4.5 Review

Plants and cervical cancer: an overview

Journal

EXPERT OPINION ON INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS
Volume 22, Issue 9, Pages 1133-1156

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/13543784.2013.811486

Keywords

cervical cancer; human papillomavirus; plant; therapy

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. Open Research Fund of State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Systematic Research, Development and Utilization of Chinese Medicine Resources

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Cervical cancer, the second most common gynecological malignant tumor seriously harmful to the health of women, remains a leading cause of cancer-related death for women in developing countries. Although a large amount of scientific research has been reported on plants as a natural source of treatment agents for cervical cancer, it is currently scattered across various publications. A systematic summary and knowledge of future prospects are necessary to facilitate further plant studies for anti-cervical cancer agents. Areas covered: This review generalizes and analyzes the current knowledge on the anti-cervical cancer properties and mechanisms involved for plants, and discusses the future prospects for the application of these plants. Expert opinion: This review mainly focuses on the plants which have been scientifically tested in vitro and/or in vivo and proved as potential agents for the treatment of cervical cancer. The failure of conventional chemotherapy to reduce mortality as well as serious side effects involved makes natural products ideal candidates for exerting synergism and attenuation effects on anticancer drugs. Although the chemical components and mechanisms of action of natural plants with anti-cervical cancer potential have been investigated, many others remain unknown. More investigations and clinical trials are necessary to make use of these medical plants reasonably.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available