-6041-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 312.

  LiuKHaoMOuyangYZhengJChenD. CD133+ cancer stem cells promoted by VEGF accelerate the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci. Rep. (2017) 7:41499. 10.1038/srep41499

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 313.

  CheungPFCheungTTYipCWNgLWFungSWLoCMet al. Hepatic cancer stem cell marker granulin-epithelin precursor and β-catenin expression associate with recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:21644–57. 10.18632/oncotarget.7803

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 314.

  JunSYJeonS-JYoonJ-YLeeJ-JYoonHRChoiM-Het al. The positive correlation of TIPRL with lC3 and CD133 contributes to cancer aggressiveness: potential biomarkers for early liver cancer. Sci. Rep. (2019) 9:16802. 10.1038/s41598-019-53191-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 315.

  VilchezVTurciosLZaytsevaYStewartRLeeEYMaynardEet al. Cancer stem cell marker expression alone and in combination with microvascular invasion predicts poor prognosis in patients undergoing transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Surg. (2016) 212:238–45. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.12.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 316.

  ChenDLiZChengQWangYQianLGaoJet al. Genetic alterations and expression of PTEN and its relationship with cancer stem cell markers to investigate pathogenesis and to evaluate prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Pathol. (2019) 72:588–96. 10.1136/jCLinpath-2019-205769

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 317.

  DingQXiaYDingSLuPSunLLiuM. An alternatively spliced variant of CXCR3 mediates the metastasis of CD133+ liver cancer cells induced by CXCL9. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:14405–14. 10.18632/oncotarget.7360

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 318.

  SuRNanHGuoHRuanZJiangLSongYet al. Associations of components of PTEN/AKT/mTOR pathway with cancer stem cell markers and prognostic value of these biomarkers in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. (2016) 46:1380–91. 10.1111/hepr.12687

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 319.

  YuG-FLinXLuoR-CFangW-Y. Nuclear CD133 expression predicts poor prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. (2018) 11:2092–9.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 320.

  ChenY-LLinP-YMingY-ZHuangW-CChenR-FChenP-Met al. The effects of the location of cancer stem cell marker CD133 on the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma patients. BMC Cancer. (2017) 17:474. 10.1186/s12885-017-3460-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 321.

  SeinoSTsuchiyaAWatanabeYKawataYKojimaYIkarashiSet al. Clinical outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma can be predicted by the expression of hepatic progenitor cell markers and serum tumour markers. Oncotarget. (2018) 9:21844–60. 10.18632/oncotarget.25074

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 322.

  FeldenJ vonSchulzeKKrechTEwaldFNashanBPantelKet al. Circulating tumor cells as liquid biomarker for high HCC recurrence risk after curative liver resection. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:89978–87. 10.18632/oncotarget.21208

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 323.

  DaiX-MHuangTYangS-LZhengX-MChenGGZhangT. Peritumoral EpCAM is an independent prognostic marker after curative resection of HBV-Related hepatocellular carcinoma. Dis Markers. (2017) 2017:8495326. 10.1155/2017/3765279

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 324.

  KoC-JLiC-JWuM-YChuP-Y. Overexpression of epithelial cell adhesion molecule as a predictor of poor outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Exp Ther Med. (2018) 16:4810–6. 10.3892/etm.2018.6794

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 325.

  ShenJWangW-SZhuX-LNiC-F. High epithelial cell adhesion molecule-Positive circulating tumor cell count predicts poor survival of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. (2018) 29:1678–84. 10.1016/j.jvir.2018.07.030

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 326.

  NohC-KWangHJKimCMKimJYoonSYLeeGHet al. EpCAM as a predictive marker of tumor recurrence and survival in patients who underwent surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Anticancer Res. (2018) 38:4101–9. 10.21873/anticanres.12700

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 327.

  ZhouLZhuY. The EpCAM overexpression is associated with Clinicopathological significance and prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Surg. (2018) 56:274–80. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.06.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 328.

  ZhuMLiWLuYDongXChenYLinBet al. Alpha fetoprotein antagonizes apoptosis induced by paclitaxel in hepatoma cells in vitro. Sci. Rep. (2016) 6:26472. 10.1038/srep26472

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 329.

  JinJNiuXZouLLiLLiSHanJet al. AFP mRNA level in enriched circulating tumor cells from hepatocellular carcinoma patient blood samples is a pivotal predictive marker for metastasis. Cancer Lett. (2016) 378:33–7. 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.04.033

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 330.

  LorenteL. New prognostic biomarkers of mortality in patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. (2018) 24:4230–42. 10.3748/wjg.v24.i37.4230

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 331.

  ChangT-SWuY-CChiC-CSuW-CChangP-JLeeK-Fet al. Activation of IL6/IGFIR confers poor prognosis of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma through induction of OCT4/NANOG expression. Clin Cancer Res. (2015) 21:201–10. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3274

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 332.

  Was H Czarnecka J Kominek A Barszcz K BeRNAs T Piwocka K . Some chemotherapeutics-treated colon cancer cells display a specific phenotype being a combination of stem-like and senescent cell features. Cancer Biol Ther. (2018) 19:63–75. 10.1080/15384047.2017.1385675

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 333.

  ManhasJBhattacharyaAAgrawalSKGuptaBDasPDeoSVet al. Characterization of cancer stem cells from different grades of human colorectal cancer. Tumour Biol. (2016) 37:14069–81. 10.1007/s13277-016-5232-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 334.

  ZhouJ-YChenMMaLWangXChenY-GLiuS-L. Role of CD44(high)/CD133(high) HCT-116 cells in the tumorigenesis of colon cancer. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:7657–66. 10.18632/oncotarget.7084

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 335.

  LengZXiaQChenJLiYXuJZhaoEet al. Lgr5+CD44+EpCAM+ strictly defines cancer stem cells in human colorectal cancer. Cell Physiol Biochem. (2018) 46:860–72. 10.1159/000488743

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 336.

  ZhouYXiaLWangHOyangLSuMLiuQet al. Cancer stem cells in progression of colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. (2018) 9:33403–15. 10.18632/oncotarget.23607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 337.

  LeeSYKimKAKimCHKimYJLeeJ-HKimHR. CD44-shRNA recombinant adenovirus inhibits cell proliferation, invasion, and migration, and promotes apoptosis in HCT116 colon cancer cells. Int J Oncol. (2017) 50:329–36. 10.3892/ijo.2016.3801

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 338.

  TsunekuniKKonnoMHaraguchiNKosekiJAsaiAMatsuokaKet al. CD44/CD133-positive colorectal cancer stem cells are sensitive to trifluridine exposure. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:14861. 10.1038/s41598-019-50968-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 339.

  OzawaMIchikawaYZhengY-WOshimaTMiyataHNakazawaKet al. Prognostic significance of CD44 variant 2 upregulation in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. (2014) 111:365–74. 10.1038/bjc.2014.253

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 340.

  LimSHJangJParkJOKimK-MKimSTParkYSet al. CD133-positive tumor cell content is a predictor of early recurrence in colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. (2014) 5:447–56. 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2014.071

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 341.

  NingS-TLeeS-YWeiM-FPengC-LLinSY-FTsaiM-Het al. Targeting colorectal cancer stem-like cells with anti-CD133 antibody-Conjugated SN-38 nanopartiCLes. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. (2016) 8:17793–804. 10.1021/acsami.6b04403

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 342.

  ZhaoLYangYZhouPMaHZhaoXHeXet al. Targeting CD133high colorectal cancer cells in vitro and in vivo with an asymmetric bispecific antibody. J Immunother. (2015) 38:217–28. 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000086

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 343.

  SchmohlJUGleasonMKDoughertyPRMillerJSValleraDA. Heterodimeric bispecific single chain variable fragments (ScFv) killer engagers (BiKEs) enhance NK-cell activity against CD133+ colorectal cancer cells. Target Oncol. (2016) 11:353–61. 10.1007/s11523-015-0391-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 344.

  ZhaoYPengJZhangEJiangNLiJZhangQet al. CD133 expression may be useful as a prognostic indicator in colorectal cancer, a tool for opTIMizing therapy and supportive evidence for the cancer stem cell hypothesis: a meta-analysis. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:10023–36. 10.18632/oncotarget.7054

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 345.

  AlShamailehHWangTXiangDYinWTranPH-LBarreroRAet al. Aptamer-mediated survivin RNAi enables 5-fluorouracil to eliminate colorectal cancer stem cells. Sci Rep. (2017) 7:5898. 10.1038/s41598-017-05859-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 346.

  XiangDShigdarSBeanAGBruceMYangWMatheshMet al. Transforming doxorubicin into a cancer stem cell killer via EpCAM aptamer-mediated delivery. Theranostics. (2017) 7:4071–86. 10.7150/thno.20168

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 347.

  BoeschMSpizzoGSeeberA. Concise review: aggressive colorectal cancer: role of epithelial cell adhesion molecule in cancer stem cells and epithelial-to-Mesenchymal transition. Stem Cells Transl Med. (2018) 7:495–501. 10.1002/sctm.17-0289

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 348.

  Sousa e MeloF deKurtovaAVHarnossJMKljavinNHoeckJDHungJet al. A distinct role for Lgr5+ stem cells in primary and metastatic colon cancer. Nature. (2017) 543:676–80. 10.1038/nature21713

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 349.

