Abstract
Immunotherapy employing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) represents a pivotal approach for the management of recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancers (HNCs). Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal IgG1κ antibody against cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), which can be introduced as a monotherapy or dual immunological regimen with nivolumab (anti-programmed death protein 1, PD-1). The background of the use of these monoclonal antibodies as combination immunotherapy is strongly associated with their different mechanisms of action. CTLA-4 and PD-1 are able to regulate the function of T cells through different mechanisms. Despite the better efficacy of immunotherapy with ipilimumab + nivolumab in HNCs observed in some cases, the overall effect regarding the comparison of ipilimumab versus ipilimumab + nivolumab is still unclear. The microbiome is one of the biomarkers that affect the response to immunotherapy with ICIs, including ipilimumab. Nevertheless, there is a clear lack of data in this context with regard to HNCs. The beneficial signature of the microbiome contributes to the prevention of the immune-related adverse events caused by ipilimumab. Notably, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects induced by ICIs is significantly increased in the dual regimen with ipilimumab + nivolumab, which affects its recommendation for patients with HNCs
Graphical Abstract
Highlights
Ipilimumab, which targets CTLA-4, is utilized for recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancers (HNCs) as a monotherapy or combined with nivolumab. CTLA-4 inhibitors demonstrate comparatively lower activity in HNCs, potentially due to tumor hypoxia impairing T-cell infiltration.
Combination therapy (anti-CTLA-4 + anti-PD-1) offers a broader immunological approach; however, superior clinical outcomes over monotherapy remain uncertain, and the heightened immune-related adverse events (irAEs) necessitate careful patient selection.
The microbiome may modulate both the efficacy and the toxicity of ipilimumab, particularly in preventing gastrointestinal irAEs; however, HNC-specific data are limited.
1 Introduction
The category of biologic drugs comprises monoclonal antibodies, recombinant proteins, enzymes, and cytokines. Multiple formats of both antibodies and antibody derivatives are available, for instance, full-length antibodies or antibody fragments only, such as Fab, Fc, and scFv (single-chain variable fragments), and other formats [e.g., antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells, and bispecific T-cell engagers) (1, 2). There are some crucial differences between biologic drugs and small-molecule medications in terms of, among others, molecular weight (biologics: even more than 1,000 kDa; small-molecule drugs: <1 kDa). Overall, biologic drugs are not appropriate for oral administration. This is due to their physical instability, digestion, and deactivation prior to their absorption into the blood stream. Therefore, two other methods are recommended: 1) intravenous infusion (100% bioavailability; for acute conditions, a high Cmax is recommended for therapeutic effect) and 2) subcutaneous injection (<100% bioavailability; generally recommended for chronic conditions) (1). The inability to deliver monoclonal antibodies to an appropriate amount of both cancer cells and tumor-infiltrating cells means that intratumoral injections with monoclonal antibodies still being tested (3). Intratumoral delivery, although not Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, is under investigation for use with low-dose drugs and to enhance local immunostimulation while reducing systemic toxicity (3–5).
Monoclonal antibodies possess complex pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles relative to conventional chemotherapeutics (6). Their integration into clinical oncology has reshaped therapeutic strategies, including for head and neck cancers (HNCs), a heterogeneous group of neoplasms arising from the oral cavity, pharynx, larynx, sinonasal cavities, lips, and salivary glands (7, 8). Squamous cell carcinoma accounts for ~90% of cases (Figure 1). HNCs represent the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide, often presenting at advanced stages with infiltration of local spaces (e.g., pterygomandibular, submandibular, and sublingual) and high mortality rates, underscoring the urgent need for novel treatments, including immunotherapy with ipilimumab (9). This mini-review focuses on: i) monotherapy with ipilimumab versus combination immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) regimens and ii) the influence of -omics, particularly the microbiome, on therapeutic outcomes.
Figure 1
2 Ipilimumab: basic characteristics and mechanism
Ipilimumab, developed at the University of California, Berkeley, is a fully human IgG1κ monoclonal antibody targeting CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4) and CD152 (cluster of differentiation 152) (10, 11). CTLA-4 downregulates the T-cell responses and induces tolerance, primarily via interactions with CD80/CD86 on antigen-presenting cells (10). The background of immunotherapy includes an appropriate pair of ICIs (on T cells) and receptors (on tumor cells), for instance, CTLA-4 combined with CD86, CD80, B7-1, or B7-2 and programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor combined with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), PD-L2, B7-H1, or B7-H212. Some of the immunosuppressive activities of CTLA-4 depending on cell type are as follows: i) regulatory T cells (Tregs)—decreasing the presentation of antigen and the activation of T cells as a result of interaction with CD80 and CD86 on antigen-presenting cells; ii) Tregs—co-expression of CD39 and CD73 resulting in the reduction of T cells activating adenosine 5′-triphosphate; and iii) mature myeloid dendritic cells—activity observed in the tumor microenvironment as the release of vesicle-packaged CTLA-4 (12). The complementary engagement of ICIs with tumor and immune cell receptors—e.g., CTLA-4 with CD80/CD86 and PD-1 with PD-L1/PD-L2—forms the mechanistic basis for immunotherapeutic strategies.
