cancers Review Targeting the Hedgehog Pathway in Rhabdomyosarcoma Patricia Zarzosa 1 , Lia Garcia-Gilabert 1 , Raquel Hladun 2 , Gabriela Guillén 3 , Gabriel Gallo-Oller 1 , Guillem Pons 1 , Julia Sansa-Girona 1 , Miguel F. Segura 1 , Josep Sánchez de Toledo 1,2 , Lucas Moreno 2 , Soledad Gallego 1,2, * and Josep Roma 1, * 1 Childhood Cancer and Blood Disorders, Vall d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain 2 Pediatric Oncology and Hematology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain 3 Pediatric Surgery Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08035 Barcelona, Spain * Correspondence: gallegosoledad@hotmail.com (S.G.); josep.roma@vhir.org (J.R.) Simple Summary: In the first sections of this review, we provide a comprehensive description of the Hedgehog signalling pathway in mammals and the main general models of pathway activation. Subsequently, the review focuses on the oncogenic role played by this pathway in rhabdomyosarcoma and the inhibitors developed to date, as well as the clinical trials available in sarcomas. Finally, we provide a discussion and critical review of the results obtained in the clinical setting and their strong dependency on the type of tumour. In some cases, strong discrepancies between encouraging preclinical data and clinical trial results are clearly evident. Abstract: Aberrant activation of the Hedgehog (Hh) signalling pathway is known to play an onco- genic role in a wide range of cancers; in the particular case of rhabdomyosarcoma, this pathway has been demonstrated to be an important player for both oncogenesis and cancer progression. In this review, after a brief description of the pathway and the characteristics of its molecular com- ponents, we describe, in detail, the main activation mechanisms that have been found in cancer, Citation: Zarzosa, P.; Garcia-Gilabert, including ligand-dependent, ligand-independent and non-canonical activation. In this context, the L.; Hladun, R.; Guillén, G.; Gallo-Oller, most studied inhibitors, i.e., SMO inhibitors, have shown encouraging results for the treatment of G.; Pons, G.; Sansa-Girona, J.; Segura, basal cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma, both tumour types often associated with mutations that M.F.; Sánchez de Toledo, J.; Moreno, lead to the activation of the pathway. Conversely, SMO inhibitors have not fulfilled expectations in L.; et al. Targeting the Hedgehog tumours—among them sarcomas—mostly associated with ligand-dependent Hh pathway activation. Pathway in Rhabdomyosarcoma. Despite the controversy existing regarding the results obtained with SMO inhibitors in these types Cancers 2023, 15, 727. https:// of tumours, several compounds have been (or are currently being) evaluated in sarcoma patients. doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030727 Finally, we discuss some of the reasons that could explain why, in some cases, encouraging preclinical Academic Editors: Janet Shipley, data turned into disappointing results in the clinical setting. Johannes H. M Merks and Julia Chisholm Keywords: cancer; paediatric cancer; soft tissue sarcomas; STS; embryonic pathways; Hh pathway; Received: 13 January 2023 SMO; Sonic; Indian; Desert; PTCH; SUFU; CDO; BOC; GAS1 Accepted: 18 January 2023 Published: 24 January 2023 1. Introduction Childhood cancers differ from adult malignancies owing to their different aetiology, Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. biology, response to treatment, and outcome. However, despite the small number of Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. cases of childhood cancers compared with the adult population, the understanding of This article is an open access article the molecular biology of paediatric tumours has improved considerably in recent years. distributed under the terms and The pathways often known as ‘embryonic pathways’ (basically Notch, Hedgehog, and Wnt) conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// are appealing candidates as targets for interfering with the mechanisms that drive the creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ oncogenic phenotype of tumour cells. Our understanding of the roles played by these 4.0/). pathways in paediatric tumours is progressing; however, it is far from that of better-known Cancers 2023, 15, 727. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15030727 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers Cancers 2023, 15, 727 2 of 17 adult malignancies. Nevertheless, recent findings supported these pathways and some of their components as very promising and interesting putative therapeutic targets. Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the commonest type of soft tissue sarcoma in children and adolescents and represents 4–5% of all childhood malignancies. Regarding histopatho- logic criteria, RMS can be divided into two main subtypes: alveolar and embryonal (ARMS and ERMS, respectively). Molecularly, RMS can be divided into fusion-positive and fusion- negative tumours (in reference of chromosomal translocations affecting mainly FOXO1 and PAX3 or PAX7 genes), a stratification criterion that has been recently demonstrated to be a powerful predictor of prognosis [1,2], since both subtypes differ considerably in their clinical behaviour. The first-line treatment for RMS may include surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, with the most common protocols including Vincristine, Actinomycin D and Cyclophosphamide (VAC) or Ifosfamide, Vincristine and Actinomycin D (IVA) [3]. The clinical and molecular characteristics of RMS tumours, highlighting the cell morphology—similar to that of rhabdomyoblasts—the tumour location—generally in stri- ated muscle, and the expression of various myogenic factors (among others PAX3/7, myo- genin and MyoD), have favoured the association of RMS development with a disruption in the proliferation and differentiation of myogenic progenitors [4]. Muscle development begins during embryonic gastrulation and is regulated by the cyclical expression of the aforementioned embryonic pathways and some lineage-specific transcription factors such as PAX3 and PAX7 [5,6], all of them of great relevance for RMS tumours. Moreover, translo- cation and overexpression of PAX3 and PAX7 genes correlate clinically with poor prognosis, thereby suggesting their significance in RMS progression [7,8]. Additionally, recent studies have described the possibility of originating RMS tumours from non-myogenic cells of adipose and endothelial origin by modulating the embryonic Hedgehog (Hh) pathway, suggesting a pivotal role for this pathway in the genesis of RMS [9,10]. The Hh pathway plays a major role during embryogenesis, where it profoundly influences the fate of a wide range of cells and lineages. Notably, the Hh pathway controls several critical aspects of the myogenic program, the balance of which is also essential during carcinogenesis. It maintains the survival of the most primitive cells of the dermomyotome [11], initiates differentiation by inducing the expression of the myogenic regulatory factors Myf5 [12] and MyoD [13], regulates cell migration of distal limb muscle cells [11], participates in growth of skeletal muscle [14], and, finally, also plays a key role in cell fate determination during adult tissue repair by promoting myofiber regeneration [15]. The contribution of the Hh pathway to cancer was revealed as particularly important. Furthermore, apart from affecting several physiological processes, anomalous activation of the pathway (by deregulation or mutation of some of its components) is often involved in tumorigenesis. The influence of an embryonic pathway, such as Hedgehog, on an em- bryonic cancer, such as RMS, may not be a coincidence. Thus, the fact that the abnormal regulation of the pathway is quite general in RMS samples (especially in the embryonal sub- type, but also in alveolar), together with the fact that mutation of their components—albeit present in some cases—is rare, points to a bi-directional relationship between activation of the pathway and the embryonic status of the original cells. 2. Overview of the Hedgehog Signalling Pathway in Mammals The first step in canonical Hh pathway signalling is the synthesis and maturation of ligands. After their translation, the Hh proteins enter the secretory pathway and undergo autoproteolytic cleavage and two lipidic modifications—the addition of a cholesterol residue at the carboxyl end and the palmitoylation of the amino-terminal end—which causes the release of a 19 kDa bilipidated peptide [16,17]. These modifications confer high hydrophobicity to the Hh ligands, causing their retention in the membrane [18,19]. Once in the membrane, a protein named Dispatched (DISP) interacts with the cholesterol from the Hh ligands and transfers them to the extracellular protein SCUBE, which subsequently solubilizes and releases the Hh ligands [19–21]. phobicity to the Hh ligands, causing their retention in the membrane [18,19]. Once i membrane, a protein named Dispatched (DISP) interacts with the cholesterol from th ligands and transfers them to the extracellular protein SCUBE, which subsequently bilizes and releases the Hh ligands [19–21]. Cancers 2023, 15, 727 The main receptor of the secreted Hh ligands is the transmembrane3 of 17 protein Pa (PTCH) which, in turn, acts as a constitutive inhibitor of the pathway. In the absen ligand, PTCH blocks the intermediate modulator Smoothened (SMO) and prevent The main receptor of the secreted Hh ligands is the transmembrane protein Patched signalling activation (Figure 1). The binding of Hh ligands to PTCH leads to its subseq (PTCH) which, in turn, acts as a constitutive inhibitor of the pathway. In the absence of endosomal degradation. The functional inhibition of PTCH allows the activation of ligand, PTCH blocks the intermediate modulator Smoothened (SMO) and prevents Hh and its accumulation signalling activation (Figure in the primary 1). The cilium, binding of Hhwhich ligands facilitates to PTCH pathway leads to itsactivation subse- resu in increased quent endosomaltranscriptional degradation. The activity of the functional pathway’s inhibition of PTCH target allowsgenes (Figure 2). The the activation of scriptional SMO and itsactivity of Hh targets is mediated by the balance between the repressor accumulation in the