4.6 Article

Immune System Disorders, Cancer and Viral Infections: A New Treatment Opportunity for the Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life11121400

关键词

viral infections; immunotherapy; immune checkpoint inhibitors; solid tumours; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between viral infections and cancer, as well as their impact on the immune system and response to immunotherapy in solid tumors, has been established through multiple studies. Viral infections, such as EBV and HPV, may enhance the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors and ultimately improve patient survival in certain solid tumors.
The relationship between viral infections and cancer is well known and has been established for decades. Multiple tumours are generated from alterations secondary to viral infections 2 resulting from a dysregulation of the immune system in many cases. Certain causal relationships, such as that between the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in nasopharyngeal cancer or hepatitis C and B viruses in hepatocarcinoma, have been clearly established, and their implications for the prognosis and treatment of solid tumours are currently unknown. Multiple studies have evaluated the role that these infections may have in the treatment of solid tumours using immunotherapy. A possible relationship between viral infections and an increased response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been established at a theoretical level in solid neoplasms, such as EBV-positive cavum cancer and human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive and oropharyngeal cancer. These could yield a greater response associated with the activation of the immune system secondary to viral infection, the consequence of which is an increase in survival in these patients. That is why the objective of this review is to assess the different studies or clinical trials carried out in patients with solid tumours secondary to viral infections and their relationship to the response to ICIs.

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