International Journal of Clinical Case Reports 2024, Vol.14, No.5, 230-241 http://medscipublisher.com/index.php/ijccr 231 study is to identify strategies to optimize cancer vaccine therapies and improve patient outcomes. 2 Key Findings from Clinical Trials 2.1 Types and mechanisms of existing cancer vaccines Cancer vaccines can be broadly categorized into several types based on their mechanisms of action: peptide-based vaccines, dendritic cell vaccines, DNA/RNA vaccines, and whole-cell vaccines. Peptide-based vaccines consist of short sequences of amino acids derived from tumor antigens that stimulate the immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells. These vaccines aim to elicit a robust T-cell response by presenting tumor-specific antigens, making them highly specific. However, their effectiveness often depends on factors such as the patient's immune status and the nature of the tumor antigens used (Murahashi et al., 2016). Dendritic cell vaccines leverage dendritic cells' natural role as antigen-presenting cells, priming the immune system to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. These vaccines involve extracting a patient's dendritic cells, loading them with tumor antigens, and then reintroducing them into the patient. For example, the Audencel vaccine used in glioblastoma demonstrated its ability to generate an immune response but failed to show significant clinical benefits in improving survival (Buchroithner et al., 2018). DNA/RNA vaccines deliver genetic material encoding tumor antigens directly into cells, where it is processed and displayed on the cell surface to elicit an immune response. These vaccines are considered flexible and can induce both humoral and cellular immune responses. However, their clinical effectiveness is still being evaluated in ongoing trials. Meanwhile, whole-cell vaccines use inactivated cancer cells that contain a broad spectrum of antigens, making them capable of inducing a wide-ranging immune response, though with less specificity compared to peptide-based vaccines (Dillman, 2015). 2.2 Application of cancer vaccines in different cancer types Cancer vaccines have been applied across various cancer types with varying degrees of success. In prostate cancer, sipuleucel-T became one of the first vaccines to receive FDA approval, significantly improving overall survival in advanced prostate cancer patients. Despite limited effects on progression-free survival, sipuleucel-T has been shown to extend survival by months in several trials, setting a precedent for immunotherapeutic approaches in solid tumors (Dillman, 2015). In melanoma, cancer vaccines like ipilimumab have been studied extensively in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. While vaccines alone have struggled to produce significant clinical responses, combination therapies have shown improved outcomes, particularly in patients who develop strong immune responses. Ipilimumab, in combination with vaccines targeting melanoma-associated antigens, has demonstrated survival benefits in a subset of patients, though side effects remain a concern (Lakdawalla et al., 2017). In lung cancer, vaccines are being explored alongside traditional treatments like chemotherapy. For example, a meta-analysis on vaccines for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) demonstrated improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and reduced side effects compared to standard therapies. Although the results are promising, the efficacy of these vaccines varies, and their integration into treatment protocols remains under investigation (Wang et al., 2015). 2.3 Analysis of clinical trial phases (Phase I, II, III) In Phase I trials, the primary objective is to assess the safety of cancer vaccines in humans. These trials typically involve a small number of patients and focus on determining the appropriate dosage and identifying any adverse effects. For instance, a Phase I study on telomerase peptide vaccines for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) demonstrated an increased survival rate in patients who responded immunologically, with minimal toxicity observed. However, the sample size was too small to draw definitive conclusions regarding efficacy (Hansen et al., 2015). Phase II trials shift focus toward evaluating the vaccine's efficacy while continuing to monitor safety. These trials involve larger patient populations and begin to assess clinical endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) and
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNQ==