4.7 Review

Nanomedicine for Combination Urologic Cancer Immunotherapy

期刊

PHARMACEUTICS
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics15020546

关键词

nanomedicine; immunotherapy; urologic cancer; immune checkpoint inhibitors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Urologic cancers, such as kidney, bladder, and prostate cancer, have a growing incidence and cause a significant number of deaths worldwide. Immunotherapy, including immunological checkpoint blockade, non-specific activation of the immune system, adoptive cell therapy, and tumor vaccine, shows promise but faces challenges in terms of toxicities and response rates. Nanomaterial-based platforms offer solutions by combining nanotechnology with immunotherapy, leading to precision medicine, improved efficacy, and reduced toxicities in urologic cancer treatment.
Urologic cancers, particularly kidney, bladder, and prostate cancer, have a growing incidence and account for about a million annual deaths worldwide. Treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone therapy, and immunotherapy are the main therapeutic options in urologic cancers. Immunotherapy is now a clinical reality with marked success in solid tumors. Immunological checkpoint blockade, non-specific activation of the immune system, adoptive cell therapy, and tumor vaccine are the main modalities of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy has long been used to treat urologic cancers; however, dose-limiting toxicities and low response rates remain major challenges in the clinic. Herein, nanomaterial-based platforms are utilized as the savior. The combination of nanotechnology with immunotherapy can achieve precision medicine, enhance efficacy, and reduce toxicities. In this review, we highlight the principles of cancer immunotherapy in urology. Meanwhile, we summarize the nano-immune technology and platforms currently used for urologic cancer treatment. The ultimate goal is to help in the rational design of strategies for nanomedicine-based immunotherapy in urologic 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

4.7
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