| Literature DB >> 33760188 |
Xianbin Kong1, Peng Lu2, Chuanxin Liu3, Yuzhu Guo4, Yuying Yang1, Yingying Peng1, Fangyuan Wang1, Zhichao Bo1, Xiaoxin Dou1, Haoyang Shi1, Jingyan Meng1.
Abstract
Programmed cell death protein‑1 (PD‑1)/programmed death protein ligand‑1 (PD‑L1) inhibitors for treatment of a various types of cancers have revolutionized cancer immunotherapy. However, PD‑1/PD‑L1 inhibitors are associated with a low response rate and are only effective on a small number of patients with cancer. Development of an anti‑PD‑1/PD‑L1 sensitizer for improving response rate and effectiveness of immunotherapy is a challenge. The present study reviews the synergistic effects of PD‑1/PD‑L1 inhibitor with oncolytic virus, tumor vaccine, molecular targeted drugs, immunotherapy, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, intestinal flora and traditional Chinese medicine, to provide information for development of effective combination therapies.Entities:
Keywords: oncolytic virus; cancer vaccine; molecular targeted therapy; immunotherapy; intestinal flora; Traditional Chinese Medicine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33760188 PMCID: PMC7985997 DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2021.12001
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Med Rep ISSN: 1791-2997 Impact factor: 2.952
Figure 1.Schematic diagram of combined treatment regimen for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1.
Combination therapy of oncolytic viruses with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.
| Author(s) (year) | Interventions | Primary end point(s) | Results | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ribas | Talimogene laherparepvec + Pembrolizumab | ORR | 62% | ( |
| CD8+ T cells | Increased | |||
| Liu | Vaccinia virus + Anti-PD-L1 | Tumor burden | Reduced | ( |
| Survival rate | Improved | |||
| Granzyme B, Perforin, IFN-γ, ICOS, Effector CD4+ and CD8+T cells | Increased | |||
| Shekarian | Rotavirus vaccine + Anti-PD-L1 | Tumor size | Reduced | ( |
| Percent survival | Improved |
PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1.
Combination of cancer vaccines with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.
| Author(s) (year) | Interventions | Primary end point(s) | Results | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tondini | DNA vaccine + Anti-PD-1 | Tumor growth | Delayed | ( |
| Cure rate | 25% | |||
| Xu | Anti-PD-1 + Lmdd-MPFG vaccine | Percent survival | Prolonged | ( |
| Tumor volume | Retardation | |||
| TAMS | Converted M2 TAMS to M1 | |||
| PD-L1 | Promoted | |||
| Zhao | OVA@Mn-DAP vaccine + Anti-PD-1 | Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes | Increased | ( |
| Tumor size | Inhibited | |||
| Percent survival | Prolonged | |||
| Gibney | Nivolumab + A multi-peptide vaccine | CD8+/CD25+Treg/CTLA4+/CD4+ T-cells | Increased | ( |
| PD-1 | Decreased | |||
| Crosby | Ad-HER2D16-KI + Anti-PD-1 vs. Anti-PD-1 | Survival | Prolonged | ( |
| IFN-γ | Increased |
PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1.
Figure 2.Schematic diagram of a combination therapy comprising molecular targeting drugs and PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Current and emerging molecular targeting drugs. Various molecular targets expressed on T cells and tumor cells are shown. Immune molecular targets such as PD-1, LAG-3, TIM-3, TIGIT, 4-1BB, CTLA-4, IDO bound to their respective specific antibodies, triggering a positive signal to T cells response. Inhibition of VEGF and EGFR mediated angiogenesis. PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1; LAG3, lymphocyte activation gene-3; TIM-3, T cell immunoglobulin mucin 3; TIGIT, T cell immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4; IDO, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor.
Combination of molecular targeting drugs with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.
| Author(s) (year) | Interventions | Primary end point(s) | Results | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhao | PD-L1 inhibitors + VEGFR2 | TILs | Increased | ( |
| small molecule inhibitors (apatinib) | TAMs, MDSCs, TGF-β, Tumor growth | Hindered | ||
| Decreased | ||||
| Survival | Prolonged | |||
| Reck | Anti-PD-L1+ Bevacizuma + | PFS | 10.2 months vs. 6.9 months | ( |
| Chemotherapy vs. Bevacizuma + Chemotherapy | OS | 13.3 months vs. 9.4 months | ||
| Haratani | PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors+ EGFR-TKIs | ORR | T790M-negative patients (24%) vs. T790M-positive patients (13%) | ( |
| Yang | Pembrolizumab + Erlotinib | ORR | 41.7% vs. 14.3% | ( |
| vs. Pembrolizumab+ Gefitinib | PFS | 19.5 months vs. 1.4 months | ||
| Siu | IDO1 inhibitor (BMS-986205) + Nivolumab vs. BMS-986205 | Safety | All treatment-related adverse events were grade 1/2 except three grade 3 toxicities | ( |
| Zakharia | IDO inhibitor (Indoximod) + Ipilimumab, Nivolumab or Pembrolizumab | ORR | 52% | ( |
| Hamid | IDO inhibitor (Epacadostat) + Pembrolizumab | ORR | 75% of melanoma and 4% of colorectal cancer | ( |
| Huang | Anti-LAG3 + Anti-PD-1 vs. Anti-PD-1 | Tumor clearance | 100% vs. 50% | ( |
