Arifa Aman1,2†
Belén Toledo1,3,4†Aitor González-Titos1,5,6Manuel Picon-Ruiz1,5,6,7*Pablo Hernández-Camarero1,3*- 1Biopathology and Regenerative Medicine Institute (IBIMER), Centre for Biomedical Research, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
- 2ASA Research Ventures Private Limited, Lahore, Pakistan
- 3Department of Health Sciences, University of Jaén, Jaén, Spain
- 4Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Center (UMC), Vrije Universiteit University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- 5Unit “Modeling Nature” (MNat), University of Granada, Granada, Spain
- 6Department of Human Anatomy and Embryology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
- 7Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria ibs. GRANADA, Granada, Spain
Cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized cancer treatment over the past decades, offering renewed hope to patients with previously untreatable malignancies. This therapeutic approach could be categorized into three primary strategies: immune checkpoint blockade, adoptive cell therapy, and cancer vaccines. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have been highly successful in boosting anti-tumour immune responses by blocking the immunosuppressive signals that cancer cells exploit to evade immune surveillance, mainly that exerted by cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Adoptive cell therapy, particularly chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy, involves the infusion of genetically modified cytotoxic T cells to specifically target tumour cells, showing particular efficacy in hematological malignancies. Cancer vaccines have also emerged as a promising strategy, eliciting anti-tumour responses via the patient’s own immune system. Despite these advancements, several challenges persist, particularly in the treatment of solid tumours. These include the development of tumour resistance, off-target effects that lead to adverse side effects, manufacturing complications, and variability in patient clinical outcomes. Overcoming these limitations will require further research and innovation to optimize the clinical translation of immunotherapy and broaden its application toward more personalized medicine. This review highlights the advancements and key challenges in the mentioned cancer immunotherapy strategies, with a special emphasis on the reinforcement of adaptive immune system against tumour cells. Additionally, some alternative approaches relying on the modulation of innate immune system are also summarized.
Introduction
The link between immunity and cancer was first noted 150 years ago when erysipelas, a microbial skin condition, appeared to confer protection against cancer. Specifically, in 1893, William Coley observed improved outcomes in sarcoma patients with erysipelas, suggesting an immune-mediated response against cancer cells (1). Over a century ago, researchers proposed that the immune system continuously eliminates cancerous cells, preventing many tumours from developing (2). This concept eventually evolved into the cancer immune-surveillance hypothesis, which states that the immune system can recognize and target cancer cell antigens to suppress tumour formation (2).
In recent years, cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized oncology, significantly improving the prognosis of patients with previously untreatable malignancies. Immunotherapies encompass a wide range of strategies, including the use of immune-regulatory cytokines, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cells therapy (ACT), cancer vaccines or oncolytic viruses, all aimed to modulate the immune system for targeting and eliminating cancer cells (3) (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Current immunotherapy strategies in cancer. A wide range of compounds including immune-regulatory cytokines, immune checkpoint inhibitors, own immune cells, cancer vaccines, molecular agonists, metabolic inhibitors and oncolytic viruses represent some of the most widely used immunotherapies against cancer.
Among the most common ICIs, it can be mentioned antibodies targeting PD-1, PD-L1, or CTLA-4, which have yielded durable responses across a variety of malignancies such as melanoma, breast cancer or gastric cancer (4–6). These agents primarily function by releasing the “brakes” on exhausted T cells, thereby restoring their effector functions and promoting tumour eradication (Table 1). The success of ICIs has been underscored by their ability to induce long-term remission in a significant subset of patients, although response rates remain variable and resistance mechanisms are actively being investigated (7, 8).
Table 1. Main current immunotherapy approaches and properties.
ACT, particularly chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells and TCR-engineered T cells, represents another frontier in cancer immunotherapy. CAR-T cell therapies, exemplified by treatments targeting CD19 in hematologic malignancies, have demonstrated remarkable clinical efficacy, achieving high remission rates in refractory leukaemia and lymphomas (9, 10). Advances in gene editing and cell manufacturing are expanding the applicability of these therapies to solid tumours, where challenges such as immune suppression, antigen heterogeneity, and tumour microenvironment (TME)-related barriers are being actively addressed (11). Moreover, TCR-engineered T cells allow for recognition of intracellular tumour antigens presented by Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) molecules, broadening the spectrum of targetable tumour-associated antigens (12) (Table 1).
Beyond adaptive immune modulation, innate immune system pathways are being exploited to stimulate anti-tumour immunity. Toll-like receptors (TLRs), a critical component of the innate immune response, recognize pathogen-associated molecular patterns and facilitate the activation of dendritic cells, macrophages, and natural killer (NK) cells (13). TLR agonists such as CpG oligodeoxynucleotides (TLR9 agonists) and monophosphoryl lipid A (TLR4 agonist) have been investigated as adjuvants in cancer vaccines and as monotherapies to enhance antigen presentation and cytokine production, with preclinical studies showing robust activation of anti-tumour immune responses (14, 15). Additionally, modulation of other innate pathways, including RIG-I agonists and inflammasome activation (NLRP3 inflammasome), further amplifies immune activation and fosters a pro-inflammatory TME (16, 17) (Table 1).
Cytokine therapy remains a cornerstone of immunomodulation, with interleukins such as IL-2 and IL-12 demonstrating potent activation and proliferation of cytotoxic T lymphocytes and NK cells. High-dose IL-2 has historically achieved durable remissions in some metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma cases, although toxicity limits its use (18). More recently, novel cytokine formulations and targeted delivery strategies aim to enhance efficacy while minimizing adverse effects. Interferons, especially IFN-α, have also been employed to boost antigen presentation and tumour immune cells infiltration, with ongoing efforts to optimize their clinical utility (19) (Table 1).
Oncolytic virus therapy represents an innovative approach that combines direct tumour cell lysis with immune stimulation (20). Genetically engineered viruses such as talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a modified HSV-1, have demonstrated clinical benefits in melanoma by inducing immunogenic cell death and promoting systemic anti-tumour immunity (21). These viruses selectively replicate in tumour cells, releasing tumour-associated antigens and triggering innate immune pathways, including TLRs and RIG-I/MDA5, thereby creating an inflamed TME conducive to subsequent immune checkpoint blockade (22) (Table 1). Together, these diverse immunotherapeutic strategies are converging toward a more personalized and effective approach to cancer treatment. They harness both innate and adaptive immunity, exploit tumour-specific vulnerabilities, and aim to overcome mechanisms of immune evasion, marking an era of unprecedented progress and hope in oncology (20).
However, mainly solid tumours exemplified by triple-negative breast cancer frequently display leaky and structurally abnormal vasculature along with high interstitial pressures, which contribute to increased resistance to immunotherapy-based strategies like adoptive T cells transfer (23). Moreover, the surrounding TME can boost cancer immune evasion and reduce immunotherapy effectiveness. In this context, it has been described that the specific stromal-myeloid ecosystem of peritoneal metastases, but not that from primary gastric cancers, may be the major mediator of immune checkpoint blockade-based treatment failure (24). Similarly, the presence of intrinsic genomic mutations can reduce sensitivity of own tumour cells to immune surveillance, being SMARCA4 mutation in lung cancer a representative example (25). In this sense, cancerous cells (i.e. metastatic melanoma) can also develop immune tolerance during tumour progression through the acquisition of new particular mutations in specific genes such as SEC24C and SEC24D, making them resistant to ICIs even after being initially vulnerable (26).
This review focuses on the advancements in three main cancer immunotherapy-based strategies: immune checkpoint blockade, adoptive immune cells transfer and cancer vaccines, with a special emphasis on the reinforcement of adaptive immune system against tumour cells. Additionally, the main hurdles related to the broad clinical implementation of immunotherapies are also discussed, including the contribution of immunosuppressive TME, the development of tumour immune resistance, the off-target effects that lead to adverse side effects, the existence of manufacturing complications, or the variability in patient clinical outcomes. Complementary, some alternative approaches relying on the modulation of innate immune system are also briefly introduced.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors
A key function of the immune system is its ability to discriminate body’s healthy cells (needed for preservation) from those deemed abnormal or foreign (targeted for eradication), such as cancer cells and pathogens. A critical aspect of such choice relies on the presentation of “aberrant” antigens on the surface of cancerous cells, which signals their foreign nature to immune cells (27). Effector T cells, once activated upon antigen recognition, proliferate and differentiate to destroy cancer cells, but they must be inactivated afterward to prevent autoimmune reactions. This regulation is mediated by “checkpoint” proteins (both activators and inhibitors), which act as switches that control the intensity of the immune response (28).
Several inhibitory immune checkpoints, such as PD-1 (Programmed Death-1), CTLA-4 (Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte-Associated Protein 4) (29, 30), and LAG-3 (Lymphocyte Activation Gene-3) (31), prevent the referred excessive immune activation against healthy tissues. However, cancer cells can exploit these inhibitory checkpoints to evade immune surveillance. For instance, in hepatocellular carcinoma, the PRDM1-USP22-SPI1 axis has been identified as a key pathway that upregulates PD-L1 (a PD-1 ligand) by cancerous cells, contributing to T cell exhaustion through the activation of its PD-1 receptor (32). The tumour stroma can also contribute to immune escape of cancerous cells (33). In breast cancer, high stromal dihydrolipoyl dehydrogenase (DLD) expression correlates with increased PD-L1 expression, which is also associated with enhanced tumour cell migration, invasion and proliferation (34). These findings underscore the complex interplay between the immune system, tumour cells and the TME, specially in solid malignancies.
A wide range of compounds has been engineered to target/block inhibitory checkpoint proteins, known as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Notably, these inhibitors used in the therapeutic strategy termed “immune checkpoint blockade”, do not directly kill cancer cells like traditional anticancer treatments, reinforcing their innovative potential (35). As a representative example of ICIs, the PD-1/PD-L1 axis blockade rapidly became a popular approach. AUNP-12, a peptide patented in 2014, was the first peptide-based inhibitor targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, showing promising results to reduce tumour proliferation and metastasis in preclinical animal studies (36). Similarly, other peptide-based inhibitors, including those with 7–8 amino acids structure and cyclopeptide derivatives, have also demonstrated significant anti-tumour activity, particularly in melanoma models (37). Regarding small molecule-based inhibitors, BMS-8 and BMS-202 act through the induction of PD-L1 dimerization. These small molecules offer advantages such as enhanced tissue penetration, the ability to target intracellular pathways and the synergism with other inhibitors targeting epigenetic or metabolic pathways, thus amplifying the overall anti-tumour immune response (38).
Antibody-based ICIs have garnered special attention in the clinical setting. Sotigalimab, combined with nivolumab, has shown significant activity in overcoming anti-PD-1 resistance, achieving a 15% objective response rate in advanced and metastatic melanoma (39). Pembrolizumab treatment, an IgG4 antibody that blocks PD-1, demonstrated a 65.8% objective response rate in combination with cabozantinib in a Phase I/II trial for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (40). Additionally, cemiplimab, administrated with Q4W dosing, showed effective, rapid and durable responses with an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (41). Atezolizumab was evaluated in combination with derazantinib in a Phase Ib/II trial about metastatic urothelial cancer with FGFR1–3 genetic aberrations, revealing limited efficacy but good tolerability (42). Durvalumab combined with ceralasertib showed promising clinical benefits in immunotherapy-refractory of non-small cell lung cancer, particularly in patients with Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) alterations (43). Furthermore, avelumab demonstrated significant long-term overall survival benefits as a first-line treatment for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, establishing it as a preferred therapy over traditional chemotherapy (44) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Inhibition of PD-1 and CTLA-4 as representative examples of inhibitory immune checkpoints blockade. (A) Tumour cells overexpress PD-L1 ligand and CTLA-4 ligand, called B7, to target and suppress T cell’s activation, leading to its exhaustion and cancer immune escape. (B) Several compounds, including monoclonal antibodies, have been engineered to target these inhibitory checkpoints receptors/ligands to overcome such immune-resistance cancer mechanisms.
Despite their initial promise, ICIs still face challenges such as limited efficacy mainly in solid tumours. Notably, the CheckMate 650 trial evaluated two dual-ICB regimens combining nivolumab and ipilimumab: Arm A (nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks) in chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and Arm B (nivolumab 3 mg/kg + ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks) in post-chemotherapy patients. The trial reported modest antitumour activity, with objective response rates of 25% in Arm A and 10% in Arm B. However, both regimens were associated with substantial toxicity, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 42% and 53% of patients in Arms A and B respectively, underscoring the need for dose and schedule optimization for combination checkpoint blockade in prostate cancer (45). Considering such limitations/variability in the clinical outcomes, identifying patients who may benefit from the use of ICIs is challenging and exhibits a vital importance. Factors like the expression levels of immune checkpoints or microsatellite instability (MSI) profiles, which alters tumour mutational burden (TMB), have been proposed as biomarkers for ICIs effectiveness. In fact, cancers with low TMB may not generate sufficient neoantigens to be recognized by the host immune system and thus ICIs may be less effective (46). For instance, the treatment of pancreatic cancer (PC) with ICIs revealed better outcomes in patients with high-TMB caused by heightened DNA mismatch repair gene mutations, while KRAS mutations seen in low-TMB patients may be associated to limited ICIs outcomes (47). Similarly, high TMB and MSI are predictive of ICIs sensitivity in melanoma and lung cancer (48). Nevertheless, they are not universally reliable biomarkers as other factors related to the complexity of the TME, such as the hypoxic conditions, its fibrotic and dense extracellular matrix (which hinders the penetration of therapeutic drugs), and the presence of immunosuppressive cells (e.g., regulatory T cells [Treg], myeloid-derived suppressor cells [MDSCs]) may also hinder ICIs effectiveness (49).