3 Combination ICIs (ipilimumab + nivolumab) versus monotherapy with ipilimumab
ICIs are used as components of therapeutic strategies for the treatment of recurrent metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) (13, 14). As mentioned above, there is still an open question regarding which one is more effective: combination immunotherapy with ICIs or monotherapy. The justification for the use of the combination of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 is based on their different mechanisms of action. T-cell function is regulated by CTLA-4 and PD-1 through different methods, as follows: 1) anti-PD-1 mainly causes both the expansion and the recruitment of existing antitumor T cells, whereas anti-CTLA-4 acts through the generation of new T-cell clones; and 2) anti-PD-1 does not induce the subset of Th1-like CD4+, whereas anti-CTLA-4 is able to do this (15). Vos et al. (14) investigated the efficacy of neoadjuvant monotherapy with nivolumab [first-in-class fully human immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) and anti-PD-1]/ipilimumab + nivolumab prior to surgery in patients with HNSCC (n = 32; histologically confirmed T2–T4, N0–N3b, M0 primary/recurrent, resectable HNSCC) in a non-randomized phase Ib/IIa trial. A major pathological response (MPR) was noted in 35% of patients treated with combination ICIs (the rate in monotherapy with nivolumab was 17%). In addition, the 24-month median postsurgical follow-up revealed that none of the MPR patients developed recurrent HNSCC. Therefore, the combination therapy of ipilimumab + nivolumab appears a promising option for these patients (14). Evaluation of the data presented during the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) meetings in 2021 revealed that overall survival was not improved after treatment with the combination of nivolumab + ipilimumab (as palliative first-line therapy) (16). Harrington et al. (17) presented the results of a phase 2 CheckMate 714 randomized clinical trial on patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Participants were divided to receive nivolumab + ipilimumab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks and 1 mg/kg intravenously every 6 weeks, respectively) or nivolumab (with the same dose) + placebo for up to 2 years or until disease progression (other reasons: toxic effects that were not acceptable or consent withdrawal). An acceptable safety profile was observed for nivolumab + ipilimumab (17). Despite some benefits of this type of combination immunotherapy, the general efficacy in the case of metastatic HNSCC is still unclear. Similar observations were noted for advanced salivary gland cancers. Vos et al. (18) conducted a phase 2 trial including 64 patients with metastatic salivary gland cancers (SGCs) [classified according to histological assessment: adenoid cystic carcinoma (cohort 1) and other types of SGCs (cohort 2)]. Participants were treated with the combination immunotherapy of nivolumab + ipilimumab (intravenously, 3 mg kg−1 every 2 weeks and 1 mg kg−1 every 6 weeks, respectively). The following were the main endpoints: efficacy ≥4 objective responses: 6% in cohort 1 and 16% in cohort 2; median progression-free survival: 4.4 months in cohort 1 and 2.2 months in cohort 2. In cohort 1, the efficacy of this type of immunotherapy was limited, whereas it can be a promising option for other SGCs (especially for patients with salivary duct carcinomas) (18). Overall, while dual-ICI therapy may offer immunological advantages, the clinical benefits vary by tumor type and remain incompletely defined. Besides ipilimumab and nivolumab, the use of pembrolizumab (a PD-1 inhibitor) is significant in the treatment of HNSCC (especially as a neoadjuvant therapy). Notably, pembrolizumab is recommended as a first-line treatment: 1) in the form of monotherapy for recurrent/metastatic HNSCC (in PD-L1-positive disease) and 2) in combination with chemotherapy (platinum + fluorouracil) without the influence of the PD-L1 status (19). Recently, in 2025, an improvement in the event-free survival of patients with locally advanced HNSCC was observed after the addition of pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant/adjuvant) to standard care (20).