  ShimokawaMOhtaYNishikoriSMatanoMTakanoAFujiiMet al. Visualization and targeting of Lgr5+ human colon cancer stem cells. Nature. (2017) 545:187–92. 10.1038/nature22081

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 350.

  CortinaCTuronGStorkDHeRNAndo-MomblonaXSevillanoMAguileraMet al. A genome editing approach to study cancer stem cells in human tumors. Embo Mol Med. (2017) 9:869–79. 10.15252/emmm.201707550

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 351.

  BakerA-MGrahamTAEliaGWrightNARodriguez-JustoM. Characterization of Lgr5 stem cells in colorectal adenomas and carcinomas. Sci Rep. (2015) 5:8654. 10.1038/srep08654

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 352.

  JunttilaMRMaoWWangXWangB-EPhamTFlygareJet al. Targeting Lgr5+ cells with an antibody-drug conjugate for the treatment of colon cancer. Sci Transl Med. (2015) 7:314ra186. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac7433

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 353.

  HeSZhouHZhuXHuSFeiMWanDet al. Expression of Lgr5, a marker of intestinal stem cells, in colorectal cancer and its CLinicopathological significance. Biomed Pharmacother. (2014) 68:507–13. 10.1016/j.biopha.2014.03.016

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 354.

  JiangYLiWHeXZhangHJiangFChenZ. Lgr5 expression is a valuable prognostic factor for colorectal cancer: evidence from a meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. (2015) 15:948. 10.1186/s12885-015-1985-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 355.

  VishnubalajiRManikandanMFahadMHamamRAlfayezMKassemMet al. Molecular profiling of ALDH1+ colorectal cancer stem cells reveals preferential activation of mAPK, FAK, and oxidative stress pro-survival signalling pathways. Oncotarget. (2018) 9:13551–64. 10.18632/oncotarget.24420

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 356.

  KozovskaZPatsaliasABajzikVDurinikovaEDemkovaLJargasovaSet al. ALDH1A inhibition sensitizes colon cancer cells to chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. (2018) 18:656. 10.1186/s12885-018-4572-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 357.

  KahlertCGaitzschESteinertGMoglerCHerpelEHoffmeisterMet al. Expression analysis of aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 (ALDH1A1) in colon and rectal cancer in association with prognosis and response to chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. (2012) 19:4193–201. 10.1245/s10434-012-2518-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 358.

  PiaoLFengYYangZQiWLiHHanHet al. LETM1 is a potential cancer stem-like cell marker and predicts poor prognosis in colorectal adenocarcinoma. Pathol Res Pract. (2019) 215:152437. 10.1016/j.prp.2019.152437

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 359.

  YangLDingCTangWYangTLiuMWuHet al. INPP4B exerts a dual function in the stemness of colorectal cancer stem-like cells through regulating sox2 and nanog expression. Carcinogenesis. (2019) 41:78–90. 10.1093/carcin/bgz110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 360.

  YaoCSuLShanJZhuCLiuLLiuCet al. IGF/STAT3/NANOG/Slug signaling axis simultaneously controls epithelial-Mesenchymal transition and stemness maintenance in colorectal cancer. Stem Cells. (2016) 34:820–31. 10.1002/stem.2320

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 361.

  WangHLiuBWangJLiJGongYLiSet al. Reduction of NANOG mediates the inhibitory effect of aspirin on tumor growth and stemness in colorectal cancer. Cell Physiol Biochem. (2017) 44:1051–63. 10.1159/000485405

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 362.

  XuFDaiCZhangRZhaoYPengSJiaC. Nanog: a potential biomarker for liver metastasis of colorectal cancer. Dig Dis Sci. (2012) 57:2340–6. 10.1007/s10620-012-2182-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 363.

  FujinoSMiyoshiN. Oct4 gene expression in primary colorectal cancer promotes liver metastasis. Stem Cells Int. (2019) 2019:7896524. 10.1155/2019/7896524

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 364.

  LeeJHYunCWHanY-SKimSJeongDKwonHYet al. Melatonin and 5-fluorouracil co-suppress colon cancer stem cells by regulating cellular prion protein-Oct4 axis. J Pineal Res. (2018) 65:e12519. 10.1111/jpi.12519

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 365.

  MiyoshiNFujinoSOhueMYasuiMTakahashiYSugimuraKet al. The POU5F1 gene expression in colorectal cancer: a novel prognostic marker. Surg Today. (2018) 48:709–15. 10.1007/s00595-018-1644-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 366.

  Ardalan KhalesSAbbaszadeganMRAbdollahiARaeisossadatiRTousiMFForghanifardMM. SALL4 as a new biomarker for early colorectal cancers. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2015) 141:229–35. 10.1007/s00432-014-1808-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 367.

  LundbergIVEdinSEklöfVÖbergÅPalmqvistRWikbergML. SOX2 expression is associated with a cancer stem cell state and down-regulation of CDX2 in colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. (2016) 16:471. 10.1186/s12885-016-2509-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 368.

  TakedaKMizushimaTYokoyamaYHiroseHWuXQianYet al. Sox2 is associated with cancer stem-like properties in colorectal cancer. Sci Rep. (2018) 8:17639. 10.1038/s41598-018-36251-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 369.

  MillerTJMcCoyMJHemmingsCBulsaraMKIacopettaBPlatellCF. The prognostic value of cancer stem-like cell markers SOX2 and CD133 in stage iII colon cancer is modified by expression of the immune-related markers FoxP3, PD-L1 and CD3. Pathology. (2017) 49:721–30. 10.1016/j.pathol.2017.08.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 370.

  HaubnerSPeRNAFKöhnkeTSchmidtCBermanSAugsbergerCet al. Coexpression profile of leukemic stem cell markers for combinatorial targeted therapy in AML. Leukemia. (2019) 33:64–74. 10.1038/s41375-018-0180-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 371.

  ZhangCCYanZPascualBJackson-FisherAHuangDSZongQet al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) inclusion to induction chemotherapy eliminates leukemic initiating cells and significantly improves survival in mouse models of acute myeloid leukemia. Neoplasia. (2018) 20:1–11. 10.1016/j.neo.2017.10.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 372.

  TangXYangLLiZNalinAPDaiHXuTet al. First-in-man clinical trial of CAR NK-92 cells: safety test of CD33-CAR NK-92 cells in patients with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Cancer Res. (2018) 8:1083–9.

  • Google Scholar

• 373.

  BraciakTARoskopfCCWildenhainSFennNCSchillerCBSchubertIAet al. Dual-targeting triplebody 33-16-123 (SPM-2) mediates effective redirected lysis of primary blasts from patients with a broad range of AML subtypes in combination with natural killer cells. Oncoimmunology. (2018) 7:e1472195. 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1472195

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 374.

  PetrovJCWadaMPinzKGYanLEChenKHShuaiXet al. Compound CAR T-cells as a double-pronged approach for treating acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. (2018) 32:1317–26. 10.1038/s41375-018-0075-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 375.

  CartellieriMFeldmannAKoristkaSArndtCLoffSEhningerAet al. Switching CAR T cells on and off: a novel modular platform for retargeting of t cells to AML blasts. Blood Cancer J. (2016) 6:e458. 10.1038/bcj.2016.61

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 376.

  PizzitolaIAnjos-AfonsoFRouault-PierreKLassaillyFTettamantiSSpinelliOet al. Chimeric antigen receptors against CD33/CD123 antigens efficiently target primary acute myeloid leukemia cells in vivo. Leukemia. (2014) 28:1596–605. 10.1038/leu.2014.62

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 377.

  ValleraDAFelicesMMcElmurryRMcCullarVZhouXSchmohlJUet al. IL15 trispecific killer engagers (Trike) make natural killer cells specific to CD33+ targets while also inducing persistence, in vivo expansion, and enhanced function. Clin Cancer Res. (2016) 22:3440–50. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2710

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 378.

  HoseiniSSGuoHWuZHatanoMNCheungN-KV. A potent tetravalent t-cell-engaging bispecific antibody against CD33 in acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv. (2018) 2:1250–8. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2017014373

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 379.

  KovtunYNoordhuisPWhitemanKRWatkinsKJonesGEHarveyLet al. IMGN779, a novel CD33-Targeting antibody–drug conjugate with DNA-Alkylating activity, exhibits potent antitumor activity in models of AML. Mol Cancer Ther. (2018) 17:1271–9. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-1077

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 380.

  VasuSHeSCheneyCGopalakrishnanBManiRLozanskiGet al. Decitabine enhances anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody BI 836858-mediated natural killer ADCC against AML blasts. Blood. (2016) 127:2879–89. 10.1182/blood-2015-11-680546

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 381.

  KloessSEde Valverde da SilvaAOberschmidtOGardlowskiTMatthiesNVyasMet al. Triplebody mediates increased anti-Leukemic reactivity of IL-2 activated donor natural killer (NK) cells and impairs viability of their CD33-expressing NK subset. Front Immunol. (2017) 8:1100. 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01100

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 382.

  SchneiderDXiongYHuPWuDChenWYingTet al. A unique human immunoglobulin heavy chain variable domain-only CD33 CAR for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Front. Oncol. (2018) 8:539. 10.3389/fonc.2018.00539

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 383.

  KenderianSSRuellaMShestovaOKlichinskyMAikawaVMorrissetteJJet al. CD33-specific chimeric antigen receptor T cells exhibit potent preClinical activity against human acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia. (2015) 29:1637–47. 10.1038/leu.2015.52

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 384.

  HillsRKCastaigneSAppelbaumFRDelaunayJPetersdorfSOthusMet al. Addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to induction chemotherapy in adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials. Lancet Oncol. (2014) 15:986–96. 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70281-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 385.

  GamisASAlonzoTAMeshinchiSSungLGerbingRBRaimondiSCet al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin in children and adolescents with de novo acute myeloid leukemia improves event-free survival by reducing relapse risk: results from the randomized phase iII children's oncology group trial AAML0531. JCO. (2014) 32:3021–32. 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.3628

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 386.

  SteinEMWalterRBErbaHPFathiATAdvaniASLancetJEet al. A phase 1 trial of vadastuximab talirine as monotherapy in patients with CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. (2018) 131:387–96. 10.1182/blood-2017-06-789800

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 387.

  WangQ-SWangYLvH-YHanQ-WFanHGuoBet al. Treatment of CD33-directed chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in one patient with relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Mol Ther. (2015) 23:184–91. 10.1038/mt.2014.164

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 388.

  ZahlerSBhatiaMRicciARoySMorrisEHarrisonLet al. A phase I Study of reduced-Intensity conditioning and allogeneic stem cell transplantation followed by dose escalation of targeted consolidation immunotherapy with gemtuzumab ozogamicin in children and adolescents with CD33+ acute myeloid leukemia. Biol Blood Marrow Transpl. (2016) 22:698–704. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.01.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 389.

  NiktorehNLeriusBZimmermannMGruhnBEscherichGBourquinJ-Pet al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin in children with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: a report by Berlin-Frankfurt-Münster study group. Haematologica. (2019) 104:120–7. 10.3324/haematol.2018.191841

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 390.

  TarlockKAlonzoTAGerbingRBRaimondiSCHirschBASungLet al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin reduces relapse risk in FLT3/ITD acute myeloid leukemia: a report from the children's oncology group. Clin Cancer Res. (2016) 22:1951–7. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1349

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 391.

  AmadoriSSuciuSSelleslagDAversaFGaidanoGMussoMet al. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin versus best supportive care in older patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy: results of the randomized phase III EORTC-GIMEMA AML-19 trial. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:972–9. 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.0060

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 392.

  PortwoodSPuchalskiRAWalkerRMWangES. Combining IMGN779, a novel anti-CD33 antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), with the pARP inhibitor, olaparib, results in enhanced anti-Tumor activity in preclinical acute myeloid leukemia (AML) models. Blood. (2016) 128:1645. 10.1182/blood.V128.22.1645.1645

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 393.

  PollardJALokenMGerbingRBRaimondiSCHirschBAAplencRet al. CD33 expression and its association with gemtuzumab ozogamicin response: results from the randomized phase III children's oncology group trial AAML0531. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:747–55. 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.6846

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 394.

  YabushitaTSatakeHMaruokaHMoritaMKatohDShimomuraYet al. Expression of multiple leukemic stem cell markers is associated with poor prognosis in de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. (2018) 59:2144–51. 10.1080/10428194.2017.1410888

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 395.

  Al-MawaliAGillisDLewisI. Immunoprofiling of leukemic stem cells CD34+/CD38-/CD123+ delineate FLT3/ITD-positive CLones. J Hematol Oncol. (2016) 9:61. 10.1186/s13045-016-0292-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 396.

  JordanCTUpchurchDSzilvassySJGuzmanMLHowardDSPettigrewALet al. The interleukin-3 receptor alpha chain is a unique marker for human acute myelogenous leukemia stem cells. Leukemia. (2000) 14:1777–84. 10.1038/sj.leu.2401903

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 397.

  XieLHBiondoMBusfieldSJArrudaAYangXVairoGet al. CD123 target validation and preClinical evaluation of ADCC activity of anti-CD123 antibody CSL362 in combination with NKs from AML patients in remission. Blood Cancer J. (2017) 7:e567. 10.1038/bcj.2017.52

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 398.

  BrasAEHaasV devan StigtAJongen-LavrencicMBeverlooHBTe MarveldeJGet al. CD123 expression levels in 846 acute leukemia patients based on standardized immunophenotyping. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. (2019) 96:134–42. 10.1002/cyto.b.21745

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 399.

  AraiNHommaMAbeMBabaYMuraiSWatanukiMet al. Impact of CD123 expression, analyzed by immunohistochemistry, on Clinical outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Int J Hematol. (2019) 109:539–44. 10.1007/s12185-019-02616-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 400.

  BonifantCLSzoorATorresDJosephNVelasquezMPIwahoriKet al. CD123-engager T cells as a novel immunotherapeutic for acute myeloid leukemia. Mol Ther. (2016) 24:1615–26. 10.1038/mt.2016.116

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 401.

  LiFSutherlandMKYuCWalterRBWestendorfLValliere-DouglassJet al. Characterization of SGN-CD123A, a potent CD123-directed antibody-drug conjugate for acute myeloid leukemia. Mol Cancer Ther. (2018) 17:554–64. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-17-0742

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 402.

  KovtunYJonesGEAdamsSHarveyLAudetteCAWilhelmAet al. A CD123-targeting antibody-drug conjugate, IMGN632, designed to eradicate AML while sparing normal bone marrow cells. Blood Adv. (2018) 2:848–58. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018017517

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 403.

  HanLJorgensenJLBrooksCShiCZhangQNoguerasGonzález GMet al. Antileukemia efficacy and mechanisms of action of SL-101, a novel anti-CD123 antibody conjugate, in acute myeloid leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. (2017) 23:3385–95. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-1904

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 404.

  FanDLiZZhangXYangYYuanXZhangXet al. AntiCD3Fv fused to human interleukin-3 deletion variant redirected T cells against human acute myeloid leukemic stem cells. J Hematol Oncol. (2015) 8:18. 10.1186/s13045-015-0109-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 405.

  BusfieldSJBiondoMWongMRamshawHSLeeEMGhoshSet al. Targeting of acute myeloid leukemia in vitro and in vivo with an anti-CD123 mAb engineered for optimal ADCC. Leukemia. (2014) 28:2213–21. 10.1038/leu.2014.128

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 406.

  WilliamsBAWangX-HLeytonJVMagheraSDeifBReillyRMet al. CD16+NK-92 and anti-CD123 monoclonal antibody prolongs survival in primary human acute myeloid leukemia xenografted mice. Haematologica. (2018) 103:1720–9. 10.3324/haematol.2017.187385

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 407.

  HutmacherCVoltaLRinaldiFMurerPMyburghRManzMGet al. Development of a novel fully-human anti-CD123 antibody to target acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. (2019) 84:106178. 10.1016/j.leukres.2019.106178

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 408.

  ThokalaROlivaresSMiTMaitiSDenigerDHulsHet al. Redirecting specificity of t cells using the sleeping beauty system to express chimeric antigen receptors by mix-and-matching of VL and VH domains targeting CD123+ tumors. PLoS ONE. (2016) 11:e0159477. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0159477

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 409.

  OberschmidtOMorganMHuppertVKesslerJGardlowskiTMatthiesNet al. Development of automated separation, expansion, and quality control protocols for clinical-scale manufacturing of primary human NK cells and alpharetroviral chimeric antigen receptor engineering. Hum Gene Ther Methods. (2019) 30:102–20. 10.1089/hgtb.2019.039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 410.

  TasianSKKenderianSSShenFRuellaMShestovaOKozlowskiMet al. Optimized depletion of chimeric antigen receptor T cells in murine xenograft models of human acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. (2017) 129:2395–407. 10.1182/blood-2016-08-736041

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 411.

  HeSZBusfieldSRitchieDSHertzbergMSDurrantSLewisIDet al. A phase 1 study of the safety, pharmacokinetics and anti-leukemic activity of the anti-CD123 monoclonal antibody CSL360 in relapsed, refractory or high-risk acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Lymphoma. (2015) 56:1406–15. 10.3109/10428194.2014.956316

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 412.

  Al-HussainiMRettigMPRitcheyJKKarpovaDUyGLEissenbergLGet al. Targeting CD123 in acute myeloid leukemia using a T-cell-directed dual-affinity retargeting platform. Blood. (2016) 127:122–31. 10.1182/blood-2014-05-575704

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 413.

  ZahranAMAlySSRayanAEl-BadawyOFattahMAAliAMet al. Survival outcomes of CD34+CD38-LSCs and their expression of CD123 in adult AML patients. Oncotarget. (2018) 9:34056–65. 10.18632/oncotarget.26118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 414.

  JiangY-PLiuBYZhengQPanugantiSChenRZhuJet al. CLT030, a leukemic stem cell-targeting CLL1 antibody-drug conjugate for treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Blood Adv. (2018) 2:1738–49. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2018020107

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 415.

  van RhenenAvan DongenGAKelderARomboutsEJFellerNMoshaverBet al. The novel AML stem cell associated antigen CLL-1 aids in discrimination between normal and leukemic stem cells. Blood. (2007) 110:2659–66. 10.1182/blood-2007-03-083048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 416.

  BillMAggerholmAKjeldsenERougASHoklandPNederbyL. Revisiting CLEC12A as leukaemic stem cell marker in AML: highlighting the necessity of precision diagnostics in patients eligible for targeted therapy. Br J Haematol. (2019) 184:769–81. 10.1111/bjh.15711

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 417.

  LeongSRSukumaranSHristopoulosMTotpalKStaintonSLuEet al. An anti-CD3/anti–CLL-1 bispecific antibody for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia. Blood. (2017) 129:609–18. 10.1182/blood-2016-08-735365

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 418.