Moreover, differences in genetic backgrounds and epigenetic modifications can also influence how patients respond to ICIs (50). In particular, epigenetic modifications like DNA methylation and histone modification can silence immune-related genes. For example, the combination of histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors with ICIs are required in colorectal carcinoma (51). Additionally, emerging evidences suggest that diet and gut microbiota composition could impact ICI efficacy, contributing to increase variability in patient responses (52). In fact, manipulating the gut microbiome through probiotics or fecal microbiota transplantation could potentially enhance the response rates of immunotherapies in non- or low-responding patients (53). Besides, patients with autoimmune diseases, chronic infections or those under immunosuppressive treatments may have impaired responses to ICIs. For example, a study found that early-Phase trials with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors overestimated ICIs efficacy compared to Phase III trials, largely due to the exclusion of patients with autoimmune diseases thus underscoring the need for more accurate early-Phase trial designs (54).
On the other hand, ICIs can cause immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) affecting various organs, highlighting the skin (psoriasis) (55), gastrointestinal tract (56), liver (57), endocrine glands (58) and lungs (59). Managing these toxicities is complex and may require discontinuation of therapy to avoid further worsening patients quality of life, thus limiting therapy efficacy (60). Notably, ICIs can cause various endocrine IRAEs, including thyroid dysfunction and immune-related hypophysitis (IH), the latter gaining increasing attention due to its complexity and non-specific clinical manifestations, often resulting in misdiagnosis and worse prognosis. In fact, a study of 40 melanoma patients with ICI-induced hypophysitis revealed that clinical side effects varied significantly between ipilimumab and anti-PD-1 treatments, underscoring the need to monitor specific markers based on the ICI regimen (61). In addition, Prolonged immune activation derived from long-term ICIs therapy can cause chronic inflammation and tissue damage, exemplified by a case of rapid-onset inflammatory arthritis post-pembrolizumab dosage (62).
In a different line, patients that initially respond to ICIs can develop resistance over time. For example, tumours can evade immune detection (thus bypassing ICIs regimens) through acquiring particular mutations in antigen presentation mechanisms, including MHC (63), B2M (64) and TAP genes (65). Parallelly, the dysregulation of several molecular pathways can also alter ICIs response, including the overactivation of ERK signaling in melanoma (66) or the deficiency in STING pathway in colon cancer. Indeed, intra-tumoural administration of STING agonists, often combined with systemic ICIs, has shown promise in enhancing anti-tumour immunity and overcoming resistance (67) (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Hallmarks of response and resistance to ICIs treatments. Extrinsic (red) and intrinsic factors (blue) that affect the development of ICIs resistance are evaluated and classified.
Emerging immunotherapeautic approaches targeting innate immune system, glycol checkpoints, multi-specific antibodies and chekomine
It is noteworthy to briefly highlight the existence of immunotherapies directed against innate immune system. For instance, CD47 has been presented as an innate immune checkpoint expressed by cancerous cells in order to avoid their elimination by macrophage phagocytosis. Its blockade could raise as a novel ICI-based approach against EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer with resistance to conventional anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapies (68). Similarly, it has been documented that malignant cells from several tumour types like melanoma, breast, lung and colon cancer can bypass their eradication by NK cells through the upregulation of IGSF8 (69). Specifically, this article revealed that IGSF8 binds to KIR3DL2 on NK cells surface, inhibiting their degranulation and cytotoxic capacity, and highlights the therapeutic potential of IGSF8 blockade as a monotherapy or in combination with anti-PD-1 ICIs.
Similarly, Siglec–sialic acid interactions represent a novel class of immune checkpoints known as “glyco-checkpoints”), whose blockade may be complementary to classical PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA-4 inhibition. Indeed, aberrant sialylation on tumour cells surface constitutes a mechanism of immune evasion by engaging inhibitory Siglec receptors (e.g., Siglec-7, Siglec-9, Siglec-15) on immune cells like tumour-associated myeloid cells, NK cells and subsets of T cells (70). In breast cancer-derived bone metastasis models, blockade of the Siglec-15/sialic acid axis reversed osteoclastogenesis, impaired tumour-induced immunosuppression and restored cytotoxic T cells activity, suggesting a therapeutic window for targeting glyco-checkpoints in metastatic niches (71). In prostate cancer models, blockade of Siglec-7/9-sialoglycan interactions enhanced immune cells infiltration and inhibited tumour growth, suggesting a broader applicability beyond Siglec-15 (72).
Additionally, other antibodies-based strategies relying on targeting innate immune cells receptors could be CSF1/CSF1R blockade in TAMs, with the objective of reducing solid TME immunosuppressive potential. For instance, the blockade of CSF1R (using the monoclonal antibody AMG820) in combination with PD1 blocking antibody (Pembrolizumab) has been tested in clinical trials with colorectal cancer patients, although exhibiting a modest objective response rate of 6% (73). Preclinical studies in colorectal cancer have achieved increased anti-tumour efficacy with CSF1R inhibitory small molecule PX17 compared to AMG820. Its more pronounced anti-tumour potential relied on TAMs reprogramming (rather than eradication) from pro-tumorigenic M2 into tumour-restricting M1 phenotype, which enhanced the cytotoxic CD8+ T cells response, reduced immunosuppressive cells (Tregs and MDSCs) infiltration and improved anti-tumour efficiency of PD1 blockade (74).
Furthermore, the in vivo efficiency of agonistic antibodies targeting CD40, to induce the activation of antigen presenting cells and enhance cytotoxic T cells response, has been noted to be dependent on the selective crosslinking of the fragment crystallizable (Fc) gamma receptor IIB (FcγRIIB) through a Fc domain located on the own agonistic antibodies. Such Fc domain allows CD40 receptor trimerization with the objective of enhancing downstream signaling within immune cells to promote their activation (75). Indeed, a phase I clinical trial enrolling patients with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma and breast cancer highlighted the importance of optimizing Fc portion of CD40 agonistic antibodies in order to achieve meaningful clinical anti-tumour effects, and the use of species-matched Fc receptor models to accurately estimate appropriate drug dosage (76).
Moreover, the use of multi-specific antibodies, able to simultaneously target two or more epitopes, represents a popular immunotherapy-based approach. For instance, it has been explored the clinical use of SL-172154, an antibody capable of simultaneously blocking CD47/SIRPα pathway along with activating CD40 receptor, to treat platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients through energizing antigen presenting cells, B lymphocytes and cytotoxic T cells response (77). Interestingly, such antibody contains an hexameric CD40l domain to enhance CD40 trimerization and activation, which allows silencing the Fc domain in order to mitigate side effects derived from Fc-FcγRIIB interaction (77).
Another strategy focuses on simultaneously engaging specific tumour-associated antigen(s) along with immune cells receptor(s) with the objective of redirecting immune effector cells against malignant ones, particularly those belonging to haematological tumours (78). A range of bi-specific antibodies (BSABs) are being tested under clinical trials, for instance Blinatumomab (targeting CD19 tumour-associated antigen and CD3 on immune effector cells) in a phase 1/2 trial which revealed significant tumour remission in patients with refractory or relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (79). Tri-specific antibodies (TSABs) embody next-generation which can target a broader spectrum of tumour-associated antigens or an additional immune co-stimulator with improved potential to activate tumour immune surveillance, although the majority of them are still in preclinical or early-phase clinical evaluation (78). To note, Ramantamig (simultaneously targeting BCMA, GPRC5D tumour-associated antigens along with CD3 receptor on effector T-cells) displayed enhanced anti-tumour activity against multiple myeloma in in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo settings (80).
Nevertheless, some limitations need to be further addressed, including the emergence of side effects like cytokine release syndrome, neurotoxicity, haematological damage, increased susceptibility to infections, and the presence of drug resistances related to specific cancer mutations, antigen loss, elevated soluble antigens or the TME immunosuppressive potential (78). Interestingly, an alternative and increasingly explored approach to overcome host T cell exhaustion is based on simultaneously engaging innate immune cells activators, like CD16 in natural killer cells and macrophages, along with tumour-related antigens such as HER2 in ovarian and breast cancer cells (81).
On the other hand, chemokines and their receptors (e.g., CXCL12/CXCR4 axis) can play an important role in tumour biology, promoting metastasis, therapy resistance and shaping the immunosuppressive TME by enhancing inhibitory immune cells (Tregs, MDSCs) recruitment/infiltration (82). Preclinical studies have confirmed that CXCR4 blockade can reduce Tregs and MDSCs infiltration and enhance antitumour immunity across multiple tumour types (83). Thus, CXCR4 blockade has been further explored as an attractive drug target to synergize with traditional immunotherapeutic agents, particularly in immunologically ‘cold’ or immune-excluded tumours. In fact, a phase IIa clinical trial utilized BL-8040 (a CXCR4 antagonist) in combination with Pembrolizumab to treat metastatic, chemotherapy-resistant pancreatic cancer patients, which demonstrated increased CD8+ T cells infiltration, decreased amount of MDSCs and Tregs and achieved disease-control in a substantial fraction of individuals (84). However, the chemokine network is highly redundant and pleiotropic, thus interventions may inadvertently block beneficial immune cells recruitment or normal immune surveillance. Furthermore, tumour heterogeneity and tumour compensatory mechanisms can limit long-term efficacy (82, 84).
Adoptive cell therapy
Unlike traditional anticancer treatments, which often have broad side effects on healthy tissues, Adoptive T Cell Therapy (ACT) offers a more targeted and personalized approach. In fact, ACT allows customization based on the individual’s genetic and immune profiles. Briefly, ACT involves collecting autologous cells, like cytotoxic T cells, from the patient’s peripheral blood or tumour tissue. These cells are then genetically modified or activated to specifically recognize and attack cancer cells and expanded ex vivo. Finally, they are reinfused into the oncological patient (85). Compared to other immunotherapies, which strongly rely on the host’s immune profiles (i.e. ICIs), ACT offers advantages such as sufficient cells quantities, modifiable functions, durable responses and reduction of individuals differences (86). Currently, genetic engineering has mainly improved two key therapeutic T-cell technologies that include chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells and T cell receptor (TCR)-engineered T cells. As an example of CAR-T cells therapy, it has been observed that case-by-case CAR-T cells optimization, in order to direct them against novel antigens like VHH, may be crucial for improving the management of malignancies such as multiple myeloma (87). On the other hand, a study of TCR-engineered T cells targeting NY-ESO-1 in melanoma revealed promising results for cancer immunotherapy (88) (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Adoptive T cell therapy: chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells and T cell receptor (TCR)-engineered T cells. T cell therapy represents a personalized treatment that uses patients’ own T cells, which are genetically modified in the laboratory. T cells are extracted from patients’ peripheral blood or tumour biopsies. Once they are recollected, T cells are genetically modified and equipped with special CARs or an engineered TCR that enable them to identify specific antigens on the surface of cancer cells. After modification, these engineered T cells are propagated and checked in the lab. When a sufficient number of CAR/TCR-T cells are generated, they are reintroduced into the patient’s body to seek out and eradicate cancer cells with the targeted antigen. These cells are designed to continue dividing in the patient’s body, using their engineered receptors to locate and eliminate any remaining cancer cells displaying the referred antigen.
Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy
Several types of CAR-T cells have been authorized for clinical use to treat, primarily, hematologic malignancies. For instance, Kymriah (Tisagenlecleucel) is approved against B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (89). Similarly, it has been reported the use of Yescarta (Axicabtagene Ciloleucel) against large B-cell lymphoma (90). Additional examples could be the management of refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) (91) or diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (92). It should be highlighted that the FDA has approved multiple CAR-T cells products to target high CD19 marker expression for the treatment of both ALL and DLBCL (93). The engineering technologies of T cells are continuously improving through distinct generations (currently five main generations based on their structural evolution). The first-generation mimics natural TCR with an extracellular single-chain variable fragment (scFv) and an intracellular activation domain (CD3ζ). However, they suffer from rapid cell depletion and insufficient cytokine secretion, limiting their anti-tumour efficacy (94). The second-generation CAR-T cells were improved by adding a co-stimulatory molecule such as CD28 or 4-1BB (CD137) to the intracellular region, enhancing T cell activation and persistence. This generation forms the basis of currently FDA-approved CAR-T therapies, exemplified by “KTE-C19” (axicabtagene ciloleucel) targeting CD19 (approved under the brand name Yescarta for treating certain types of lymphomas) (95). Similarly, Second-generation anti-MSLN CAR-T cells showed promising anti-tumour effects and potential clinical value in treating ovarian cancer (96). Third-generation CAR-T cells further improved this therapeutic strategy by incorporating multiple co-stimulatory signaling domains, thereby enhancing CAR-T cell proliferation, survival, and cytokine secretion, exemplified by those incorporating both CD28 and 4-1BB costimulatory domains (97). Subsequent generations have introduced modifications to transcription factor genes or additional co-stimulatory ligands. In fact, modifications with short scFv linkers can enhance CAR-T receptor homodimerization and anti-tumour efficacy against multiple myeloma (98). On the other hand, adjusting intracellular signaling by other methodologies, like the use of alternative co-stimulatory domain constructs, has also been evaluated. B7-H3.TMIζ CAR-T cells are an example, being based on TMIGD2 co-stimulation, revealing robust anti-cancer cytotoxicity and reducing off-target side effects in glioblastoma models (99) (Figure 5).
