13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Cancer Immunoediting in the Era of Immuno-oncology

      ,
      Clinical Cancer Research
      American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Basic science breakthroughs in T-cell biology and immune–tumor cell interactions ushered in a new era of cancer immunotherapy. Twenty years ago, cancer immunoediting was proposed as a framework to understand the dynamic process by which the immune system can both control and shape cancer and in its most complex form occurs through three phases termed elimination, equilibrium, and escape. During cancer progression through these phases, tumors undergo immunoediting, rendering them less immunogenic and more capable of establishing an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Therefore, cancer immunoediting integrates the complex immune–tumor cell interactions occurring in the tumor microenvironment and sculpts immunogenicity beyond shaping antigenicity. However, with the success of cancer immunotherapy resulting in durable clinical responses in the last decade and subsequent emergence of immuno-oncology as a clinical subspecialty, the phrase “cancer immunoediting” has recently, at times, been inappropriately restricted to describing neoantigen loss by immunoselection. This focus has obscured other mechanisms by which cancer immunoediting modifies tumor immunogenicity. Although establishment of the concept of cancer immunoediting and definitive experimental evidence supporting its existence was initially obtained from preclinical models in the absence of immunotherapy, cancer immunoediting is a continual process that also occurs during immunotherapy in human patients with cancer. Herein, we discuss the known mechanisms of cancer immunoediting obtained from preclinical and clinical data with an emphasis on how a greater understanding of cancer immunoediting may provide insights into immunotherapy resistance and how this resistance can be overcome.

          Related collections

          Most cited references106

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation

          The hallmarks of cancer comprise six biological capabilities acquired during the multistep development of human tumors. The hallmarks constitute an organizing principle for rationalizing the complexities of neoplastic disease. They include sustaining proliferative signaling, evading growth suppressors, resisting cell death, enabling replicative immortality, inducing angiogenesis, and activating invasion and metastasis. Underlying these hallmarks are genome instability, which generates the genetic diversity that expedites their acquisition, and inflammation, which fosters multiple hallmark functions. Conceptual progress in the last decade has added two emerging hallmarks of potential generality to this list-reprogramming of energy metabolism and evading immune destruction. In addition to cancer cells, tumors exhibit another dimension of complexity: they contain a repertoire of recruited, ostensibly normal cells that contribute to the acquisition of hallmark traits by creating the "tumor microenvironment." Recognition of the widespread applicability of these concepts will increasingly affect the development of new means to treat human cancer. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy.

            Among the most promising approaches to activating therapeutic antitumour immunity is the blockade of immune checkpoints. Immune checkpoints refer to a plethora of inhibitory pathways hardwired into the immune system that are crucial for maintaining self-tolerance and modulating the duration and amplitude of physiological immune responses in peripheral tissues in order to minimize collateral tissue damage. It is now clear that tumours co-opt certain immune-checkpoint pathways as a major mechanism of immune resistance, particularly against T cells that are specific for tumour antigens. Because many of the immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies or modulated by recombinant forms of ligands or receptors. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) antibodies were the first of this class of immunotherapeutics to achieve US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Preliminary clinical findings with blockers of additional immune-checkpoint proteins, such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1), indicate broad and diverse opportunities to enhance antitumour immunity with the potential to produce durable clinical responses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

              An improvement in overall survival among patients with metastatic melanoma has been an elusive goal. In this phase 3 study, ipilimumab--which blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 to potentiate an antitumor T-cell response--administered with or without a glycoprotein 100 (gp100) peptide vaccine was compared with gp100 alone in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. A total of 676 HLA-A*0201-positive patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, whose disease had progressed while they were receiving therapy for metastatic disease, were randomly assigned, in a 3:1:1 ratio, to receive ipilimumab plus gp100 (403 patients), ipilimumab alone (137), or gp100 alone (136). Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight, was administered with or without gp100 every 3 weeks for up to four treatments (induction). Eligible patients could receive reinduction therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. The median overall survival was 10.0 months among patients receiving ipilimumab plus gp100, as compared with 6.4 months among patients receiving gp100 alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; P<0.001). The median overall survival with ipilimumab alone was 10.1 months (hazard ratio for death in the comparison with gp100 alone, 0.66; P=0.003). No difference in overall survival was detected between the ipilimumab groups (hazard ratio with ipilimumab plus gp100, 1.04; P=0.76). Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 10 to 15% of patients treated with ipilimumab and in 3% treated with gp100 alone. There were 14 deaths related to the study drugs (2.1%), and 7 were associated with immune-related adverse events. Ipilimumab, with or without a gp100 peptide vaccine, as compared with gp100 alone, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. Adverse events can be severe, long-lasting, or both, but most are reversible with appropriate treatment. (Funded by Medarex and Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094653.)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Clinical Cancer Research
                American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)
                1078-0432
                1557-3265
                September 15 2022
                May 20 2022
                September 15 2022
                May 20 2022
                : 28
                : 18
                : 3917-3928
                Article
                10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-1804
                35594163
                644c213d-90eb-4078-89d7-e79dffa7e3c0
                © 2022
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article