Journal of Cancer Immunology & Therapy

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Commentary - Journal of Cancer Immunology & Therapy (2025) Volume 8, Issue 1

Monoclonal Antibodies vs. Traditional Therapies: A Comparative Analysis

Ann Yun *

Department of Neurology, Nanjing University, China

*Corresponding Author:
Ann Yun
Department of Neurology, Nanjing University, China
E-mail: a.yun09@aliyun.com

Received: 03-Feb -2025, Manuscript No. AAJCIT-25-161372; Editor assigned: 04-Feb-2025, PreQC No. AAJCIT-25-161372 (PQ); Reviewed:18-Feb-2025, QC No. AAJCIT-25-161372; Revised:23-Feb-2025, Manuscript No. AAJCIT-25-161372 (R); Published:28-Feb-2025, DOI:10.35841/aajcit-8.1.246

Citation: Yun A. Monoclonal antibodies vs. Traditional therapies: A comparative analysis. J Cancer Immunol Ther. 2025;8(1):246

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Cancer Immunology & Therapy

Abstract

  

Introduction

The field of medicine has witnessed significant advancements over the years, particularly in the treatment of chronic and life-threatening diseases. Among these advancements, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have emerged as a revolutionary therapeutic approach. Compared to traditional therapies, which include chemical drugs and biologics such as vaccines and plasma-derived proteins, mAbs offer targeted treatment with enhanced specificity and fewer side effects. This article provides a comparative analysis of monoclonal antibodies and traditional therapies, highlighting their mechanisms, effectiveness, safety profiles, and economic implications [1].

Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-engineered molecules designed to mimic the immune system’s ability to fight diseases. They target specific antigens, such as proteins on cancer cells, inflammatory cytokines, or infectious agents, ensuring precise therapeutic intervention. Traditional therapies, on the other hand, include small-molecule drugs that act on broader biological pathways. While traditional drugs interact with multiple targets, leading to widespread physiological effects, mAbs provide a highly specific mechanism of action, reducing unintended interactions [2].

The efficacy of monoclonal antibodies has been demonstrated in various diseases, including cancer, autoimmune disorders, and infectious diseases. For instance, trastuzumab, a monoclonal antibody used in breast cancer treatment, targets the HER2 receptor, leading to improved survival rates compared to traditional chemotherapy. Similarly, adalimumab, an anti-TNF mAb, has shown superior efficacy in treating rheumatoid arthritis compared to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) [3].

Traditional therapies, such as chemotherapy, corticosteroids, and antibiotics, have long been the cornerstone of disease management. However, they often lack specificity, leading to systemic toxicity and resistance issues. For example, chemotherapy affects both cancerous and normal cells, resulting in severe side effects such as immunosuppression, nausea, and hair loss. In contrast, mAbs provide a more targeted approach, minimizing off-target effects and improving patient outcomes [4].

One of the primary advantages of monoclonal antibodies is their favorable safety profile. Due to their high specificity, mAbs tend to cause fewer off-target effects compared to traditional therapies. However, they are not entirely free from adverse reactions. Some mAbs may trigger immune responses, leading to infusion-related reactions or anaphylaxis. Additionally, prolonged use of immunosuppressive mAbs can increase the risk of infections [5].

Traditional therapies, particularly small-molecule drugs, often exhibit higher toxicity. Non-specific action can result in hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and gastrointestinal complications. Corticosteroids, widely used in autoimmune diseases, can cause osteoporosis, hypertension, and metabolic disorders with long-term use. Thus, while mAbs present a safer alternative in many cases, their immunogenicity remains a concern that requires careful monitoring [6].

A major challenge associated with monoclonal antibodies is their high cost. The production of mAbs involves complex biotechnological processes, including recombinant DNA technology and cell culture systems, which significantly increase manufacturing expenses. The cost of mAb therapy can range from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient annually, limiting accessibility in low-income regions [7].

Traditional therapies, particularly generic small-molecule drugs, are generally more affordable and widely available. This affordability makes them the primary treatment option in many healthcare settings. However, with the advent of biosimilars—biologically similar versions of mAbs—the cost barrier is gradually being addressed, potentially increasing accessibility [8].

Monoclonal antibodies have transformed the landscape of medicine across multiple domains. In oncology, immune checkpoint inhibitors like pembrolizumab and nivolumab have redefined cancer therapy by enhancing anti-tumor immune responses. In autoimmune diseases, biologics such as infliximab and rituximab have replaced traditional DMARDs in cases of severe refractory disease [9].

Despite these advances, traditional therapies continue to play a critical role in medical treatment. For example, antibiotics remain indispensable for bacterial infections, and chemotherapy is still a mainstay in cancer treatment when immunotherapy is not an option. The future of medicine likely lies in a combination approach, leveraging the precision of mAbs alongside the broad efficacy of traditional drugs to optimize patient care [10].

Conclusion

Monoclonal antibodies represent a significant advancement over traditional therapies, offering targeted treatment with improved efficacy and reduced side effects. However, their high cost and potential immunogenicity pose challenges to widespread adoption. Traditional therapies remain essential due to their affordability and broad-spectrum activity. As research continues, the integration of monoclonal antibodies with conventional treatments may provide a balanced approach to managing complex diseases, ultimately improving patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

References

  1. A Baudino T. Targeted cancer therapy: the next generation of cancer treatment. Curr Drug Discov Technol. 2015;12(1):3-20.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar

  2. Puro RJ, Bouchlaka MN, Hiebsch RR, et al., Development of AO-176, a next-generation humanized anti-CD47 antibody with novel anticancer properties and negligible red blood cell binding. Mol Cancer Ther. 2020;19(3):835-46.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Guo J, Bourre L, Soden DM, et al., Can non-viral technologies knockdown the barriers to siRNA delivery and achieve the next generation of cancer therapeutics?. Biotechnol Adv. 2011;29(4):402-17.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Mosele F, Remon J, Mateo J, et al., Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic cancers: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group. Ann Oncol.2020;31(11):1491-505.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Oxnard GR, Paweletz CP, Kuang Y, et al., Noninvasive detection of response and resistance in EGFR-mutant lung cancer using quantitative next-generation genotyping of cell-free plasma DNA. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(6):1698-705.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  6. Zill OA, Greene C, Sebisanovic D, et al., Cell-free DNA next-generation sequencing in pancreatobiliary carcinomas. Cancer Discov. 2015;5(10):1040-8.

    7. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  7. Loyo M, Li RJ, Bettegowda C, et al., Lessons learned from next?generation sequencing in head and neck cancer. Head 2013;35(3):454-63.

    8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  8. Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Bytautas JP, et al., Testing personalized medicine: patient and physician expectations of next-generation genomic sequencing in late-stage cancer care. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014;22(3):391-5.

    9. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  9. Nagahashi M, Shimada Y, Ichikawa H, et al., Next generation sequencing?based gene panel tests for the management of solid tumors. Cancer Sci. 2019;110(1):6-15.

    10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  10. Setton J, Zinda M, Riaz N, et al., Synthetic lethality in cancer therapeutics: the next generation. Cancer Discov. 2021;11(7):1626-35.

    11. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App