| Title |
A current perspective on cancer immune therapy: step‐by‐step approach to constructing the magic bullet
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Translational Medicine, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40169-016-0130-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriele D’Errico, Heather L. Machado, Bruno Sainz |
| Abstract |
Immunotherapy is the new trend in cancer treatment due to the selectivity, long lasting effects, and demonstrated improved overall survival and tolerance, when compared to patients treated with conventional chemotherapy. Despite these positive results, immunotherapy is still far from becoming the perfect magic bullet to fight cancer, largely due to the facts that immunotherapy is not effective in all patients nor in all cancer types. How and when will immunotherapy overcome these hurdles? In this review we take a step back to walk side by side with the pioneers of immunotherapy in order to understand what steps need to be taken today to make immunotherapy effective across all cancers. While early scientists, such as Coley, elicited an unselective but effective response against cancer, the search for selectivity pushed immunotherapy to the side in favor of drugs focused on targeting cancer cells. Fortunately, the modern era would revive the importance of the immune system in battling cancer by releasing the brakes or checkpoints (anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1/PD-L1) that have been holding the immune system at bay. However, there are still many hurdles to overcome before immunotherapy becomes a universal cancer therapy. For example, we discuss how the redundant and complex nature of the immune system can impede tumor elimination by teeter tottering between different polarization states: one eliciting anti-cancer effects while the other promoting cancer growth and invasion. In addition, we highlight the incapacity of the immune system to choose between a fight or repair action with respect to tumor growth. Finally we combine these concepts to present a new way to think about the immune system and immune tolerance, by introducing two new metaphors, the "push the accelerator" and "repair the car" metaphors, to explain the current limitations associated with cancer immunotherapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 161 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 10% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 13 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 14% |
| Unknown | 40 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,907,889
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#73
of 1,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,960
of 423,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Medicine
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,072 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.