4.5 Review

Immunotherapy for Cervical Cancer Research Status and Clinical Potential

期刊

BIODRUGS
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 109-129

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.2165/11532810-000000000-00000

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI SPORE in Cervical Cancer [P50 CA098252]
  2. NCI [1RO1 CA114425-01]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P50CA098252, R01CA114425] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV) have been found to be associated with most cervical cancers and play an essential role in the pathogenesis of the disease. Despite recent advances in preventive HPV vaccine development, such preventive vaccines are unlikely to reduce the prevalence of HPV infections within the next few years, due to their cost and limited availability in developing countries. Furthermore, preventive HPV vaccines may not be capable of treating established HPV infections and HPV-associated lesions, which account for high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Thus, it is important to develop therapeutic HPV vaccines for the control of existing HPV infection and associated malignancies. Therapeutic vaccines are quite different from preventive vaccines in that they require the generation of cell-mediated immunity, particularly T cell-mediated immunity, instead of the generation of neutralizing antibodies. The HPV-encoded early proteins, the E6 and E7 oncoproteins, form ideal targets for therapeutic HPV vaccines, since they are consistently expressed in HPV-associated cervical cancer and its precursor lesions and thus play crucial roles in the generation and maintenance of HPV-associated disease. Our review covers the various therapeutic HPV vaccines for cervical cancer, including live vector-based, peptide or protein-based, nucleic acid-based, and cell-based vaccines targeting the HPV E6 and/or E7 antigens. Furthermore, we review the studies using therapeutic HPV vaccines in combination with other therapeutic modalities and review the latest clinical trials on therapeutic HPV vaccines.

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