primary cilium, which facilitates pathway activation resulting R) andinactivator increased (GLI-A) transcriptional formsactivity of GLI of the pathway’s target transcription genes factors. (Figure Thus, in 2). theThe absence o transcriptional activity of Hh targets is mediated by the balance between the repressor ands, GLI and SUFU form a repressor complex that travels to the apical region of th (GLI-R) and activator (GLI-A) forms of GLI transcription factors. Thus, in the absence of mary cilium. Once there, KIF7 promotes (in a not completely understood mechanism ligands, GLI and SUFU form a repressor complex that travels to the apical region of the sequential primary cilium.hyperphosphorylation Once there, KIF7 promotes of (in GLI proteins a not by PKA, completely CK1, and understood GSK3B, prom mechanism) thethe proteasomal sequential degradation ofofits hyperphosphorylation GLItransactivator proteins by PKA,domain and,GSK3B, CK1, and in turn, allowing the re promoting theofproteasomal GLI-R, which are rapidly translocated to the nucleus to repress the expression degradation of its transactivator domain and, in turn, allowing the release of t of genes GLI-R, (Figure which are1). rapidly translocated Conversely, to the in the nucleusof presence to repress ligands, theSMO expression of target to th is translocated genes (Figure 1). Conversely, in the presence of ligands, SMO is translocated to the primary mary cilium and modulates the role of KIF7; this, instead of promoting GLI proteo cilium and modulates the role of KIF7; this, instead of promoting GLI proteolysis, causes causes its dissociation from the repressor complex formed by SUFU and, in turn, a its dissociation from the repressor complex formed by SUFU and, in turn, allows its release anditssubsequent release and subsequent nuclear nuclear translocation, translocation, thereby activating thethereby activating transcription of Hh the transcripti target Hh (Figure genes target genes (Figure 2) [22–27]. Ligand2) traffic [22–27]. andLigand binding traffic and binding to the PTCH membrane to receptor the PTCH in memb receptor in recipient cells is an incompletely clarified mechanism, with the involve recipient cells is an incompletely clarified mechanism, with the involvement of several co-adjuvant of severaland little-knownand co-adjuvant membrane proteins, little-known such as CDO, membrane BOC, GAS1, proteins, such andas CDO,HHIP.BOC, G Inand particular, HHIP.CDO, BOC, and CDO, In particular, GAS1 co-receptors BOC, and GAS1 interact with the ligand co-receptors and facilitate interact with the ligand its binding to PTCH in an essential manner [16,19,23]. On the contrary, HHIP exerts an facilitate its binding to PTCH in an essential antagonist role by competing with PTCH for binding to the ligands. manner [16,19,23]. On the contrary, H exerts an antagonist role by competing with PTCH for binding to the ligands. Figure 1. Inactive Hedgehog signalling. In the absence of Hh ligands, PTCH blocks the ciliary Figure 1. Inactive Hedgehog signalling. In the absence of Hh ligands, PTCH blocks the ciliary ization of SMO. The GLI transcription factors, located at the base of the primary cilium, are inh localization of SMO. The GLI transcription factors, located at the base of the primary cilium, are by the SUFU repressor complex. Then, KIF7 mediates GLI phosphorylation via PKA, CK1 inhibited by the SUFU repressor complex. Then, KIF7 mediates GLI phosphorylation via PKA, GSK3B kinases. Phosphorylated GLI1 is then ubiquitinated and totally degraded by the protea CK1, and GSK3B kinases. Phosphorylated GLI1 is then ubiquitinated and totally degraded by the However, GLI2 and GLI3 can be entirely or partially degraded. Incomplete degradation of G proteasome. However, GLI2 and GLI3 can be entirely or partially degraded. Incomplete degradation gives rise to the GLI repressor forms (GLI-R), which are translocated to the nucleus and inhib of GLI2/3 gives rise to the GLI repressor forms (GLI-R), which are translocated to the nucleus and transcription of target genes. Image created with BioRender (BioRender.com). inhibit the transcription of target genes. Image created with BioRender (BioRender.com). Cancers2023, Cancers 15, 727 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 17 4 Figure 2. Active Hedgehog signalling. Binding of Hh ligands (purple spheres) to PTCH cau Figure 2. Active Hedgehog signalling. Binding of Hh ligands (purple spheres) to PTCH causes internalization and subsequent endosomal degradation. Then, SMO moves and accumulates its internalization and subsequent endosomal degradation. Then, SMO moves and accumulates primary cilium, where it releases the GLI transcription factors from the repressor complex. F in the primary cilium, where it releases the GLI transcription factors from the repressor complex. active GLI proteins (GLI-A) translocate to the nucleus, where they are able to activate the tran Finally, active GLI proteins (GLI-A) translocate to the nucleus, where they are able to activate the tion of Hh target genes. Image created with BioRender (BioRender.com). transcription of Hh target genes. Image created with BioRender (BioRender.com). 3. 3. General Models General of Oncogenic Models Hh Pathway of Oncogenic Activation Hh Pathway Activation 3.1. Ligand-Independent Hh Activation (Mutational) 3.1. Ligand-Independent Hh Activation (Mutational) Often referred to as type I, ligand-independent Hh activation strongly relies on onco- Often referred genic mutations in some to as type of the main I, ligand-independent actors Hh activation of the pathway, especially those that strongly are able relies o cogenic mutations in some of the main actors of the pathway, to induce constitutive activation of the pathway (Figure 3a). This activation increases especially those the that ar to induce constitutive transcriptional activity of GLIactivation genes among of the pathway others, thereby (Figure increasing 3a). theThis activation expression of the increase Hhtranscriptional target genes andactivity promoting tumorigenesis [28]. The most frequent genetic of GLI genes among others, thereby increasing the expressi alterations found the Hhare target mutationsgenesleading and to PTCH1 inactivation promoting tumorigenesis or SMO activation. [28]. The mostNevertheless, frequent genetic a loss-of-function mutations in SUFU and amplifications and gains of function of the GLI tions found are mutations leading to PTCH1 inactivation or SMO activation. Neverth transcription factors, albeit less frequent, have also been described [25–30]. loss-of-function The main tumour mutations in SUFU types associated with and thisamplifications aberrant activation andare gains basalofcell function carci- of th transcription factors, albeit less frequent, have also been noma (BCC) and medulloblastoma (MB). In fact, about 90% of BCCs and more than 30% of described [25–30]. sporadicThe MBsmain tumour present typesactivation an aberrant associated with of the Hhthis aberrant pathway activation caused are basal by mutations in cell PTCH1 or, to a lesser extent, by mutations in SMO [31,32]. Interestingly, noma (BCC) and medulloblastoma (MB). In fact, about 90% of BCCs and more than an age-dependent molecular of sporadicheterogeneity MBs present in MBan has been reported. aberrant activationThus,ofthe theloss PTCH1 is caused Hhofpathway the mostby muta common in all ages, SMO inactivation is particularly frequent in adults and SUFU mu- in PTCH1 or, to a lesser extent, by mutations in SMO [31,32]. Interestingly, an age-dep tations are more common in children [33,34]. The role of SUFU in cancer has become ent molecular increasingly evidentheterogeneity thanks to new in MB has been publications reported. describing Thus,ofthe the impact loss of PTCH1 mutations in this is the common gene. Recently, inabout all ages, 5% ofSMO Gorlininactivation Syndrome cases is particularly frequent have been associated in adults with mutationsand in SUFU m tions SUFU are more [28,35]. However,common in children its involvement in the[33,34]. genesis The of some role of SUFU tumours in cancer (including MB and has becom RMS) appears evident creasingly to be necessary thanksbut to not new sufficient, publicationssince heterozygous describing the mice (SUFU+/ impact −)— of mutations i unlike (PTCH+/ − ) mice—require a concomitant loss of P53 (P53 gene. Recently, about 5% of Gorlin Syndrome cases have been associated with muta − / − ) to initiate tumour development [36]. Finally, GLI1 amplifications, although rare, have been described in in SUFU [28,35]. However, its involvement in the genesis of some tumours (includin various types of sarcomas and childhood brain tumours [37,38] and GLI2 amplifications andbeen have RMS) mainly appears describedtoin be necessary squamous but not[39]. cell carcinoma sufficient, However, since heterozygous since these am- (SUFU+/−)—unlike plicons (PTCH+/−) involve other potential mice—require oncogenes, it is difficulta to concomitant confirm a direct lossoncogenic of P53 (P53−/−) role to in of tumour development GLI amplifications [36].genetic [40]. Later, Finally, GLI1have studies amplifications, although rare, permitted the identification of newhave bee scribed in various types of sarcomas and childhood brain tumours [37,38] and GLI plifications have been mainly described in squamous cell carcinoma [39]. However, these amplicons involve other potential oncogenes, it is difficult to confirm a direct genic role of GLI amplifications [40]. Later, genetic studies have permitted the iden Cancers 2023, 15, 727 5 of 17 Cancers 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18 mutations in the GLI1 and GLI3 genes, probably associated with gains of function in breast and pancreatic cancer, as well as polymorphisms in GLI3 that may predispose to colorectal cancer [41–43]. Additionally, the presence of a recently described GLI1 splicing variant has splicing been variantwith associated has been associated increased with increased cell motility cell motility and invasiveness in and bothinvasiveness inand glioblastoma both glioblastoma and breast breast cancer [44,45]. cancer [44,45]. Figure3.3.Aberrant Figure Aberrantmechanisms mechanismsof of Hh Hh pathway pathway activation. (a) (a) Type Type I:I: ligand-independent ligand-independentconstitu-consti- tive activation tutive activationcaused causedbybyinactivating inactivating (red star) (red or or star) activating activating(green star) (green mutations star) mutationsin different com- in different ponents of of components thethe pathway. pathway.(b)(b)Type TypeII:II:autoactivation autoactivationof of cells cells by by high autocrine secretion high autocrine secretionof ofligands. ligands. (c)(c)Type Type III:III: paracrine paracrine Hh Hh activation activation of stromal of stromal cells dependent cells dependent on tumour on tumour cell secretion, cell ligand ligand secretion, which, which, in turn, re-stimulates the tumour via pro-oncogenic Hh target secreted factors. (d) Type IIIb: in turn, re-stimulates the tumour via pro-oncogenic Hh target secreted factors. (d) Type IIIb: reverse reverse paracrine activation, in which stromal cells secrete Hh ligands and activate signalling in the paracrine activation, in which stromal cells secrete Hh ligands and activate signalling in the tumour tumour cells. Image created with BioRender. cells. Image created with BioRender. 3.2.Ligand-Dependent 3.2. Ligand-DependentHh HhActivation Activation(Non-Mutational) (Non-Mutational) Ligand-dependentactivation Ligand-dependent activationisisbased basedon onthetheoverexpression overexpressionofofHh Hhligands ligandsand anden-en- compassestypes compasses typesIIIIandandIII.III.InIntype typeII,II,once oncesecreted, secreted,the theligand ligandisistaken takenup upby bythethetumour tumour cellitself cell itself(autocrine (autocrine activation) activation) or byor by tumour tumour cellscells nearby nearby (juxtacrine (juxtacrine activation) activation) (Figure (Figure 3b). 3b).type This Thisof type of activation activation is commonis common in breast, in breast, prostate, prostate, colon,colon, pancreas, pancreas, ovary, ovary, and non- and non-small small cell lung cell lung also cancer, cancer, also in hepatocellular in hepatocellular carcinomas, carcinomas, melanomas, melanomas, and gliomas. and gliomas. In additionIn ad- to dition the to the overexpression overexpression of Hh ligands, of Hh mostligands, most of these of these tumours aretumours are characterized characterized by presenting by an ectopic expression presenting an ectopicofexpression PTCH1 and of GLI PTCH1 [28–31,46–49]. and GLI [28–31,46–49]. InInthe thetype typeIIIIIIactivation activationmodel, model,tumour tumourcellscellssecrete secreteligands ligandstotostimulate stimulatepathway pathway activation in stromal cells. This activation in the stroma triggers activation in stromal cells. This activation in the stroma triggers the expression of Hhthe expression of Hh target tar- genes and the get genes andsending the sending of signals of signalsandand pro-oncogenic pro-oncogenic factors to to factors cancer cancercells, cells,totopromote promote their theirgrowth growthand/or and/orsurvival survival(Figure(Figure3c) 3c)[28,50]. [28,50].Cancers Cancerswith withthis thistype typeofofactivation activationshowshow high highlevels levelsofofligands, ligands,with withno noexpression expressionofofthe thepathway’s pathway’stargettargetgenes (GLI1,GLI2, genes(GLI1, GLI2,and and PTCH1), PTCH1),which whichare areonly onlydetectable detectableininstromal stromalcells. cells.Prostate, Prostate,pancreatic, pancreatic,and andcolon coloncancers cancers stand standout outamong amongthe thetumours tumourswith withthisthistype typeofofactivation activation[31,51], [31,51],which whichhas hasalso alsobeen been recently described in RMS [52] (for more detail regarding recently described in RMS [52] (for more detail regarding RMS, see Section 4). RMS, see Section 4). There Thereisisaa new variant of new variant ofthis thisactivation activation mechanism, mechanism, known known as type as type IIIb IIIb reverse reverse para- paracrine signalling crine signalling (Figure (Figure 3d).3d). In this In this case,case, thethe stroma stroma secretes secretes HhHh ligands ligands andand activates activates sig- signalling nalling inin tumour tumour cells. cells. This This mechanism mechanism hashas onlyonly been been described described in haematological in haematological neo- Cancers 2023, 15, 727 6 of 17 neoplasms, such as B-cell lymphomas, multiple myelomas, and leukaemias, in which the tumours receive the Hh ligand secreted directly by the stromal cells of the bone marrow or lymph nodes [31,51]. 3.3. Non-Canonical Hh Activation (Non-Mutational) The Hh pathway can also be activated or influenced by particular proteins or signalling pathways that are not considered to belong to the Hedgehog pathway. In general, this type of activation is referred to as a non-canonical Hh signalling, and is thought to participate in both transcriptional activation of GLI genes and post-translational modifications of GLI proteins. This type of activation has been related to the development of several cancer types with elevated GLI activity. The elements or pathways that can activate GLI proteins mainly include PI3K, KRAS signalling, TGFβ and PKC [53]. The association between the Hh signalling and the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signalling has been found in many tumour entities including oesophageal, ovarian, pancreatic and breast cancers, melanoma, and RMS [53,54]. In the particular case of RMS, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signalling is often active [55] and may promote GLI1 phosphorylation, which results in its dissociation from the inhibitor SUFU, thus triggering GLI1 activation [56]. Interestingly, the inhibition of GLI1/2 and PI3K/mTOR seems to produce a synergistic effect on apoptosis in- duction and tumour growth reduction in RMS [54]. Furthermore, in sporadic ERMS, which express Hh target genes apparently without canonical Hh signalling, PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors effectively inhibit Hh target gene expression and cell proliferation, whereas Hh pathway inhibitors alone do not [57]. The interaction between Hh and RAS signalling pathways has also been reported in multiple cancer types. For example, oncogenic NRAS and HRAS are able of enhancing the transcriptional activity and nuclear localization of GLI1 in human melanoma cells [58]. Moreover, the oncogenic KRAS is able to increase GLI1 transcriptional activity and protein levels in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma [59]. However, although RAS signalling activa- tion is frequent in ERMS tumours, RAS oncogenic mutations (HRAS, KRAS, and NRAS) inhibit GLI1 through the MEK/ERK pathway. [60,61]. Regarding TGF-β signalling, it has been shown that this pathway can induce the expression of GLI1 and GLI2 transcription factors in several cancer cell lines, such as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and breast cancer [62]. Interestingly, combined inhibition of TGF-β and GLI2 reduces self-renewal and survival of cancer stem cells in colorectal cancer [63]. Moreover, there is some controversy regarding the regulation of GLI activity by PKCα and PKCδ isoforms, as there are studies supporting both positive and negative regulation of GLI1. Thus, constitutive activation of PKCα decreases GLI1 transcriptional activation, while that of PKCδ increases GLI1 transcriptional activity in HEK-293T cells [53]. Furthermore, the atypical protein kinase C ι/λ (aPKC-ι/λ) has been identified also as a regulator of GLI in mammals. In addition, it has been demonstrated that targeting aPKC-ι/λ suppresses Hh pathway signalling and proliferation of BCC cell lines resistant to the SMO inhibitor Vismodegib [64]. Finally, in addition to the interactions with the better-known pathways described above, many other tumour-specific GLI dependencies have been described. For exam- ple, the EWS/FLI translocation driver of Ewing’s sarcoma directly transactivates de GLI1 promoter [65]. Additionally, there are dichotomous modulators such as DYRK1A, which depending on tumour type, can stimulate the Hh pathway by promoting the nuclear translocation of GLI1 or induce its degradation by acting negatively on the cytoskele- ton [66]. Another field with much to explore is epigenetic regulation. In this context, the relationship between the tumour suppressor SNF5 (SMARCB1) and GLI1 in malignant rhabdoid tumours is particularly suggestive, as about 25% of RMS tumours share the SNF5 mutational inactivation characteristic of rhabdoid tumours [67,68]. Cancers 2023, 15, 727 7 of 17 4. Oncogenic Role of the Hedgehog Pathway in RMS The involvement of the Hh pathway in the genesis of RMS was first described in the patched knockout mouse by Hahn et al. in 1998, who reported that mice with het- erozygous inactivation of PTCH1 had an increased incidence of an embryonal subtype of RMS (ERMS) [29]. Currently, consistent activation of the pathway is well established and commonly accepted in RMS after several works focused on this issue [69–71]. Even though the expression of Hh components is also prominent in the alveolar subtype (ARMS) [52], a higher degree of Hh activation in ERMS (and translocation-negative ARMS) has been reported. Furthermore, pathway hyperactivation has been correlated with a worse progno- sis [71,72]. Additionally, GLI1 upregulation has also been recently reported to correlate with treatment resistance in RMS and Ewing’s sarcoma (ES), thereby suggesting that GLI1 target- ing may benefit patients with RMS and ES by reducing multidrug resistance [73]. Despite the efforts dedicated to this pathway in RMS, the activation mechanism remained elusive, probably caused by the fact that the expression of the most commonly studied ligand of the pathway, the Sonic Hedgehog protein (SHh) is very often negligible in RMS tumours (more than 75% of samples showed no detectable SHh expression) and the prominent expression of the two alternative ligands (Indian (IHh) and Desert (DHh) Hedgehog) was almost always left aside in previous cancer studies. In 2017, a strong expression of these two ligands in almost all RMS patients and cell lines was demonstrated, thereby pointing to a ligand-dependent model as the most plausible mechanism for eliciting pathway activation in the majority of RMS tumours [52]. Moreover, a minor but non-negligible percentage of patients bear genetic alterations that can trigger pathway activation in a ligand-independent manner. However, despite all authors agreeing that is not found in the majority of tumours, some controversy exists regarding the importance of this mutation-driven constitutive activation. On the one hand, some works reported that neither PTCH mutations nor activating SMO mutations appeared to be implicated in pathway activation [70,74]; on the other hand, other authors reported losses in the PTCH region 9q22 in one third of ERMS, and loss of SUFU has also been reported in 18% of ERMS [75,76]. In a recent work from the Children’s Oncology Group (COG) in highly-differentiated fusion negative tumours, four out of 22 patients harboured mutations in the Hh pathway (three in PTCH1, one in SUFU) [77]. Additionally, genomic amplification of chromosomal region 12q13-15 containing the GLI1 gene was identified in a very small subset of ARMS tumours [70,75]. Despite the discrepancies found, activator mutations can only account for pathway activation in relatively small subsets of patients and, therefore, the majority of cases should be considered ligand-dependent activation. 