  LinTYZhuYLiYZhangHMaAHLongQet al. Daunorubicin-containing CLL1-targeting nanomicelles have anti-leukemia stem cell activity in acute myeloid leukemia. Nanomedicine. (2019) 20:102004. 10.1016/j.nano.2019.04.007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 419.

  KenderianSSRuellaMShestovaOKlichinskyMKimMSoderquistCet al. Targeting CLEC12A with chimeric antigen receptor T Cells can overcome the chemotherapy refractoriness of leukemia stem cells. Biol. Blood Marrow Transpl. (2017) 23:S247–8. 10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.12.413

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 420.

  DarwishNHESudhaTGoduguKElbazOAbdelghaffarHAHassanEEAet al. Acute myeloid leukemia stem cell markers in prognosis and targeted therapy: potential impact of BMI-1, TIM-3 and CLL-1. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:57811–20. 10.18632/oncotarget.11063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 421.

  KikushigeYShimaTTakayanagiS-iUrataSMiyamotoTIwasakiHet al. TIM-3 is a promising target to selectively kill acute myeloid leukemia stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. (2010) 7:708–17. 10.1016/j.stem.2010.11.014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 422.

  HomayouniVGanjalikhani-hakemiMRezaeiAKhanahmadHBehdaniMLomedashtFK. Preparation and characterization of a novel nanobody against T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin-3 (TIM-3). Iran J Basic Med Sci. (2016) 19:1201–8. 10.15171/ijb.1427

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 423.

  DamaPTangMFultonNKlineJLiuH. Gal9/TIM-3 expression level is higher in AML patients who fail chemotherapy. J. ImmunoTher Cancer. (2019) 7:175. 10.1186/s40425-019-0611-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 424.

  van HoangTBussECWangWHoffmannIRaffelSZepeda-MorenoAet al. The rarity of ALDH(+) cells is the key to separation of normal versus leukemia stem cells by ALDH activity in AML patients. Int J Cancer. (2015) 137:525–36. 10.1002/ijc.29410

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 425.

  BlumeRRempelEMantaLSaeedBRWangWRaffelSet al. The molecular signature of AML with increased ALDH activity suggests a stem cell origin. Leuk Lymphoma. (2018) 59:2201–10. 10.1080/10428194.2017.1422862

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 426.

  VoeltzelTFlores-ViolanteMZylbersztejnFLefortSBillandonMJeanpierreSet al. A new signaling cascade linking BMP4, BMPR1A, ΔNp73 and NANOG impacts on stem-like human cell properties and patient outcome. Cell Death Dis. (2018) 9:1011. 10.1038/s41419-018-1042-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 427.

  KakiuchiSMinamiYMiyataYMizutaniYGotoHKawamotoSet al. NANOG expression as a responsive biomarker during treatment with hedgehog signal inhibitor in acute myeloid leukemia. Int J Mol Sci. (2017) 18:486. 10.3390/ijms18030486

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 428.

  PicotTKesrSWuYAaneiCMFlandrin-GrestaPTondeurSet al. Potential role of OCT4 in leukemogenesis. Stem Cells Dev. (2017) 26:1637–47. 10.1089/scd.2017.0134

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 429.

  YinJ-YTangQZhaiL-LZhouL-YQianJLinJet al. High expression of OCT4 is frequent and may cause undesirable treatment outcomes in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Tumour Biol. (2015) 36:9711–6. 10.1007/s13277-015-3731-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 430.

  XiangYZhouX. Octamer-binding transcription factor 4 correlates with complex karyotype, fLT3-ITD mutation and poorer risk stratification, and predicts unfavourable prognosis in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. Hematology. (2018) 23:721–8. 10.1080/10245332.2018.1482050

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 431.

  ZhangL-YYuanY-QZhouD-MWangZ-YJuS-GSunYet al. Impact of global and gene-specific DNA methylation in de novo or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia patients treated with decitabine. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. (2016) 17:431–7. 10.7314/APJCP.2016.17.1.431

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 432.

  TosicNPetrovicIGrujicicNKDavidovicSVirijevicMVukovicNSet al. Prognostic significance of SOX2, SOX3, SOX11, SOX14 and SOX18 gene expression in adult de novo acute myeloid leukemia. Leuk Res. (2018) 67:32–8. 10.1016/j.leukres.2018.02.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 433.

  SadovnikIHoelbl-KovacicAHerrmannHEisenwortGCerny-ReitererSWarschWet al. Identification of CD25 as STAT5-Dependent growth-Regulator of leukemic stem cells in PH+ CML. Clin Cancer Res. (2015) 22:2051–61. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0767

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 434.

  HerrmannHSadovnikICerny-ReitererSRülickeTStefanzlGWillmannMet al. Dipeptidylpeptidase IV (CD26) defines leukemic stem cells (LSC) in chronic myeloid leukemia. Blood. (2014) 123:3951–62. 10.1182/blood-2013-10-536078

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 435.

  LandbergNPalffyS vonAskmyrMLilljebjörnHSandénCRisslerMet al. CD36 defines primitive chronic myeloid leukemia cells less responsive to imatinib but vulnerable to antibody-based therapeutic targeting. Haematologica. (2018) 103:447–55. 10.3324/haematol.2017.169946

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 436.

  WarfvingeRGeironsonLSommarinMNLangSKarlssonCRoschupkinaTet al. Single-cell molecular analysis defines therapy response and immunophenotype of stem cell subpopulations in CML. Blood. (2017) 129:2384–94. 10.1182/blood-2016-07-728873

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 437.

  LandbergNHansenNAskmyrMÅgerstamHLassenCRisslerMet al. IL1RAP expression as a measure of leukemic stem cell burden at diagnosis of chronic myeloid leukemia predicts therapy outcome. Leukemia. (2016) 30:255–8. 10.1038/leu.2015.135

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 438.

  HoushmandMSimonettiGCircostaPGaidanoVCignettiAMartinelliGet al. Chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells. Leukemia. (2019) 33:1543–56. 10.1038/s41375-019-0490-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 439.

  SadovnikIHerrmannHEisenwortGBlattKHoermannGMuellerNet al. Expression of CD25 on leukemic stem cells in BCR-ABL1+ CML: potential diagnostic value and functional implications. Exp Hematol. (2017) 51:17–24. 10.1016/j.exphem.2017.04.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 440.

  ValentPSadovnikIEisenwortGBauerKHerrmannHGleixnerKVet al. Immunotherapy-Based targeting and elimination of leukemic stem cells in AML and CML. Int J Mol Sci. (2019) 20. 10.3390/ijms20174233

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 441.

  MadhumathiJSrideviSVermaRS. CD25 targeted therapy of chemotherapy resistant leukemic stem cells using DR5 specific TRAIL peptide. Stem Cell Res. (2017) 19:65–75. 10.1016/j.scr.2017.01.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 442.

  BocchiaMSicuranzaAAbruzzeseEIurloASirianniSGozziniAet al. Residual peripheral blood CD26+ leukemic stem cells in chronic myeloid leukemia patients during TKI therapy and during treatment-free remission. Front. Oncol. (2018) 8:194. 10.3389/fonc.2018.00194

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 443.

  CulenMBorskyMNemethovaVRazgaFSmejkalJJurcekTet al. Quantitative assessment of the CD26+ leukemic stem cell compartment in chronic myeloid leukemia: patient-subgroups, prognostic impact, and technical aspects. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:33016–24. 10.18632/oncotarget.9108

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 444.

  GalimbertiSGrassiSBaratèCGuerriniFCiabattiEPerutelliFet al. The polycomb BMI1 protein is co-expressed with CD26+ in leukemic stem cells of chronic myeloid leukemia. Front. Oncol. (2018) 8:555. 10.3389/fonc.2018.00555

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 445.

  ZhouSZhuXLiuWChengFZouPYouYet al. Comparison of chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells and hematopoietic stem cells by global proteomic analysis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2020) 522:362–7. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.11.092

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 446.

  RaspadoriDPacelliPSicuranzaAAbruzzeseEIurloACattaneoDet al. Flow cytometry assessment of CD26+ leukemic stem cells in peripheral blood: a simple and rapid new diagnostic tool for chronic myeloid leukemia. Cytometry B Clin Cytom. (2019) 96:294–9. 10.1002/cyto.b.21764

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 447.

  WillmannMSadovnikIEisenwortGEntnerMBernthalerTStefanzlGet al. Evaluation of cooperative antileukemic effects of nilotinib and vildagliptin in Ph+ chronic myeloid leukemia. Exp Hematol. (2018) 57:50–9.e6. 10.1016/j.exphem.2017.09.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 448.

  ZhouSLiWXiaoYZhuXZhongZLiQet al. A novel chimeric antigen receptor redirecting T-cell specificity towards CD26+ cancer cells. Leukemia. (2020). 10.1038/s41375-020-0824-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 449.

  FrolovaOBenitoJBrooksCWangR-YKorchinBRowinskyEKet al. SL-401 and SL-501, targeted therapeutics directed at the interleukin-3 receptor, inhibit the growth of leukaemic cells and stem cells in advanced phase chronic myeloid leukaemia. Br J Haematol. (2014) 166:862–74. 10.1111/bjh.12978

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 450.

  NievergallERamshawHSYongASBiondoMBusfieldSJVairoGet al. Monoclonal antibody targeting of IL-3 receptor α with CSL362 effectively depletes CML progenitor and stem cells. Blood. (2014) 123:1218–28. 10.1182/blood-2012-12-475194

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 451.

