|
Showing 1 - 2 of
2 matches in All Departments
Because of several valid (and some invalid) reasons, the research
field of tumor immunology has been declining in popularity. The
Simplistic dogmas, articles of faith, and theories of the late
1960s and early 1970s on the immuno logical mechanisms of the
host-tumor interrelationships have frequently been refuted by some
of the new developments in cancer biology, cancer biochem istry,
and immunology. Furthermore, some of the conventional assays used
to monitor "tumor-host immune relations" did not always reflect the
host's true clinical situation or his prognosis. Several approaches
to immunological interven tion were less successful than expected.
In addition, the concept of "immune surveillance," which was basic
to many researchers in the field of cancer im munology, seemed to
fall apart. Much of the criticism was based on results from solid,
well-performed, and well-controlled experiments, but there was also
un just criticism based on ill-conceived and badly performed
studies, and on misin terpretations of experimental data. There are
many misconceptions about the tumor-host relationship. It is very
often assumed that tumor immunity, as expressed systemically, is
truly reflected at the tumor site. Several studies reported in this
volume and elsewhere indicate that such is not always the case.
Certain immune effectors may be selectively prevented from reaching
the tumor site or the close vicinity of the tumor cells because of
mechanical or chemical barriers, whereas others may be selectively
attracted to the site by chemotaxis or other mechanisms."
Because of several valid (and some invalid) reasons, the research
field of tumor immunology has been declining in popularity. The
Simplistic dogmas, articles of faith, and theories of the late
1960s and early 1970s on the immuno- logical mechanisms of the
host-tumor interrelationships have frequently been refuted by some
of the new developments in cancer biology, cancer biochem- istry,
and immunology. Furthermore, some of the conventional assays used
to monitor "tumor-host immune relations" did not always reflect the
host's true clinical situation or his prognosis. Several approaches
to immunological interven- tion were less successful than expected.
In addition, the concept of "immune surveillance," which was basic
to many researchers in the field of cancer im- munology, seemed to
fall apart. Much of the criticism was based on results from solid,
well-performed, and well-controlled experiments, but there was also
un- just criticism based on ill-conceived and badly performed
studies, and on misin- terpretations of experimental data. There
are many misconceptions about the tumor-host relationship. It is
very often assumed that tumor immunity, as expressed systemically,
is truly reflected at the tumor site. Several studies reported in
this volume and elsewhere indicate that such is not always the
case. Certain immune effectors may be selectively prevented from
reaching the tumor site or the close vicinity of the tumor cells
because of mechanical or chemical barriers, whereas others may be
selectively attracted to the site by chemotaxis or other
mechanisms.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R398
R330
Discovery Miles 3 300
Hampstead
Diane Keaton, Brendan Gleeson, …
DVD
R66
Discovery Miles 660
|