Figure 5. CAR-T classification according to its structure. 5 main generations of CAR-T can be identified: first-generation CARs resembled natural T-cell receptors with an extracellular scFv and an intracellular CD3ζ activation domain. The second-generation CAR-T cells incorporate a co-stimulatory molecule, such as CD28 or 4-1BB (CD137), to the intracellular domain. Third-generation CAR-T cells advanced this approach by incorporating multiple co-stimulatory signaling domains. Later generations introduced changes to transcription factor genes or added other co-stimulatory ligands (i.e. modifying scFv with short linkers or adjustments to intracellular signaling through alternative co-stimulatory domain constructs).
An alternative therapeutic approach is the simultaneous targeting of both cancer and stromal cells within the TME. A study reported CAR-T cells engineered to target both mesothelin (a cancer-related antigen) and fibroblast activation protein (FAP) which effectively promotes the elimination of PC cells and cancer-associated fibroblasts in various patient-derived models, showing promise as a treatment option for immunotherapy-resistant solid tumours (100). However, there exist different factors contributing to the suppression of CAR-T cells related to the own TME of solid tumours, including the secretion of inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules and inhibitory cytokines by immunosuppressive stromal cells, the hypoxic conditions or the physical barrier established by the dense/fibrotic stroma. These conditions not only impair CAR-T cell infiltration into tumours but also reduce their activity upon reaching the target cells (101). For instance, it has been observed that PD-1 receptor inhibition selectively enhanced functionality and anti-tumour efficacy of low affinity HER2-28Z CAR-T cells in ovarian cancer, reducing the immunosuppressive potential of the TME (102). Furthermore, it has been observed that injection of biodegradable scaffold can enhance CAR-T cell therapy’s effectiveness by creating an alternative microenvironment that may improve tumour infiltration of T-cells, their expansion, differentiation and antitumour activity in mice models (103). Interestingly, the use of “switch” receptors has also proved their efficacy in order to convert inhibitory signals derived from the TME into stimulatory ones (104).
In addition, cancer antigen heterogeneity may represent a significant hurdle for CAR-T cells-based therapies. To combat antigen escape carried out by cancerous cells, newly developed CAR-T cells, using a bidirectional promoter for dual CD19 and CD20 targeting, aimed to improve treatment efficacy against lymphoma (105). Interestingly, additional studies are also being ongoing to develop CAR-T cells able to recognize a broad range of tumour-specific antigens and penetrate solid tumours more effectively. For example, the creation of a novel IL13 variant, termed IL13 (4MS) engineered to enhance selectivity for the IL13Rα2 receptor over IL13Rα1, has been incorporated into a bispecific CAR-T design which aimed to improve the efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy against glioblastoma (106).
The cross-reactive toxicities may represent a central limitation in ACT’s clinical application. As a representative example, CAR-T cells targeting HER2 have been reported to cause severe toxicities (i.e. cytokine-release syndrome) due to cross-reactions with healthy tissues (107). To address such toxicities, a cellular safeguard system has been created to selectively eliminate CAR-T cells upon off-target recognition (108). Other useful approach could be the identification of antigens that are exclusively expressed on a particular cancer, like fetal acetylcholine receptors in rhabdomyosarcomas (109). As alternatives, several studies have proposed novel targets like glypican-3 (GPC3) in hepatocellular carcinoma (110) and prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) in prostate cancer (111). In a different way, inhibitory CAR-T cells (iCARs) can co-exist with conventional adoptive T cells but recognizing distinct antigens and transmitting negative signals to reduce off-target effects on healthy tissues (112). Parallelly, to address toxicities related to CAR-T cells long-term overactivation, suicide genes (for example RapaCaspase9 suicide gene system) can be engineered into CAR-T cells, allowing selective elimination upon activation (113). Similarly, SynNotch technology can enhance antigen-specificity and multiantigen targeting of CAR-T cells by post-translationally reprogramming their targeting spectrum. Specifically, this technology can trigger a secondary CAR expression against an additional antigen only upon binding to a first cancer-associated antigen, thus demonstrating potent activity and increased reactivity at lower doses (thus reducing toxicity risks) (114).
Finally, the development of efficient CAR-T cells often requires complex manufacturing procedures that involve virus- or non-virus-based genetic modifications, which increases development costs. To mitigate this, it has been proposed the use of antibody-cell conjugating (ACC) technology to allow the conjugation of T cells with tumour-specific antibodies for targeting cancerous cells without the need of high-cost genetic modifications (115).
On the other hand, it is relevant to briefly note the CAR-based immunotherapies relying on innate immune system. A recent Phase I clinical trial has shown promising outcomes regarding the use of CAR-macrophages against HER2 breast cancer. These CAR-macrophages exerted antitumour activity through several mechanisms like cancerous cells phagocytosis, anti-tumour cytokine release and cancer-specific antigen recognition (116). Specifically, the study demonstrated the manufacturing feasibility, safety and tolerability (absence of cytokine-release syndrome) of this therapeutic approach.
Parallelly, CAR-NK therapy applies CAR engineering to natural killer cells, most commonly using NK cells from cord blood, peripheral blood, or established NK cell lines such as NK-92 (117, 118). Studies have demonstrated several advantages of CAR-NK cells-based immunotherapies compared to traditional CAR-T cells. Among them are included their safer profiles which may allow a wider clinical applicability, certain manufacturing facilities or the simultaneous promotion of both antigen-dependent and antigen-independent antitumour activities. These advantages of CAR-NK cells-based immunotherapies minimize cancerous cells immune evasion related to antigens loss/change (119). Specifically, NK cells are less likely than T lymphocytes to mediate graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and early clinical data suggest a lower propensity to induce severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) or immune effector neurotoxicity compared with CAR-T therapies, supporting the development of allogeneic “off-the-shelf” CAR-NK products (118, 120). Their innate cytotoxic receptor repertoire may compensate partially for heterogeneous antigen expression on tumour cells (117, 121). Furthermore, CAR-NKs might offer logistical advantages for allogeneic manufacture, given the possibility of banked donor-or cord blood-derived NK cells (118). Moreover, it has also been suggested the promising therapeutic potential of combining CAR-NK cells with traditional chemotherapy or with own CAR-T cells (119).
For instance, it has also been described the use of CAR-NK cells to eradicate lung cancer cells, exhibiting increased cytotoxicity and cytokine release capacity compared to parental NK cells (122). Recent clinical programmes have tested cord-blood derived CAR-NKs engineered with cytokine support (e.g., IL-15), and early-phase data report encouraging safety profiles and preliminary anti-tumour responses, which has prompted expansion into larger trials (118). Nonetheless, important limitations remain: persistence and in vivo expansion of NK products tend to lag behind T cells, which may limit long-term tumour control; clinical data are still far more limited than those for CAR-T (few late-phase randomize trials); and manufacturing standardization of scalable GMP products remains a challenge (e.g., variability between donor-derived NKs, pros/cons of NK-92 lines requiring irradiation vs donor NK expansion) (117–120). Multiple strategies are under development to overcome these hurdles, such as arming CAR-NK with IL-15 or other cytokines to enhance persistence, transient cytokine support, or combining with checkpoint blockade tailored for NK receptors, all aimed to improve durability and potency (118, 121).
T-cell receptor-engineered T cell therapy
TCR-engineered T cells are autologous or allogeneic T lymphocytes genetically modified to express a defined α/β T-cell receptor with specificity for tumour-derived peptides presented on class I and II MHCs (123, 124). Therefore, TCR-T expands targetability to intracellular neoantigens that are inaccessible to conventional CAR constructs only targeting cell-surface antigens, making TCR-T particularly attractive for solid tumours that lack tumour-specific surface markers but with tumour-specific intracellular peptides (124, 125). Other strengths rely on the use of physiological TCR signalling pathways, which can favour memory formation and nuanced activation, and the minimization of on-target/off-tumour toxicities (124, 126).
Early and mid-phase clinical programs of engineered TCRs directed at NY-ESO-1, MAGE family antigens, and viral antigens have demonstrated objective responses in selected patients with melanoma, synovial sarcoma, and other malignancies (127, 128). For example, a phase I trial of autologous NY-ESO-1-specific TCR-T cells in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma (synovial sarcoma) reported durable tumour shrinkage lasting more than 2 years in one patient, with long-term persistence of the TCR-T cells (127).
Advances in sequencing, neoantigen prediction, and high-throughput TCR discovery have accelerated the pipeline for neoantigen-directed TCR products and have enabled affinity optimisation with extensive safety screening to reduce cross-reactivity (124, 125). Several consortiums and companies have advanced TCR-T programmes into phase II or beyond; comprehensive reviews summarizing clinical outcomes and technical progress have recently been published (129).
On the other hand, critical limitations remain: HLA restriction (a TCR specific for a peptide–HLA allele cannot be broadly applied across HLA types), risk of cross-reactivity to similar peptides in normal tissues (occasionally yielding severe toxicity), tumour immune-evasion through downregulation or loss of antigen-presentation machinery, and the operational/financial burden of autologous manufacturing (124, 129, 130). Some of these limitations may seem in tension with the earlier claim of reduced off-tumour toxicity; indeed, while the physiological signalling may reduce non-specific activation, the risk of on-target but off-tumour reactivity remains non-negligible especially for shared antigens.
Technical strategies proposed to mitigate these issues include exhaustive in silico and in vitro cross-reactivity screening, development of panels of TCRs covering frequent HLA alleles, and combination strategies to increase antigen presentation (e.g., epigenetic modifiers or IFN-stimulating agents) (124, 129).
The field is trending toward (i) multiplex TCR libraries and off-the-shelf, edited allogeneic TCR products that are HLA-matched or universal; (ii) integration of TCR discovery directly from tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) repertoires; and (iii) combining TCR-T with agents that restore or boost antigen presentation (e.g., epigenetic modulators, cytokines) (129, 130).
Tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy
TIL therapy relies on the ex vivo expansion of polyclonal, tumour-resident lymphocytes obtained from resected tumour tissue, followed by lymphodepletion of the patient and reinfusion of the expanded TIL product (often with systemic interleukin-2 support) (131, 132) (Figure 6). This approach leverages a naturally selected repertoire of tumour-reactive T cells, often enriched for neoantigen specificity, and can target multiple tumour epitopes simultaneously, potentially mitigating resistances driven by tumour heterogeneity and antigen loss.
Figure 6. Adoptive T cell therapy: tumour-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) therapy. TIL therapy is a personalized adoptive cell therapy that uses naturally occurring tumour-reactive T cells extracted directly from the patient’s tumour. Following surgical resection or biopsy, tumour fragments are processed to isolate resident TILs. These lymphocytes are expanded ex vivo using high-dose IL-2, and optionally enriched for tumour-reactive clones. After a lymphodepleting conditioning regimen, the expanded TIL product is reinfused into the patient, where it can recognize multiple endogenous tumour antigens through its native TCR repertoire. Once infused, TILs can proliferate, infiltrate the tumour microenvironment, and mediate direct cytotoxic activity against cancer cells.
TILs have produced durable responses especially in metastatic melanoma. For instance, in a multicentre Phase II trail of the product Lifileucel in 153 patients with advanced melanoma previously treated with ICIs, the investigator-assessed ORR was 31.4% (8 complete responses ad 40 partial responses), with many responses durable at long-term follow-up (>18 months in a significant fraction of responders) (132). Such data revived interest in TIL-based therapies, even in patients refractory to prior immunotherapy.
Methodological advances have improved the selection and expansion of the most functional clones: for example, use of co-stimulatory agonists (e.g. anti-4-1BB) at the beginning of ex-vivo culture enhances production of CD8-predominant, memory-like TIL with improved effector properties (131). Other strategies under investigation include alternative cytokine support (e.g. IL-7, IL-15), shorter manufacturing protocols, and combination regimens (e.g. preconditioning with oncolytic viruses or radiotherapy) to improve TIL yield and in-situ activation (133).
