4.6 Review

Therapeutic Potential of Innate Lymphoid Cells for Multiple Myeloma Therapy

期刊

CANCERS
卷 13, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13194806

关键词

innate lymphoid cells; multiple myeloma; therapy; NK cells; cell therapy; bone marrow; microenvironment

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses the role of innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) in the pathogenesis and therapy of multiple myeloma (MM), highlighting their potential key role in MM pathophysiology and the clinical benefits of targeting ILCs.
Simple Summary: Multiple myeloma (MM) is the second most common haematological malignancy. Despite huge progress associated with the introduction of new antimyeloma drugs, MM remains an incurable disease. In this review, we discuss the role of the innate lymphoid system, its role in the pathogenesis of the disease, and the mechanisms by which innate lymphoid cells (ILC) can theoretically achieve therapeutic benefit in MM treatment. Innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) are a recently identified family of lymphocyte-like cells lacking a specific antigen receptor. They are part of the innate immune system. They play a key role in tissue homeostasis and also control inflammatory and neoplastic processes. In response to environmental stimuli, ILCs change their phenotype and functions, and influence the activity of other cells in the microenvironment. ILC dysfunction can lead to a wide variety of diseases, including cancer. ILC can be divided into three subgroups: ILC Group 1, comprising NK cells and ILC1; Group 2, including ILC2 alone; and Group 3, containing Lymphoid Tissue inducers (LTi) and ILC3 cells. While Group 1 ILCs mainly exert antitumour activity, Group 2 and Group 3 ILCs are protumorigenic in nature. A growing body of preclinical and clinical data support the role of ILCs in the pathogenesis of multiple myeloma (MM). Therefore, targeting ILCs may be of clinical benefit. In this manuscript, we review the available data on the role of ILCs in MM immunology and therapy.

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