Literature DB >> 28335888

Second- and third-generation drugs for immuno-oncology treatment-The more the better?

Wolfram C M Dempke1, Klaus Fenchel2, Peter Uciechowski3, Stephen P Dale4.   

Abstract

Recent success in cancer immunotherapy (anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD1/PD-L1) has confirmed the hypothesis that the immune system can control many cancers across various histologies, in some cases producing durable responses in a way not seen with many small-molecule drugs. However, only less than 25% of all patients do respond to immuno-oncology drugs and several resistance mechanisms have been identified (e.g. T-cell exhaustion, overexpression of caspase-8 and β-catenin, PD-1/PD-L1 gene amplification, MHC-I/II mutations). To improve response rates and to overcome resistance, novel second- and third-generation immuno-oncology drugs are currently evaluated in ongoing phase I/II trials (either alone or in combination) including novel inhibitory compounds (e.g. TIM-3, VISTA, LAG-3, IDO, KIR) and newly developed co-stimulatory antibodies (e.g. CD40, GITR, OX40, CD137, ICOS). It is important to note that co-stimulatory agents strikingly differ in their proposed mechanism of action compared with monoclonal antibodies that accomplish immune activation by blocking negative checkpoint molecules such as CTLA-4 or PD-1/PD-1 or others. Indeed, the prospect of combining agonistic with antagonistic agents is enticing and represents a real immunologic opportunity to 'step on the gas' while 'cutting the brakes', although this strategy as a novel cancer therapy has not been universally endorsed so far. Concerns include the prospect of triggering cytokine-release syndromes, autoimmune reactions and hyper immune stimulation leading to activation-induced cell death or tolerance, however, toxicity has not been a major issue in the clinical trials reported so far. Although initial phase I/II clinical trials of agonistic and novel antagonistic drugs have shown highly promising results in the absence of disabling toxicity, both in single-agent studies and in combination with chemotherapy or other immune system targeting drugs; however, numerous questions remain about dose, schedule, route of administration and formulation as well as identifying the appropriate patient populations. In our view, with such a wealth of potential mechanisms of action and with the ability to fine-tune monoclonal antibody structure and function to suit particular requirements, the second and third wave of immuno-oncology drugs are likely to provide rapid advances with new combinations of novel immunotherapy (especially co-stimulatory antibodies). Here, we will review the mechanisms of action and the clinical data of these new antibodies and discuss the major issues facing this rapidly evolving field.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical development; Immuno-oncology; Molecular biology; Novel antibodies

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28335888     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  77 in total

Review 1.  Radiofrequency ablation of liver metastasis: potential impact on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.

Authors:  Yasunori Minami; Naoshi Nishida; Masatoshi Kudo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-04-08       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Challenges and unanswered questions for the next decade of immune-oncology research in NSCLC.

Authors:  Niki Karachaliou; Manuel Fernandez-Bruno; Jillian Wilhelmina Paulina Bracht; Rafael Rosell
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-12

3.  Immuno-oncology agent IPI-549 is a modulator of P-glycoprotein (P-gp, MDR1, ABCB1)-mediated multidrug resistance (MDR) in cancer: In vitro and in vivo.

Authors:  Albert A De Vera; Pranav Gupta; Zining Lei; Dan Liao; Silpa Narayanan; Qiuxu Teng; Sandra E Reznik; Zhe-Sheng Chen
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 8.679

Review 4.  Next generation immune-checkpoints for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Chiara Donini; Lorenzo D'Ambrosio; Giovanni Grignani; Massimo Aglietta; Dario Sangiolo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 2.895

5.  PD-1 related transcriptome profile and clinical outcome in diffuse gliomas.

Authors:  Shuai Liu; Zheng Wang; Yinyan Wang; Xing Fan; Chuanbao Zhang; Wenbin Ma; Xiaoguang Qiu; Tao Jiang
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 8.110

6.  Durvalumab for non-resectable stage IIIB non-small cell lung cancer-a small step or a big leap?

Authors:  Wolfram C M Dempke; Klaus Fenchel
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2018-04

Review 7.  Novel Targets for the Treatment of Melanoma.

Authors:  Lara Ambrosi; Shaheer Khan; Richard D Carvajal; Jessica Yang
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 8.  Targeted therapies for renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Edwin M Posadas; Suwicha Limvorasak; Robert A Figlin
Journal:  Nat Rev Nephrol       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 28.314

9.  Expression of LLT1 and its receptor CD161 in lung cancer is associated with better clinical outcome.

Authors:  Véronique M Braud; Jérôme Biton; Etienne Becht; Samantha Knockaert; Audrey Mansuet-Lupo; Estelle Cosson; Diane Damotte; Marco Alifano; Pierre Validire; Fabienne Anjuère; Isabelle Cremer; Nicolas Girard; Dominique Gossot; Agathe Seguin-Givelet; Marie-Caroline Dieu-Nosjean; Claire Germain
Journal:  Oncoimmunology       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 8.110

10.  In vivo Anti-Cancer Effects of Resveratrol Mediated by NK Cell Activation.

Authors:  Yoojin Lee; Heewook Shin; Jongsun Kim
Journal:  J Innate Immun       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 7.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.