  ZhangJZhaoASunLChenWZhangHChenZet al. Selective surface marker and miRNA profiles of CD34+ blast-derived microvesiCLes in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Oncol Lett. (2017) 14:1866–74. 10.3892/ol.2017.6336

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 452.

  ÅgerstamHHansenNPalffyS vonSandénCReckzehKKarlssonCet al. IL1RAP antibodies block IL-1-induced expansion of candidate CML stem cells and mediate cell killing in xenograft models. Blood. (2016) 128:2683–93. 10.1182/blood-2015-11-679985

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 453.

  WardaWLarosaFNeto Da RochaMTradRDeconinckEFajlounZet al. CML hematopoietic stem cells expressing IL1RAP can be targeted by chimeric antigen receptor-engineered T Cells. Cancer Res. (2019) 79:663–75. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-1078

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 454.

  ZhouHMakPYMuHMakDHZengZCortesJet al. Combined inhibition of β-catenin and Bcr-Abl synergistically targets tyrosine kinase inhibitor-resistant blast crisis chronic myeloid leukemia blasts and progenitors in vitro and in vivo. Leukemia. (2017) 31:2065–74. 10.1038/leu.2017.87

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 455.

  JingHuMinFengZhang-LingLiuYiLiuZheng-LanHuangHuiLiet al. Potential role of Wnt/β-catenin signaling in blastic transformation of chronic myeloid leukemia: cross talk between β-catenin and BCR-ABL. Tumor Biol. (2016) 37:15859–72. 10.1007/s13277-016-5413-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 456.

  deCássia Viu Carrara RFontesAMAbrahamKJOrellanaMDHaddadSKPalmaPVBet al. Expression differences of genes in the PI3K/AKT, WNT/b-catenin, SHH, NOTCH and MAPK signaling pathways in CD34+ hematopoietic cells obtained from chronic phase patients with chronic myeloid leukemia and from healthy controls. Clin Transl Oncol. (2018) 20:542–9. 10.1007/s12094-017-1751-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 457.

  MasamotoYKurokawaM. Targeting chronic myeloid leukemia stem cells: can transcriptional program be a druggable target for cancers?Stem Cell Investig. (2018) 5:10. 10.21037/sci.2018.03.05

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 458.

  ZhaoYMasielloDMcMillianMNguyenCWuYMelendezEet al. CBP/catenin antagonist safely eliminates drug-resistant leukemia-initiating cells. Oncogene. (2016) 35:3705–17. 10.1038/onc.2015.438

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 459.

  JinBWangCLiJDuXDingKPanJ. Anthelmintic niclosamide disrupts the interplay of p65 and FOXM1/beta-catenin and eradicates leukemia stem cells in chronic myelogenous leukemia. Clin Cancer Res. (2017) 23:789–803. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0226

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 460.

  PellicanoFScottMTHelgasonGVHopcroftLEAllanEKAspinall-O'DeaMet al. The antiproliferative activity of kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia cells is mediated by FOXO transcription factors. Stem Cells. (2014) 32:2324–37. 10.1002/stem.1748

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 461.

  SadaranganiAPinedaGLennonKMChunH-JShihASchairerAEet al. GLI2 inhibition abrogates human leukemia stem cell dormancy. J Transl Med. (2015) 13:98. 10.1186/s12967-015-0453-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 462.

  CuiJLiPLiuXHuHWeiW. Abnormal expression of the notch and Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathways in stem-like ALDHHI CD44+ cells correlates highly with Ki-67 expression in breast cancer. Oncol Lett. (2015) 9:1600–6. 10.3892/ol.2015.2942

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 463.

  PontaHShermanLHerrlichPA. CD44: from adhesion molecules to signalling regulators. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. (2003) 4:33–45. 10.1038/nrm1004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 464.

  AkamineTTagawaTIjichiKToyokawaGTakamoriSHiraiFet al. The significance of CD44 variant 9 in resected lung adenocarcinoma: correlation with pathological early-stage and EGFR mutation. Ann Surg Oncol. (2019) 26:1544–51. 10.1245/s10434-018-07137-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 465.

  LiMZhangBZhangZLiuXQiXZhaoJet al. Stem cell-like circulating tumor cells indicate poor prognosis in gastric cancer. Biomed Res Int. (2014) 2014:981261. 10.1155/2014/981261

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 466.

  StroomerJWRoosJCSprollMQuakJJHeiderKHWilhelmBJet al. Safety and biodistribution of 99mTechnetium-labeled anti-CD44v6 monoclonal antibody BIWA 1 in head and neck cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. (2000) 6:3046–55.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 467.

  BörjessonPKPostemaEJRoosJCColnotDRMarresHAvan SchieMHet al. Phase I therapy study with 186Re-labeled humanized monoclonal antibody BIWA 4 (Bivatuzumab) in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. (2003) 9(10 Pt 2):3961–72s.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 468.

  Menke-van der Houven van OordtCWGomez-RocaCvan HerpenCCovelerALMahalingamDVerheulHMWet al. First-in-human phase I clinical trial of RG7356, an anti-CD44 humanized antibody, in patients with advanced, CD44-expressing solid tumors. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:80046–58. 10.18632/oncotarget.11098

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 469.

  LiZ. CD133: a stem cell biomarker and beyond. Exp Hematol Oncol. (2013) 2:17. 10.1186/2162-3619-2-17

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 470.

  RenFShengWQDuX. CD133: a cancer stem cells marker, is used in colorectal cancers. World J Gastroenterol. (2013) 19:2603–11. 10.3748/wjg.v19.i17.2603

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 471.

  GazzanigaPGradiloneAPetraccaANicolazzoCRaimondiCIacovelliRet al. Molecular markers in circulating tumour cells from metastatic colorectal cancer patients. J Cell Mol Med. (2010) 14:2073–7. 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2010.01117.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 472.

  XiaP. CD133 mRNA may be a suitable prognostic marker for human breast cancer. Stem Cell Investig. (2017) 4:87. 10.21037/sci.2017.10.03

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 473.

  TrzpisMMCLaughlinPMLeijLM deHarmsenMC. Epithelial cell adhesion molecule: more than a carcinoma marker and adhesion molecule. Am J Pathol. (2007) 171:386–95. 10.2353/ajpath.2007.070152

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 474.

  CirulliVCrisaLBeattieGMMallyMILopezADFannonAet al. KSA antigen Ep-CAM mediates cell-cell adhesion of pancreatic epithelial cells: morphoregulatory roles in pancreatic islet development. J Cell Biol. (1998) 140:1519–34. 10.1083/jcb.140.6.1519

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 475.

  HuangLYangYYangFLiuSZhuZLeiZet al. Functions of EpCAM in physiological processes and diseases (review). Int J Mol Med. (2018) 42:1771–85. 10.3892/ijmm.2018.3764

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 476.

  BalzarMWinterMJBoerCJ deLitvinovSV. The biology of the 17-1A antigen (Ep-CAM). J Mol Med. (1999) 77:699–712. 10.1007/s001099900038

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 477.

  SchmelzerEZhangLBruceAWauthierELudlowJYaoH-let al. Human hepatic stem cells from fetal and postnatal donors. J Exp Med. (2007) 204:1973–87. 10.1084/jem.20061603

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 478.

  KamimotoKKanekoKKokCY-YOkadaHMiyajimaAItohT. Heterogeneity and stochastic growth regulation of biliary epithelial cells dictate dynamic epithelial tissue remodeling. Elife. (2016) 5:15034. 10.7554/eLife.15034

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 479.

  SchnellUCirulliVGiepmansBN. EpCAM: structure and function in health and disease. Biochim Biophys Acta. (2013) 1828:1989–2001. 10.1016/j.bbamem.2013.04.018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 480.

  HiragaTItoSNakamuraH. EpCAM expression in breast cancer cells is associated with enhanced bone metastasis formation. Int J Cancer. (2016) 138:1698–708. 10.1002/ijc.29921

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 481.

  KimJOrkinSH. Embryonic stem cell-specific signatures in cancer: insights into genomic regulatory networks and implications for medicine. Genome Med. (2011) 3:75. 10.1186/gm291

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 482.

  HadjimichaelCChanoumidouKPapadopoulouNArampatziPPapamatheakisJKretsovaliA. Common stemness regulators of embryonic and cancer stem cells. World J Stem Cells. (2015) 7:1150–84. 10.4252/wjsc.v7.i9.1150

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 483.

  RosnerMHViganoMAOzatoKTIMmonsPMPoirierFRigbyPWet al. A POU-domain transcription factor in early stem cells and germ cells of the mammalian embryo. Nature. (1990) 345:686–92. 10.1038/345686a0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 484.

  Carrasco-GarciaESantosJCGarciaIBriantiMGarcía-PugaMPedrazzoliJet al. Paradoxical role of SOX2 in gastric cancer. Am J Cancer Res. (2016) 6:701–13.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 485.

  WangY-JHerlynM. The emerging roles of Oct4 in tumor-initiating cells. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. (2015) 309:C709–18. 10.1152/ajpcell.00212.2015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 486.

  DaiXGeJWangXQianXZhangCLiX. OCT4 regulates epithelial-mesenchymal transition and its knockdown inhibits colorectal cancer cell migration and invasion. Oncol Rep. (2013) 29:155–60. 10.3892/or.2012.2086

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 487.

