4.5 Review

Vaccine Therapies for Cancer: Then and Now

期刊

TARGETED ONCOLOGY
卷 16, 期 2, 页码 121-152

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11523-020-00788-w

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of therapeutic cancer vaccines faces challenges in clinical translation, but breakthroughs in cancer immunobiology and vaccine technologies offer hope for next-generation vaccine strategies to help cancer patients develop long-lasting anti-tumor immunity.
There are strong biologic and preclinical rationales for the development of therapeutic cancer vaccines; however, the clinical translation of this treatment strategy has been challenging. It is now understood that many previous clinical trials of cancer vaccines used target antigens or vaccine designs that inherently lacked sufficient immunogenicity to induce clinical responses. Despite the historical track record, breakthrough advances in cancer immunobiology and vaccine technologies have supported continued interest in therapeutic cancer vaccinations, with the hope that next-generation vaccine strategies will enable patients with cancer to develop long-lasting anti-tumor immunity. There has been substantial progress identifying antigens and vaccine vectors that lead to strong and broad T cell responses, tailoring vaccine designs to achieve optimal antigen presentation, and finding combination partners employing complementary mechanisms of action (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors) to overcome the diverse methods cancer cells use to evade and suppress the immune system. Results from randomized, phase 3 studies testing therapeutic cancer vaccines based on these advances are eagerly awaited. Here, we summarize the successes and failures in the clinical development of cancer vaccines, address how this historical experience and advances in science and technology have shaped efforts to improve vaccines, and offer a clinical perspective on the future role of vaccine therapies for cancer.

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