4.2 Review

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and combinations with other agents in cholangiocarcinoma

期刊

IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 487-502

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/imt-2022-0225

关键词

biomarkers; chemotherapy; cholangiocarcinoma; immune checkpoint inhibitors; immunotherapy; tumor microenvironment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cholangiocarcinomas are rare tumors with limited survival due to late diagnosis and advanced symptoms. The small number of patients makes it difficult to conduct clinical trials and find new medicines. However, new treatment choices, such as immunotherapy, have emerged and show promise in changing the current treatment landscape for cholangiocarcinomas.
Plain language summaryCholangiocarcinomas are a group of rare tumors. Survival time is limited, due to late diagnosis and advanced symptoms. The small number of patients makes it difficult to carry out clinical trials and find new medicines. Another issue is that there are many different subtypes of this tumor. Each one requires a different approach. Despite these setbacks, new treatment choices have appeared. Medicines that stimulate the immune system to fight cancer cells have changed the current treatment landscape for many tumor types and are very promising in cholangiocarcinomas. Cholangiocarcinoma consists of a heterogeneous group of malignancies with generally poor prognoses. Immunotherapy has emerged in the treatment landscape of many tumors, offering survival benefits, but data regarding the use of immunotherapy for cholangiocarcinoma remain vague. In this review, the authors analyze differences in the tumor microenvironment and various immune escape mechanisms and discuss available immunotherapy combinations with other agents among completed and ongoing clinical trials, such as chemotherapy, targeted agents, antiangiogenic drugs, local ablative therapies, cancer vaccines, adoptive cell therapy and PARP and TGF-beta inhibitors. Ongoing research to identify appropriate biomarkers is warranted.

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

4.2
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