4.5 Review

Immune-based combinations for metastatic triple negative breast cancer in clinical trials: current knowledge and therapeutic prospects

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON INVESTIGATIONAL DRUGS
卷 31, 期 6, 页码 557-565

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13543784.2022.2009456

关键词

Breast cancer; triple negative breast cancer; immunotherapy; combinations; immune checkpoint inhibitors; pembrolizumab; sacituzumab govitecan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors provide an overview of current immune-based combinations for metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC) and discuss future prospects. Clinical trials suggest ICI monotherapy may benefit a minority of mTNBC patients, while various immune-based combinations have shown promising results in recent studies. Numerous trials are ongoing to explore novel ICI-based combinations.
Introduction Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy appears to be effective in a small cohort of patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC). This supports the exploration of strategies for increasing the efficacy of immunotherapy. To enhance overall response and clinical outcomes, several immune-based combinations are being investigated. Areas covered The authors present a synopsis of current, state-of-art immune-based combinations in this setting and reflect on future possibilities. They shed light on recently presented and published clinical trials and ongoing studies. A literature search was conducted in October 2021; in addition, abstracts of international cancer meetings were reviewed. Expert opinion Clinical trials suggest that ICI monotherapy could be beneficial in a minority of mTNBC patients; conversely, several immune-based combinations have reported notable results in recently presented or published studies. Some of these combination strategies have been approved for mTNBC - as in the case of chemoimmunotherapy in PD-L1 positive patients. Numerous trials are investigating novel ICI-based combinations and their results are eagerly awaited.

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