استكشف المجموعة الواسعة من العناوين المتاحة.

Regulatory T (Treg) cells suppress abnormal/excessive immune responses to self‐ and nonself‐antigens to maintain immune homeostasis. In tumor immunity, Treg cells are involved in tumor development and progression by inhibiting antitumor immunity. There are several Treg cell immune suppressive mechanisms: inhibition of costimulatory signals by CD80 and CD86 expressed by dendritic cells through cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte antigen‐4, interleukin (IL)‐2 consumption by high‐affinity IL‐2 receptors with high CD25 (IL‐2 receptor α‐chain) expression, secretion of inhibitory cytokines, metabolic modulation of tryptophan and adenosine, and direct killing of effector T cells. Infiltration of Treg cells into the tumor microenvironment (TME) occurs in multiple murine and human tumors. Regulatory T cells are chemoattracted to the TME by chemokine gradients such as CCR4‐CCL17/22, CCR8‐CCL1, CCR10‐CCL28, and CXCR3‐CCL9/10/11. Regulatory T cells are then activated and inhibit antitumor immune responses. A high infiltration by Treg cells is associated with poor survival in various types of cancer. Therefore, strategies to deplete Treg cells and control of Treg cell functions to increase antitumor immune responses are urgently required in the cancer immunotherapy field. Various molecules that are highly expressed by Treg cells, such as immune checkpoint molecules, chemokine receptors, and metabolites, have been targeted by Abs or small molecules, but additional strategies are needed to fine‐tune and optimize for augmenting antitumor effects restricted in the TME while avoiding systemic autoimmunity. Here, we provide a brief synopsis of these cells in cancer and how they can be controlled to achieve therapeutic outcomes. Regulatory T cells suppress immune functions through various mechanisms such as cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte antigen‐4‐mediated suppression of antigen‐presenting cell function, consumption of interleukin‐2, production of immunosuppressive cytokines, and production of immune suppressive metabolites.

DNA repair pathways can enable tumour cells to survive DNA damage that is induced by chemotherapeutic treatments; therefore, inhibitors of specific DNA repair pathways might prove efficacious when used in combination with DNA-damaging chemotherapeutic drugs. In addition, alterations in DNA repair pathways that arise during tumour development can make some cancer cells reliant on a reduced set of DNA repair pathways for survival. There is evidence that drugs that inhibit one of these pathways in such tumours could prove useful as single-agent therapies, with the potential advantage that this approach could be selective for tumour cells and have fewer side effects.

Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP1) facilitates DNA repair by binding to DNA breaks and attracting DNA repair proteins to the site of damage. Nevertheless, PARP1-/- mice are viable, fertile and do not develop early onset tumours. Here, we show that PARP inhibitors trigger γ-H2AX and RAD51 foci formation. We propose that, in the absence of PARP1, spontaneous single-strand breaks collapse replication forks and trigger homologous recombination for repair. Furthermore, we show that BRCA2-deficient cells, as a result of their deficiency in homologous recombination, are acutely sensitive to PARP inhibitors, presumably because resultant collapsed replication forks are no longer repaired. Thus, PARP1 activity is essential in homologous recombination-deficient BRCA2 mutant cells. We exploit this requirement in order to kill BRCA2-deficient tumours by PARP inhibition alone. Treatment with PARP inhibitors is likely to be highly tumour specific, because only the tumours (which are BRCA2-/-) in BRCA2+/- patients are defective in homologous recombination. The use of an inhibitor of a DNA repair enzyme alone to selectively kill a tumour, in the absence of an exogenous DNA-damaging agent, represents a new concept in cancer treatment.

As chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is characterized by overexpression of pro-survival BCL2, compounds that mimic its physiological antagonists, the BH3-only proteins, may have a role in treatment of this disease. ABT-737 is a BH3 mimetic compound that selectively targets BCL2 and BCLX(L). In the present work, we report that ABT-737 is highly effective (LC(50)<50 nM) as a single agent against most (21/30) primary CLL samples, but that a sizable minority is relatively insensitive. In vitro sensitivity to ABT-737 could not be simply predicted by the patients' clinical features, including response to prior therapy or known prognostic markers (CD38 expression, 17p deletion), or the relative expression of BCL2 family proteins (BCL2, MCL1, BAX, BIM). Strikingly, co-incubation with cytotoxic agents (dexamethasone, etoposide, fludarabine, doxorubicin) sensitized most CLL samples to ABT-737, but this could not be predicted by responses to either ABT-737 or the cytotoxic agent alone. Of 17 samples least sensitive to ABT-737, 13 were sensitized by co-treatment with at least one cytotoxic agent. These data indicate that combination of ABT-737 with a second anti-leukemic agent would improve response rates and suggest a potential role for combination therapies that include BH3 mimetics for the treatment of this disease.

With immunotherapy enjoying a rapid resurgence based on the achievement of durable remissions in some patients with agents that derepress immune function, commonly referred to as “checkpoint inhibitors,” enormous attention developed around the IDO1 enzyme as a metabolic mediator of immune escape in cancer. In particular, outcomes of multiple phase 1/2 trials encouraged the idea that small molecule inhibitors of IDO1 may improve patient responses to anti-PD1 immune checkpoint therapy. However, recent results from ECHO-301, the first large phase 3 trial to evaluate an IDO1-selective enzyme inhibitor (epacadostat) in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody (pembrolizumab) in advanced melanoma, showed no indication that epacadostat provided an increased benefit. Here we discuss several caveats associated with this failed trial. First is the uncertainty as to whether the target was adequately inhibited. In particular, there remains a lack of direct evidence regarding the degree of IDO1 inhibition within the tumor, and previous trial data suggest that sufficient drug exposure may not have been achieved at the dose tested in ECHO-301. Second, while there is a mechanistic rationale for the combination tested, the preclinical data were not particularly compelling. More efficacious combinations have been demonstrated with DNA damaging modalities which may therefore be a more attractive alternative. Third, as a highly selective IDO1 inhibitor, epacadostat was advanced aggressively despite preclinical genetic evidence of tumors bypassing IDO1 blockade. Indeed, a well-grounded literature starting in 2011 points to targeting strategies that account for both IDO and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase as more appealing directions to pursue, including dual inhibitors and inhibitors of nodal downstream effector pathways such as aryl hydrocarbon receptor blockade. Overall, the clinical readout from a single trial with significant limitations is by no means a definitive test for the field. While biomarker information yet to be gleaned from ECHO-301 may yet reveal useful information regarding IDO1 pathway drugs, better rationalized compounds and better rationalized trial designs will be important in the future to accurately gauge medical impact.

Angiogenesis inhibitors such as lenvatinib and sorafenib, and an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), nivolumab, are used for anticancer therapies against advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combination treatments comprising angiogenesis inhibitors plus ICIs are promising options for improving clinical benefits in HCC patients, and clinical trials are ongoing. Here, we investigated the antitumor and immunomodulatory activities of lenvatinib (a multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1‐3, fibroblast growth factor receptor 1‐4, platelet‐derived growth factor receptor α, KIT and RET) and the combined antitumor activity of lenvatinib plus anti‐programmed cell death 1 (PD‐1) antibody in the Hepa1‐6 mouse HCC syngeneic model. We found that the antitumor activities of lenvatinib and sorafenib were not different in immunodeficient mice, but lenvatinib showed more potent antitumor activity than sorafenib in immunocompetent mice. The antitumor activity of lenvatinib was greater in immunocompetent mice than in immunodeficient mice and was attenuated by CD8+ T cell depletion. Treatment with lenvatinib plus anti‐PD‐1 antibody resulted in more tumor regression and a higher response rate compared with either treatment alone in immunocompetent mice. Single‐cell RNA sequencing analysis demonstrated that treatment with lenvatinib with or without anti‐PD‐1 antibody decreased the proportion of monocytes and macrophages population and increased that of CD8+ T cell populations. These data suggest that lenvatinib has immunomodulatory activity that contributes to the antitumor activity of lenvatinib and enhances the antitumor activity in combination treatment with anti‐PD‐1 antibody. Combination treatment of lenvatinib plus anti‐PD‐1 antibody therefore warrants further investigation against advanced HCC. Lenvatinib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that selectively inhibits VEGFR1‐3, FGFR1‐4, PDGFRα, RET and KIT. Here, we show that lenvatinib has immunomodulatory activity, which plays a role in the antitumor activity of single lenvatinib treatment, and enhances the antitumor activity of anti‐PD‐1 antibody in the combination treatment in the Hepa1‐6 mouse HCC syngeneic tumor model.

