{"title":"Unmet needs in cervical cancer - can biological therapies plug the gap?","authors":"Michelle Greenman, Yifan Emily Chang, Blair McNamara, Levent Mutlu, Alessandro D Santin","doi":"10.1080/14712598.2024.2408754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cervical cancer remains one of the most common gynecologic malignancies worldwide. A disproportionate burden of cases occurs in developing countries due to inadequate screening and treatment. Even among patients adequately treated, in the presence of locally advanced or recurrent disease, outcomes tend to be poor. The introduction of biologic therapy into treatment has increased overall survival; however, a considerable opportunity still exists to improve current standards in treatment. Biologics have shown antitumor activity in multiple tumor types and are actively being pursued for the management of cervical cancer.</p><p><strong>Areas covered: </strong>In this article, we will discuss the historical evolution of biologic therapy in cervical cancer including use of angiogenesis inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and vaccines. We will review how these therapies have been integrated into current treatment recommendations and discuss ongoing investigations intended to improve clinical outcomes. We also postulate on persistent gaps in care.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>Biologic therapies have had a tremendous impact on our current approach to managing cervical cancer. We anticipate that significant more research and development will be committed to the continued investigation of biologics in cervical cancer in an effort to improve a historically difficult to treat malignancy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12084,"journal":{"name":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14712598.2024.2408754","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Cervical cancer remains one of the most common gynecologic malignancies worldwide. A disproportionate burden of cases occurs in developing countries due to inadequate screening and treatment. Even among patients adequately treated, in the presence of locally advanced or recurrent disease, outcomes tend to be poor. The introduction of biologic therapy into treatment has increased overall survival; however, a considerable opportunity still exists to improve current standards in treatment. Biologics have shown antitumor activity in multiple tumor types and are actively being pursued for the management of cervical cancer.
Areas covered: In this article, we will discuss the historical evolution of biologic therapy in cervical cancer including use of angiogenesis inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and vaccines. We will review how these therapies have been integrated into current treatment recommendations and discuss ongoing investigations intended to improve clinical outcomes. We also postulate on persistent gaps in care.
Expert opinion: Biologic therapies have had a tremendous impact on our current approach to managing cervical cancer. We anticipate that significant more research and development will be committed to the continued investigation of biologics in cervical cancer in an effort to improve a historically difficult to treat malignancy.
期刊介绍:
Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy (1471-2598; 1744-7682) is a MEDLINE-indexed, international journal publishing peer-reviewed research across all aspects of biological therapy.
Each article is structured to incorporate the author’s own expert opinion on the impact of the topic on research and clinical practice and the scope for future development.
The audience consists of scientists and managers in the healthcare and biopharmaceutical industries and others closely involved in the development and application of biological therapies for the treatment of human disease.
The journal welcomes:
Reviews covering therapeutic antibodies and vaccines, peptides and proteins, gene therapies and gene transfer technologies, cell-based therapies and regenerative medicine
Drug evaluations reviewing the clinical data on a particular biological agent
Original research papers reporting the results of clinical investigations on biological agents and biotherapeutic-based studies with a strong link to clinical practice
Comprehensive coverage in each review is complemented by the unique Expert Collection format and includes the following sections:
Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results;
Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.