Comparing Immunotherapy to Traditional Cancer Treatments

Mironov Vasilii^*
*Correspondence: Mironov Vasilii, Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, Alfaisal University, Riyad 11533, Saudi Arabia, Email:

Introduction

Cancer treatment has evolved significantly over the years, with traditional approaches such as chemotherapy, radiation and surgery being the primary methods of combating the disease. However, immunotherapy, a relatively newer form of treatment, has gained prominence for its ability to harness the body's own immune system to fight cancer. A comparison of immunotherapy and traditional cancer treatments highlights their effectiveness, side effects and long-term benefits [1]. Traditional cancer treatments target cancer cells directly. Chemotherapy, for instance, uses powerful drugs to kill rapidly dividing cells, while radiation therapy destroys cancerous cells through high-energy waves. Surgery, on the other hand, physically removes tumors from the body. While these treatments can be effective, they often harm healthy cells, leading to significant side effects [2]. Immunotherapy, however, operates differently. It strengthens the immune system's ability to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. Treatments such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, CAR-T cell therapy and cancer vaccines help the body mount a targeted response. This approach can lead to long-lasting remission in certain cancers, particularly melanoma, lung cancer and some types of blood cancers.

Description

One of the major drawbacks of traditional cancer treatments is their impact on healthy tissues. Chemotherapy often causes nausea, fatigue, hair loss and an increased risk of infections due to its effect on rapidly dividing cells, including those in the digestive tract and bone marrow. Radiation therapy can lead to localized damage, causing skin burns, fatigue and tissue scarring. Surgery, though effective, carries risks such as infection and complications from anesthesia [3]. Immunotherapy, while generally more targeted, is not without side effects. The activation of the immune system can sometimes lead to an overactive response, causing autoimmune-like conditions. Patients may experience inflammation in organs such as the lungs (pneumonitis), liver (hepatitis), or intestines (colitis). However, immunotherapy tends to have fewer long-term debilitating effects compared to traditional methods. Traditional cancer treatments often require repeated sessions and in some cases, cancer may develop resistance, leading to recurrence.

Chemotherapy and radiation can be effective in reducing tumor size and eliminating cancer cells, they do not always prevent relapse, necessitating ongoing treatment. Immunotherapy has shown promising long-term benefits, especially in cases where it achieves a durable immune response. Some patients experience prolonged remission and in some instances, their immune system continues to recognize and fight cancer cells even after treatment ends. However, immunotherapy does not work for all patients and it is often more expensive than traditional treatments. Furthermore, its effectiveness varies depending on the type of cancer and individual patient factors. Both immunotherapy and traditional cancer treatments have their advantages and limitations. Traditional treatments remain the standard for many types of cancer due to their established effectiveness and accessibility. However, immunotherapy offers a revolutionary approach with the potential for long-term remission and fewer side effects. Future advancements in cancer treatment may involve a combination of both methods, optimizing their strengths to improve patient outcomes [4,5].

Conclusion

The future of immunotherapy is incredibly promising, with ongoing research pushing the boundaries of what is possible. As more targeted, personalized and efficient therapies are developed, immunotherapy is expected to become a cornerstone of modern medicine, extending beyond cancer treatment to address a wide range of diseases. In the coming years, we can expect a shift from traditional treatment approaches to more immune-based strategies that work in harmony with the bodyâ??s natural defenses. As clinical trials continue to validate new therapies, immunotherapy is set to redefine the standard of care, offering hope for improved survival rates, reduced side effects and, ultimately, cures for some of the most challenging diseases.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Grundy, Scott M., James I. Cleeman, Stephen R. Daniels and Karen A. Donato, et al. “Diagnosis and management of the metabolic syndrome: An american heart association/national heart, lung and blood institute scientific statement.” Circulation112 (2005): 2735-2752.

Google Scholar        Cross Ref     Indexed at

2. Wang, Helen H., Dong Ki Lee, Min Liu and Piero Portincasa, et al. “Novel insights into the pathogenesis and management of the metabolic syndrome.” Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr23 (2020): 189.

Google Scholar        Cross Ref     Indexed at

3. Turnerâ?McGrievy, Gabrielle M., Sara Wilcox, Alycia Boutté and Brent E. Hutto, et al. “The Dietary Intervention to Enhance Tracking with Mobile Devices (DIET Mobile) study: A 6â?month randomized weight loss trial.” Obesity25 (2017): 1336-1342.

Google Scholar        Cross Ref     Indexed at

4. Tornimbene, Barbara, Sergey Eremin, Martina Escher and Jolanta Griskeviciene, et al. “WHO global antimicrobial resistance surveillance system early implementation 2016–17.” Lancet Infect Dis18 (2018): 241-242.

Google Scholar        Cross Ref     Indexed at

5. Murray, Christopher JL, Kevin Shunji Ikuta, Fablina Sharara and Lucien Swetschinski, et al. “Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: A systematic analysis.” Lancet399 (2022): 629-655.

Google Scholar        Cross Ref     Indexed at