Immunology Case Reports

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.
Reach Us +1 (202) 780-3397

Editorial - Immunology Case Reports (2025) Volume 8, Issue 2

Cross-Cultural Implications of Experimental Cancer Immunotherapies

Wen Fei *

Department of Molecular Pathology, Hospital of Zhengzhou University, China

*Corresponding Author:
Wen Fei
Department of Molecular Pathology ,
Hospital of Zhengzhou University,
China
E-mail: arpan372@gmail.com

Received:02-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. AAICR-25-169270; Editor assigned:03-Jan-2025, PreQC No. AAICR-25-169270(PQ); Reviewed:18-Jan-2025, QC No. AAICR-25-169270; Revised:24-Jan-2025, Manuscript No. AAICR-25-169270(R); Published:31-Jan-2025, DOI:10.35841/aaicr-8.2.194

Citation: Fei W. Cross-cultural implications of experimental cancer immunotherapies. Immunol Case Rep. 2025;8(2):194

Visit for more related articles at Immunology Case Reports

Introduction

Cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized treatment paradigms by harnessing the body’s own immune system to target and destroy cancer cells. From checkpoint inhibitors to personalized vaccines and CAR-T cell therapy, experimental approaches continue to expand. Yet, alongside the scientific breakthroughs lies a multifaceted challenge: understanding and addressing the cross-cultural implications of these therapies. Different societies interpret health, illness, and medical innovation through distinct cultural lenses, influencing how immunotherapies are perceived, adopted, and accessed globally [1].

Experimental cancer immunotherapies are typically developed in high-resource settings. Their introduction into diverse cultural contexts reveals disparities in: For example, CAR-T therapy may be considered miraculous in some contexts, but viewed with skepticism or spiritual concern in others. Cultural beliefs about immunity, bodily integrity, and intervention influence receptiveness to such treatments. In many non-Western societies, traditional healing systems—such as Ayurveda, Traditional Chinese Medicine, or spiritual healing practices—still guide medical decision-making [2].

This friction affects not only individual choices but also policy and institutional support for adopting experimental immunotherapies. Cultural notions of autonomy, authority, and communal responsibility shape consent processes: In Western frameworks, individual autonomy dominates. In some cultures, family elders or community leaders play key roles in medical decisions. Concepts like fate, karma, or spiritual trial may interfere with risk-benefit calculations. Thus, global clinical trials require culturally sensitive informed consent protocols that respect varying beliefs while ensuring ethical integrity [3].

Experimental immunotherapies often come with: High cost (CAR-T can exceed $400,000), Complex production (e.g., autologous T cell engineering), Specialized facilities. These barriers create geographic and socioeconomic inequities, especially for Indigenous, rural, or marginalized populations. Cross-cultural bioethics demand frameworks that address: Fair allocation of trials [4].

Immunotherapies often rely on HLA typing, neoantigen discovery, and tumor microenvironment profiling. These parameters vary across populations due to: Genetic ancestry, Environmental exposure, Lifestyle and microbiome composition. For instance, African and Asian populations display distinct immune expression profiles that may influence therapy outcomes. Inclusion of diverse genetic data in clinical trials is essential to avoid biased efficacy and safety assumptions [5].

Conclusion

These metaphors shape how people approach treatments, especially novel ones like immunotherapy. Culturally adapted communication campaigns—with attention to language, imagery, and messaging—can help educate diverse communities about the promise and limitations of immunotherapy. These skills enable providers to collaborate effectively across cultures and foster inclusive care environments. Oncology curricula are beginning to incorporate global health and anthropological perspectives to prepare clinicians for these realities. Understanding and respecting these narratives fosters alignment between medical recommendations and patient values [5].

References

  1. Richner J.M, Himansu S, Dowd K.A, et al. Modified mRNA vaccines protect against Zika virus infection. Cell. 2017;168(6):1114-25.

    2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  2. Hekele A, Bertholet S, Archer J, et al. Rapidly produced SAM ® vaccine against H7N9 influenza is immunogenic in mice. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2013;2(1):1-7.

    3. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  3. Geall A.J, Verma A, Otten G.R, et al. Nonviral delivery of self-amplifying RNA vaccines. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109(36):14604-09.

    4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  4. Blakney A.K, McKay P.F, Yus B.I, et al. Inside out: optimization of lipid nanoparticle formulations for exterior complexation and in vivo delivery of saRNA. Gene Ther. 2019;26(9):363-72.

    5. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

  5. Ulmer J.B, Mason P.W, Geall A, et al. RNA-based vaccines. Vaccine. 2012;30(30):4414-18.

    6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Get the App