Explore the vast range of titles available.

The advent of immunotherapy, especially checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy, has provided novel and powerful weapons against cancer. Because only a subset of cancer patients exhibit durable responses, further exploration of the mechanisms underlying the resistance to immunotherapy in the bulk of cancer patients is merited. Such efforts may help to identify which patients could benefit from immune checkpoint blockade. Given the existence of a great number of pathways by which cancer can escape immune surveillance, and the complexity of tumor-immune system interaction, development of various combination therapies, including those that combine with conventional therapies, would be necessary. In this review, we summarize the current understanding of the mechanisms by which resistance to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy occurs, and outline how actionable combination strategies may be derived to improve clinical outcomes for patients.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive and lethal type of brain tumor in human adults. The standard of care offers minimal clinical benefit, and most GBM patients experience tumor recurrence after treatment. In recent years, significant advancements have been made in the development of novel immunotherapies or other therapeutic strategies that can overcome immunotherapy resistance in many advanced cancers. However, the benefit of immune-based treatments in GBM is limited because of the unique brain immune profiles, GBM cell heterogeneity, and immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. In this review, we present a detailed overview of current immunotherapeutic strategies and discuss the challenges and potential molecular mechanisms underlying immunotherapy resistance in GBM. Furthermore, we provide an in-depth discussion regarding the strategies that can overcome immunotherapy resistance in GBM, which will likely require combination therapies.

Glioblastoma (GBM) treatment has remained almost unchanged for more than 20 years. The current standard of care involves surgical resection (if possible) followed by concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy. In recent years, immunotherapy strategies have revolutionized the treatment of many cancers, increasing the hope for GBM therapy. However, mostly due to the high, multifactorial immunosuppression occurring in the microenvironment, the poor knowledge of the neuroimmune system and the presence of the blood−brain barrier, the efficacy of immunotherapy in GBM is still low. Recently, new strategies for GBM treatments have employed immunotherapy combinations and have provided encouraging results in both preclinical and clinical studies. The lessons learned from clinical trials highlight the importance of tackling different arms of immunity. In this review, we aim to summarize the preclinical evidence regarding combination immunotherapy in terms of immune and survival benefits for GBM management. The outcomes of recent studies assessing the combination of different classes of immunotherapeutic agents (e.g., immune checkpoint blockade and vaccines) will be discussed. Finally, future strategies to ameliorate the efficacy of immunotherapy and facilitate clinical translation will be provided to address the unmet medical needs of GBM.

The immune system employs several checkpoint pathways to regulate responses, maintain homeostasis and prevent self-reactivity and autoimmunity. Tumor cells can hijack these protective mechanisms to enable immune escape, cancer survival and proliferation. Blocking antibodies, designed to interfere with checkpoint molecules CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 and counteract these immune suppressive mechanisms, have shown significant success in promoting immune responses against cancer and can result in tumor regression in many patients. While inhibitors to CTLA-4 and the PD-1/PD-L1 axis are well-established for the clinical management of melanoma, many patients do not respond or develop resistance to these interventions. Concerted efforts have focused on combinations of approved therapies aiming to further augment positive outcomes and survival. While CTLA-4 and PD-1 are the most-extensively researched targets, results from pre-clinical studies and clinical trials indicate that novel agents, specific for checkpoints such as A2AR, LAG-3, IDO and others, may further contribute to the improvement of patient outcomes, most likely in combinations with anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 blockade. This review discusses the rationale for, and results to date of, the development of inhibitory immune checkpoint blockade combination therapies in melanoma. The clinical potential of new pipeline therapeutics, and possible future therapy design and directions that hold promise to significantly improve clinical prognosis compared with monotherapy, are discussed.

PD-1-PD-L1 interaction is known to drive T cell dysfunction, which can be blocked by anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies. However, studies have also shown that the function of the PD-1-PD-L1 axis is affected by the complex immunologic regulation network, and some CD8 T cells can enter an irreversible dysfunctional state that cannot be rescued by PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. In most advanced cancers, except Hodgkin lymphoma (which has high PD-L1/L2 expression) and melanoma (which has high tumor mutational burden), the objective response rate with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy is only ~20%, and immune-related toxicities and hyperprogression can occur in a small subset of patients during PD-1/PD-L1 blockade therapy. The lack of efficacy in up to 80% of patients was not necessarily associated with negative PD-1 and PD-L1 expression, suggesting that the roles of PD-1/PD-L1 in immune suppression and the mechanisms of action of antibodies remain to be better defined. In addition, important immune regulatory mechanisms within or outside of the PD-1/PD-L1 network need to be discovered and targeted to increase the response rate and to reduce the toxicities of immune checkpoint blockade therapies. This paper reviews the major functional and clinical studies of PD-1/PD-L1, including those with discrepancies in the pathologic and biomarker role of PD-1 and PD-L1 and the effectiveness of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. The goal is to improve understanding of the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade immunotherapy, as well as enhance the development of therapeutic strategies to overcome the resistance mechanisms and unleash the antitumor immune response to combat cancer.