  JeterCRYangTWangJChaoH-PTangDG. Concise review: NANOG in cancer stem cells and tumor development: an update and outstanding questions. Stem Cells. (2015) 33:2381–90. 10.1002/stem.2007

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 488.

  QuéréRAndradottirSBrunACZubarevRAKarlssonGOlssonKet al. High levels of the adhesion molecule CD44 on leukemic cells generate acute myeloid leukemia relapse after withdrawal of the initial transforming event. Leukemia. (2010) 25:515–26. 10.1038/leu.2010.281

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 489.

  WangN-SWeiMMaW-lMengWZhengW-l. Knockdown of CD44 enhances chemosensitivity of acute myeloid leukemia cells to ADM Ara-C. Tumour Biol. (2014) 35:3933–40. 10.1007/s13277-013-1523-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 490.

  HuangXLiDLiTZhaoBOChenX. Prognostic value of the expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog and CD44 in elderly patients with refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Oncol Lett. (2015) 10:103–10. 10.3892/ol.2015.3189

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 491.

  ZhouH-SCarterBZAndreeffM. Bone marrow niche-mediated survival of leukemia stem cells in acute myeloid leukemia: Yin and Yang. Cancer Biol Med. (2016) 13:248–59. 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2016.0023

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 492.

  TestaUPelosiECastelliG. CD123 as a therapeutic target in the treatment of hematological malignancies. Cancers. (2019) 11:1358. 10.3390/cancers11091358

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 493.

  PollyeaDAJordanCT. Therapeutic targeting of acute myeloid leukemia stem cells. Blood. (2017) 129:1627–35. 10.1182/blood-2016-10-696039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 494.

  WittwerNLBrumattiGMarchantCSandowJJPudneyMKDottoreMet al. High CD123 levels enhance proliferation in response to IL-3, but reduce chemotaxis by downregulating CXCR4 expression. Blood Adv. (2017) 1:1067–79. 10.1182/bloodadvances.2016002931

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 495.

  FaezASubhSA-M. Impact of leukemia stem cells phenotype expression on response to induction therapy in acute myeloid leukemia patients. Cardiovasc Hematol Disord Drug Targets. (2020) 20:145–151. 10.2174/1871529X19666190719105954

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 496.

  ZhouJChngW-J. Identification and targeting leukemia stem cells: the path to the cure for acute myeloid leukemia. World J Stem Cells. (2014) 6:473–84. 10.4252/wjsc.v6.i4.473

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 497.

  DavisJRBenjaminDJJonasBA. New and emerging therapies for acute myeloid leukaemia. J Investig Med. (2018) 66:1088–95. 10.1136/jim-2018-000807

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 498.

  KikushigeYMiyamotoT. Identification of TIM-3 as a leukemic stem cell surface molecule in primary acute myeloid leukemia. Oncology. (2015) 89(Suppl. 1):28–32. 10.1159/000431062

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 499.

  GraingerSTraverDWillertK. Wnt signaling in hematological malignancies. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. (2018) 153:321–41. 10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.11.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 500.

  ZhaoYWuKWuYMelendezESmbatyanGMassielloDet al. Characterization of imatinib resistant CML leukemic stem/Initiating cells and their sensitivity to CBP/Catenin antagonists. Curr Mol Pharmacol. (2018) 11:113–21. 10.2174/1874467210666170919155739

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 501.

  BlaudszunA-RMoldenhauerGSchneiderMPhilippiA. A photosensitizer delivered by bispecific antibody redirected T lymphocytes enhances cytotoxicity against EpCAM-expressing carcinoma cells upon light irradiation. J Control Release. (2015) 197:58–68. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2014.10.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 502.

  HosoyaNMiyagawaK. Targeting DNA damage response in cancer therapy. Cancer Sci. (2014) 105:370–88. 10.1111/cas.12366

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 503.

  RuhlandMKCoussensLMStewartSA. Senescence and cancer: an evolving inflammatory paradox. Biochim Biophys Acta. (2016) 1865:14–22. 10.1016/j.bbcan.2015.10.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 504.

  EwaldJADesotelleJAWildingGJarrardDF. Therapy-induced senescence in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. (2010) 102:1536–46. 10.1093/jnci/djq364

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 505.

  DodigSCepelakIPavićI. Hallmarks of senescence and aging. Biochem Med. (2019) 29:030501. 10.11613/BM.2019.030501

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 506.

  LeeSLeeJ-S. Cellular senescence: a promising strategy for cancer therapy. BMB Rep. (2019) 52:35–41. 10.5483/BMBRep.2019.52.1.294

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 507.

  ChakradeoSElmoreLWGewirtzDA. Is senescence reversible?Curr Drug Targets. (2016) 17:460–6. 10.2174/1389450116666150825113500

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 508.

  ZhaoHDarzynkiewiczZ. Biomarkers of cell senescence assessed by imaging cytometry. Methods Mol Biol. (2013) 965:83–92. 10.1007/978-1-62703-239-1_5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 509.

  AljaberyFShaboIGimmOJahnsonSOlssonH. The expression profile of p14, p53 and p21 in tumour cells is associated with disease-specific survival and the outcome of postoperative chemotherapy treatment in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Urol Oncol. (2018) 36:530.e7-530.e18. 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.05.025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 510.

  FallahMMohammadiHShakiFHosseini-KhahZMoloudizargariMDashtiAet al. Doxorubicin and liposomal doxorubicin induce senescence by enhancing nuclear factor kappa B and mitochondrial membrane potential. Life Sci. (2019) 232:116677. 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.116677

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 511.

  HaymanLChaudhryWRRevinVVZhelevNBourdonJ-C. What is the potential of p53 isoforms as a predictive biomarker in the treatment of cancer?Expert Rev Mol Diagn. (2019) 19:149–59. 10.1080/14737159.2019.1563484

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 512.

  MoraesJK deWagnerVPFonsecaFPAmaral-SilvaGKFariasCB dePilarEFet al. Activation of BDNF/TrkB/Akt pathway is associated with aggressiveness and unfavorable survival in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Dis. (2019) 25:1925–36. 10.1111/odi.13190

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 513.

  LinTHouP-FMengSChenFJiangTLiM-Let al. Emerging roles of p53 related lncRNAs in cancer progression: a systematic review. Int J Biol Sci. (2019) 15:1287–98. 10.7150/ijbs.33218

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 514.

  van den BosscheJDebenCPauwI deLambrechtsHHermansCDeschoolmeesterVet al. In vitro study of the polo-like kinase 1 inhibitor volasertib in non-small-cell lung cancer reveals a role for the tumor suppressor p53. Mol Oncol. (2019) 13:1196–213. 10.1002/1878-0261.12477

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 515.

  Zamorano-LeónJJBallesterosSlas HerasN deAlvarez-SalaLLaSeRNA-Soto M deZekri-NecharKet al. Effect of pectin on the expression of proteins associated with mitochondrial biogenesis and cell senescence in HT29-human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells. Prev Nutr Food Sci. (2019) 24:187–96. 10.3746/pnf.2019.24.2.187

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 516.

  WagnerJDamaschkeNYangBTruongMGuentherCMcCormickJet al. Overexpression of the novel senescence marker β-Galactosidase (GLB1) in prostate cancer predicts reduced PSA recurrence. PLoS ONE. (2015) 10:e0124366. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0124366

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 517.

  ZhangRChenWAdamsPD. Molecular dissection of formation of senescence-Associated heterochromatin foci?†. Mol Cell Biol. (2007) 27:2343–58. 10.1128/MCB.02019-06

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 518.

  BernadotteAMikhelsonVMSpivakIM. Markers of cellular senescence. telomere shortening as a marker of cellular senescence. Aging. (2016) 8:3–11. 10.18632/aging.100871

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 519.

  HartmanMLSztiller-SikorskaMCzyzM. Whole-exome sequencing reveals novel genetic variants associated with diverse phenotypes of melanoma cells. Mol Carcinog. (2019) 58:588–602. 10.1002/mc.22953

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 520.

  LongFHeYFuHLiYBaoXWangQet al. PreClinical characterization of SHR6390, a novel CDK 4/6 inhibitor, in vitro and in human tumor xenograft models. Cancer Sci. (2019) 110:1420–30. 10.1111/cas.13957

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 521.

  KnutsonKLCLynesRShreederBYeramianPKempKPBallmanKet al. Improved survival of HER2+ breast cancer patients treated with trastuzumab and chemotherapy is associated with host antibody immunity against the HER2 intracellular domain. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:3702–10. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3091

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 522.

  GunaratnaRTSantosALuoLNagiCLambertzISpierMet al. Dynamic role of the codon 72 p53 single-Nucleotide polymorphism in mammary tumorigenesis in a humanized mouse model. Oncogene. (2019) 38:3535–50. 10.1038/s41388-018-0630-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 523.

  SmolleEFink-NeuboeckNLindenmannJSmolle-JuettnerFPichlerM. The biological and clinical relevance of inhibitor of growth (ING) genes in non-Small cell lung cancer. Cancers. (2019) 11. 10.3390/cancers11081118

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 524.

  XiangX-HYangLZhangXMaX-HMiaoR-CGuJ-Xet al. Seven-senescence-associated gene signature predicts overall survival for asian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. (2019) 25:1715–28. 10.3748/wjg.v25.i14.1715

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 525.

  EggertTWolterKJiJMaCYevsaTKlotzSet al. Distinct functions of senescence-associated immune responses in liver tumor surveillance and tumor progression. Cancer Cell. (2016) 30:533–47. 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.09.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 526.

