85
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Targeting Tumor Microenvironment for Cancer Therapy

      review-article

      Read this article at

      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

          Cancer development is highly associated to the physiological state of the tumor microenvironment (TME). Despite the existing heterogeneity of tumors from the same or from different anatomical locations, common features can be found in the TME maturation of epithelial-derived tumors. Genetic alterations in tumor cells result in hyperplasia, uncontrolled growth, resistance to apoptosis, and metabolic shift towards anaerobic glycolysis (Warburg effect). These events create hypoxia, oxidative stress and acidosis within the TME triggering an adjustment of the extracellular matrix (ECM), a response from neighbor stromal cells (e.g., fibroblasts) and immune cells (lymphocytes and macrophages), inducing angiogenesis and, ultimately, resulting in metastasis. Exosomes secreted by TME cells are central players in all these events. The TME profile is preponderant on prognosis and impacts efficacy of anti-cancer therapies. Hence, a big effort has been made to develop new therapeutic strategies towards a more efficient targeting of TME. These efforts focus on: (i) therapeutic strategies targeting TME components, extending from conventional therapeutics, to combined therapies and nanomedicines; and (ii) the development of models that accurately resemble the TME for bench investigations, including tumor-tissue explants, “tumor on a chip” or multicellular tumor-spheroids.

          Related collections

          Most cited references145

          • 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

            Hypoxia in cancer: significance and impact on clinical outcome.

            Hypoxia, a characteristic feature of locally advanced solid tumors, has emerged as a pivotal factor of the tumor (patho-)physiome since it can promote tumor progression and resistance to therapy. Hypoxia represents a "Janus face" in tumor biology because (a) it is associated with restrained proliferation, differentiation, necrosis or apoptosis, and (b) it can also lead to the development of an aggressive phenotype. Independent of standard prognostic factors, such as tumor stage and nodal status, hypoxia has been suggested as an adverse prognostic factor for patient outcome. Studies of tumor hypoxia involving the direct assessment of the oxygenation status have suggested worse disease-free survival for patients with hypoxic cervical cancers or soft tissue sarcomas. In head & neck cancers the studies suggest that hypoxia is prognostic for survival and local control. Technical limitations of the direct O(2) sensing technique have prompted the use of surrogate markers for tumor hypoxia, such as hypoxia-related endogenous proteins (e.g., HIF-1alpha, GLUT-1, CA IX) or exogenous bioreductive drugs. In many - albeit not in all - studies endogenous markers showed prognostic significance for patient outcome. The prognostic relevance of exogenous markers, however, appears to be limited. Noninvasive assessment of hypoxia using imaging techniques can be achieved with PET or SPECT detection of radiolabeled tracers or with MRI techniques (e.g., BOLD). Clinical experience with these methods regarding patient prognosis is so far only limited. In the clinical studies performed up until now, the lack of standardized treatment protocols, inconsistencies of the endpoints characterizing the oxygenation status and methodological differences (e.g., different immunohistochemical staining procedures) may compromise the power of the prognostic parameter used.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

              The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Int J Mol Sci
                Int J Mol Sci
                ijms
                International Journal of Molecular Sciences
                MDPI
                1422-0067
                15 February 2019
                February 2019
                : 20
                : 4
                : 840
                Affiliations
                UCIBIO, Departamento de Ciências da Vida, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa. Campus de Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica, Portugal; catromar@ 123456fct.unl.pt (C.R.-R.); ars.mendes@ 123456campus.fct.unl.pt (R.M.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: pmvb@ 123456fct.unl.pt (P.V.B.); ma.fernandes@ 123456fct.unl.pt (A.R.F.); Tel./Fax: +(351)-21-294-85-30 (P.V.B. & A.R.F.)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8676-6562
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5255-7095
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2054-4438
                Article
                ijms-20-00840
                10.3390/ijms20040840
                6413095
                30781344
                d1bb322f-6d5a-43d4-a2ea-e7a5520c12f9
                © 2019 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 29 January 2019
                : 13 February 2019
                Categories
                Review

                Molecular biology
                tumor microenvironment,tumor development,cancer therapy,models for tumor microenvironment study,nanomedicines

                Comments

                Comment on this article