However, broad application is limited by the need for surgically accessible tumour tissue, not all tumours are amenable to safe resection or biopsy yielding enough viable TIL. There is inter-patient variability in TIL yield and quality, and the manufacturing remains resource-intensive. Additional barriers include the substantial toxicity associated with lymphodepletion and high-dose IL-2, the invasive nature of tissue procurement, and lengthy GMP-grade manufacturing times (131, 134). In some non-melanoma solid tumours, especially those with poor lymphocyte infiltration or highly immunosuppressive microenvironments, generation of functional TIL remains challenging (131, 135).
Cancer vaccines
William B. Coley’s 1891 research pioneered the concept of cancer vaccination by injecting patients with bacterial toxins, leading to tumour regression and laying the groundwork for future cancer vaccines development (1). It may be highlighted two main types of cancer vaccine approaches, first being the preventive vaccination to reduce tumour initiation of cancers that may be triggered by viral infections. As an example, it has been confirmed the durable effectiveness of quadrivalent human papilloma virus vaccines to prevent papilloma virus-related high-grade cervical cancer (136). Secondly, the direct treatment of existing cancers, for instance, the case of the vaccine Sipuleucel-T in the management of metastatic prostate cancer (137). The basis of this therapeutic strategy relies on stimulating the host immune system with external cancer-associated antigens to prevent/combat cancer more efficiently (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Preventive and therapeutic vaccines’ approach. Preventive vaccines (left) are focused on preparing the body for possible viral agents that could later lead to tumour development. That is, reducing the possibility of developing certain types of cancer. Therapeutic vaccines (right) directly combat cancer once it has already developed in the body. In this case, immune cells recognize a cancer-associated antigen delivered by the vaccine, which allows immune system to detect and directly kill tumour cells.
Cancer vaccines can be designed to stimulate the immune system through various strategies like dendritic cells (DCs)-based vaccines. For example, it has been demonstrated that induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSCs)-derived DCs (iPSC-DCs) can enhance the immune response and potentially overcome resistance to anti-PD-L1 therapy in non-responsive tumour types (138). Similarly, a case report of a psoriatic patient with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma treated with a combination of radiotherapy, in situ vaccination with low-dose autologous DCs and anti-PD-L1 agents enhanced the efficacy of anti-cancer treatment (139). Besides, rWTC-MBTA vaccine has been exposed to effectively and dynamically activate DCs to combat glioblastoma by converting an “immunologically cold” into a “immunologically hot” tumour (140). However, preclinical DC vaccines research may pivot to address clinical failures and practical challenges/issues. These include production difficulties, patient immune variability, testing them against ICI-resistant cancers and boosting T cell activation against “immunologically cold” tumours, in order to enhance its real-world efficacy and accessibility (141). To improve DCs vaccines, it has been shown, for instance, the use of L-fucose (L-fuc) to boosts anti-tumour immunity by enhancing DC polarization, antigen uptake and T-cell activation (142).
An alternative cancer vaccine could be whole tumour cell vaccines (WTCVs) which use inactivated or modified cancer cells with the goal of inducing a host memory response against tumour cells for long-term protection. In fact, it has been emphasized that the strengthening of tumour cells immunogenicity, by enhancing the Irf7 axis within own cancerous cells, can significantly enhance the effectiveness of WTCVs and make them a potent option for preventing tumour recurrence (143). Moreover, it has been investigated the desialylated WTCV (DWTCVs) which can trigger anti-tumour immunity in ovarian cancer patients. Specifically, the process involves treating ovarian cancer cells with enzymes to remove sialic acid residues, thereby exposing antigenic Gal/GalNAc epitopes, increasing antigen uptake by host immune system and increasing T cell activity (144). Another example could be The Aza-BFcell-106 vaccine, which couples Aza-stimulated melanoma cells with a TLR7 agonist and showed enhanced immunogenicity and therapeutic potential in melanoma (145). Nevertheless, WTCVs often fail to halt tumour progression because most tumours commonly exhibit weak immunogenicity, thus several strategies have been reported in order to improve their clinical efficacy. For instance, an advanced oxidation nanoprocessing strategy can enhance the immunogenicity of WTCV, maintaining antigen diversity while ensuring safety and effectiveness (146). Similarly, the Angel-Vax strategy may enhance the host immune response by combining tumour cells with adjuvants polyribocytidylic acid, potentially offering a simpler and more effective option against post-surgical tumour recurrence (147). Furthermore, it has been described the personalized Bridge-Vax vaccine which employs a hydrogel-based platform with autologous tumour cell membranes and that has shown improved efficacy in ovarian cancer by enhancing CD8+ T cells immunity and preventing tumour recurrence (148). Additionally, it has been noted the use of vaccines based on irradiated tumour cells combined with immune-stimulating agents like mannan-BAM, TLR agonists and anti-CD40 antibody to induce an immune response against the tumour mass (149).
Besides, cancerous IPSC-based vaccines rely on the generation of autologous IPSCs derived from host cancerous cells and modifying them to reduce its malignancy. Such cancerous IPSCs can exhibit similar genomic/transcriptomic profiles compared to the own cancer, thus expressing antigens that could activate host T cells. For example, it has been observed promising results from a cancerous iPSC-based vaccine to prevent PC development in mouse models by boosting cytotoxic T cells and stimulating memory-like immune response through targeting antigens/mutations shared between tumours and iPSCs (150). Additionally, it has been described the generation of IPSC-based vaccines from leukemic cells which could inhibit the growth of inoculated tumours in immunocompromised mice without causing significant toxicity (151) (Figure 8).
Figure 8. WTCV and iPSCs vaccines. (A) WTCV vaccines are based on inactivated, modified and/or irradiated cancer cells to provoke a host long-term immune response. (B) Cancerous IPSC-based vaccines are based on the generation of autologous IPSCs derived from host cancer cells and modifying them to reduce their malignancy. They can exhibit a cancer-like antigen profile that can activate host T cells.
Parallelly, in situ vaccines are administered directly into the tumour mass to cause local but not systemic inflammation and immune activation. The rationale is that using an adjuvant immunogenic stimulation may overcome local immunosuppressive TME and activate host immune system against tumour mass. In fact, a study suggested that in situ vaccination (ISV) with bacterial outer membrane vesicles is more effective when combined with the use of own tumour neo-epitopes. This strategy can potentially synergize with own cancer cell-derived vaccines to enhance host T cell infiltration and anti-tumour response (152). Another study about ISV against lymphoma achieved a 50% overall response rate, with 70% of patients showing significant tumour reduction outside the treated site (153). In an alternative rationale, viral vaccines use modified viruses to express cancer-associated antigens and trigger a broad host immune response against the tumour. For example, the successful cloning, expression and protein production of the carcinoembryonic antigen gene within adenovirus-based vaccines was characterized by its high efficiency and low toxicity (154). Moreover, in the Phase II trial of the PROSTVAC viral vaccine in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance showed no significant immunologic or clinicopathologic benefits over the control, but confirmed its feasibility and acceptability (155). Therefore, these results may reflect the current limited clinical outcomes of this type of cancer vaccine and the need of further research efforts.
Another related approach may be oncolytic vaccines which use genetically modified viruses to selectively infect and kill cancer cells while sparing normal cells. One example includes Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) for unresectable metastatic melanoma, that showed effectiveness both alone and when combined with ICIs (156). Similarly, another study found that combining pelareorep (reovirus-based therapy) with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in advanced PC patients was safe and showed promising efficacy (157). Another platform is represented by peptide-based cancer vaccines, which involves the delivery of short peptide sequences (5–15 amino acids) resembling certain cancer- or TME-related antigens epitopes to stimulate a host adaptive immune response against tumours like melanoma (158). Nevertheless, such therapeutic strategy still faces several limitations like relatively low immunogenicity, rapid peptide clearance or insufficient peptide uptake by host antigen-presenting cells (159). Alternative strategies reside on nucleotide-based vaccines (both DNA- and RNA-based ones) encoding cancer-associated neoantigen as observed in a mRNA-vaccine platform capable of inducing long-lasting memory T cells response to combat primary and recurrent pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (160). Several issues are being addressed with the aim of optimizing mRNA cancer vaccines, including the modification of RNA sequence to improve its stability for efficient storage, transport, inoculation and/or translation efficiency, along with evaluating alternative delivery strategies to optimize antigen-presenting profiles (161).
Selection of the right cancer vaccine approach is vital to overcome its general limited efficacy in clinical settings, but variability in clinical outcomes and challenges in consistent success still hinder the universal adoption of this cancer immunotherapy (162). Factors like cancer stage, patient age, patient immune system status and particular profile of the immunosuppressive TME play a key role in the diverse outcomes seen across patient groups (163, 164). Cancer vaccines represent a popular researching field in the scientific community and is making significant strides towards their clinical use.
Conclusions and future perspective
It is emphasized that ICIs have transformed cancer treatment, achieving notable success across various malignancies. However, only around 10-20% of patients achieve durable responses, highlighting a critical area for improvement (165). To optimize the efficacy of ICIs, combination therapies targeting multiple immune evasion mechanisms are increasingly being explored (166). A comprehensive analysis of over 1,000 tumors using CPTAC pan-cancer proteogenomic data has identified seven distinct immune subtypes characterized by unique genomic and proteomic alterations (167). This deep understanding of the immune landscape within tumor tissues not only underscores variations in immune cell surveillance but also reveals potential subtype-specific therapeutic targets, which could pave the way for more effective and personalized immunotherapy strategies in the future. For instance, recent research have indicated that the specific Keap1 mutations can remodel the TME of lung adenocarcinoma, diminishing dendritic cell and T cell responses that drive resistance to immunotherapy (168, 169). Indeed, this study suggests the personalized approach relying on the combination of glutaminase inhibition with ICIs to manage such genetic profile.
Looking ahead, the integration of nanoparticles presents a promising strategy to modulate the TME and enhance the efficacy of ICIs and vaccines. These nanoparticles can effectively counteract TME-related immune evasion by suppressing fibroblast activation, promoting M1 macrophage polarization and facilitating T cell infiltration (170). Additionally, current trends indicate the potential emergence of an “IO (immune-oncology) bubble” in the context of ICIs. This underlines the need for innovative clinical trial designs focusing on new biomarkers, extensive pharmacokinetics and toxicity evaluation, replacement of traditional dose-response trials by dose-ranging ones or the integration of big data/IA analyses. These studies would allow to accurately define the particular genomic/proteomic profiles of each patients in order to develop personalized therapeutic approaches (171–173).
Despite the successes of CAR-T therapy in treating hematological malignancies significant challenges remain in solid tumors (i.e. antigen heterogeneity, immunosuppressive TME, manufacturing costs, treatment-related toxicities), necessitating novel strategies. Among these, CAR ligand-targeted vaccines emerge as a new approach intended to bolster CAR-T effectiveness by enhancing specificity towards tumor-associated antigens. This strategy, along with precision engineering of CAR-T cells using CRISPR-Cas9 and novel genetic modifications, holds promise for improved therapeutic outcomes (174–178). Another innovative approach could be specifically targeting disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) with the goal of significantly reducing the risk of recurrence, metastasis and improve patient outcomes (179). Finally, cancer vaccines encompass a growing range of products with future promise, although addressing patient’s specific host immune profiles and general clinical inefficiency still remain to be improved.
In summary, while cancer immunotherapy offers vast and innovative therapeutic potential compared to conventional treatments, like chemotherapy and radiotherapy, further research is essential to address existing limitations, particularly regarding solid tumors and the establishment of feasible manufacturing protocols (Table 1 represents an overall summary of main concepts referred to this study). The complexities of the immunosuppressive TME and tumor/patient heterogeneity continue to pose significant challenges, underscoring the need for ongoing exploration in immunotherapy approaches, especially those reliant on the host immune status. Table 2 summarizes the main advances and limitations described in the present article.
Table 2. CAR-T vs vaccine-based immunotherapies vs immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).
Author contributions
AA: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. BT: Validation, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Supervision, Project administration, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Software, Visualization, Funding acquisition, Resources. AG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Methodology. MP: Project administration, Resources, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. PH: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Validation, Visualization.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was supported by grants from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III and cofunded by the European Union (PI24/01797, M.P-R), by the State Research Agency from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (funded by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033; FEDER, ERDF, EU; and FSE) (RYC2020-030808-I, M.P-R) and by the Pancreatic Cancer Europe Organization "2025 Early Career Investigator (ECI) Short-term Scientific Stay Award (S3A, B.T).
Acknowledgments
Figures were made using Biorender.
Conflict of interest
Author AA was employed by ASA Research Ventures Private Limited.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Glossary
ACC: Antibody-Cell Conjugating
ACT: Adoptive T Cell Therapy
ALL: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
ATM: Ataxia-Telangiectasia Mutated
BSABs: Bi-specific Antibodies
CAR: Chimeric Antigen Receptor
CD: Activation Domain
CRS: Cytokine Release Syndrome
CTLA-4: Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte-Associated Protein 4
DCs: Dendritic Cells
DLBCL: Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma
DLD: Dihydrolipoyl Dehydrogenase
DNA: Deoxyribonucleic Acid
DTCs: Disseminated Tumour Cells
DWTCV: Desialylated Whole Tumour Cell Vaccines
FAP: Fibroblast Activation Protein
GPC3: Glypican-3
GVHD: Graft-versus-hot Disease
HDAC: Histone Deacetylase
iCARs: Inhibitory CAR-T Cells
ICIs: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
IH: Immune-related Hypophysitis
IO: Immuno-Oncology
IPSCs: Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells
IRAEs: Immune-related Adverse Events
ISV: In Situ Vaccination
L-fuc: L-fucose
LAG-3: Lymphocyte Activation Gene-3
MDSCs: Myeloid-derived Suppressor Cells
MHCs: Major Histocompatibility Complexes
MSI: Microsatellite Instability
NK: Natural Killer
PC: Pancreatic Cancer
PD-1: Programmed Death-1
PSMA: Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen
RNA: Ribonucleic Acid
scFv: Single-chain Variable Fragment
T-Vec: Talimogene laherparepvec
TCR: T Cell Receptor
TIL: Tumour-infiltrating Lymphocytes
TLRs: Toll-like Receptors
TMB: Tumour Mutational Burden
TME: Tumour Microenvironment
Treg: Regulatory T Cells
TSABs: Tri-specific Antibodies
WTCVs: Whole Tumour Cell Vaccines
References
1. McCarthy EF. The toxins of William B. Coley and the treatment of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Iowa Orthop J. (2006) 26:154–8.
2. Manjili MH. Revisiting cancer immunoediting by understanding cancer immune complexity. J Pathol. (2011) 224:5–9. doi: 10.1002/path.2865
3. Lasek W. Cancer immunoediting hypothesis: history, clinical implications and controversies. Cent-Eur J Immunol. (2022) 47:168–74. doi: 10.5114/ceji.2022.117376
4. Schmid P, Cortes J, Pusztai L, Mcarthur H, Kümmel S, Bergh J, et al. Pembrolizumab for early triple-negative breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:810–21. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910549
5. Cortes J, Guo Z, Karantza V, and Aktan G. Abstract CT069: Keynote-355: Randomized, double-blind, phase III study of Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs placebo plus chemotherapy for previously untreated, locally recurrent, inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Cancer Res. (2017) 77:CT069. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.am2017-ct069
6. Van Allen EM, Miao D, Schilling B, Shukla SA, Blank C, Zimmer L, et al. Genomic correlates of response to CTLA-4 blockade in metastatic melanoma. Science. (2015) 350:207–11. doi: 10.1126/science.aad0095
7. Yarchoan M, Yarchoan M, Gane E, Marron T, Perales-Linares R, Yan J, et al. Personalized neoantigen vaccine and pembrolizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A phase 1/2 trial. immuneACCESS (2024) doi: 10.21417/rp2024nm
8. Barth DA, Stanzer S, and Spiegelberg JA. Patterns of peripheral blood B-Cell subtypes are Associated with Treatment response in patients treated with Immune Checkpoint inhibitors: a prospective longitudinal Pan-cancer Study. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:840207. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.840207
9. Topp MS, GÔkbuget N, Stein AS, Zugmaier G, O’briend S, Bargou RC, et al. Safety and activity of blinatumomab for adult patients with relapsed or refractory B-precursor acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: a multicentre single-arm phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. (2015) 16:57–66. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71170-2
10. Deng Q, Han G, Puebla-Osorio N, Ma MC, Strati P, Chasen B, et al. Characteristics of anti-cd19 car T cell infusion products associated with efficacy and toxicity in patients with large B cell lymphomas. Nat Med. (2020) 26:1878–87. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-1061-7
11. Chen X, Wang S, Chen Y, Xin H, Zhang S, Wu D, et al. Non-invasive activation of intratumoural gene editing for improved adoptive T-cell therapy in solid tumours. Nat Nanotechnol. (2023) 18:933–44. doi: 10.1038/s41565-023-01378-3
12. Shafer P, Kelly LM, and Hoyos V. Cancer therapy with TCR-engineered T cells: Current strategies, challenges, and prospects. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:835762. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.835762
13. Duan T, Du Y, Xing C, Wang HY, and Wang R-F. Toll-like receptor signaling and its role in cell-mediated immunity. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:812774. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.812774
14. Cheng Y, Lemke-Miltner CD, Wongpattaraworakul W, Wang Z, Chan CHF, Salem AK, et al. In situ immunization of a TLR9 agonist virus-like particle enhances anti-PD1 therapy. J Immunother Cancer. (2020) 8:e000940. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-000940
15. Oyama R, Nabeshima A, Endo M, Novikov A, Fujiwara T, Phelip C, et al. A detoxified TLR4 agonist inhibits tumour growth and lung metastasis of osteosarcoma by promoting CD8+ cytotoxic lymphocyte infiltration. BJC Rep. (2025) 3:e00120. doi: 10.1038/s44276-024-00120-3
16. Jiang X, Muthusamy V, Fedorova O, Kong Y, Kim DJ, Bosenberg M, et al. Intratumoral delivery of RIG-I agonist SLR14 induces robust antitumor responses. J Exp Med. (2019) 216:2854–68. doi: 10.1084/jem.20190801
17. Fraile-Martinez O, García-Montero C, Pekarek L, Saz JV, Álvarez-Mon MA, Barrena-Blázquez S, et al. Decreased survival in patients with pancreatic cancer may be associated with an increase in histopathological expression of inflammasome marker NLRP3. Histol Histopathol. (2024) 39:35–40. doi: 10.14670/HH-18-587
18. Cho SJ, Plataki M, Mitzel D, Lowry G, Rooney K, and Stout-Delgado H. Decreased NLRP3 inflammasome expression in aged lung may contribute to increased susceptibility to secondary streptococcus pneumoniae infection. Exp Gerontol. (2018) 105:40–6. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2017.11.010
19. Cao X and Liang Y. Hu, Z. et al. Next generation of tumor-activating type I IFN enhances anti-tumor immune responses to overcome therapy resistance. Nat Commun. (2021) 12:5866. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26112-2
20. Santos Apolonio J, Lima de Souza Gonçalves V, Cordeiro Santos ML, Silva Luz M, Silva Souza JV, Rocha Pinheiro SL, et al. Oncolytic virus therapy in cancer: A current review. World J Virol. (2021) 10:229–55. doi: 10.5501/wjv.v10.i5.229
21. Long GV, Drummer R, Ribas A, Schadendorf D, Larkin J, Atkinson V, et al. 2015 European cancer congress, in: Safety data from the Phase 1b part of the MASTERKEY-265 study combining talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab for unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma, Vienna, Austria: European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) (2025).
22. O’Donoghue C, Doepker MP, and Zager JS. Talimogene Laherparepvec: Overview, combination therapy and current practices. Melanoma Management. (2016) 3:267–72. doi: 10.2217/mmt-2016-0021
23. Li G, Du R, Wang D, Zhang X, Wang L, Pu S, et al. Improved efficacy of triple-negative breast cancer immunotherapy via hydrogel-based co-delivery of CAR-T cells and mitophagy agonist. Advanced Sci. (2025) 2409835:1–18. doi: 10.1002/advs.202409835
24. Li Y, Zheng Y, Huang J, Nie RC, Wu QN, Zuo Z, et al. CAF-macrophage crosstalk in tumour microenvironments governs the response to immune checkpoint blockade in gastric cancer peritoneal metastases. Gut. (2025) 74:350–63. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2024-333617
25. Wang Y, Meraz IM, Qudratullah MD, Kotagiri S, Han Y, Xi Y, et al. Mutation of SMARCA4 induces cancer cell-intrinsic defects in the enhancer landscape and resistance to immunotherapy. Cancer Res. (2025). doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.c.7851710
26. Schiantarelli J, Benamar M, Park J, Sax HE, Oliveira G, Bosma-Moody A, et al. Genomic mediators of acquired resistance to immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Cell. (2025) 43:308–16.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2025.01.009
27. Bod L, Kye YC, Shi J, Triglia ET, Schnell A, Fessler J, et al. B-cell specific checkpoint molecules that regulate anti-tumour immunity. Nature. (2023) 619:348–56. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06231-0
28. Mejía-Guarnizo LV, Monroy-Camacho PS, Turizo-Smith AD, and Rodríguez-García JA. The role of immune checkpoints in antitumour response: a potential antitumour immunotherapy. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1298571. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1298571
29. Li X, Zhu Y, Yi J, Deng Y, Lei B, and Ren H. Adoptive cell immunotherapy for breast cancer: Harnessing the power of immune cells. J Leukocyte Biol. (2023) 115:866–81. doi: 10.1093/jleuko/qiad144
30. Fife BT and Bluestone JA. Control of peripheral T-cell tolerance and autoimmunity via the CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways. Immunol Rev. (2008) 224:166–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00662.x
31. Maruhashi T, Sugiura D, Okazaki I, Shimizu K, Maeda TK, Ikubo J, et al. Binding of LAG-3 to stable peptide-MHC class II limits T cell function and suppresses autoimmunity and anti-cancer immunity. Immunity. (2022) 55:912–24.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2022.03.013
32. Li Q, Zhang L, You W, Xu J, Dai J, Hua D, et al. PRDM1/BLIMP1 induces cancer immune evasion by modulating the USP22-SPI1-PD-L1 axis in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:7677. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-35469-x
33. Roscigno G, Jacobs S, Toledo B, Borea R, Russo G, Pepe F, et al. The potential application of stroma modulation in targeting tumor cells: Focus on pancreatic cancer and breast cancer models. Semin Cancer Biol. (2025). doi: 10.1016/j.semcancer.2025.05.003
34. Xu L, Yang L, Zhang D, Wu Y, Shan J, Zhu H, et al. Multi-omics analysis reveals the unique landscape of DLD in the breast cancer tumour microenvironment and its implications for immune-related prognosis. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. (2024) 23:1201–13. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.02.016
35. Shiravand Y, Khodadadi F, Kashani SMA, Hosseini-Fard SR, Hosseini S, Sadeghirad H, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy. Curr Oncol. (2022) 29:3044–60. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29050247
36. Zhang X, Wang P, Shi G, Tang C, and Xue H. AUNP-12 near-infrared fluorescence probes across NIR-I to Nir-II enable in vivo detection of PD-1/PD-L1 axis in the tumor microenvironment. Bioconjugate Chem. (2024) 35:1064–74. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.4c00266
37. Bojko M, Węgrzyn K, Sikorska E, Ciura P, Battin C, Steinberger P, et al. Peptide-based inhibitors targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis: potential immunotherapeutics for cancer. Transl Oncol. (2024) 42:101892. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2024.101892
38. Sasikumar PG and Ramachandra M. Small molecule agents targeting PD-1 checkpoint pathway for cancer immunotherapy: mechanisms of action and other considerations for their advanced development. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:752065. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.752065
39. Weiss SA, Sznol M, Shaheen M, Berciano-Guerrero MÁ, Couselo EM, Rodríguez-Abreu D, et al. A phase II trial of the CD40 agonistic antibody sotigalimab (APX005M) in combination with nivolumab in subjects with metastatic melanoma with confirmed disease progression on anti-PD-1 therapy. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. (2024) 30:74–81. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-0475
40. Kessler ER, Callihan E, Hu J, Eule C, Srivastava G, Kemme DJ, et al. A phase I/II clinical trial of pembrolizumab and cabozantinib in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res Commun. (2023) 3:1004–12. doi: 10.1158/2767-9764.CRC-23-0060
41. Rischin D, Hughes BGM, Basset-Séguin N, SChadendorf D, Bowyer S, Trabelsi Messai S, et al. High response rate with extended dosing of cemiplimab in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer. (2024) 12:e008325. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2023-008325
42. Necchi A, Ramlau R, Falcón González A, Chaudhry A, Todenhöfer T, Tahbaz R, et al. Derazantinib alone and with atezolizumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma with activating FGFR aberrations. JNCI Cancer Spectr. (2024) 8:pkae030. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkae030
43. Besse B, Pons-Tostivint E, Park K, Hartl S, Forde PM, Hochmair MJ, et al. Biomarker-directed targeted therapy plus durvalumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase 2 umbrella trial. Nat Med. (2024) 30:716–29. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-02808-y
44. D’Angelo SP, Lebbé C, Mortier L, Brohl AS, Fazio N, Grob JJ, et al. First-line avelumab treatment in patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: 4-year follow-up from part B of the JAVELIN Merkel 200 study. ESMO Open. (2024) 9:103461. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103461
45. Sharma P, Pachynski RK, Narayan V, Fléchon A, Gravis G, Galsky MD, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: preliminary analysis of patients in the checkMate 650 trial. Cancer Cell. (2020) 38:489–99.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2020.08.007
46. Moeckel C, Bakhl K, Georgakopoulos-Soares I, and Zaravinos A. The efficacy of tumour mutation burden as a biomarker of response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Int J Mol Sci. (2023) 24:6710. doi: 10.3390/ijms24076710
47. Quintanilha JCF, Storandt MH, Graf RP, Li G, Keller R, Lin DI, et al. Tumour mutational burden in real-world patients with pancreatic cancer: genomic alterations and predictive value for immune checkpoint inhibitor effectiveness. JCO Precis Oncol. (2023) 7:e2300092. doi: 10.1200/PO.23.00092
48. Palmeri M, Mehnert J, Silk AW, Jabbour SK, Ganesan S, Popli P, et al. Real-world application of tumour mutational burden-high (TMB-high) and microsatellite instability (MSI) confirms their utility as immunotherapy biomarkers. ESMO Open. (2022) 7:100336. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100336
49. Toledo B, Picon-Ruiz M, Marchal JA, and Perán M. Dual role of fibroblasts educated by tumour in cancer behavior and therapeutic perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. (2022) 23:15576. doi: 10.3390/ijms232415576
50. Liu C, Xiao H, Cui L, Fang L, Han S, Ruan Y, et al. Epigenetic-related gene mutations serve as potential biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitors in microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer. Front Immunol. (2022) 13:1039631. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1039631
51. Wang F, Jin Y, Wang M, Luo HY, Fang WJ, Wang YN, et al. Combined anti-PD-1, HDAC inhibitor and anti-VEGF for MSS/pMMR colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial. Nat Med. (2024) 30:1035–43. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-02813-1
52. Xin Y, Liu CG, Zang D, and Chen J. Gut microbiota and dietary intervention: affecting immunotherapy efficacy in non–small cell lung cancer. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1343450. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1343450
53. Ren S, Feng L, Liu H, Mao Y, and Yu Z. Gut microbiome affects the response to immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cancer. (2024) 15:1149–63. doi: 10.1111/1759-7714.15303
54. Li X, Zhou Y, Xu B, Qin Y, Zhao J, Li M, et al. Comparison of efficacy discrepancy between early-phase clinical trials and phase III trials of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. J Immunother Cancer. (2024) 12:e007959. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2023-007959
55. Morelli M, Carbone ML, Scaglione GL, Scarponi C, Di Francesco V, Pallotta S, et al. Identification of immunological patterns characterizing immune-related psoriasis reactions in oncological patients in therapy with anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1346687. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1346687
56. Del Gaudio A, Di Vincenzo F, Petito V, Giustiniani MC, Gasbarrini A, Scaldaferri F, et al. Focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors-related intestinal inflammation: from pathogenesis to therapeutical approach. Inflammation Bowel Dis. (2024) 30:1018–31. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izad229
57. Gudd CLC, Mitchell E, Atkinson SR, Mawhin MA, Turajlic S, Larkin J, et al. Therapeutic inhibition of monocyte recruitment prevents checkpoint inhibitor-induced hepatitis. J Immunother Cancer. (2024) 12:e008078. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2023-008078
58. Shi H, He Y, Dan S, Yang L, Wang J, Chen L, et al. Endocrine system-related adverse events associated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors: data mining from the FDA adverse event reporting system. Front Med. (2024) 11:1366691. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1366691
59. Leow L, Anbudurai M, Yue L, and Tam JKC. Lung erosion following adjuvant immunotherapy with pembrolizumab: a case report. J Med Case Rep. (2023) 17:420. doi: 10.1186/s13256-023-04162-y
60. Supportive and palliative care | ESMO. Available online at: https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/guidelines-by-topic/esmo-clinical-practice-guidelines-supportive-and-palliative-care/clinical-practice-guideline-management-of-toxicities-from-immunotherapy (Accessed June 26, 2024).
61. Mitri F, Machiraju D, Naoum C, and Hassel JC. Early serum markers for immune checkpoint inhibitor induced hypophysitis in melanoma patients. Cancers. (2024) 16:1340. doi: 10.3390/cancers16071340
62. Harnden K, Di Matteo A, Howell K, and Mankia K. Rapid onset pembrolizumab-induced inflammatory arthritis diagnosed using musculoskeletal ultrasound. BMJ Case Rep. (2024) 17:e258706. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2023-258706
63. Chen X, Lu Q, Zhou H, Liu J, Nadorp B, Lasry A, et al. A membrane-associated MHC-I inhibitory axis for cancer immune evasion. Cell. (2023) 186:3903–20.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2023.07.016
64. Zelba H, Kyzirakos C, Kayser S, Shao B, Reinhardt A, Pieper N, et al. Case report: long-term survival of a patient with cerebral metastasized ovarian carcinoma treated with a personalized peptide vaccine and anti-PD-1 therapy. Vaccines. (2024) 12:397. doi: 10.3390/vaccines12040397
65. Lee Y, Moon S, Seok JY, Lee JH, Nam S, and Chung YS. Characterization of the genomic alterations in poorly differentiated thyroid cancer. Sci Rep. (2023) 13:19154. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46466-5
66. de Sauvage MA, Torrini C, Nieblas-Bedolla E, Summers EJ, Sullivan E, Zhang BS, et al. The ERK inhibitor LY3214996 augments anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in preclinical mouse models of BRAFV600E melanoma brain metastasis. Neuro-Oncol. (2024) 26:889–901. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noad248
67. Chen JY, Lin PY, Hong WZ, Yang PC, Chiang SF, Chang HY, et al. Activation of STING by the novel liposomal TLC388 enhances the therapeutic response to anti-PD-1 antibodies in combination with radiotherapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother. (2024) 73:59. doi: 10.1007/s00262-023-03516-4
68. Hu LY, Zhuang WT, Chen MJ, Liao J, Wu DF, Zhang YX, et al. EGFR oncogenic mutations in NSCLC impair macrophage phagocytosis and mediate innate immune evasion through up-regulation of CD47. J Thorac Oncol. (2024) 19:1186–200. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2024.03.019
69. Li Y, Wu X, Sheng C, Hailing L, Huizhu L, Tang Y, et al. IGSF8 is an innate immune checkpoint and cancer immunotherapy target. Cell. (2024) 187:2703–16.e23. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.039
70. Duan S and Paulson JC. Siglecs as immune cell checkpoints in disease. Annu Rev Immunol. (2020) 38:365–95. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-102419-035900
71. Wang J, Sun J, Liu LN, Flies DB, Nie X, Toki M, et al. Siglec-15 as an immune suppressor and potential target for normalization cancer immunotherapy. Nat Med. (2019) 25:656–66. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0374-x
72. Wen RM, Stark JC, Marti GEW, Fan Z, Lyu A, Garcia Marques FJ, et al. Sialylated glycoproteins suppress immune cell killing by binding to Siglec-7 and Siglec-9 in prostate cancer. J Clin Invest. (2024) 134:e180282. doi: 10.1172/JCI180282
73. Razak AR, Cleary JM, Moreno V, Boyer M, Aller EC, Edenfield W, et al. Safety and efficacy of AMG 820, an anticolony-stimulating factor 1 receptor antibody, in combination with pembrolizumab in adults with advanced solid tumors. J Immunother Cancer. (2020) 8:e001006. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-001006
74. Lv Qi, Zhang Y, Gao W, Wang J, Hu Y, Yang H, et al. CSF1R inhibition reprograms tumor-associated macrophages to potentiate anti-PD-1 therapy efficacy against colorectal cancer. Pharmacol Res. (2024) 196:107126. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2024.107126
75. Rony D, Barnhart BC, Li F, Yamniuk AP, Korman AJ, and Ravetch JV. Therapeutic activity of agonistic, human anti-CD40 monoclonal antibodies requires selective fcγR engagement. Cancer Cell. (2016) 29:820–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.05.001
76. Osorio JC, Knorr DA, Weitzenfeld P, Blanchard L, Yao N, Baez M, et al. Fc-optimized CD40 agonistic antibody elicits tertiary lymphoid structure formation and systemic antitumor immunity in metastatic cancer. Cancer Cell. (2025) 43:1902–16.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2025.07.013
77. Lakhani NJ, Stewart D, Richardson DL, Dockery LE, Le LV, Call J, et al. First-in-human phase I trial of the bispecific CD47 inhibitor and CD40 agonist Fc-fusion protein, SL-172154 in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. J Immunother Cancer. (2025) 13:e010565. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2024-010565
78. Amoozgar B, Bangolo A, Habibi M, Cho C, and Goy A. From molecular precision to clinical practice: A comprehensive review of bispecific and trispecific antibodies in hematologic Malignancies. Int J Mol Sci. (2025) 26:5319. doi: 10.3390/ijms26115319
79. Jabbour E, Lussana F, Martínez-Sánchez P, Torrent A, Rifón JJ, Agrawal V, et al. Subcutaneous blinatumomab in adults with relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: post-hoc safety and activity analysis from a multicentre, single-arm, phase 1/2 trial. Lancet Haematol. (2025) 12:e529–41. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(25)00144-9
80. Pillarisetti K, Yang D, Luistro L, Yao J, Smith M, Vulfson P, et al. Ramantamig (JNJ-79635322), a novel T-cell-engaging trispecific antibody targeting BCMA, GPRC5D, and CD3, in multiple myeloma models.pdf. Blood. (2024). doi: 10.1182/blood.2025030027
81. Nikkhoi SK, Yang G, Owji H, Grizztte-Lake M, Cohen RI, Gonzalez LG, et al. Bispecific immune cell engager enhances the anticancer activity of CD16 + NK cells and macrophages in vitro, and eliminates cancer metastasis in NK humanized NOG mice. J Immunother Cancer. (2024) 12:1–13. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2023-008295
82. Nagarsheth N, Wicha MS, and Zou W. Chemokines in the cancer microenvironment and their relevance in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. (2017) 17:559–72. doi: 10.1038/nri.2017.49
83. Chen IX, Chauhan VP, Posada J, Ng MR, Wu MW, Adstamongkonkul P, et al. Blocking CXCR4 alleviates desmoplasia, increases T-lymphocyte infiltration, and improves immunotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2019) 116:4558–66. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1815515116
84. Bockorny B, Semenisty V, Macarulla T, Borazanci E, Wolpin BM, Stemmer SM, et al. BL-8040, a CXCR4 antagonist, in combination with pembrolizumab and chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer: The COMBAT trial. Nat Med. (2020) 26:878–85. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0880-x
85. Quinn S, Lenart N, Dronzek V, Scurti GM, Hossain NM, and Nishimura MI. Genetic modification of T cells for the immunotherapy of cancer. Vaccines. (2022) 10:457. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10030457
86. Du S, Yan J, Xue Y, Zhong Y, and Dong Y. Adoptive cell therapy for cancer treatment. Exploration. (2023) 3:20210058. doi: 10.1002/EXP.20210058
87. Hanssens H, Meeus F, De Vlaeminck Y, Lecocq Q, Puttemans J, Debie P, et al. Scrutiny of chimeric antigen receptor activation by the extracellular domain: experience with single domain antibodies targeting multiple myeloma cells highlights the need for case-by-case optimization. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1389018. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1389018
88. Alsalloum A, Alrhmoun S, Shevchenko J, Fisher M, Philippova J, Perik-Zavodskii R, et al. TCR-engineered lymphocytes targeting NY-ESO-1: in vitro assessment of cytotoxicity against tumours. Biomedicines. (2023) 11:2805. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines11102805
89. Barsan V, Li Y, Prabhu S, Baggott C, Nguyen K, Pacenta H, et al. Tisagenlecleucel utilisation and outcomes across refractory, first relapse and multiply relapsed B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a retrospective analysis of real-world patterns. EClinicalMedicine. (2023) 65:102268. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102268
90. Berning P, Shumilov E, Maulhardt M, Boyadzhiev H, Kerkhoff A, Call S, et al. Chimeric antigen receptor-T cell therapy shows similar efficacy and toxicity in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma aged 70 and older compared to younger patients: A multicenter cohort study. HemaSphere. (2024) 8:e54. doi: 10.1002/hem3.54
91. Chen LY, Gong WJ, Li MH, Zhou HX, Xu MZ, Qian CS, et al. Anti-CD19 CAR T-cell consolidation therapy combined with CD19+ feeding T cells and TKI for Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood Adv. (2023) 7:4913–25. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2022009072
92. Locke FL, Siddiqi T, Jacobson CA, Ghobadi A, Ahmed S, Miklos DB, et al. Real-world and clinical trial outcomes in large B-cell lymphoma with axicabtagene ciloleucel across race and ethnicity. Blood. (2024) 143:2722–34. doi: 10.1182/blood.2023023447
93. Saleh K, Pasquier F, Bigenwald C, De Botton S, Ribrag V, and Castilla-Llorente C. CAR T-cells for the treatment of B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Med. (2023) 12:6883. doi: 10.3390/jcm12216883
94. Asmamaw Dejenie T, Tiruneh G, Medhin M, Dessie Terefe G, Tadele Admasu F, Wale Tesega W, et al. Current updates on generations, approvals, and clinical trials of CAR T-cell therapy. Hum Vaccines Immunother. (2022) 18:2114254. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2022.2114254
95. Locke FL, Neelapu SS, Bartlett NL, Siddiqi T, Chavez JC, Hosing CM, et al. Phase 1 results of ZUMA-1: A multicenter study of KTE-C19 anti-CD19 CAR T cell therapy in refractory aggressive lymphoma. Mol Ther J Am Soc Gene Ther. (2017) 25:285–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2016.10.020
96. Chen J, Hu J, Gu L, Ji F, Zhang F, Zhang M, et al. Anti-mesothelin CAR-T immunotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother CII. (2023) 72:409. doi: 10.1007/s00262-022-03238-w
97. Caruso HG, Hurton LV, Najjar A, Rushworth D, Ang S, Olivares S, et al. Tuning sensitivity of CAR to EGFR density limits recognition of normal tissue while maintaining potent antitumour activity. Cancer Res. (2015) 75:3505–18. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0139
98. Stock S, Fertig L, Gottschlich A, Dörr J, Märkl F, Majed L, et al. Comparative performance of scFv-based anti-BCMA CAR formats for improved T cell therapy in multiple myeloma. Cancer Immunol Immunother CII. (2024) 73:100. doi: 10.1007/s00262-024-03688-4
99. Nishimura CD, Corrigan D, Zheng XY, Galbo PM, Wang S, Liu Y, et al. TOP CAR with TMIGD2 as a safe and effective costimulatory domain in CAR cells treating human solid tumours. Sci Adv. (2024) 10:eadk1857. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adk1857
100. Wehrli M, Guinn S, Birocchi F, Kuo A, Sun Y, Larson RC, et al. Mesothelin CAR T cells secreting anti-FAP/anti-CD3 molecules efficiently target pancreatic adenocarcinoma and its stroma. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. (2024) 30:1859–77. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-3841
101. Cai F, Zhang J, Gao H, and Shen H. Tumour microenvironment and CAR-T cell immunotherapy in B-cell lymphoma. Eur J Haematol. (2024) 112:223–35. doi: 10.1111/ejh.14103
102. Andreu-Saumell I, Rodriguez-Garcia A, Mühlgrabner V, Gimenez-Alejandre M, Marzal B, Castellsagué J, et al. CAR affinity modulates the sensitivity of CAR-T cells to PD-1/PD-L1-mediated inhibition. Nat Commun. (2024) 15:3552. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-47799-z
103. Zhang DKY, Brockman JM, Adu-Berchie K, Liu Y, Binenbaum Y, de Lázaro I, et al. Subcutaneous biodegradable scaffolds for restimulating the antitumour activity of pre-administered CAR-T cells. Nat BioMed Eng. (2024). doi: 10.1038/s41551-024-01216-4
104. Liu X, Ranganathan R, Jiang S, Fang C, Sun J, Kim S, et al. A chimeric switch-receptor targeting PD1 augments the efficacy of second generation CAR T-Cells in advanced solid tumours. Cancer Res. (2016) 76:1578–90. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2524
105. Khaniya A, Rad SMAH, Halpin J, Tawinwung S, McLellan A, Suppipat K, et al. Development of a compact bidirectional promoter-driven dual chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) construct targeting CD19 and CD20 in the Sleeping Beauty (SB) transposon system. J Immunother Cancer. (2024) 12:e008555. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2023-008555
106. Muhammad N, Wang R, Li W, Zhang Z, Chang Y, Hu Y, et al. A novel TanCAR targeting IL13Rα2 and EphA2 for enhanced glioblastoma therapy. Mol Ther Oncolytics. (2022) 24:729. doi: 10.1016/j.omto.2022.02.012
107. Lin MY, Nam E, Shih RM, Shafer A, Bouren A, Ayala Ceja M, et al. Self-regulating CAR-T cells modulate cytokine release syndrome in adoptive T-cell therapy. J Exp Med. (2024) 221:e20221988. doi: 10.1084/jem.20221988
108. Svec M, Dötsch S, Warmuth L, Trebo M, Fräßle S, Riddell SR, et al. A chimeric antigen receptor-based cellular safeguard mechanism for selective in vivo depletion of engineered T cells. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1268698. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1268698
109. Gattenloehner S, Vincent A, Leuschner I, Tzartos S, Müller-Hermelink HK, Kirchner T, et al. The fetal form of the acetylcholine receptor distinguishes rhabdomyosarcomas from other childhood tumours. Am J Pathol. (1998) 152:437–44.
110. Fu Q, Zheng Y, Fang W, Zhao Q, Zhao P, Liu L, et al. RUNX-3-expressing CAR T cells targeting glypican-3 in patients with heavily pretreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase I trial. eClinicalMedicine. (2023) 63:102175. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102175
111. Martin FC, Dorff TB, and Tran B. The new era of prostate-specific membrane antigen-directed immunotherapies and beyond in advanced prostate cancer: a review. Ther Adv Med Oncol. (2023) 15:17588359231170474. doi: 10.1177/17588359231170474
112. Bangayan NJ, Wang L, Burton Sojo G, Noguchi M, Cheng D, Ta L, et al. Dual-inhibitory domain iCARs improve the efficiency of the AND-NOT gate CAR T strategy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2023) 120:e2312374120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2312374120
113. Bouquet L, Bôle-Richard E, Warda W, Neto Da Rocha M, Trad R, Nicod C, et al. RapaCaspase-9-based suicide gene applied to the safety of IL-1RAP CAR-T cells. Gene Ther. (2023) 30:706–13. doi: 10.1038/s41434-023-00404-2
114. Ruffo E, Butchy AA, Tivon Y, So V, Kvorjak M, Parikh A, et al. Post-translational covalent assembly of CAR and synNotch receptors for programmable antigen targeting. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:2463. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-37863-5
115. Li HK, Wu TS, Kuo YC, Hsiao CW, Yang HP, Lee CY, et al. A novel allogeneic rituximab-conjugated gamma delta T cell therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphoma. Cancers. (2023) 15:4844. doi: 10.3390/cancers15194844
116. Reiss KA, Angelos MG, Dees EC, Yuan Y, Ueno NT, Pohlmann PR, et al. CAR-macrophage therapy for HER2-overexpressing advanced solid tumours: A phase 1 trial. Nat Med. (2025). doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03495-z
117. Liu E, Marin D, Banerjee P, Macapinlac HA, Thompson P, Basar R, et al. Use of CAR-transduced natural killer cells in CD19-positive lymphoid tumors. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:545–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910607
118. Xie G, Dong H, Liang Y, Ham JD, Riowan R, Chen J, et al. CAR-NK cells: A promising cellular immunotherapy for cancer. Ebiomedicine. (2020) 59:102975. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102975
119. Sabahi M, Jouzdani AF, Sadeghian Z, Ohadi MAD, Sultan H, Salehipour A, et al. 171 Journal of Neuro-Oncology CAR-Engineered NK Cells versus CAR T Cells in Treatment of Glioblastoma; Strength and Flaws. New York, NY, USA: Springer US (2024). doi: 10.1007/s11060-024-04876-z
120. Romee R, Rosario M, Berrien-Elliott MM, Wagner JA, Jewell BA, Schappe T, et al. Cytokine-induced memory-like natural killer cells exhibit enhanced responses against myeloid leukemia. Sci Transl Med. (2016) 8:357ra123. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf2341
121. Zhang Q, Bi J, Zheng X, Chen Y, Wang h, Wu W, et al. Blockade of the checkpoint receptor TIGIT prevents NK cell exhaustion and elicits potent anti-tumor immunity. Nat Immunol. (2018) 19:723–32. doi: 10.1038/s41590-018-0132-0
122. Zhi L, Zhang Z, Gao Q, Shang C, He W, Wang Y, et al. CAR-NK cells with dual targeting of PD-L1 and MICA/B in lung cancer tumour models. BMC Cancer. (2025) 25:337. doi: 10.1186/s12885-025-13780-2
123. Schumacher TN, Scheper W, and Kvistborg P. Cancer neoantigens. Annu Rev Immunol. (2019) 37:173–200. doi: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-042617-053402
124. Morgan RA, Chinnasamy N, Abate-Daga D, Gros A, Robbins PF, Zheng Z, et al. Cancer regression and neurological toxicity following anti-MAGE-A3 TCR gene therapy. J Immunother. (2013) 36:133–51. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3182829903
125. Parkhurst MR, Yang JC, Langan RC, Dudley ME, Nathan Debbie-Ann N, Feldman SA, et al. T cells targeting carcinoembryonic antigen can mediate regression of metastatic colorectal cancer but induce severe transient colitis. Mol Ther. (2011) 19:620–6. doi: 10.1038/mt.2010.272
126. Raja J, Ludwig JM, Gettinger SN, Schalper KA, and Kim HS. Oncogenicity of TCR-engineered T cells: considerations for successful clinical translation. Expert Opin Biol Ther. (2020) 20:635–46. doi: 10.1080/14712598.2020.1750100
127. Robbins PF, Morgan RA, Feldman SA, Yang JC, Sherry RM, Dudley Me, et al. Tumor regression in patients with metastatic synovial cell sarcoma and melanoma using genetically engineered lymphocytes reactive with NY-ESO-1. J Clin Oncol. (2011) 29:917–24. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.2537
128. D’Angelo SP, Melchiori L, Merchant MS, Bernstein D, Glod J, Kaplan R, et al. Antitumor activity associated with prolonged persistence of adoptively transferred NY-ESO-1c259T cells in synovial sarcoma. Cancer Discov. (2018) 8:944–57. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1353
129. Rosato PC, Wijeyesinghe S, Stolley JM, Nelson CE, and Davis RL. TCR-T cell therapy in solid tumors: challenges and opportunities. Cancer Cell. (2023) 41:402–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.01.013
130. Johnson LA, Morgan RA, Dudley ME, Cassard L, Yang JC, Hughes MS, et al. Gene therapy with human and mouse T-cell receptors mediates cancer regression and targets normal tissues expressing cognate antigen. Blood. (2009) 114:535–46. doi: 10.1182/blood-2009-03-211714
131. Rosenberg SA, Yang JC, Sherry RM, Kammula US, Hughes MS, Phan GQ, et al. Durable complete responses in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma using T-cell transfer immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. (2011) 17:4550–7. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0116
132. Sarnaik AA, Hamid O, Khushalani NI, Lewis KD, Medina T, Kluger HM, et al. Lifileucel, a tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy, in metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:255–66. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.00645
133. Deniger DC, Pasetto A, Robbins PF, Gartner JJ, Prickett TD, Paria BC, et al. T-cell therapy for solid tumors. Cancer J. (2015) 21:475–81. doi: 10.1097/PPO.0000000000000159
134. Rohaan MW, Wilgenhof S, and Haanen JBAG. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy in melanoma: facts and hopes. Clin Cancer Res. (2019) 25:5449–55. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0551
135. Goff SL, Dudley ME, Citrin DE, Somerville RP, Wunderlich JR, Danforth DN, et al. Randomized, prospective evaluation comparing intensity of lymphodepletion before adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:2389–97. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.7220
136. Goldstone SE. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in adults: Learnings from long-term follow-up of quadrivalent HPV vaccine clinical trials. Hum Vaccines Immunother. (2023) 19:2184760. doi: 10.1080/21645515.2023.2184760
137. Wei XX, Kwak L, Hamid A, He M, Sweeney C, Flanders SC, et al. Outcomes in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who received sipuleucel-T and no immediate subsequent therapy: experience at Dana Farber and in the PROCEED Registry. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. (2022) 25:314–9. doi: 10.1038/s41391-022-00493-x
138. Oba T, Makino K, Kajihara R, Yokoi T, Araki R, Abe M, et al. In situ delivery of iPSC-derived dendritic cells with local radiotherapy generates systemic antitumour immunity and potentiates PD-L1 blockade in preclinical poorly immunogenic tumour models. J Immunother Cancer. (2021) 9:e002432. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-002432
139. Huang JW, Kuo CL, Wang LT, Ma KSK, Huang WY, Liu FC, et al. Case report: in situ vaccination by autologous CD16+ Dendritic cells and anti-PD-L 1 antibody synergized with radiotherapy to boost T cells-mediated antitumour efficacy in A psoriatic patient with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:752563. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.752563
140. Wang H, Medina R, Ye J, Zhang Y, Chakraborty S, Valenzuela A, et al. rWTC-MBTA vaccine induces potent adaptive immune responses against glioblastomas via dynamic activation of dendritic cells. Adv Sci. (2024) 11:2308280. doi: 10.1002/advs.202308280
141. Laureano RS, Sprooten J, Vanmeerbeerk I, Borras DM, Govaerts J, Naulaerts S, et al. Trial watch: Dendritic cell (DC)-based immunotherapy for cancer. Oncoimmunology. (2022) 11:2096363. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2022.2096363
142. Burton C, Bitaraf A, Snyder K, Zhang C, Yoder SJ, Avram D, et al. The functional role of L-fucose on dendritic cell function and polarization. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1353570. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1353570
143. Kajihara N, Tanaka Y, Takeuchi R, Kobayashi T, Tanji M, Ataka T, et al. Augmented interferon regulatory factor 7 axis in whole tumour cell vaccines prevents tumour recurrence by inducing interferon gamma-secreting B cells. Oncoimmunology. (2023) 12:2213132. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2023.2213132
144. Huang J, Li M, Mei B, Li J, Zhu Y, Guo Q, et al. Whole-cell tumour vaccines desialylated to uncover tumour antigenic Gal/GalNAc epitopes elicit anti-tumour immunity. J Transl Med. (2022) 20:496. doi: 10.1186/s12967-022-03714-y
145. Chi H, Hao Y, Wang X, Tang L, Deng Y, Chen X, et al. A therapeutic whole-tumour-cell vaccine covalently conjugated with a TLR7 agonist. Cells. (2022) 11:1986. doi: 10.3390/cells11131986
146. Zhang M, Huang Y, Zou J, Yang Y, Yao Y, Cheng G, et al. Advanced oxidation nanoprocessing boosts immunogenicity of whole tumour cells. Adv Sci Weinh Baden-Wurtt Ger. (2023) 10:e2302250. doi: 10.1002/advs.202302250
147. He T, Shi Y, Kou X, Shen M, Liang X, Li X, et al. Antigenicity and adjuvanticity co-reinforced personalized cell vaccines based on self-adjuvanted hydrogel for post-surgical cancer vaccination. Biomaterials. (2023) 301:122218. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.122218
148. Kou X, He T, Zhang M, Wu X, Li X, Luo R, et al. A multivalent personalized vaccine orchestrating two-signal activation rebuilds the bridge between innate and adaptive antitumour immunity. Small Methods. (2023) 7:e2300019. doi: 10.1002/smtd.202300019
149. Ye J, Wang H, Medina R, Chakraborty S, Sun M, Valenzuela A, et al. rWTC-MBTA: autologous vaccine prevents metastases via antitumour immune responses. J Exp Clin Cancer Res CR. (2023) 42:163. doi: 10.1186/s13046-023-02744-8
150. Ouyang X, Liu Y, Zhou Y, Guo J, Wei TT, Liu C, et al. Antitumour effects of iPSC-based cancer vaccine in pancreatic cancer. Stem Cell Rep. (2021) 16:1468–77. doi: 10.1016/j.stemcr.2021.04.004
151. Li W, Zhou M, Wang L, Huang L, Chen X, Sun X, et al. Evaluation of the safety and efficiency of cytotoxic T cell therapy sensitized by tumour antigens original from T-ALL-iPSC in vivo. Cancer Innov. (2024) 3:e95.
152. Caproni E, Corbellari R, Tomasi M, Isaac SJ, Tamburini S, Zanella I, et al. Anti-tumour efficacy of in situ vaccination using bacterial outer membrane vesicles. Cancers. (2023) 15:3328. doi: 10.3390/cancers15133328
153. Shree T, Haebe S, Czerwinski DK, Eckhert E, Day G, Sathe A, et al. A clinical trial of therapeutic vaccination in lymphoma with serial tumour sampling and single-cell analysis. Blood Adv. (2024) 8:130–42. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011589
154. Yari A, Bamdad T, and Hosseini SY. Comparison of three different methods of transfection for the production of recombinant adenovirus expressing human carcinoembryonic antigen gene. Arch Razi Inst. (2023) 78:1057–64. doi: 10.22092/ari.2023.362496.2662
155. Parsons JK, Pinto PA, Pavlovich CP, Uchio E, Nguyen MN, Kim HL, et al. A phase 2, double-blind, randomized controlled trial of PROSTVAC in prostate cancer patients on active surveillance. Eur Urol Focus. (2023) 9:447–54. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2022.12.002
156. Ferrucci PF, Pala L, Conforti F, and Cocorocchio E. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC): an intralesional cancer immunotherapy for advanced melanoma. Cancers. (2021) 13:1383. doi: 10.3390/cancers13061383
157. Mahalingam D, Wilkinson GA, Eng KH, Fields P, Raber P, Moseley JL, et al. Pembrolizumab in combination with the oncolytic virus pelareorep and chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A phase Ib study. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. (2020) 26:71–81. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-2078
158. Kim Y, Lee S, Yoon J, Shin Y, Kang S, Kim SY, et al. Neoantigen-Displaying Protein Nanoparticles induce antitumor immunity in melanoma. Adv Healthc Mate. (2025) 2024:e2404316. doi: 10.1002/adhm.202404316
159. Song K and Pun SH. Design and evaluation of synthetic delivery formulations for peptide-based cancer vaccines. BME Front. (2024) 5:0038. doi: 10.34133/bmef.0038
160. Sethna Z, Guasp P, Reiche C, Milighetti M, Ceglia N, Patterson E, et al. mRNA neoantigen vaccines prime long-lived CD8+ T cells in pancreatic cancer. Nature. (2025) 626:101–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08347-6
161. Crommelin DJA, Anchordoquy TJ, Volkin DB, Jiskoot W, and Mastrovattista E. Addressing the cold reality of MRNA vaccine stability. J Pharm Sci. (2021) 110:997–1001. doi: 10.1016/j.xphs.2020.12.006
162. Toledo B, Chen LZ, Paniagua-Sancho M, Marchal JA, Perán M, Giovannetti E, et al. Deciphering the performance of macrophages in tumour microenvironment: a call for precision immunotherapy. J Hematol Oncol. (2024) 17:44. doi: 10.1186/s13045-024-01559-0
163. Kaczmarek M, Poznańska J, Fechner F, Michalska N, Paszkowska S, Napierała A, et al. Cancer vaccine therapeutics: limitations and effectiveness—A literature review. Cells. (2023) 12:2159. doi: 10.3390/cells12172159
164. Yu R, Zhao F, Xu Z, Zhang G, Du B, and Shu Q. Current status and future of cancer vaccines: A bibliographic study. Heliyon. (2024) 10:e24404. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24404
165. Harrington KJ, Burtness B, Greil R, Soulieres D, Tahara M, de Castro Jr G, et al. Pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: updated results of the phase III KEYNOTE-048 study. JCO. (2023) 41:790–802. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02508
166. Vafaei S and Zekiy AO. Khanamir, R.A. et al. Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs); a new frontier. Cancer Cell Int. (2022) 22:2. doi: 10.1186/s12935-021-02407-8
167. Petralia F, Ma W, Yaron TM, Caruso FP, Tignor N, Wang JM, et al. Pan-cancer proteogenomics characterization of tumour immunity. Cell. (2024) 187:1255–77. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.01.027
168. Zavitsanou A-M, Pillai R, Hao Y, Wu WL, Bartnicki E, Karakousi T, et al. KEAP1 mutation in lung adenocarcinoma promotes immune evasion and immunotherapy resistance. Cell Rep. (2023) 42:113295. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113295
169. Toledo B, Deiana C, Scianò F, Brandi G, Marchal JA, Perán M, et al. Treatment resistance in pancreatic and biliary tract cancer: Molecular and clinical pharmacology perspectives. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. (2024) 17:323–47. doi: 10.1080/17512433.2024.2319340
170. Lu Q, Kou D, Lou S, Ashrafizadeh M, Aref AR, Canadas I, et al. Nanoparticles in tumour microenvironment remodeling and cancer immunotherapy. J Hematol Oncol. (2024) 17:16. doi: 10.1186/s13045-024-01535-8
171. Franklin MR, Platero S, Saini KS, Curigliano G, and Anderson S. Immuno-oncology trends: preclinical models, biomarkers, and clinical development. J Immunother Cancer. (2022) 10:e003231. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003231
172. Araujo D, Greystoke A, Bates S, Bayle A, Calvo E, Castelo-Branco L, et al. Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022. Ann Oncol. (2023) 34:48–60. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.09.158
173. Mina A. Big data and artificial intelligence in future patient management. How is it all started? Where are we at now? Quo tendimus? Adv Lab Med. (2020) 1:20200014.
174. Albelda SM. Car T cell therapy for patients with solid tumours: Key lessons to learn and Unlearn. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2023) 21:47–66. doi: 10.1038/s41571-023-00832-4
175. Abou-el-Enein M. The fate(s) of CAR T-cell therapy: navigating the risks of CAR+ T-cell Malignancy. Blood Cancer Discov. (2024) 5:249–57. doi: 10.1158/2643-3230.BCD-23-0272
176. Balke-Want H, Keerthi V, Gkitsas N, Mancini AG, Kurgan GL, Fowler C, et al. Homology-independent targeted insertion (HITI) enables guided CAR knock-in and efficient clinical scale CAR-T cell manufacturing. Mol Cancer. (2023) 22:100. doi: 10.1186/s12943-023-01799-7
177. Pavlovic K, Carmona-Luque Md, Corsi GI, Maldonado-Pérez N, Molina-Estevez FJ, Peralbo-Santaella E, et al. Generating universal anti-CD19 CAR T cells with a defined memory phenotype by CRISPR/Cas9 editing and safety evaluation of the transcriptome. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1401683. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1401683
178. Moradi V, Khodabandehloo E, Alidadi M, Omidkhoda A, and Ahmadbeigi N. Progress and pitfalls of gene editing technology in CAR-T cell therapy: a state-of-the-art review. Front Oncol. (2024) 14:1388475. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1388475
179. Goddard ET, Linde MH, Srivastava S, Klug G, Shabaneh TB, Iannone S, et al. Immune evasion of dormant disseminated tumour cells is due to their scarcity and can be overcome by T cell immunotherapies. Cancer Cell. (2024) 42:119–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2023.12.011
180. Neelapu SS, Locke FL, Bartlett NL, Lekakis LJ, Miklos DB, Jacobson CA, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. (2017) 377:2531–44. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1707447
181. Schuster SJ, Bishop MR, Tam CS, Waller EK, Borchmann P, McGuirk JP, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in adult relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. (2019) 380:45–56. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1804980
182. Munshi NC, Anderson JR, Shah N, Madduri D, Berdeja J, Lonial S, et al. Idecabtagene vicleucel in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. N Engl J Med. (2021) 384:705–16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2024850
183. Berdeja JG, Madduri D, Usmani SZ, Jakubowiak A, Agha M, Cohen AD, et al. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Lancet. (2021) 398:314–24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00933-8
184. June CH, O’Connor RS, Kawalekar OU, Ghassemi S, and Milone MC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. (2018) 359:1361–5. doi: 10.1126/science.aar6711
185. Brudno JN and Kochenderfer JN. Toxicities of CAR T-cell therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2016) 13:397–414. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.36
186. Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, Berger ER, Small EJ, Penson DF, et al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. (2010) 363:411–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001294
187. Ott PA, Hu Z, Keskin DB, Shukla SA, Sun J, Bozym DJ, et al. An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for melanoma. Nature. (2017) 547:217–21. doi: 10.1038/nature22991
188. Sahin U, Derhovanessian E, Miller M, Kloke BP, Simon P, LÔwer M, et al. Personalized RNA mutanome vaccines mobilize poly-specific therapeutic immunity against cancer. Nature. (2017) 547:222–6. doi: 10.1038/nature23003
189. Merghoub T, Wolchok JD, Luke JJ, Schadendorf D, Hellmann MD, Kirkwood JM, et al. mRNA-4157/V940 plus pembrolizumab in melanoma. Nature. (2023) 618:545–52. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06082-4
190. Andtbacka RH, Kaufman HL, Collichio F, Amatruda T, Senzer N, Chesney J, et al. Talimogene laherparepvec improves durable response rate in melanoma. J Clin Oncol. (2015) 33:2780–8. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.3377
191. Garon EB, Rizvi NA, Hui R, Leighl N, Balmanoukian AS, Eder JP, et al. Pembrolizumab for NSCLC. N Engl J Med. (2015) 372:2018–28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1501824
192. Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Hui R, Csőszi T, Fülöp A, et al. Pembrolizumab vs chemotherapy in PD-L1–high NSCLC. N Engl J Med. (2016) 375:1823–33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606774
193. Borghaei H, Pao-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, et al. Nivolumab vs docetaxel in NSCLC. N Engl J Med. (2015) 373:1627–39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507643
194. Hodi FS, O’Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med. (2010) 363:711–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1003466
Keywords: adoptive cell therapy, cancer immunotherapy, cancer vaccines, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) cell, immune checkpoint inhibitors, immune resistance
Citation: Aman A, Toledo B, González-Titos A, Picon-Ruiz M and Hernández-Camarero P (2026) The broad spectrum of cancer and immunotherapy: achievements and limitations. Front. Immunol. 16:1697505. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1697505
Received: 02 September 2025; Accepted: 22 December 2025; Revised: 12 December 2025;
Published: 12 January 2026.
Edited by:
Ana Carolina Martinez-Torres, Autonomous University of Nuevo León, MexicoReviewed by:
Raul Rangel, Autonomous University of Nuevo León, MexicoAlejandra Reyes Ruiz, The Rockefeller University, United States
Copyright © 2026 Aman, Toledo, González-Titos, Picon-Ruiz and Hernández-Camarero. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Pablo Hernández-Camarero, cGhlcm5hbmRAdWphZW4uZXM=; Manuel Picon-Ruiz, bXBpY29uQHVnci5lcw==
†These authors have contributed equally to this work