  CoppéJ-PDesprezP-YKrtolicaACampisiJ. The senescence-associated secretory phenotype: the dark side of tumor suppression. Annu Rev Pathol. (2010) 5:99–118. 10.1146/annurev-pathol-121808-102144

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 527.

  MaFChenDChenFChiYHanZFengXet al. Human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells promote breast cancer metastasis by interleukin-8- and interleukin-6-dependent induction of CD44(+)/CD24(-) cells. Cell Transplant. (2015) 24:2585–99. 10.3727/096368915X687462

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 528.

  Ortiz-MonteroPLondoño-VallejoAVernotJ-P. Senescence-associated IL-6 and IL-8 cytokines induce a self- and cross-reinforced senescence/inflammatory milieu strengthening tumorigenic capabilities in the MCF-7 breast cancer cell line. Cell Commun Signal. (2017) 15:17. 10.1186/s12964-017-0172-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 529.

  YamaguchiNNakayamaYYamaguchiN. Down-regulation of forkhead box protein A1 (FOXA1) leads to cancer stem cell-like properties in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells through induction of interleukin-6. J Biol Chem. (2017) 292:8136–48. 10.1074/jbc.M116.763276

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 530.

  PengDTanikawaTLiWZhaoLVatanLSzeligaWet al. Myeloid-Derived suppressor cells endow stem-like qualities to breast cancer cells through IL6/STAT3 and NO/NOTCH cross-talk signaling. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:3156–65. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2528

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 531.

  SahaSMukherjeeSKhanPKajalKMazumdarMMannaAet al. Aspirin suppresses the acquisition of chemoresistance in breast cancer by disrupting an NFκB-IL6 signaling axis responsible for the generation of cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:2000–12. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1360

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 532.

  WolfBKriegKFalkCBreuhahnKKeppelerHBiedermannTet al. Inducing differentiation of premalignant hepatic cells as a novel therapeutic strategy in hepatocarcinoma. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:5550–61. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3453

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 533.

  OhKLeeO-YParkYSeoMWLeeD-S. IL-1β induces IL-6 production and increases invasiveness and estrogen-independent growth in a TG2-dependent manner in human breast cancer cells. BMC Cancer. (2016) 16:724. 10.1186/s12885-016-2746-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 534.

  GalloMFrezzettiDRomaCChicchinelliNBarbieriAArraCet al. RANTES and IL-6 cooperate in inducing a more aggressive phenotype in breast cancer cells. Oncotarget. (2018) 9:17543–53. 10.18632/oncotarget.24784

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 535.

  YevsaTKangT-WZenderL. Immune surveillance of pre-cancerous senescent hepatocytes limits hepatocellular carcinoma development. Oncoimmunology. (2012) 1:398–9. 10.4161/onci.19128

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 536.

  KangT-WYevsaTWollerNHoenickeLWuestefeldTDauchDet al. Senescence surveillance of pre-malignant hepatocytes limits liver cancer development. Nature. (2011) 479:547–51. 10.1038/nature10599

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 537.

  Was H Barszcz K Czarnecka J Kowalczyk A Bernas T Uzarowska E . Bafilomycin A1 triggers proliferative potential of senescent cancer cells in vitro and in NOD/SCID mice. Oncotarget. (2016) 8:9303–22. 10.18632/oncotarget.14066

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 538.

  KoboldtDCFultonRSMcLellanMDSchmidtHKalicki-VeizerJMcMichaelJFet al. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. (2012) 490:61–70. 10.1038/nature11412

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 539.

  YamaoTYamashitaY-IYamamuraKNakaoYTsukamotoMNakagawaSet al. Cellular senescence, represented by expression of caveolin-1, in cancer-associated fibroblasts promotes tumor invasion in pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. (2019) 26:1552–9. 10.1245/s10434-019-07266-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 540.

  JabbourWWionD. Biomarkers of aging associated with past treatments in breast cancer survivors: when therapy-induced pathways turn out to be potential therapeutic targets. NPJ Breast Cancer. (2018) 4:1–2. 10.1038/s41523-018-0058-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 541.

  DiG-HLiuYLuYLiuJWuCDuanH-F. IL-6 secreted from senescent mesenchymal stem cells promotes proliferation and migration of breast cancer cells. PLoS ONE. (2014) 9:e113572. 10.1371/jouRNAl.pone.0113572

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 542.

  MarottaLLAlmendroVMarusykAShipitsinMSchemmeJWalkerSRet al. The JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway is required for growth of CD44+CD24− stem cell-like breast cancer cells in human tumors. J Clin Invest. (2011) 121:2723–35. 10.1172/JCI44745

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 543.

  WangTSongPZhongTWangXXiangXLiuQet al. The inflammatory cytokine IL-6 induces FRA1 deacetylation promoting colorectal cancer stem-like properties. Oncogene. (2019) 38:4932–47. 10.1038/s41388-019-0763-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 544.

  DouZBergerSL. Senescence elicits stemness: a surprising mechanism for cancer relapse. Cell Metab. (2018) 27:710–1. 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.03.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 545.

  PoltavetsVKochetkovaMPitsonSMSamuelMS. The role of the extracellular matrix and its molecular and cellular regulators in cancer cell plasticity. Front. Oncol. (2018) 8:431. 10.3389/fonc.2018.00431

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 546.

  AloiaLMcKieMAHuchM. Cellular plasticity in the adult liver and stomach. J Physiol. (2016) 594:4815–25. 10.1113/JP271769

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 547.

  ChenYWongPPSjeklochaLSteerCJSahinMB. Mature hepatocytes exhibit unexpected plasticity by direct dedifferentiation into liver progenitor cells in culture. Hepatology. (2012) 55:563–74. 10.1002/hep.24712

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 548.

  ChafferCLMarjanovicNDLeeTBellGKleerCGReinhardtFet al. Poised chromatin at the ZEB1 promoter enables breast cancer cell plasticity and enhances tumorigenicity. Cell. (2013) 154:61–74. 10.1016/j.cell.2013.06.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 549.

  AkunuruSJames ZhaiQZhengY. Non-small cell lung cancer stem/progenitor cells are enriched in multiple distinct phenotypic subpopulations and exhibit plasticity. Cell Death Dis. (2012) 3:e352. 10.1038/cddis.2012.93

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 550.

  VassalliG. Aldehyde dehydrogenases: not just markers, but functional regulators of stem cells. Stem Cells Int. (2019) 2019:3904645. 10.1155/2019/3904645

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 551.

  ClarkDWPalleK. Aldehyde dehydrogenases in cancer stem cells: potential as therapeutic targets. Ann Transl Med. (2016) 4:518. 10.21037/atm.2016.11.82

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 552.

  DohertyMRParvaniJGTamagnoIJunkDJBrysonBLCheonHJet al. The opposing effects of interferon-beta and oncostatin-M as regulators of cancer stem cell plasticity in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. (2019) 21:1–12. 10.1186/s13058-019-1136-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 553.

  PereiraLMariadasonJMHannanRDDhillonAS. Implications of epithelial-mesenchymal plasticity for heterogeneity in colorectal cancer. Front. Oncol. (2015) 5:13. 10.3389/fonc.2015.00013

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 554.

  ZhanTAmbrosiGWandmacherAMRauscherBBetgeJRindtorffNet al. MEK inhibitors activate Wnt signalling and induce stem cell plasticity in colorectal cancer. Nat Commun. (2019) 10:2197. 10.1038/s41467-019-09898-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 555.

  LeggeDNShephardAPCollardTJGreenhoughAChambersACCLarksonRWet al. BCL-3 promotes a cancer stem cell phenotype by enhancing β-catenin signalling in colorectal tumour cells. Dis Model Mech. (2019) 12:037697. 10.1242/dmm.037697

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 556.

  LiuDDuLChenDYeZDuanHTuTet al. Reduced CD146 expression promotes tumorigenesis and cancer stemness in colorectal cancer through activating wnt/β-catenin signaling. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:40704–18. 10.18632/oncotarget.9930

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 557.

  MohammedMKShaoCWangJWeiQWangXCollierZet al. Wnt/beta-catenin signaling plays an ever-expanding role in stem cell self-renewal, tumorigenesis and cancer chemoresistance. Genes Dis. (2016) 3:11–40. 10.1016/j.gendis.2015.12.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 558.

  MaoJFanSMaWFanPWangBZhangJet al. Roles of wnt/β-catenin signaling in the gastric cancer stem cells proliferation and salinomycin treatment. Cell Death Dis. (2014) 5:e1039. 10.1038/cddis.2013.515

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 559.

  CorrentiMRaggiC. Stem-like plasticity and heterogeneity of circulating tumor cells: current status and prospect challenges in liver cancer. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:7094–115. 10.18632/oncotarget.12569

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 560.

  ShibueTWeinbergRA. EMT, CSCs, and drug resistance: the mechanistic link and Clinical implications. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2017) 14:611–29. 10.1038/nrCLinonc.2017.44

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 561.

  ZhangDTangDGRycajK. Cancer stem cells: regulation programs, immunological properties and immunotherapy. Semin Cancer Biol. (2018) 52:94–106. 10.1016/j.semcancer.2018.05.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 562.

  PanQLiQLiuSNingNZhangXXuYet al. Concise review: targeting cancer stem cells using immunologic approaches. Stem Cells. (2015) 33:2085–92. 10.1002/stem.2039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 563.

