| Literature DB >> 33854960 |
Cheng Zhong1,2, Yirun Li1,2, Jing Yang1,2, Shengxi Jin1,2, Guoqiao Chen1,2, Duguang Li1,2, Xiaoxiao Fan1,2,3, Hui Lin1,2.
Abstract
Although many approaches have been used to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the clinical benefits remain limited, particularly for late stage HCC. In recent years, studies have focused on immunotherapy for HCC. Immunotherapies have shown promising clinical outcomes in several types of cancers and potential therapeutic effects for advanced HCC. In this review, we summarize the immune tolerance and immunotherapeutic strategies for HCC as well as the main challenges of current therapeutic approaches. We also present alternative strategies for overcoming these limitations.Entities:
Keywords: epigenetic modification; hepatocellular carcinoma; immune tolerance; immunotherapy; tertiary lymphoid structure; tumor microenvironment; tumor mutational burden
Year: 2021 PMID: 33854960 PMCID: PMC8039369 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.589680
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinical trials of immunotherapy for HCC.
| Therapy approaches | Phase | Agents or approaches | Population | Endpoints | Relevant finding | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vaccine | I | AFP-derived peptides Vaccines | 15 patients with advanced HCC | P: safety | No AE; CR, 1; PR, 8. | ( |
| Vaccine | I | GPC3 peptide vaccine | 33 patients with advanced HCC | P: safety | No AE; PR, 1; SD, 19; GPC3-specific CTL response in 30 patients; MST in patients with CTL frequencies ≥ 50 (N=15), 12.2 months; MST in patients with CTL frequencies < 50 (N = 18), 8.5 months | ( |
| Vaccine | II | cyclophosphamide and a telomerase peptide (GV1001) vaccine | 40 patients with advanced HCC | P: tumor response | SD: 17; TTP: 57 days; TTSP: 358 days; GV1001 treatment result in a decrease of regulatory T cells. | ( |
| Vaccine | I/IIa | DC vaccine | 12 patients | AE, TTP and RFS | AE, no grade 3 or 4 AE; TTP, 38.4 months; the 1-, 2-, and 5-year RFS, 75%, 69% and 41.7% respectively. | ( |
| CIKs | III | CIKs therapy after curative treatment (control, curative treatment without CIKs therapy) | 230 patients with HCC | P: RFS | The median time of RFS (44 months vs 30 months); AEs, (62% vs 41%), no difference in serious AEs, (7.8% vs 3.5%). | ( |
| TILs | I | TILs therapy after tumor section | 15 patients with HCC | P: safety | Alive 15, Tumour recurrence: 3. | ( |
| ICB | I/II | Nivolumab | 48 patients with advanced HCC | P: safety and tolerability for the escalation phase and RR | Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events, 12 (25%); treatment-related serious adverse events, 6%; RR, 20% in the dose-expansion phase; RR, 15% in the dose-escalation phase. | ( |
| ICB | II | Pembrolizumab | 28 patients with advanced HCC | Safety, immune response, PFS and OS | CR, 1; PR, 8; SD,4; the median PFS, 4.5 months; the median OS, 13 months; | ( |
| ICB and Antiangiogenic therapy | Ib | Atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs. Atezolizumab | 223 patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma | Safety and PFS | PFS (5.6 months vs 3.4 months); serious AE (12% vs 3%) | ( |
| ICB and Antiangiogenic therapy | III | Atezolizumab and bevacizumab vs. Sorafenib | 501 patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma | OS, PFS and AE | OS at 12 months (67.2% vs 54.6%); PFS (6.8 months vs 4.3 months); Grade 3 or 4 AEs (56.5% vs 55.1%) | ( |
| ICB and Ablation | I/II | Tremelimumab with RFA or chemoablation | 32 patients with HCC | PR, PFS and OS | PR, 26.3%; PFS at 6 months and 12 months, 57.1% and 33.1% | ( |
| ICB and Cytokines | I | mogamulizumab (anti-CCR4 antibody) and nivolumab | 15 patients with HCC | Safety, PFS, OS and PR | No AEs; PFS, 3.8 months; OS: 11.3 months; PR, 27%. | ( |
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; AFP, alpha fetoprotein; P, primary endpoint; S, secondary endpoint; AE, adverse effect; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; GPC-3, carcinoembryonic antigen glypican-3; SD, stable disease; CTL, cytotoxic T lymphocyte; OS, overall survival; MST, median survival time; PFS, progression-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; TTP, time to progression; TTSP, time to symptomatic progression; RR, response rate; CIK, cytokine-induced killer cell; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte; ICB, immune checkpoint blockade; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; CCR4, CC chemokine receptor 4.
Figure 1The potential mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapies. HCC with low tumor mutational burden releases few neoantigens. The mutation in antigen presentation pathways also inhibits tumor-specific peptide presentation. Most of these neoantigens cannot drive effective anti-tumor immunity because of low immunogenicity. The immune system in the tumor microenvironment is under immunosuppressive status, with few effector CD8+ T cells, many regulatory CD4+ T cells, and other immunosuppressive cells, which is associated with poor clinical response to immunotherapy. The dense fibrous stroma around tumor islets inhibits immune cells’ access to the tumor.
Figure 2The immune response in tumor microenvironment and the function of immune checkpoints. Some sub-clonal tumor cells release neoantigens while others do not, contributing to the immune response to only part of tumor cells and thus leading to the failure of tumor immunotherapy. Upon antigen recognition, DCs present the antigen-MHC molecules, bind to the TCR on T cell membrane and stimulate the proliferation and activation of CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells in lymph node. Then the antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells migrate to tumor microenvironment via blood system. The stromal extracellular matrix in tumor may prevents T cell infiltration. CTLA-4, which is the membrane receptor of activated T cells, outcompetes CD28 for binding to the CD80/86 expressed on the DC membrane, further inhibiting the signal 2, which is essential for the maturation, proliferation, activation and survival of T cells. The interaction of PD-1 and PD-L1 promotes the differentiation and proliferation of Treg cells and induces the cytotoxic CD8+ T cells into an exhausted state. DCs under the influence of CLTA-4 signal and PD-1 signal release some immunosuppressive molecules, such as IL-10 and IDO, which suppress T cells activation. IDO, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1; PD-L1, programmed cell death 1 ligand 1; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte protein 4; DC, dendritic cell; Treg cell, regulatory T cell.
Figure 3Tumor cells under the treatment of epigenetic drugs upregulate the expression of CTAs, such as NY-ESO-1 and LAGE. Epigenetic modification contributes to the depletion of MYC signalling, activates type I interferon signalling and potentiates the recruitment of T cells. Epigenetic agents can modulate the state of CD8+ T cells by transforming exhausted CD8+ T cells, which are characterized by a series of changes in effector genes associated with alterations in methylation, into effector or memory CD8+ T cells. CTA, cancer testis antigens; NY-ESO-1, New York Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma-1; LAGE, L antigen family member.