4.5 Review

Predictive molecular markers for the treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors in colorectal cancer

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcla.24141

关键词

colorectal cancer; immune checkpoint inhibitors; immunotherapy; molecular markers

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Colorectal cancer is a common malignant tumor and the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in its treatment is actively being explored. Predictive molecular markers play a crucial role in identifying patient populations that can benefit from ICIs.
Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors and, hence, has become one of the most important public health issues in the world. Treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) successfully improves the survival rate of patients with melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and other malignancies, and its application in metastatic colorectal cancer is being actively explored. However, a few patients develop drug resistance. Predictive molecular markers are important tools to precisely screen patient groups that can benefit from treatment with ICIs. The current article focused on certain important predictive molecular markers for ICI treatment in colorectal cancer, including not only some of the mature molecular markers, such as deficient mismatch repair (d-MMR), microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H), tumor mutational burden (TMB), programmed death-ligand-1 (PD-L1), tumor immune microenvironment (TiME), and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), but also some of the novel molecular markers, such as DNA polymerase epsilon (POLE), polymerase delta 1 (POLD1), circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), and consensus molecular subtypes (CMS). We have reviewed these markers in-depth and presented the results from certain important studies, which suggest their applicability in CRC and indicate their advantages and disadvantages. We hope this article is helpful for clinicians and researchers to systematically understand these markers and can guide the treatment of colorectal 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