4.5 Review

Recent progress in vaccination against human papillomavirus-mediated cervical cancer

期刊

REVIEWS IN MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 25, 期 -, 页码 54-71

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/rmv.1824

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [569938]
  2. National Cancer Institute [5U01CA141583]
  3. Cancer Council Queensland
  4. Lions Medical Research Foundation
  5. Australian Cancer Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been more than 7years since the commercial introduction of highly successful vaccines protecting against high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) subtypes and the development of cervical cancer. From an immune standpoint, the dependence of cervical cancer on viral infection has meant that HPV proteins can be targeted as strong tumour antigens leading to clearance of the infection and the subsequent protection from cancer. Commercially available vaccines consisting of the L1 capsid protein assembled as virus-like particles (VLPs) induce neutralising antibodies that deny access of the virus to cervical epithelial cells. While greater than 90% efficacy has been demonstrated at the completion of large phase III trials in young women, vaccine developers are now addressing broader issues such as efficacy in boys, longevity of the protection and inducing cross-reactive antibody for oncogenic, non-vaccine HPV strains. For women with existing HPV infection, the prophylactic vaccines provide little protection, and consequently, the need for therapeutic vaccines will continue into the future. Therapeutic vaccines targeting HPVE6 and E7 proteins are actively being pursued with new adjuvants and delivery vectors, combined with an improved knowledge of the tumour microenvironment, showing great promise. This review will focus on recent progress in prophylactic and therapeutic vaccine development and implementation since the publication of end of study data from phase III clinical trials between 2010 and 2012. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据