5. Hedgehog Inhibitors and Clinical Trials 5.1. SMO Inhibitors The extensive involvement of the Hh pathway in the oncogenesis and progression of several cancers, including RMS, suggested a marked potential for pathway inhibitors as a putative molecularly-targeted anticancer therapy [78]. These expectations have mate- rialised in the clinical development of several Hh pathway inhibitors, with some having been (or currently being) evaluated in sarcoma patients (Table 1). Most of these com- pounds target the Hh transmembrane modulator, SMO [79]. In fact, the only Hh pathway inhibitors clinically approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Euro- pean Medicines Agency (EMA) are SMO inhibitors: Vismodegib (GDC-0449, Erivedge® , Genentech, San Francisco, CA, USA) and Sonidegib (LDE225, Odomzo® , Sun Pharma- ceutical Industries, Mumbai, India), for the treatment of adult BCC [80,81] and Glasdegib (PF-04449913, Daurismo® , Pfizer, New York, USA), employed in the treatment of newly- diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) [82]. Cancers 2023, 15, 727 8 of 17 SMO inhibitors have shown encouraging results in the treatment of BCC and MB [83–87], both tumours associated with type I Hh activation (mutation-driven). However, SMO inhibitors have not met expectations in tumours associated with ligand-dependent Hh pathway activation, such as sarcomas, colon, ovary, and pancreas [88–90]. In fact, much controversy exists about the results observed with SMO inhibitors in tumours other than BCC and MB. In particular, in vitro and in vivo RMS models have shown that SMO inhibitors are not always effective and may even promote tumour progression in some cases [52]. Unfortunately, there are very few clinical trials in RMS and other sarcomas aimed at clarifying whether the preclinical results previously obtained are reproducible in the clinical setting. In the particular case of Vismodegib, only one phase II clinical trial has studied its effect as monotherapy in patients with sarcoma (chondrosarcoma). In this study, after six months of treatment, 25.6% of patients achieved clinical benefit. This was a positive result; however, the objective of the study was to achieve a clinical benefit rate of 40%, thereby reducing the interest in Vismodegib as monotherapy for chondrosarcoma [91,92]. Moreover, Vismodegib was also studied in combination with a Gamma-Secretase (Notch Signalling Pathway) Inhibitor (RO4929097) in a phase Ib/II trial in adult RMS patients and other types of adult sarcomas. However, the development of this Notch inhibitor was discontinued and the phase II trial closed prematurely, despite results demonstrating that the combination therapy was safe. Although the study was not completed, the results analysed showed that Vismodegib did not significantly improve the clinical efficacy of RO4929097 [93,94]. Finally, Sonidegib was evaluated in a phase I trial (which included RMS patients among other recurrent Hh-dependent tumours, including MB). The results demonstrated that children with advanced solid tumours presented good tolerance to Sonidegib. Nevertheless, anti-tumour activity was only observed in the SHh subgroup MB and not in the other tumour types, which were mainly associated with non-mutational Hh pathway activation [83,95]. Other compounds developed later, also demonstrated effectivity in preclinical models but their studies in clinical trials have been quite limited. Thus, despite promising pre- clinical results, TAK-44 was suspended in 2013 due to project prioritization, BMS-833923 (XL139) was withdrawn from the company pipeline in 2014 without disclosing the rea- son, and the CUR61414 clinical trial was halted due to unsatisfactory results [96]. Finally, another compound named NVP-LEQ506 was moved into phase I trials, as a backup for Sonidegib [97]. The possibility of using the novel antifungal agent Posaconazole was recently pointed out; it can downregulate some targets of the Hh pathway (SMO, GLI1, c-MYC, CDK4, and CDK6). This work in vitro and in a murine model provided a theoretical basis that may have important clinical implications in developing Posaconazole as a promising agent against ERMS by targeting the Hedgehog pathway [98]. Cancers 2023, 15, 727 9 of 17 Table 1. Clinical trials with Hh pathway inhibitors in sarcomas. Clinical Trials. gov Study Inhibitor Name Activity Tumour Type Phase Outcome Identifier Clinical benefit was achieved Vismodegib in Treating Patients Vismodegib SMO NCT01267955 Chondrosarcoma Phase II after 6 months in 25.6% of with Advanced Chondrosarcomas (GDC-0449) inhibitor patients [91] Vismodegib and The combination therapy was Adult rhabdomyosarcoma Gamma-Secretase/Notch Signalling safe but Vismodegib did not Vismodegib SMO and other Phase I Pathway Inhibitor RO4929097 in NCT01154452 significantly improve the (GDC-0449) inhibitor advanced/metastatic Phase II Treating Patients with Advanced or clinical efficacy of sarcomas Metastatic Sarcoma RO4929097 [93] A Phase I Dose Finding and Safety Rhabdomyosarcoma and Only the SHh subgroup of Study of Oral LDE225 in Children SMO other paediatric tumours Phase I medulloblastoma patients, as and a Phase II Portion to Assess NCT01125800 Sonidegib (LDE225) inhibitor potentially dependent on Phase II defined by a five-gene signature Preliminary Efficacy in Recurrent or the Hh pathway RT-PCR assay, responded [95] Refractory MB Ended prematurely. On 14 June 2012, a planned futility analysis A Safety and Efficacy Study of of data from the study Patients with Metastatic or Locally Patidegib/Saridegib SMO NCT01310816 Chondrosarcoma Phase II concluded that treatment with Advanced (Unresectable) (IPI-926) inhibitor IPI-926 was similar to placebo Chondrosarcoma and, therefore, the trial would not meet its primary endpoint A Study of LY2940680 in Paediatric SMO Medulloblastoma and Withdrawn (Trial stopped early Medulloblastoma or NCT01697514 Taladegib (LY2940680) Phase I inhibitor rhabdomyosarcoma for poor accrual) Rhabdomyosarcoma Arsenic Trioxide in Treating Patients The disease progressed in GLI Sarcoma and other with Advanced Neuroblastoma or NCT00024258 Arsenic trioxide Phase II 72.7% and stabilized in 22.7% inhibitor paediatric tumours Other Childhood Solid Tumours of the patients Arsenic Trioxide Plus Radiation Therapy in Treating Patients with GLI Gliosarcoma and other NCT00045565 Arsenic trioxide Phase I No results posted Newly Diagnosed Malignant inhibitor malignant glioma Glioma Study of Genistein in Paediatric GLI Sarcoma and other The therapy is safe and well Oncology Patients (UVA-Gen001) NCT02624388 Genistein Phase II inhibitor paediatric tumours tolerated (UVA-Gen001) Cancers 2023, 15, 727 10 of 17 5.2. GLI Inhibitors GLI inhibitors were highlighted as an interesting alternative to SMO inhibitors [99], as they could overcome some of their limitations [100–102]. However, most GLI inhibitors are still in preclinical stages, and the only two GLI inhibitors that have been clinically tested were natural molecules, not particularly target-specific. On the one hand, Arsenic trioxide (ATO) was approved by the FDA and the EMA for the treatment of adult acute promyelocytic leukaemia (APL) [103]. Despite its action mechanism not being fully known, it was recently proposed as a GLI inhibitor (among many other targets) [104–106]. There was one phase II clinical trial that studied ATO’s effectiveness in children with sarcoma and other childhood solid tumours. In this trial, the only information available was that the disease progressed in 72.7% and stabilized in 22.7% of patients [107,108]. On the other hand, Genistein, the other GLI clinically tested inhibitor, is a natural phytoestrogen with a wide variety of pharmacological properties; it is being extensively studied for its potential anti-tumour effects, affecting different pathways, among which, GLI1 signalling regulation [109,110]. The only existing clinical trial in sarcomas started analysing the effect of Genistein in ES, RMS, non-RMS Soft Tissue Sarcomas, and other paediatric tumours, but was halted prematurely and did not continue because of poor enrolment [111]. Considering the difficulty in inhibiting other transcription factors, the development of specific GLI inhibitors could be a challenge in the future. 6. Hh Inhibitors in RMS: From Encouraging Preclinical Data to Disappointing Clinical Results Hedgehog inhibitors are thought to be a potential therapeutic alternative in about one third of human cancers (those with the pathway active), and, very often, preclinical data appeared to also corroborate their potential to treat them; however, clinical studies dramat- ically lowered expectations. In fact, the only approved indications for SMO inhibitors are BCC, MB, and AML, where Hh pathway inhibitors showed clear clinical responses. It may be too simplistic, but as a general principle, it could be stated that SMO inhibitors work acceptably well in solid tumours when they harbour pathway activating mutations, but have not yet been shown to be sufficiently effective in tumours in which the pathway is activated in a ligand-dependent manner or by non-canonical activation. The case of RMS, a type of tumour that does not stand out for harbouring mutations in Hh pathway genes does not constitute an exception to this general rule. Thus, despite evidence rendering the relationship between the Hedgehog pathway and RMS clearly manifest [29,52,69–71,112], SMO inhibitors are still a long way from their clinical application in this particular type of sarcoma. There are many possible explanations for the clinical failure of SMO inhibitors outside mutation-driven cancers. One reason may be the high concentrations used in preclinical experiments. For instance, even when using in vitro concentrations up to 300-fold higher than the levels required to block SMO in MB, the study in RMS of Hahn et al. concluded that the downregulation of GLI1 was very modest (or, in some cases, GLI1 expression was upregulated). Moreover, in the same study, the effects seen on cell proliferation did not correlate with the degree of GLI1 downregulation [113] and were only observed at concentrations several hundred-fold higher than those required to achieve target inhibition, strongly suggesting remarkable off-target effects. These conclusions from this interesting preclinical work and some others appeared to seriously compromise the potential clinical applicability of these compounds in RMS, since the high doses required are unlikely to be achieved in patients and, if reached, they may likely be accompanied by off-target toxicities. Thus, these studies did not support the use of SMO inhibitors for RMS treatment. In this sense, in a recent review, Dr Tom Curran revealed numerous inconsistencies regarding experimental designs, blaming not only the high complexity of the Hh pathway, but also the existence of an unconscious bias due to the strong expectation regarding the impact of Hh inhibitors on human cancer [114]. The high oncogenic involvement of the Hh pathway has led to the development of inhibitors, without having a complete understanding of the Cancers 2023, 15, 727 11 of 17 mechanisms that lead to the activation of the pathway, especially in non-mutation-driven cancers, such as RMS. Therefore, it is important to carry out an exhaustive molecular study of the Hh pathway in tumours that do not respond to SMO inhibitors, but that show a strong dependency on Hh ligands, in order to find new molecular targets and an effective way to target them. Particularly for ligand-dependent cancers, the complete characterization of the mechanism of ligand/receptor binding, including the role of the understudied pathway co-activators (CDO, BOC, and GAS1), may be fundamental to develop new inhibitors in the upcoming years, since there are no currently available pharmacological possibilities to inhibit the pathway at this upstream level. Beyond the use of SMO inhibitors, GLI inhibitors (such as GANT61), may have potential in tumours that express high levels of these proteins and may have a broader range of indications since they may function regardless of the presence of Hh-activating mutations. GANT61 has shown to inhibit GLI activity in preclinical models that also leads to tumour growth impairment [115]. GANT61 is a compound reported in 2007 from a GLI-luciferase drug screen that effectively reduced GLI1/2 DNA-binding [116]. However, GANT61 and other agents able to bind GLI proteins have not reached the clinical setting to date, with no trial registered despite more than 15 years have passed since its first description. Other agents, such as ATO and Genistein, have been tested in trials, but these were non-specifically designed to bind GLI proteins and are thought to be far less specific. Another promising therapeutic strategy is the combination of Hedgehog inhibitors with other agents. Potentially, combined approaches could act on crosstalk compensatory mechanisms with other pathways, which presumably could benefit not only patients with initially resistant tumours but also tumours that develop resistance after receiving targeted Hh monotherapy. However, selecting the ideal combination is highly challenging and requires a deeper understanding of the complex mechanisms involved. Sometimes, although there is biological evidence of interaction, some combinatory strategies are not effective, such as Hedgehog and Notch inhibition in patients with sarcomas [93,94]. In this context, we believe that the aforementioned types of non-canonical activation may provide us with essential guidelines for future research in this promising field. A clear example is the PI3K-AKT pathway, first found upregulated in MB tumours that became resistant to Sonidegib [117], then successfully tested in preclinical models of resistant SMO mutant tumours [118], and now been explored in a combinatory phase Ib Clinical trial of Hh and PI3K inhibitors in advanced solid tumours [119]. In addition, the complexity of the aberrant involvement of Hh in cancer emphasises the need for predictive biomarkers to optimise treatment selection for each patient. This need has already been addressed with SMO inhibitors in MB, where the variable clinical responses correlate to the genomic heterogeneity of the SHH subgroup [87,120,121]. Thus, a report of two Vismodegib phase II studies confirmed the expected exclusive effectiveness of Vismodegib treatment in patients with genetic alterations in SMO upstream Hh components (loss of PTCH1). In contrast, SHH MB patients with molecular aberrations of genes down- stream of SMO (GLI2 and SUFU) did not respond to therapy. Notably, based on a strong diffuse P53 immunohistochemistry pattern, the authors suggested a link between TP53 DNA-binding domain mutations, which would favour gene amplification downstream of SMO, and the consequent lack of efficacy of Vismodegib. Therefore, genome sequencing and copy number analysis to identify Hh pathway mutations and potential cooperating mutations were proposed for future trials [87]. However, these analyses are not suitable for translation to the clinic given the time and quantity of samples required. Therefore, a five-gene Hedgehog signature assayed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples by RT-PCR was developed as a patient preselection tool for Hedgehog inhibitor therapy in MB [122]. This five-gene Hedgehog signature (up-regulation of GLI1, SHROOM2, SPHK1, and PDLIM3 and down-regulation of OTX2) strongly correlated with response in Sonidegib- treated BCC and MB patients [121,123]. Additionally, Sonidegib and Vismodegib exhibited dose- and exposure-dependent inhibition of GLI1 in tumour and normal skin biopsies. However, GLI1 inhibition didn’t correlate with tumour responses, pointing at GLI1 as a Cancers 2023, 15, 727 12 of 17 good pharmacodynamic marker for SMO inhibitors but not for tumour response [87,123]. Unfortunately, no predictive biomarkers have been identified for the majority of tumour types, including RMS. The fact that all these findings are relevant exclusively for ligand- independent tumours (BCC and MB), hopes lie in further understanding of the different dependencies of these two ways of aberrant Hedgehog activation. In the case of RMS, its low incidence makes it even more challenging to find and validate potential biomarkers. However, we consider that enrolment of the small subset of ERMS patients with PTCH1 loss in clinical trials of SMO inhibitors could potentially benefit patients and provide valuable new molecular data. 7. Conclusions Pathological activation of the Hh signalling pathway is known to play an oncogenic role in a wide range of solid tumours. Among them, those that are often associated with oncogenic mutations in several components of the pathway (MB and BCC) clearly stand out. In this particular cancer types, SMO inhibition has demonstrated strong clinical potential and, specifically for these tumours, three SMO inhibitors have already reached the clinical setting, rendering encouraging results. In these cases, the in vitro doses of SMO inhibitors required to inhibit the pathway are relatively low. On the other hand, in the tumour types in which pathway activation strongly relies on the presence of Hh ligands, as in RMS, the results are far less promising. Thus, the in vitro concentrations required to achieve anti-oncogenic effects in cell lines are very high (up to 600 times higher than in MB) and, very often, the specific Hh pathway target downregulation observed (such as in GLI proteins) are very disappointing, thereby suggesting an off-target toxicity that may explain why the positive effects observed in cell lines are not reproducible in the clinical setting. The development of GLI inhibitors is still incipient, with the majority of specific GLI compounds in preclinical stages. Only two naturally occurring compounds, ATO and Genistein, have reached clinical trials; but, in this case, the compounds were not designed to specifically bind GLI proteins, and can downregulate GLI proteins, along with many other targets. Another interesting point is the non-canonical activation, which very often is difficult to be distinguished from the canonical ligand-dependent. The non-canonical activation is thought to have an important role in RMS, since there is solid evidence that several pathways (especially PI3K/AKT/mTOR and RAS/MEK/ERK) can promote GLI protein activation in this particular type of cancer, thereby suggesting the possibility of using combined therapies which putatively may benefit patients with refractory tumours or even tumours that develop resistance after receiving Hh monotherapy. In this sense, the implementation of predictive biomarkers to personalize treatment for each patient would enormously help. This need has already been partially addressed with SMO inhibitors in MB (clinical responses correlate to the genomic heterogeneity within SHH subgroup), but we are still far away from this scenario in the majority of tumours (including RMS), since no predictive Hh-pathway biomarkers have been identified to date. Finally, the less characterised part of the pathway, the binding of ligands to the PTCH receptor and co-receptors CDO, BOC, and GAS1, may harbour strong potential for the development of future therapies, but these upstream elements, located in or related to the plasma membrane, remain still largely unexplored. Author Contributions: Writing—original draft preparation, P.Z., L.G.-G., R.H., G.G., G.G.-O., G.P., J.S.-G., M.F.S., J.S.d.T., L.M., S.G. and J.R.; writing—review and editing, P.Z., L.G.-G., R.H., G.G., G.G.-O., G.P., J.S.-G., M.F.S., J.S.d.T., L.M., S.G. and J.R.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This article was funded by grants from: Institut Català d’Oncologia (ICO); Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI18/00398 and FI18/00178); ACCIÓ (COMRDI15-1-0014); Fundació la Marató de TV3; Fundació Albert Bosch; Rotary Clubs Barcelona Eixample, Barcelona Diagonal, Santa Coloma de Gramanet, München-Blutenburg, Deutschland Gemeindienst e.V. and others from Barcelona and province; Fundation Amics Joan Petit; Del Hospital a la cathedral Initiative by Xavi Vallès; and Mi compañero de viaje Association. Cancers 2023, 15, 727 13 of 17 Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Helena Kruyer for help with the English version of this manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Hibbitts, E.; Chi, Y.Y.; Hawkins, D.S.; Barr, F.G.; Bradley, J.A.; Dasgupta, R.; Meyer, W.H.; Rodeberg, D.A.; Rudzinski, E.R.; Spunt, S.L.; et al. Refinement of Risk Stratification for Childhood Rhabdomyosarcoma Using FOXO1 Fusion Status in Addition to Established Clinical Outcome Predictors: A Report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Cancer Med. 2019, 8, 6437–6448. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 2. Gallego, S.; Zanetti, I.; Orbach, D.; Ranchère, D.; Shipley, J.; Zin, A.; Bergeron, C.; de Salvo, G.L.; Chisholm, J.; Ferrari, A.; et al. Fusion Status in Patients with Lymph Node-Positive (N1) Alveolar Rhabdomyosarcoma Is a Powerful Predictor of Prognosis: Experience of the European Paediatric Soft Tissue Sarcoma Study Group (EpSSG). Cancer 2018, 124, 3201–3209. [CrossRef] 3. Chen, C.; Dorado Garcia, H.; Scheer, M.; Henssen, A.G. Current and Future Treatment Strategies for Rhabdomyosarcoma. Front. Oncol. 2019, 9, 1458. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 4. Merlino, G.; Helman, L.J. Rhabdomyosarcoma—Working out the Pathways. Oncogene 1999, 18, 5340–5348. [CrossRef] 5. Chal, J.; Pourquié, O. Making Muscle: Skeletal Myogenesis in Vivo and in Vitro. Development 2017, 144, 2104–2122. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 6. Bryson-Richardson, R.J.; Currie, P.D. The Genetics of Vertebrate Myogenesis. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2008, 9, 632–646. [CrossRef] 7. Manceau, L.; Albert, J.R.; Lollini, P.L.; Greenberg, M.V.C.; Gilardi-Hebenstreit, P.; Ribes, V. Divergent Transcriptional and Transforming Properties of PAX3-FOXO1 and PAX7-FOXO1 Paralogs. PLoS Genet. 2022, 18, e1009782. [CrossRef] 8. Skapek, S.X.; Anderson, J.; Barr, F.G.; Bridge, J.A.; Gastier-Foster, J.M.; Parham, D.M.; Rudzinski, E.R.; Triche, T.; Hawkins, D.S. PAX-FOXO1 Fusion Status Drives Unfavorable Outcome for Children with Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Children’s Oncology Group Report. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2013, 60, 1411–1417. [CrossRef] 9. Hatley, M.E.; Tang, W.; Garcia, M.R.; Finkelstein, D.; Millay, D.P.; Liu, N.; Graff, J.; Galindo, R.L.; Olson, E.N. A Mouse Model of Rhabdomyosarcoma Originating from the Adipocyte Lineage. Cancer Cell 2012, 22, 536–546. [CrossRef] 10. Drummond, C.J.; Hanna, J.A.; Garcia, M.R.; Devine, D.J.; Heyrana, A.J.; Finkelstein, D.; Rehg, J.E.; Hatley, M.E. Hedgehog Pathway Drives Fusion-Negative Rhabdomyosarcoma Initiated From Non-Myogenic Endothelial Progenitors. Cancer Cell 2018, 33, 108–124.e5. [CrossRef] 11. Hu, J.K.H.; Mcglinn, E.; Harfe, B.D.; Kardon, G.; Tabin, C.J. Autonomous and Nonautonomous Roles of Hedgehog Signaling in Regulating Limb Muscle Formation. Genes Dev. 2012, 26, 2088–2102. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 12. Anderson, C.; Williams, V.C.; Moyon, B.; Daubas, P.; Tajbakhsh, S.; Buckingham, M.E.; Shiroishi, T.; Hughes, S.M.; Boryck, A.G. Sonic Hedgehog Acts Cell-Autonomously on Muscle Precursor Cells to Generate Limb Muscle Diversity. Genes Dev. 2012, 26, 2103–2117. [CrossRef] 13. Voronova, A.; Coyne, E.; Al Madhoun, A.; Fair, J.V.; Bosiljcic, N.; St-Louis, C.; Li, G.; Thurig, S.; Wallace, V.A.; Wiper-Bergeron, N.; et al. Hedgehog Signaling Regulates MyoD Expression and Activity. J. Biol. Chem. 2013, 288, 4389–4404. [CrossRef] 14. Bren-Mattison, Y.; Hausburg, M.; Olwin, B.B. Growth of Limb Muscle Is Dependent on Skeletal-Derived Indian Hedgehog. Dev. Biol. 2011, 356, 486–495. [CrossRef] 15. Norris, A.M.; Johnson, C.D.; Zhou, L.Y.; Appu, A.; McKellar, D.W.; Cosgrove, B.D.; Kopinke, D. Hedgehog Signaling Acts as Cell Fate Determinant during Adult Tissue Repair. bioRxiv 2022. [CrossRef] 16. Qi, X.; Li, X. Mechanistic Insights into the Generation and Transduction of Hedgehog Signaling. Trends Biochem. Sci 2020, 45, 397–410. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Yang, L.; Xie, G.; Fan, Q.; Xie, J. Activation of the Hedgehog-Signaling Pathway in Human Cancer and the Clinical Implications. Oncogene 2010, 29, 469–481. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Ingham, P.W.; McMahon, A.P. Hedgehog Signaling in Animal Development: Paradigms and Principles. Genes Dev. 2001, 15, 3059–3087. [CrossRef] 19. Lee, R.T.H.; Zhao, Z.; Ingham, P.W. Hedgehog Signalling. Development 2016, 143, 367–372. [CrossRef] 20. Chen, H.; Liu, Y.; Li, X. Structure of Human Dispatched-1 Provides Insights into Hedgehog Ligand Biogenesis. Life Sci. Alliance 2020, 3, e202000776. [CrossRef] 21. Tukachinsky, H.; Kuzmickas, R.P.; Jao, C.Y.; Liu, J.; Salic, A. Dispatched and Scube Mediate the Efficient Secretion of the Cholesterol-Modified Hedgehog Ligand. Cell Rep. 2012, 2, 308–320. [CrossRef] 22. Cheung, H.O.L.; Zhang, X.; Ribeiro, A.; Mo, R.; Makino, S.; Puviindran, V.; Lo Law, K.K.; Briscoe, J.; Hui, C.C. The Kinesin Protein Kif7 Is a Critical Regulator of Gli Transcription Factors in Mammalian Hedgehog Signaling. Sci. Signal. 2009, 2, 13377–13382. [CrossRef] 23. Ryan, K.E.; Chiang, C. Hedgehog Secretion and Signal Transduction in Vertebrates. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 17905–17913. [CrossRef] 24. Bangs, F.; Anderson, K.V. Primary Cilia and Mammalian Hedgehog Signaling. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2017, 9, a028175. [CrossRef] Cancers 2023, 15, 727 14 of 17 25. Teglund, S.; Toftgård, R. Hedgehog beyond Medulloblastoma and Basal Cell Carcinoma. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 2010, 1805, 181–208. [CrossRef] 26. Heretsch, P.; Tzagkaroulaki, L.; Giannis, A. Modulators of the Hedgehog Signaling Pathway. Bioorg Med. Chem. 2010, 18, 6613–6624. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 27. Matise, M.P.; Wang, H. Sonic Hedgehog Signaling in the Developing CNS. Where It Has Been and Where It Is Going. Curr. Top. Dev. Biol. 2011, 97, 75–117. [CrossRef] 28. Sigafoos, A.N.; Paradise, B.D.; Fernandez-Zapico, M.E. Hedgehog/Gli Signaling Pathway: Transduction, Regulation, and Implications for Disease. Cancers 2021, 13, 3410. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 29. Hahn, H.; Wojnowski, L.; Zimmer, A.M.; Hall, J.; Miller, G.; Zimmer, A. Rhabdomyosarcomas and Radiation Hypersensitivity in a Mouse Model of Gorlin Syndrome. Nat. Med. 1998, 4, 619–622. [CrossRef] 30. Reifenberger, J.; Wolter, M.; Knobbe, C.B.; Köhler, B.; Schönicke, A.; Scharwächter, C.; Kumar, K.; Blaschke, B.; Ruzicka, T.; Reifenberger, G. Somatic Mutations in the PTCH, SMOH, SUFUH and TP53 Genes in Sporadic Basal Cell Carcinomas. Br. J. Dermatol. 2005, 152, 43–51. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31. Skoda, A.M.; Simovic, D.; Karin, V.; Kardum, V.; Vranic, S.; Serman, L. The Role of the Hedgehog Signaling Pathway in Cancer: A Comprehensive Review. Bosn J. Basic. Med. Sci. 2018, 18, 8–20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 32. Doheny, D.; Manore, S.G.; Wong, G.L.; Lo, H.W. Hedgehog Signaling and Truncated GLI1 in Cancer. Cells 2020, 9, 2114. [CrossRef] 33. Northcott, P.A.; Hielscher, T.; Dubuc, A.; MacK, S.; Shih, D.; Remke, M.; Al-Halabi, H.; Albrecht, S.; Jabado, N.; Eberhart, C.G.; et al. Pediatric and Adult Sonic Hedgehog Medulloblastomas Are Clinically and Molecularly Distinct. Acta Neuropathol. 2011, 122, 231–240. [CrossRef] 34. Kool, M.; Jones, D.T.W.; Jäger, N.; Northcott, P.A.; Pugh, T.J.; Hovestadt, V.; Piro, R.M.; Esparza, L.A.; Markant, S.L.; Remke, M.; et al. Genome Sequencing of SHH Medulloblastoma Predicts Genotype-Related Response to Smoothened Inhibition. Cancer Cell 2014, 25, 393–405. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 35. Huq, A.J.; Walsh, M.; Rajagopalan, B.; Finlay, M.; Trainer, A.H.; Bonnet, F.; Sevenet, N.; Winship, I.M. Mutations in SUFU and PTCH1 Genes May Cause Different Cutaneous Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: Similar, but Not the Same. Fam. Cancer 2018, 17, 601–606. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 36. Lee, Y.; Kawagoe, R.; Sasai, K.; Li, Y.; Russell, H.R.; Curran, T.; McKinnon, P.J. Loss of Suppressor-of-Fused Function Promotes Tumorigenesis. Oncogene 2007, 26, 6442–6447. [CrossRef] 37. Roberts, W.M.; Douglass, E.C.; Peiper, S.C.; Houghton, P.J.; Look, A.T. Amplification of the Gli Gene in Childhood Sarcomas. Cancer Res. 1989, 49, 5407–5413. 38. Wasson, J.C.; Saylors, R.L.; Zeltzer, P.; Friedman, H.S.; Bigner, S.H.; Burger, P.C.; Bigner, D.D.; Look, A.T.; Douglass, E.C.; Brodeur, G.M. Oncogene Amplification in Pediatric Brain Tumors. Cancer Res. 1990, 50, 2987–2990. 39. Snijders, A.M.; Schmidt, B.L.; Fridlyand, J.; Dekker, N.; Pinkel, D.; Jordan, R.C.K.; Albertson, D.G. Rare Amplicons Implicate Frequent Deregulation of Cell Fate Specification Pathways in Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Oncogene 2005, 24, 4232–4242. [CrossRef] 40. Raju, G.P.; Pham, D. Hedgehog Inhibition as an Anti-Cancer Strategy. Vitam Horm. 2012, 88, 507–522. [CrossRef] 41. Sjöblom, T.; Jones, S.; Wood, L.D.; Parsons, D.W.; Lin, J.; Barber, T.D.; Mandelker, D.; Leary, R.J.; Ptak, J.; Silliman, N.; et al. The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers. Science 2006, 314, 268–274. [CrossRef] 42. Jones, S.; Zhang, X.; Parsons, D.W.; Lin, J.C.H.; Leary, R.J.; Angenendt, P.; Mankoo, P.; Carter, H.; Kamiyama, H.; Jimeno, A.; et al. Core Signaling Pathways in Human Pancreatic Cancers Revealed by Global Genomic Analyses. Science 2008, 321, 1801–1806. [CrossRef] 43. Lascorz, J.; Försti, A.; Chen, B.; Buch, S.; Steinke, V.; Rahner, N.; Holinski-Feder, E.; Morak, M.; Schackert, H.K.; Görgens, H.; et al. Genome-Wide Association Study for Colorectal Cancer Identifies Risk Polymorphisms in German Familial Cases and Implicates MAPK Signalling Pathways in Disease Susceptibility. Carcinogenesis 2010, 31, 1612–1619. [CrossRef] 44. Cao, X.; Geradts, J.; Dewhirst, M.W.; Lo, H.W. Upregulation of VEGF-A and CD24 Gene Expression by the TGLI1 Transcription Factor Contributes to the Aggressive Behavior of Breast Cancer Cells. Oncogene 2012, 31, 104–115. [CrossRef] 45. Lo, H.W.; Zhu, H.; Cao, X.; Aldrich, A.; Ali-Osman, F. A Novel Splice Variant of GLI1 That Promotes Glioblastoma Cell Migration and Invasion. Cancer Res. 2009, 69, 6790–6798. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 46. Kinzler, K.W.; Ruppert, J.M.; Bigner, S.H.; Vogelstein, B. The GLI Gene Is a Member of the Kruppel Family of Zinc Finger Proteins. Nature 1988, 332, 371–374. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 47. Hahn, H.; Wicking, C.; Zaphiropoulos, P.G.; Gailani, M.R.; Shanley, S.; Chidambaram, A.; Vorechovsky, I.; Holmberg, E.; Unden, A.B.; Gillies, S.; et al. Mutations of the Human Homolog of Drosophila Patched in the Nevoid Basal Cell Carcinoma Syndrome. Cell 1996, 85, 841–851. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 48. Reifenberger, J.; Wolter, M.; Weber, R.G.; Megahed, M.; Ruzicka, T.; Lichter, P.; Reifenberger, G. Missense Mutations in SMOH in Sporadic Basal Cell Carcinomas of the Skin and Primitive Neuroectodermal Tumors of the Central Nervous System. Cancer Res. 1998, 58, 1798–1803. 49. Taylor, M.D.; Liu, L.; Raffel, C.; Hui, C.C.; Mainprize, T.G.; Zhang, X.; Agatep, R.; Chiappa, S.; Gao, L.; Lowrance, A.; et al. Mutations in SUFU Predispose to Medulloblastoma. Nat. Genet. 2002, 31, 306–310. [CrossRef] 50. Tian, H.; Callahan, C.A.; Dupree, K.J.; Darbonne, W.C.; Ahn, C.P.; Scales, S.J.; De Sauvage, F.J. Hedgehog Signaling Is Restricted to the Stromal Compartment during Pancreatic Carcinogenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 4254–4259. [CrossRef] Cancers 2023, 15, 727 15 of 17 51. Scales, S.J.; de Sauvage, F.J. Mechanisms of Hedgehog Pathway Activation in Cancer and Implications for Therapy. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2009, 30, 303–312. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 52. Almazán-Moga, A.; Zarzosa, P.; Molist, C.; Velasco, P.; Pyczek, J.; Simon-Keller, K.; Giralt, I.; Vidal, I.; Navarro, N.; Segura, M.F.; et al. Ligand-Dependent Hedgehog Pathway Activation in Rhabdomyosarcoma: The Oncogenic Role of the Ligands. Br. J. Cancer 2017, 117, 1314–1325. [CrossRef] 53. Pietrobono, S.; Gagliardi, S.; Stecca, B. Non-Canonical Hedgehog Signaling Pathway in Cancer: Activation of GLI Transcription Factors beyond Smoothened. Front Genet 2019, 10, 556. [CrossRef] 54. Graab, U.; Hahn, H.; Fulda, S. Identification of a Novel Synthetic Lethality of Combined Inhibition of Hedgehog and PI3K Signaling in Rhabdomyosarcoma. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 8722–8735. [CrossRef] 55. Petricoin, E.F.; Espina, V.; Araujo, R.P.; Midura, B.; Yeung, C.; Wan, X.; Eichler, G.S.; Johann, D.J.; Qualman, S.; Tsokos, M.; et al. Phosphoprotein Pathway Mapping: Akt/Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Activation Is Negatively Associated with Childhood Rhabdomyosarcoma Survival. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 3431–3440. [CrossRef] 56. Wang, Y.; Ding, Q.; Yen, C.J.; Xia, W.; Izzo, J.G.; Lang, J.Y.; Li, C.W.; Hsu, J.L.; Miller, S.A.; Wang, X.; et al. The Crosstalk of MTOR/S6K1 and Hedgehog Pathways. Cancer Cell 2012, 21, 374–387. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 57. Geyer, N.; Ridzewski, R.; Bauer, J.; Kuzyakova, M.; Dittmann, K.; Dullin, C.; Rosenberger, A.; Schildhaus, H.U.; Uhmann, A.; Fulda, S.; et al. Different Response of Ptch Mutant and Ptch Wildtype Rhabdomyosarcoma Toward SMO and PI3K Inhibitors. Front. Oncol. 2018, 8, 396. [CrossRef] 58. Stecca, B.; Mas, C.; Clement, V.; Zbinden, M.; Correa, R.; Piguet, V.; Beermann, F.; Ruiz, I.; Altaba, A. Melanomas Require HEDGEHOG-GLI Signaling Regulated by Interactions between GLI1 and the RAS-MEK/AKT Pathways. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 5895–5900. [CrossRef] 59. Ji, Z.; Mei, F.C.; Xie, J.; Cheng, X. Oncogenic KRAS Activates Hedgehog Signaling Pathway in Pancreatic Cancer Cells. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 14048–14055. [CrossRef] 60. Dehner, C.A.; Armstrong, A.E.; Yohe, M.; Shern, J.F.; Hirbe, A.C. Genetic Characterization, Current Model Systems and Prognostic Stratification in PAX Fusion-Negative vs. PAX Fusion-Positive Rhabdomyosarcoma. Genes 2021, 12, 1500. [CrossRef] 61. Bauer, J.; Cuvelier, N.; Ragab, N.; Simon-Keller, K.; Nitzki, F.; Geyer, N.; Botermann, D.S.; Elmer, D.P.; Rosenberger, A.; Rando, T.A.; et al. Context-Dependent Modulation of Aggressiveness of Pediatric Tumors by Individual Oncogenic RAS Isoforms. Oncogene 2021, 40, 4955–4966. [CrossRef] 62. Dennler, S.; André, J.; Alexaki, I.; Li, A.; Magnaldo, T.; Ten Dijke, P.; Wang, X.J.; Verrecchia, F.; Mauviel, A. Induction of Sonic Hedgehog Mediators by Transforming Growth Factor-Beta: Smad3-Dependent Activation of Gli2 and Gli1 Expression in Vitro and in Vivo. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 6981–6986. [CrossRef] 63. Tang, Y.A.; Chen, Y.F.; Bao, Y.; Mahara, S.; Yatim, S.M.J.M.; Oguz, G.; Lee, P.L.; Feng, M.; Cai, Y.; Tan, E.Y.; et al. Hypoxic Tumor Microenvironment Activates GLI2 via HIF-1α and TGF-B2 to Promote Chemoresistance in Colorectal Cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E5990–E5999. [CrossRef] 64. Atwood, S.X.; Li, M.; Lee, A.; Tang, J.Y.; Oro, A.E. GLI Activation by Atypical Protein Kinase C ι/λ Regulates the Growth of Basal Cell Carcinomas. Nature 2013, 494, 484–488. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 65. Zwerner, J.P.; Joo, J.; Warner, K.L.; Christensen, L.; Hu-Lieskovan, S.; Triche, T.J.; May, W.A. The EWS/FLI1 Oncogenic Transcrip- tion Factor Deregulates GLI1. Oncogene 2008, 27, 3282–3291. [CrossRef] 66. Schneider, P.; Miguel Bayo-Fina, J.; Singh, R.; Kumar Dhanyamraju, P.; Holz, P.; Baier, A.; Fendrich, V.; Ramaswamy, A.; Baumeister, S.; Martinez, E.D.; et al. Identification of a Novel Actin-Dependent Signal Transducing Module Allows for the Targeted Degradation of GLI1. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 8023. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 67. Jagani, Z.; Mora-Blanco, E.L.; Sansam, C.G.; McKenna, E.S.; Wilson, B.; Chen, D.; Klekota, J.; Tamayo, P.; Nguyen, P.T.L.; Tolstorukov, M.; et al. Loss of the Tumor Suppressor Snf5 Leads to Aberrant Activation of the Hedgehog-Gli Pathway. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 1429–1434. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 68. DeCristofaro, M.F.; Betz, B.L.; Wang, W.; Weissman, B.E. Alteration of HSNF5/INI1/BAF47 Detected in Rhabdoid Cell Lines and Primary Rhabdomyosarcomas but Not Wilms’ Tumors. Oncogene 1999, 18, 7559–7565. [CrossRef] 69. Zibat, A.; Missiaglia, E.; Rosenberger, A.; Pritchard-Jones, K.; Shipley, J.; Hahn, H.; Fulda, S. Activation of the Hedgehog Pathway Confers a Poor Prognosis in Embryonal and Fusion Gene-Negative Alveolar Rhabdomyosarcoma. Oncogene 2010, 29, 6323–6330. [CrossRef] 70. Pressey, J.G.; Anderson, J.R.; Crossman, D.K.; Lynch, J.C.; Barr, F.G. Hedgehog Pathway Activity in Pediatric Embryonal Rhabdomyosarcoma and Undifferentiated Sarcoma: A Report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Pediatr. Blood Cancer 2011, 57, 930–938. [CrossRef] 71. Satheesha, S.; Manzella, G.; Bovay, A.; Casanova, E.A.; Bode, P.K.; Belle, R.; Feuchtgruber, S.; Jaaks, P.; Dogan, N.; Koscielniak, E.; et al. Targeting Hedgehog Signaling Reduces Self-Renewal in Embryonal Rhabdomyosarcoma. Oncogene 2016, 35, 2020–2030. [CrossRef] 72. Manzella, G.W.; Schäfer, B. Interfering with Hedgehog Pathway: New Avenues for Targeted Therapy in Rhabdomyosarcoma. Curr. Drug Targets 2016, 17, 1228–1234. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 73. Yoon, J.W.; Lamm, M.; Chandler, C.; Iannaccone, P.; Walterhouse, D. Up-Regulation of GLI1 in Vincristine-Resistant Rhab- domyosarcoma and Ewing Sarcoma. BMC Cancer 2020, 20, 511. [CrossRef] Cancers 2023, 15, 727 16 of 17 74. Calzada-Wack, J.; Schnitzbauer, U.; Walch, A.; Wurster, K.H.; Kappler, R.; Nathrath, M.; Hahn, H. Analysis of the PTCH Coding Region in Human Rhabdomyosarcoma. Hum. Mutat. 2002, 20, 233–234. [CrossRef] 75. Bridge, J.A.; Liu, J.; Qualman, S.J.; Suijkerbuijk, R.; Wenger, G.; Zhang, J.; Wan, X.; Baker, K.S.; Sorensen, P.; Barr, F.G. Genomic Gains and Losses Are Similar in Genetic and Histologic Subsets of Rhabdomyosarcoma, Whereas Amplification Predominates in Embryonal with Anaplasia and Alveolar Subtypes. Genes Chromosom. Cancer 2002, 33, 310–321. [CrossRef] 76. Tostar, U.; Malm, C.J.; Meis-Kindblom, J.M.; Kindblom, L.G.; Toftgård, R.; Undén, A.B. Deregulation of the Hedgehog Signalling Pathway: A Possible Role for the PTCH and SUFU Genes in Human Rhabdomyoma and Rhabdomyosarcoma Development. J. Pathol. 2006, 208, 17–25. [CrossRef] 77. Teot, L.A.; Schneider, M.; Thorner, A.R.; Tian, J.; Chi, Y.Y.; Ducar, M.; Lin, L.; Wlodarski, M.; Grier, H.E.; Fletcher, C.D.M.; et al. Clinical and Mutational Spectrum of Highly Differentiated, Paired Box 3:Forkhead Box Protein O1 Fusion–Negative Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Cancer 2018, 124, 1973–1981. [CrossRef] 78. Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. Available online: https://ediss.uni-goettingen.de/handle/11858/00-1735-0000-0028-8687 -C (accessed on 10 November 2022). 79. Chahal, K.K.; Parle, M.; Abagyan, R. Hedgehog Pathway and Smoothened Inhibitors in Cancer Therapies. Anti. Cancer Drugs 2018, 29, 387–401. [CrossRef] 80. Axelson, M.; Liu, K.; Jiang, X.; He, K.; Wang, J.; Zhao, H.; Kufrin, D.; Palmby, T.; Dong, Z.; Russell, A.M.; et al. Food and Drug Administration Approval: Vismodegib for Recurrent, Locally Advanced, or Metastatic Basal Cell Carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 2289–2293. [CrossRef] 81. Burness, C.B. Sonidegib: First Global Approval. Drugs 2015, 75, 1559–1566. [CrossRef] 82. Hoy, S.M. Glasdegib: First Global Approval. Drugs 2019, 79, 207–213. [CrossRef] 83. Kieran, M.W.; Chisholm, J.; Casanova, M.; Brandes, A.A.; Aerts, I.; Bouffet, E.; Bailey, S.; Leary, S.; Macdonald, T.J.; Mechinaud, F.; et al. Phase i Study of Oral Sonidegib (LDE225) in Pediatric Brain and Solid Tumors and a Phase II Study in Children and Adults with Relapsed Medulloblastoma. Neuro. Oncol. 2017, 19, 1542–1552. [CrossRef] 84. Chang, A.L.S.; Solomon, J.A.; Hainsworth, J.D.; Goldberg, L.; McKenna, E.; Day, B.M.; Chen, D.M.; Weiss, G.J. Expanded Access Study of Patients with Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma Treated with the Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor, Vismodegib. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2014, 70, 60–69. [CrossRef] 85. Dummer, R.; Guminksi, A.; Gutzmer, R.; Lear, J.T.; Lewis, K.D.; Chang, A.L.S.; Combemale, P.; Dirix, L.; Kaatz, M.; Kudchadkar, R.; et al. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Sonidegib in Patients with Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma: 42-Month Analysis of the Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind BOLT Study. Br J. Dermatol. 2020, 182, 1369–1378. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 86. Rudin, C.M.; Hann, C.L.; Laterra, J.; Yauch, R.L.; Callahan, C.A.; Fu, L.; Holcomb, T.; Stinson, J.; Gould, S.E.; Coleman, B.; et al. Treatment of Medulloblastoma with Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor GDC-0449. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009, 361, 1173–1178. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 87. Robinson, G.W.; Orr, B.A.; Wu, G.; Gururangan, S.; Lin, T.; Qaddoumi, I.; Packer, R.J.; Goldman, S.; Prados, M.D.; Desjardins, A.; et al. Vismodegib Exerts Targeted Efficacy against Recurrent Sonic Hedgehog—Subgroup Medulloblastoma: Results from Phase II Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium Studies PBTC-025B and PBTC-032. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 2646–2654. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 88. Berlin, J.; Bendell, J.C.; Hart, L.L.; Firdaus, I.; Gore, I.; Hermann, R.C.; Mulcahy, M.F.; Zalupski, M.M.; Mackey, H.M.; Yauch, R.L.; et al. A Randomized Phase II Trial of Vismodegib versus Placebo with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI and Bevacizumab in Patients with Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2013, 19, 258–267. [CrossRef] 89. Kaye, S.B.; Fehrenbacher, L.; Holloway, R.; Amit, A.; Karlan, B.; Slomovitz, B.; Sabbatini, P.; Fu, L.; Yauch, R.L.; Chang, I.; et al. A Phase II, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Vismodegib as Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Ovarian Cancer in Second or Third Complete Remission. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012, 18, 6509–6518. [CrossRef] 90. De Jesus-Acosta, A.; Sugar, E.A.; O’Dwyer, P.J.; Ramanathan, R.K.; Von Hoff, D.D.; Rasheed, Z.; Zheng, L.; Begum, A.; Anders, R.; Maitra, A.; et al. Phase 2 Study of Vismodegib, a Hedgehog Inhibitor, Combined with Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel in Patients with Untreated Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Br J. Cancer 2020, 122, 498–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 91. ClinicalTrials.gov. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01267955 (accessed on 24 September 2022). 92. Italiano, A.; Le Cesne, A.; Bellera, C.; Piperno-Neumann, S.; Duffaud, F.; Penel, N.; Cassier, P.; Domont, J.; Takebe, N.; Kind, M.; et al. GDC-0449 in Patients with Advanced Chondrosarcomas: A French Sarcoma Group/US and French National Cancer Institute Single-Arm Phase Ii Collaborative Study. Ann. Oncol. 2013, 24, 2922–2926. [CrossRef] 93. ClinicalTrials.gov. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01154452 (accessed on 10 November 2022). 94. Gounder, M.M.; Rosenbaum, E.; Wu, N.; Dickson, M.A.; Sheikh, T.N.; D’Angelo, S.P.; Chi, P.; Keohan, M.L.; Erinjeri, J.P.; Antonescu, C.R.; et al. A Phase Ib/II Randomized Study of RO4929097, a Gamma-Secretase or Notch Inhibitor with or without Vismodegib, a Hedgehog Inhibitor, in Advanced Sarcoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2022, 28, 1586–1594. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 95. Clinicaltrials.gov. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01125800 (accessed on 10 November 2022). 96. Nguyen, N.M.; Cho, J. Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitors as Targeted Cancer Therapy and Strategies to Overcome Drug Resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1733. [CrossRef] 97. Xin, M.; Ji, X.; De La Cruz, L.K.; Thareja, S.; Wang, B. Strategies to Target the Hedgehog Signaling Pathway for Cancer Therapy. Med. Res. Rev. 2018, 38, 870–913. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 98. Sun, J.; Lin, W.; Li, C.; Ueki, H.; Xue, R.; Sadahira, T.; Hu, H.; Wada, K.; Li, N.; Liu, C.; et al. Repurposing of Posaconazole as a Hedgehog/SMO Signaling Inhibitor for Embryonal Rhabdomyosarcoma Therapy. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2021, 11, 4528–4540. Cancers 2023, 15, 727 17 of 17 99. Peer, E.; Tesanovic, S.; Aberger, F. Next-Generation Hedgehog/GLI Pathway Inhibitors for Cancer Therapy. Cancers 2019, 11, 538. [CrossRef] 100. Berardozzi, S.; Bernardi, F.; Infante, P.; Ingallina, C.; Toscano, S.; De Paolis, E.; Alfonsi, R.; Caimano, M.; Botta, B.; Mori, M.; et al. Synergistic Inhibition of the Hedgehog Pathway by Newly Designed Smo and Gli Antagonists Bearing the Isoflavone Scaffold. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 156, 554–562. [CrossRef] 101. Severini, L.L.; Quaglio, D.; Basili, I.; Ghirga, F.; Bufalieri, F.; Caimano, M.; Balducci, S.; Moretti, M.; Romeo, I.; Loricchio, E.; et al. A Smo/Gli Multitarget Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor Impairs Tumor Growth. Cancers 2019, 11, 1518. [CrossRef] 102. Ng, J.M.Y.; Curran, T. The Hedgehog’s Tale: Developing Strategies for Targeting Cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2011, 11, 493–501. [CrossRef] 103. European Medicines Agency. Available online: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/EPAR/arsenic-trioxide- accord (accessed on 24 September 2022). 104. Pubchem. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/14888 (accessed on 24 September 2022). 105. Beauchamp, E.M.; Ringer, L.; Bulut, G.; Sajwan, K.P.; Hall, M.D.; Lee, Y.C.; Peaceman, D.; Özdemirli, M.; Rodriguez, O.; Macdonald, T.J.; et al. Arsenic Trioxide Inhibits Human Cancer Cell Growth and Tumor Development in Mice by Blocking Hedgehog/GLI Pathway. J. Clin. Investig. 2011, 121, 148–160. [CrossRef] 106. Kim, J.; Lee, J.J.; Kim, J.; Gardner, D.; Beachy, P.A. Arsenic Antagonizes the Hedgehog Pathway by Preventing Ciliary Ac- cumulation and Reducing Stability of the Gli2 Transcriptional Effector. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 13432–13437. [CrossRef] 107. ClinicalTrials.gov. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00024258 (accessed on 17 October 2022). 108. Clincosm. Available online: https://www.clincosm.com/trial/brain-and-cns-tumors-childhood-germ-cell-tumor-extragonadal- new-york (accessed on 17 October 2022). 109. Zhang, L.; Li, L.; Jiao, M.; Wu, D.; Wu, K.; Li, X.; Zhu, G.; Yang, L.; Wang, X.; Hsieh, J.T.; et al. Genistein Inhibits the Stemness Properties of Prostate Cancer Cells through Targeting Hedgehog-Gli1 Pathway. Cancer Lett. 2012, 323, 48–57. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 110. Fan, P.; Fan, S.; Wang, H.; Mao, J.; Shi, Y.; Ibrahim, M.M.; Ma, W.; Yu, X.; Hou, Z.; Wang, B.; et al. Genistein Decreases the Breast Cancer Stem-like Cell Population through Hedgehog Pathway. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2013, 4, 146. [CrossRef] 111. Clinicaltrials.gov. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02624388 (accessed on 10 November 2022). 112. Gorlin, R.J. Nevoid Basal-Cell Carcinoma Syndrome. Medicine 1987, 66, 98–113. [CrossRef] 113. Ridzewski, R.; Rettberg, D.; Dittmann, K.; Cuvelier, N.; Fulda, S.; Hahn, H. Hedgehog Inhibitors in Rhabdomyosarcoma: A Comparison of Four Compounds and Responsiveness of Four Cell Lines. Front Oncol. 2015, 5, 130. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 114. Curran, T. Reproducibility of Academic Preclinical Translational Research: Lessons from the Development of Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitors to Treat Cancer. Open Biol. 2018, 8, 180098. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 115. Carpenter, R.L.; Ray, H. Safety and Tolerability of Sonic Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitors in Cancer. Drug. Saf. 2019, 42, 263–279. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 116. Lauth, M.; Bergström, Å.; Shimokawa, T.; Toftgård, R. Inhibition of GLI-Mediated Transcription and Tumor Cell Growth by Small-Molecule Antagonists. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 8455–8460. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 117. Buonamici, S.; Williams, J.; Morrissey, M.; Wang, A.; Guo, R.; Vattay, A.; Hsiao, K.; Yuan, J.; Green, J.; Ospina, B.; et al. Interfering with Resistance to Smoothened Antagonists by Inhibition of the PI3K Pathway in Medulloblastoma. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010, 2, 51ra70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 118. Dijkgraaf, G.J.P.; Alicke, B.; Weinmann, L.; Januario, T.; West, K.; Modrusan, Z.; Burdick, D.; Goldsmith, R.; Robarge, K.; Sutherlin, D.; et al. Small Molecule Inhibition of GDC-0449 Refractory Smoothened Mutants and Downstream Mechanisms of Drug Resistance. Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 435–444. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 119. Clinicaltrials.gov. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01576666 (accessed on 9 January 2023). 120. Yauch, R.; Januario, T.; Fu, L.; Holcomb, T.; Stinson, J.; Pujara, K.; Callahan, C.; Koeppen, H.; Reddy, J.; Von Hoff, D.; et al. Abstract A44: Predictive Biomarkers of Efficacy to the Hedgehog Pathway Inhibitor, GDC-0449, in Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma and Medulloblastoma in Phase I Studies. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2009, 8 (Suppl. 12), A44. [CrossRef] 121. Kieran, M.W. Lessons Learned from Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma: How a Terrible Disease Forced Us to Think Better. Neuro Oncol. 2017, 19, 1017–1018. [CrossRef] 122. Shou, Y.; Smithson, M. Evaluating Predictors of Dispersion: A Comparison of Dominance Analysis and Bayesian Model Averaging. Psychometrika 2015, 80, 236–256. [CrossRef] 123. Rodon, J. An (Only) Partially Established Paradigm of Drug Development of Targeted Therapies. Eur. J. Cancer 2014, 50, 2037–2039. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.