4.6 Review

Immunotherapies for the Treatment of Uveal Melanoma-History and Future

期刊

CANCERS
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers11081048

关键词

uveal melanoma; immunotherapy; checkpoint inhibitors; IMCgp100; tebentafusp; dendritic-cell vaccination; adoptive T-cell therapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Uveal melanoma is the most common primary intraocular malignancy among adults. It is, nevertheless, a rare disease, with an incidence of approximately one case per 100,000 individuals per year in Europe. Approximately half of tumors will eventually metastasize, and the liver is the organ usually affected. No standard-of-care treatment exists for metastasized uveal melanoma. Chemotherapies or liver-directed treatments do not usually result in long-term tumor control. Immunotherapies are currently the most promising therapy option available. Methods: We reviewed both relevant recent literature on PubMed concerning the treatment of uveal melanoma with immunotherapies, and currently investigated drugs on ClinicalTrials.gov . Our own experiences with immune checkpoint blockers are included in a case series of 20 patients. Results: Because few clinical trials have been conducted for metastasized uveal melanoma, no definitive treatment strategy exists for this rare disease. The outcomes of most immunotherapies are poor, especially compared with cutaneous melanoma. However, encouraging results have been found for some very recently investigated agents such as the bispecific tebentafusp, for which a remarkably increased one-year overall survival rate, and similarly increased disease control rate, were observed in early phase studies. Conclusions: The treatment of metastatic uveal melanoma remains challenging, and almost all patients still die from the disease. Long-term responses might be achievable by means of new immunological strategies. Patients should therefore be referred to large medical centers where they can take part in controlled clinical studies.

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

4.6
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