  SchmidtsAMausMV. Making CAR T cells a solid option for solid tumors. Front Immunol. (2018) 9:2593. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02593

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 564.

  LongKBYoungRMBoesteanuACDavisMMMelenhorstJJLaceySFet al. CAR T cell therapy of non-hematopoietic malignancies: detours on the road to clinical success. Front Immunol. (2018) 9:2740. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02740

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 565.

  ZhuXPrasadSGaedickeSHettichMFiratENiedermannG. Patient-derived glioblastoma stem cells are killed by CD133-specific CAR T cells but induce the T cell aging marker CD57. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:171–84. 10.18632/oncotarget.2767

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 566.

  HuBZouYZhangLTangJNiedermannGFiratEet al. Nucleofection with plasmid DNA for CRISPR/Cas9-mediated inactivation of programmed cell death protein 1 in CD133-specific CAR T Cells. Hum Gene Ther. (2019) 30:446–58. 10.1089/hum.2017.234

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 567.

  KlapdorRWangSHackerUBüningHMorganMDörkTet al. Improved killing of ovarian cancer stem cells by combining a novel chimeric antigen receptor-Based immunotherapy and chemotherapy. Hum Gene Ther. (2017) 28:886–96. 10.1089/hum.2017.168

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 568.

  WangYChenMWuZTongCDaiHGuoYet al. CD133-directed CAR T cells for advanced metastasis malignancies: a phase I trial. Oncoimmunology. (2018) 7:e1440169. 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1440169

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 569.

  FengK-CGuoY-LLiuYDaiH-RWangYLvH-Yet al. Cocktail treatment with EGFR-specific and CD133-specific chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells in a patient with advanced cholangiocarcinoma. J Hematol Oncol. (2017) 10:4. 10.1186/s13045-016-0378-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 570.

  ColnotDRQuakJJRoosJCvan LingenAWilhelmAJvan KampGJet al. Phase I therapy study of 186Re-labeled chimeric monoclonal antibody U36 in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Nucl Med. (2000) 41:1999–2010.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 571.

  ColnotDROssenkoppeleGJRoosJCQuakJJBreeRdBörjessonPKet al. Reinfusion of unprocessed, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-stimulated whole blood allows dose escalation of 186Relabeled chimeric monoclonal antibody U36 radioimmunotherapy in a phase I dose escalation study. Clin Cancer Res. (2002) 8:3401–6.

  • Google Scholar

• 572.

  VeyNDelaunayJMartinelliGFiedlerWRaffouxEPrebetTet al. Phase I clinical study of RG7356, an anti-CD44 humanized antibody, in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:32532–42. 10.18632/oncotarget.8687

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 573.

  TijinkBMButerJBreeRdGiacconeGLangMSStaabAet al. A phase I dose escalation study with anti-CD44v6 bivatuzumab mertansine in patients with incurable squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or esophagus. Clin Cancer Res. (2006) 12:6064–72. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0910

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 574.

  RuppUSchoendorf-HollandEEichbaumMSchuetzFLauschnerISchmidtPet al. Safety and pharmacokinetics of bivatuzumab mertansine in patients with CD44v6-positive metastatic breast cancer: final results of a phase I study. Anticancer Drugs. (2007) 18:477–85. 10.1097/CAD.0b013e32801403f4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 575.

  RiechelmannHSauterAGolzeWHanftGSchroenCHoermannKet al. Phase I trial with the CD44v6-targeting immunoconjugate bivatuzumab mertansine in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. (2008) 44:823–9. 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2007.10.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 576.

  LeuciVCasucciGMGrignaniGRotoloRRossottiUVignaEet al. CD44v6 as innovative sarcoma target for CAR-redirected CIK cells. Oncoimmunology. (2018) 7:e1423167. 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1423167

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 577.

  ZhouYWenPLiMLiYLiX-A. Construction of chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells targeting EpCAM and assessment of their anti-tumor effect on cancer cells. Mol Med Rep. (2019) 20:2355–64. 10.3892/mmr.2019.10460

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 578.

  ArmstrongAEckSL. EpCAM: a new therapeutic target for an old cancer antigen. Cancer Biol Ther. (2003) 2:320–6. 10.4161/cbt.2.4.451

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 579.

  ZhangB-LLiDGongY-LHuangYQinD-YJiangLet al. Preclinical evaluation of chimeric antigen receptor-modified T Cells specific to epithelial cell adhesion molecule for treating colorectal cancer. Hum Gene Ther. (2019) 30:402–12. 10.1089/hum.2018.229

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 580.

  ZhangQZhangHDingJLiuHLiHLiHet al. Combination therapy with EPCAM-CAR-NK-92 cells and regorafenib against human colorectal cancer models. J Immunol Res. (2018) 2018:1–11. 10.1155/2018/4263520

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 581.

  AngWXLiZChiZDuS-HChenCTayJCKet al. Intraperitoneal immunotherapy with T cells stably and transiently expressing anti-EpCAM CAR in xenograft models of peritoneal carcinomatosis. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:13545–59. 10.18632/oncotarget.14592

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 582.

  Study Evaluating Safety Efficacy of CAR-T Cells Targeting CD123 in Patients with Acute Leukemia. CLinicalTrials.gov (2020). Available online at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03672851?term=NCT03672851&draw=2&rank=1 (accessed April 27, 2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 583.

  HegdeMMukherjeeMGradaZPignataALandiDNavaiSAet al. Tandem CAR T cells targeting HER2 and IL13Rα2 mitigate tumor antigen escape. J Clin Invest. (2016) 126:3036–52. 10.1172/JCI83416

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 584.

  BielamowiczKFousekKByrdTTSamahaHMukherjeeMAwareNet al. Trivalent CAR T cells overcome interpatient antigenic variability in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. (2018) 20:506–18. 10.1093/neuonc/nox182

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 585.

  GuedanSCalderonHPoseyADMausMV. Engineering and design of chimeric antigen receptors. Mol Ther Methods Clin Dev. (2019) 12:145–56. 10.1016/j.omtm.2018.12.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 586.

  MinutoloNGHollanderEEPowellDJ. The emergence of universal immune receptor T cell therapy for cancer. Front Oncol. (2019) 9:176. 10.3389/fonc.2019.00176

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 587.

  MacKayMAfshinnekooERubJHassanCKhunteMBaskaranNet al. The therapeutic landscape for cells engineered with chimeric antigen receptors. Nature Biotechnol. (2020) 38:233–44. 10.1038/s41587-019-0329-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 588.

  BachmannM. The uni CAR system: a modular CAR T cell approach to improve the safety of CAR T cells. Immunol Lett. (2019) 211:13–22. 10.1016/j.imlet.2019.05.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 589.

  ChoJHCollinsJJWongWW. Universal chimeric antigen receptors for multiplexed and logical control of T cell responses. Cell. (2018) 173:1426–38.e11. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.038

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 590.

  HübnerJHoseiniSSSuerthJDHoffmannDMaluskiMHerbstJet al. Generation of genetically engineered precursor T-Cells from human umbilical cord blood using an optimized alpharetroviral vector platform. Mol Ther. (2016) 24:1216–26. 10.1038/mt.2016.89

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 591.

  GargettTBrownMP. The inducible caspase-9 suicide gene system as a “safety switch” to limit on-target, off-tumor toxicities of chimeric antigen receptor T cells. Front Pharmacol. (2014) 5:235. 10.3389/fphar.2014.00235

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 592.

  FedorovVDThemeliMSadelainM. PD-1– and CTLA-4–based inhibitory chimeric antigen receptors (ICARs) divert off-Target immunotherapy responses. Sci Transl Med. (2013) 5:215ra172. 10.1126/scitranslmed.3006597

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 593.

  RoybalKTRuppLJMorsutLWalkerWJMcNallyKAParkJSet al. Precision tumor recognition by T Cells with combinatorial antigen-sensing circuits. Cell. (2016) 164:770–9. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.01.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 594.

  ZhangQTianKXuJZhangHLiLFuQet al. Synergistic effects of cabozantinib and EGFR-specific CAR-NK-92 cells in renal cell carcinoma. J Immunol Res. (2017) 2017:6915912. 10.1155/2017/6915912

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 595.

  KwilasARArdianiADonahueRNAftabDTHodgeJW. Dual effects of a targeted small-molecule inhibitor (cabozantinib) on immune-mediated killing of tumor cells and immune tumor microenvironment permissiveness when combined with a cancer vaccine. J Transl Med. (2014) 12:294. 10.1186/s12967-014-0294-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 596.

  LiHDingJLuMLiuHMiaoYLiLet al. CAIX-specific CAR-T cells and sunitinib show synergistic effects against metastatic renal cancer models. J Immunother. (2019) 43:16–28. 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000301

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 597.

  WuXHuangS. HER2-specific chimeric antigen receptor-engineered natural killer cells combined with apatinib for the treatment of gastric cancer. Bull Cancer. (2019) 106:946–58. 10.1016/j.bulcan.2019.03.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 598.

  PeRNAFBermanSHSoniRKMansilla-SotoJEyquemJHamiehMet al. Integrating proteomics and transcriptomics for systematic combinatorial chimeric antigen receptor therapy of AML. Cancer Cell. (2017) 32:506–19.e5. 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.09.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 599.

  ShortSFielderEMiwaSvon ZglinickiT. Senolytics and senostatics as adjuvant tumour therapy. EBioMedicine. (2019) 41:683–92. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.01.056

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar