4.8 Review

The premise of personalized immunotherapy for cancer dormancy

Journal

ONCOGENE
Volume 39, Issue 22, Pages 4323-4330

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41388-020-1295-3

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Breast Cancer Research Program [W81XWH-14-1-0087]
  2. VCU Massey Cancer Center
  3. NIH-NCI Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA016059]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Progress in cancer therapies has resulted in improved survival of patients with early stage breast cancer. However, mortality remains high in patients with distant recurrence of the disease after initially successful treatment of early stage breast cancer. To this end, tumor recurrences have been attributed to the presence of dormant tumor cells in breast cancer patients and cancer survivors. Current clinical practice guidelines recommend a wait-and-watch approach for tumor recurrence. This is because of our limited understanding of tumor dormancy. Dormant tumor cells are quiescent, and thus, do not respond to chemotherapies or radiation therapies, and they are not operable. Therefore, immunotherapy is the only option for the treatment of tumor dormancy. However, gaps in our knowledge as to dormancy-specific antigens prevent a relapse preventing vaccine design. Here, I provide a critical review of cancer immunotherapy, and discuss empirical evidence related to naturally occurring tumor dormancy and treatment-induced tumor dormancy at the site of primary tumor and in distant organs before and after cancer therapies. Finally, I suggest that personalized vaccines targeting dormancy-associated neoantigens, which can be given to patients with early stage disease after the completion of neoadjuvant therapies and tumor resection as well as to cancer survivors could eliminate relapse causing dormant cells and offer a cure for cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available