| Literature DB >> 24202450 |
Brian J Ahn1, Ian F Pollack, Hideho Okada.
Abstract
Cancer immunotherapy has made tremendous progress, including promising results in patients with malignant gliomas. Nonetheless, the immunological microenvironment of the brain and tumors arising therein is still believed to be suboptimal for sufficient antitumor immune responses for a variety of reasons, including the operation of "immune-checkpoint" mechanisms. While these mechanisms prevent autoimmunity in physiological conditions, malignant tumors, including brain tumors, actively employ these mechanisms to evade from immunological attacks. Development of agents designed to unblock these checkpoint steps is currently one of the most active areas of cancer research. In this review, we summarize recent progresses in the field of brain tumor immunology with particular foci in the area of immune-checkpoint mechanisms and development of active immunotherapy strategies. In the last decade, a number of specific monoclonal antibodies designed to block immune-checkpoint mechanisms have been developed and show efficacy in other cancers, such as melanoma. On the other hand, active immunotherapy approaches, such as vaccines, have shown encouraging outcomes. We believe that development of effective immunotherapy approaches should ultimately integrate those checkpoint-blockade agents to enhance the efficacy of therapeutic approaches. With these agents available, it is going to be quite an exciting time in the field. The eventual success of immunotherapies for brain tumors will be dependent upon not only an in-depth understanding of immunology behind the brain and brain tumors, but also collaboration and teamwork for the development of novel trials that address multiple layers of immunological challenges in gliomas.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24202450 PMCID: PMC3875944 DOI: 10.3390/cancers5041379
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Agents targeting immunosuppressive cells.
| Agent (+immunotherapy) | Study findings | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| mAb+mRNA-loaded DC | Decrease in Treg number/frequency; Reduced Treg suppression in mice with mAb alone | [ |
| Improved functions of CD8 T cells and tumor cell lysis | ||
| Improved survival with anti-CD25 mAb alone, and further improvement with DC vaccine | ||
| mAb+peptide-loaded DC | Anti-CD25mAb tx exhibited decreased Treg for >3 weeks in mice | [ |
| Prophylactic but not therapeutic effects against glioma by DC vaccine alone | ||
| Combination with anti-CD25 mAb allows for improved therapeutic efficacy and survival | ||
| Increased IFNγ by T cells with vaccine+mAb | ||
| Anti-CD25 mAb alone improved survival in their murine model | [ | |
| No persistent memory against re-challenged with tumor with anti-CD25 mAb alone | ||
| DC vaccine+ant-CD25 mAb improved survival after tumor re-challenge | ||
| mAb+EGFR vIII vaccine | Depletion of Tregs after single mAb infusion, Decreased until day 122 post-infusion | [ |
| Increased ratio of effector to Treg after single infusion, Increased | ||
| Inverse correlation between frequency of Treg and humoral response to EGFRvIII | ||
| Low dose, metronomic dose reduced Treg frequencies in spleen in rats | [ | |
| [ | ||
| Celecoxib or acetylsalicylic acid treatment alone improved survival in murine models | [ | |
| Decreased CCL2 production and reduced MDSC recruitment | ||
| Increased CXCL10, T cell infiltration and improved cytotoxic function at glioma site | ||
| Reduced MDSC at tumor site in murine models | [ | |
| mAb + TMZ | Modest improvements in survival with neutralizing mAb alone | |
| Improved survival with mAb + TMZ compared to TMZ alone | ||
| Sunitinib + TMZ | Inhibition of | [ |
| Further inhibition of growth when Sunitinb + TMZ | ||
| Sunitinib + Radiation | Suitinib alone showed a modest improvement of survival in mouse model | [ |
| High dose radiation + Sunitinib results in fatal toxicity | ||
| Low dose + Sunitinb exhibit a decrease in radiographic tumor volume but no change in survival | ||
| Sunitinib + Gefitinib | No improvement in survival with Sunitinib alone; did not improve Gefitinib efficacy | [ |
| Phase II Trials as single agent | No objective response in any pt; progression free survival: ~8 weeks | [ |
| No improvement in survival | [ | |
| Tx in Bevacizumab resistant and naïve pts: no change in PFS in either cohort | [ | |
| [ | ||
| [ | ||
| Increased apoptosis of GBM stem cells | ||
| Vardanefil/Sidenefil increased permeability of tumor cells | [ | |
| No change in survival with PDE-5 inhibition alone | ||
| Improved penetration by Adriamcyin and survival with Vardanefil + Adriamycin | ||