Treatment strategies for patients with advanced solid tumors have traditionally been based on three different paradigms: surgery, cytotoxics (chemotherapy or radiation therapy) and targeted therapies. Immunotherapy has emerged as a novel treatment paradigm in our armamentarium. Unfortunately, most patients still do not benefit from immunotherapy. These patients often have “cold tumors” characterized by a paucity of effector T cells in the tumor microenvironment, low mutational load, low neoantigen burden and often an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. TIGIT is an immunoreceptor inhibitory checkpoint that has been implicated in tumor immunosurveillance. Expression of TIGIT has been demonstrated in both NK cells and T cells and plays a role in their activation and maturation. TIGIT competes with immunoactivator receptor CD226 (DNAM-1) for the same set of ligands: CD155 (PVR or poliovirus receptor) and CD112 (Nectin-2 or PVRL2). TIGIT’s role in tumor immunosurveillance is analogous to the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in tumor immunosuppression. Both TIGIT and PD-1 are upregulated in a variety of different cancers. Anti-TIGIT antibodies have demonstrated synergy with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies in pre-clinical models. Currently, there are multiple first-in-man phase I trials hoping to exploit this new pathway and improve response rates with existing immunotherapies.

Cancer immunotherapy has achieved remarkable clinical efficacy through recent advances such as chimeric antigen receptor‐T cell (CAR‐T) therapy, immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy, and neoantigen vaccines. However, application of immunotherapy in a clinical setting has been limited by low durable response rates and immune‐related adverse events. The rapid development of nano‐/microtechnologies in the past decade provides potential strategies to improve cancer immunotherapy. Advances of nano‐/microparticles such as virus‐like size, high surface to volume ratio, and modifiable surfaces for precise targeting of specific cell types can be exploited in the design of cancer vaccines and delivery of immunomodulators. Here, the emerging nano‐/microapproaches in the field of cancer vaccines, immune checkpoint blockade, and adoptive or indirect immunotherapies are summarized. How nano‐/microparticles improve the efficacy of these therapies, relevant immunological mechanisms, and how nano‐/microparticle methods are able to accelerate the clinical translation of cancer immunotherapy are explored. The emerging nano‐/microapproaches in the field of cancer vaccines, immune checkpoint blockade, and adoptive or indirect immunotherapies are summarized. How nano‐/microparticles improve the efficacy of these therapies, relevant immunological mechanisms, and how nano‐/microparticle methods can accelerate the clinical translation of cancer immunotherapy are discussed.

Dendritic cells (DCs) have shown great potential as a component or target in the landscape of cancer immunotherapy. Different in vivo and ex vivo strategies of DC vaccine generation with different outcomes have been proposed. Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated their efficacy and safety in cancer patients. However, there is no consensus regarding which DC-based vaccine generation method is preferable. A problem of result comparison between trials in which different DC-loading or -targeting approaches have been applied remains. The employment of different DC generation and maturation methods, antigens and administration routes from trial to trial also limits the objective comparison of DC vaccines. In the present review, we discuss different methods of DC vaccine generation. We conclude that standardized trial designs, treatment settings and outcome assessment criteria will help to determine which DC vaccine generation approach should be applied in certain cancer cases. This will result in a reduction in alternatives in the selection of preferable DC-based vaccine tactics in patient. Moreover, it has become clear that the application of a DC vaccine alone is not sufficient and combination immunotherapy with recent advances, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, should be employed to achieve a better clinical response and outcome.

Immunotherapy has shifted the clinical paradigm of cancer management. However, despite promising initial progress, immunotherapeutic approaches to cancer still suffer from relatively low response rates and the possibility of severe side effects, likely due to the low inherent immunogenicity of tumor cells, the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, and significant inter‐ and intratumoral heterogeneity. Recently, nanoformulations of prodrugs have been explored as a means to enhance cancer immunotherapy by simultaneously eliciting antitumor immune responses and reversing local immunosuppression. Prodrug nanomedicines, which integrate engineering advances in chemistry, oncoimmunology, and material science, are rationally designed through chemically modifying small molecule drugs, peptides, or antibodies to yield increased bioavailability and spatiotemporal control of drug release and activation at the target sites. Such strategies can help reduce adverse effects and enable codelivery of multiple immune modulators to yield synergistic cancer immunotherapy. In this review article, recent advances and translational challenges facing prodrug nanomedicines for cancer immunotherapy are overviewed. Last, key considerations are outlined for future efforts to advance prodrug nanomedicines aimed to improve antitumor immune responses and combat immune tolerogenic microenvironments. Prodrug‐based nanomedicine is exploited for boosting cancer immunotherapy by simultaneously eliciting the antitumor immunogenicity and reversing the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. In this review article, the cutting‐edge advances, challenges, and perspectives of prodrug nanomedicine are overviewed. More efforts should be devoted to exploiting prodrug nanomedicine for enhancing immune response and combating immune tolerance in the future.

Therapeutic cancer vaccines have become increasingly qualified for use in personalized cancer immunotherapy. A deeper understanding of tumor immunology and novel antigen delivery technologies has assisted in optimizing vaccine design. Therapeutic cancer vaccines aim to establish long-lasting immunological memory against tumor cells, thereby leading to effective tumor regression and minimizing non-specific or adverse events. However, due to several resistance mechanisms, significant challenges remain to be solved in order to achieve these goals. In this review, we describe our current understanding with respect to the use of the antigen repertoire in vaccine platform development. We also summarize various intrinsic and extrinsic resistance mechanisms behind the failure of cancer vaccine development in the past. Finally, we suggest a strategy that combines immune checkpoint inhibitors to enhance the efficacy of cancer vaccines.