| Goding | Anti-PD-L1 + anti-LAG-3 antibodies | Tumor area | Reduced | ( |
| Sakuishi | Co-blocking Tim-3 and PD-1 pathways | Tumor Size | Reduced | ( |
| Friedlaender | Co-blocking Tim-3 and PD-1 pathways | An ongoing phase I trials | Anti-tumor study of TIM3 and PD-L1 inhibitors is under way (NCT03099109; NCT02608268) | ( |
| Davar | Anti-Tim-3(TSR-022)+ anti-PD-1(TSR-042) | PR | 1 case of 11 evaluable patients with 100 mg dose vs. 3 cases of 20 evaluable patients with 300 mg dose | ( |
| SD | 3 cases of 11 evaluable patients with 100 mg dose vs. 8 cases of 20 evaluable patients with 300 mg dose | |||
| Chauvin | Anti-TIGIT+ anti-PD-1 vs. anti-TIGIT vs. anti-PD-1 | NY-ESO-1-specific CD8+ T cell | Anti-TIGIT+ anti-PD-1>anti- TIGIT/anti-PD-1 | ( |
| Johnston | Anti-TIGIT + anti-PD-L1 vs. anti-TIGIT vs. anti-PD-L1 | Tumor volume | Anti-TIGIT+ anti-PD-L1 <anti-TIGIT/anti-PD-L1 | ( |
| Percent survival | Anti-TIGIT+ anti-PD-L1 >anti-TIGIT/anti-PD-L1 | |||
| Morales-Kastresana | Combination of anti-4-1BB, anti-OX40 and anti-PD-L1 | Survival | Extended | ( |
| Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes | Increased | |||
| Tolcher | 4-1BB (Utomilumab) + Pembrolizumab | Safety | Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly grades1-2 | ( |
| Activated memory/effector CD8+ T cells | Increased | |||
| Postow | Nivolumab + Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab | ORR | 61% vs. 11% | ( |
| The median reduction in tumor volume | 68.1% vs. 5.5% | |||
| Larkin | Nivolumab + Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab | PFS | 11.5 months vs. 2.9 months vs. 6.9 months, | ( |
| Safety | Grade 3 or 4 adverse events: 55.0% vs. 27.3% vs. 16.3% | |||
| Omuro | Nivolumab + Ipilimumab vs. Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab | Tolerance | 80% vs. 70% vs. 90%, | ( |
| Safety | Fatigue: 55% vs. 80% vs. 30% | |||
| Diarrhea: 30% vs. 70% vs. 10% |
PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1.
Combination of chemotherapy or radiotherapy with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.
| Author(s) (year) | Interventions | Primary end point(s) | Results | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Langer | Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy vs. Chemotherapy | ORR | 55% vs. 29% | ( |
| The incidence of grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events | 39% vs. 26% | |||
| Gandhi | Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy vs. Placebo + Chemotherapy | Rate of Overall survival at 12 months | 69.2% vs. 49.4% | ( |
| PFS | 8.8 months vs. 4.9 months | |||
| Paz-Ares | Pembrolizumab + Chemotherapy vs. Placebo + Chemotherapy | PFS | 6.4 months vs. 4.8 months | ( |
| OS | 15.9 months vs. 11.3 months | |||
| Deng | Irradiation (IR) + Anti-PD-L1 vs. Anti-PD-L1 vs. IR | Tumor volume | 25.59±10.26 mm vs. 587.3±169.1 mm vs. 402.8±76.73 mm | ( |
| The percentage of MDSCs in the total CD45+ cell population | 0.38±0.16% vs. 7.33±2.22% vs. 4.78±2.49% | |||
| Sharabi | XRT + Anti-PD-1 | Tumor volume | Inhibited | ( |
| T-cell infiltration | Increased | |||
| Dovedi | RT + PD-1/PD-L1 blocking | Tumor volume | Inhibited | ( |
| Percent survival | Improved | |||
| Ahmed | Stereotactic radiation + Anti-PD-1 | local lesions control rates at 6 and 12 months | 91 and 85% | ( |
| OS rates at 6 and 12 months | 78 and 55% |
PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1.
Combination of intestinal microflora with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.
| Author(s) (year) | Interventions | Primary end point(s) | Results | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sivan, 2015 | Tumor volume | Reduced | ( | |
| IFN-γ, DCs | Increased | |||
| Routy | PR | 69% vs. 31% | ( | |
| SD | 58% vs. 42% | |||
| PD | 34% vs. 66% | |||
| Tumor size | A. muciniphila +Anti-PD-1< Anti-PD-1 | |||
| Frankel | Ipilimumab + Nivolumab vs. Pembrolizumab | RECIST response | 67% vs. 23% | ( |
| SD | 8% vs. 23% | |||
| Matson, 2018 | Fecal material from three responder patient donors + | IFN-γ, Tumor-infiltrating specific CD8+ T cells | R>NR | ( |
| Anti-PD-L1(R) vs. Fecal material from three non-responder patient donors + Anti-PD-L1(NR) | Tumor volume | R<NR |
PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1.
Combination of Traditional Chinese Medicine with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.
| Author(s) (year) | Interventions | Primary end point(s) | Results | (Refs.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dong | Diosgenin + anti-PD-1 vs. diosgenin vs. anti-PD-1 | Mean tumor weigh | 1,980.00±861.22 mg vs. 3,203.33±641.43 mg vs. 2,530.00±584.04 mg | ( |
| Hao | Icariin + anti-PD-1 + anti- CTLA-4 vs. anti-PD-1 + anti- CTLA-4 | Average inhibition rates | 65% vs. 34.2% | ( |
| Li | Rhusverniciflua Stokes | The IC50 of blocking | 26.22 µg/ml | ( |
| PD-1/PD-L1 interaction | ||||
| Wang | Ganoderma lucidum | PD-1 | Decreased | ( |
| Su | Ganoderma lucidum + Paclitaxel | Tumor weight | Decreased | ( |
| Tumor infiltration lymphocytes | Increased | |||
| PD-1, Tim-3 | Inhibited |
PD-1, programmed cell death protein-1; PD-L1, programmed death protein ligand-1.