As a widely recognized standard regimen, R-CHOP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) is able to cure two-thirds patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and the remaining patients suffer from refractory or relapsed disease due to resistance to R-CHOP and fare poorly. Unsatisfied outcomes for those relapsed/refractory patients prompted efforts to discover new treatment approaches for DLBCL, including chimeric antigen receptor T cells, bispecific T cell engagers, immunomodulatory drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, molecular pathway inhibitors, and epigenetic-modifying drugs. Herein, up-to-date data about the most promising treatment approaches for DLBCL are recapitulated, and novel genetic classification systems are introduced to guide individualized treatment for DLBCL.

This study shows that even in patients with del(5q) myelodysplastic syndrome who become transfusion-independent in response to lenalidomide, a myelo-dysplastic syndrome stem cell persists that is lenalinomide-resistant, continues to acquire genetic defects, and can cause relapse. The concept that rare cancer stem cells might be required and sufficient to propagate a cancer is not new and has been supported by experimental evidence, first in leukemia 1 and subsequently in solid tumors. 2 Implicit in the cancer stem-cell model are the hypotheses that cancer stem cells are distinct, rare populations of cancer cells and that they may be particularly resistant to conventional cancer therapies. More recently, key aspects of the cancer stem-cell concept have been questioned, and studies have indicated that at least in some malignant conditions, cancer stem cells are neither rare 3 , 4 nor phenotypically distinct. 5 , 6 However, . . .

Aberrant expression of microRNA-146a (miR-146a) has been reported to be involved in the development and progression of various types of cancers. However, its role in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has not been elucidated. The aim of this study was to investigate the contribution of miR-146a to various aspects of the malignant phenotype of human NSCLCs. In functional experiments, miR-146a suppressed cell growth, induced cellular apoptosis and inhibited EGFR downstream signaling in five NSCLC cell lines (H358, H1650, H1975, HCC827 and H292). miR-146a also inhibited the migratory capacity of these NSCLC cells. On the other hand, miR-146a enhanced the inhibition of cell proliferation by drugs targeting EGFR, including both TKIs (gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib) and a monoclonal antibody (cetuximab). These effects were independent of the EGFR mutation status (wild type, sensitizing mutation or resistance mutation), but were less potent compared to the effects of siRNA targeting of EGFR. Our results suggest that these effects of miR-146a are due to its targeting of EGFR and NF-κB signaling. We also found, in clinical formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) lung cancer samples, that low expression of miR-146a was correlated with advanced clinical TNM stages and distant metastasis in NSCLC (P<0.05). The patients with high miR-146a expression in their tumors showed longer progression-free survival (25.6 weeks in miR-146a high patients vs. 4.8 weeks in miR-146a low patients, P<0.05). miR-146a is therefore a strong candidate prognostic biomarker in NSCLC. Thus inducing miR-146a might be a therapeutic strategy for NSCLC.

The size of anticancer agent‐incorporating micelles can be controlled within the diameter range of 20–100 nm to ensure that they do not penetrate normal vessel walls. With this development, it is expected that the incidence of drug‐induced side‐effects may be decreased owing to the reduced drug distribution in normal tissue. Micelle systems can also evade non‐specific capture by the reticuloendothelial system because the outer shell of a micelle is covered with polyethylene glycol. Consequently, a polymer micelle carrier can be delivered selectively to a tumor by utilizing the enhanced permeability and retention effect. Moreover, a water‐insoluble drug can be incorporated into polymer micelles. Presently, several anticancer agent‐incorporating micelle carrier systems are under preclinical and clinical evaluation. Furthermore, nucleic acid‐incorporating micelle carrier systems are also being developed. (Cancer Sci 2009; 100: 572–579)