| Literature DB >> 35269846 |
Rosa Lombardi1,2, Roberto Piciotti1,2, Paola Dongiovanni1, Marica Meroni1, Silvia Fargion1,2, Anna Ludovica Fracanzani1,2.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is characterized by an enhanced activation of the immune system, which predispose the evolution to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Resident macrophages and leukocytes exert a key role in the pathogenesis of NAFLD. In particular, CD4+ effector T cells are activated during the early stages of liver inflammation and are followed by the increase of natural killer T cells and of CD8+ T cytotoxic lymphocytes which contribute to auto-aggressive tissue damage. To counteract T cells activation, programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and its ligand PDL-1 are exposed respectively on lymphocytes and liver cells' surface and can be targeted for therapy by using specific monoclonal antibodies, such as of Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, and Atezolizumab. Despite the combination of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab has been approved for the treatment of advanced HCC, PD-1/PD-L1 blockage treatment has not been approved for NAFLD and adjuvant immunotherapy does not seem to improve survival of patients with early-stage HCC. In this regard, different ongoing phase III trials are testing the efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies in HCC patients as first line therapy and in combination with other treatments. However, in the context of NAFLD, immune checkpoints inhibitors may not improve HCC prognosis, even worse leading to an increase of CD8+PD-1+ T cells and effector cytokines which aggravate liver damage. Here, we will describe the main pathogenetic mechanisms which characterize the immune system involvement in NAFLD discussing advantages and obstacles of anti PD-1/PDL-1 immunotherapy.Entities:
Keywords: NAFLD; NASH; PD-1; immune therapy; liver immune microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35269846 PMCID: PMC8910930 DOI: 10.3390/ijms23052707
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Schematic representation of T cells immune regulation and inflammation-induced pathways upon liver disease. Liver inflammation is a key factor in NAFLD pathogenesis and is characterized by increased levels of several inflammation associated molecules, such as TNF-α and IFN-γ and inflammation-induced molecular pathways activation. T cell activation requires two signals, the first signal is specific and implies T cell receptor recognition and binding to MHC/antigen presented by an antigen-presenting cell or by tissue specific immunized cells. The second signal is nonspecific and involves the B7 ligand, exposed on the antigen-presenting cells to bind its receptor, CD28, on T cells. On the other hand, T cell are mainly inhibited trough the binding of the exhaustion marker PD-1 which is expressed on cell surface binding to its ligand PD-L1/2 present on APC and over-exposed on liver cell in HCC setting. Conversely, T cell activation is damped by increased levels of immunosuppressive cytokines such as IL-4, IL-8, and IL-10. Instead, IL-5 release induces chemokine receptor CXCR6 upregulation by increasing CD8+ T cells susceptibility to metabolic stimuli and triggering CD8+ auto-aggression of liver tissue. Antigen presenting cells (APCs); programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1); programmed cell death 1 ligand 1/2 (PD-L1/2); T-cell receptor (TCR); major histocompatibility complexes I/II (MHC I/II); pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs); Toll-like receptors (TLR); nuclear factor kappa (NF-kB); peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR-α); IκB kinases (IKK); c-Jun N-terminal kinases (JNK), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), interferon gamma (IFN-γ).
List of the main phase II and III clinical trials for administration of immunotherapy in the context if HCC.
| Clinical Trial | Phases | N Patients | Interventions | Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First line therapy in sorafenib non-experienced patients | |||||
| (NCT03434379) | III | 501 | atezolizumab + bevacizumab | Median PFS (HR, 95% CI): 6.8 vs. 4.3 months (0.65, 0.53–0.81; | [ |
| (NCT02576509) | III | 743 | nivolumab | Median PFS (HR, 95% CI): 3.7 vs. 3.8 months (0.93, 0.79–1.10; NS) | [ |
| (NCT02715531) | I b | 59 | atezolizumab | Median PFS: 3.4 months | [ |
| Median OS: N/A | |||||
| 164 | atezolizumab + bevacizumab | Median PFS: 7.3 months | |||
| Median OS: 17.1 months | |||||
| (NCT03006926) | I b | 104 | pembrolizumab + lenvatinib | Median PFS: 9.3 months | [ |
| Second line therapy in sorafenib-experienced patients | |||||
| (NCT02702401) | III | 413 | pembrolizumab vs. placebo | Median PFS (HR, 95% CI): 3.0 vs. 2.8 months (0.72, 0.57–0.90; | [ |
| (NCT02702414) | II | 224 | pembrolizumab | Median PFS: 4.9 months | [ |
| (NCT01658878) | I/II | 145 | nivolumab | Median PFS: 4 months | [ |
| Median OS: 15.6 months | |||||
| 50 | nivolumab + ipilimumab | Median PFS: N/A | [ | ||
| Median OS: 22.8 months | |||||
| Median PFS:2.1 months (2–3.4) | [ | ||||
| (NCT02989922) | II | 217 | camrelizumab | Median OS: 13.8 months (11.5–16.6) | |
| Median PFS: 3.7 (2.3–9.1) | [ | ||||
| (NCT02383212) | I | 26 | cemiplimab | Median OS: N/A | |
| Median PFS: 4.4 months | [ | ||||
| (NCT02519348) | II | 40 | avelumab | OS: 14.2 months | |
OS: Overall Survival; PFS: Progression-free survival.