4 -Omics and ipilimumab response
There are a number of biomarkers that are able to affect the response to immunotherapy based on ICIs, such as the expression of PD-L1, the number of mutations in the cancer cell DNA (mutations per megabase, also known as the tumor mutation burden), the microsatellite instability, interferon gamma, and circulating exosomes (11, 21). Elimination of the primary tumor response to immunotherapy can be caused by surgical ablation/broad radiation of tumor-draining lymph nodes (22). The ablation of lymph nodes inhibits the activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 to control tumor growth. Both the gut and tumor microbiomes also affect the efficacy of immunotherapy based on ICIs (23). Orally administered live Akkermansia muciniphila is the most effective form for the activation of CD8 T cells (in a mouse cancer model) compared with pasteurized A. muciniphila and the A. muciniphila membrane protein Amuc_1100 (24–27). It should be emphasized that, based on anti-PD-1/PD-L1, A. muciniphila improves immunotherapy (25). The data on the effects of the microbiome-related aspects on the efficacy of ipilimumab are strongly limited, particularly in HNCs. It has been reported that distinct Bacteroides species influence the antitumor effects of CTLA-4 blockade (28). Recently, it has been shown that immunotherapy based on the dual regimen of nivolumab + ipilimumab can be enhanced by live Clostridium butyricum in the case of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (29). Management with a regimen combining nivolumab (3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks through 12 weeks) + ipilimumab (1 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks through 12 weeks) + bifidogenic live bacterial product (i.e., CBM588, at 80 mg orally twice a day) is associated with a significantly longer progression-free survival compared with an immunological regimen without microbe administration (12.7 versus 2.5 months, p = 0.001) (30). Nevertheless, this effect was observed in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma, similarly to the case mentioned above (30). Potential enhancement of immunotherapy based on ICIs can also be obtained with microbial metabolites, e.g., desaminotyrosine, which is able to improve the efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 through the IFN-I signaling pathway (31).
The most common gastrointestinal complications induced by ipilimumab + nivolumab include diarrhea, nausea, a reduced appetite, vomiting, constipation, colitis, and abdominal pain (32). Ipilimumab induced diarrhea in 33% of patients and colitis in 7% of cases (33). These results are similar when taking into consideration the dual regimen including nivolumab + ipilimumab (diarrhea: 21%–37% of patients, colitis: 4%–8%) (33). However, a systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that ipilimumab + nivolumab is associated with a higher risk of colitis [any grade, relative risk (RR) = 4.52] and diarrhea (RR = 1.68) compared with monotherapy with nivolumab (34). With regard to the microbiome, it has been observed that colitis-resistant patients present greater abundance of Bacteroidetes, suggesting the protective role of these microbes (35). Notably, some microorganisms, such as Lachnospiraceae spp. and Streptococcus spp., can be implicated in the development of irAEs (in the case of ipilimumab) (36). Therefore, the effect of the microbiome in the context of ipilimumab-induced adverse events may be beneficial or pathogenic dependent on the microbiome signature.
It should also be emphasized that the term -omics covers different types of “-omics,” such as transcriptomics, proteomics, and metagenomics, among others. As above, microbiome-related aspects have been discussed in the context of response to immunotherapy based on ICIs. In 2025, a comprehensive analysis of 16S rRNA amplicon and metagenomic sequencing data was performed to provide a blueprint of the oral microbiome in patients with HNSCC (37). Oral swabs were taken from patients with different types of pathological changes: benign lesions (n = 56), precancerous lesions (n = 29), early-stage HNSCC (n = 39), and late-stage HNSCC (n = 48). The construction of an HNSCC diagnostic classifier was prepared using machine learning-based tools. A dysbiotic microbial–metabolic signature indicates a potential risk factor for the progression of HNSCC (37). Notably, a systematic review (38) prepared according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement guidelines provided data on the type of microbial dysbiosis in HNSCC. At the genus level, microbes such as Fusobacterium, Peptostreptococcus, Alloprevotella, Capnocytophaga, Catonella, and Prevotella were differentially increased in HNSCC, whereas others were reduced (i.e., Rothia, Actinomyces, Veillonella, and Streptococcus). In addition, HNSCC is positively correlated with periodontal pathogens but negatively associated with commensal bacteria. Differential enrichment of the pro-inflammatory genomic pathways was analyzed using metagenomic screening of the microbiome. The specific signature of the oral microbiome can be included into both the screening and the diagnosis of HNSCC (38). Due to the fact that the decreased levels of some microbes in the saliva (Eubacterium infirmum, Actinobaculum, and Selenomas) can be related to non-response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy in patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma, salivary metagenome sequencing can also be useful in the analysis of the response to immunotherapy (39).
5 Discussion and conclusions
ICIs, including ipilimumab, offer promising avenues for the management of HNCs. Combination therapy with nivolumab may provide synergistic immunological benefits, particularly in PD-L1-negative tumors, but also increases irAE incidence. Current evidence does not definitively favor combination therapy over monotherapy, highlighting the need for patient-specific risk–benefit assessments. Besides nivolumab, pembrolizumab (as a monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy) is also recommended for the treatment of HNCs. It can improve survival (especially in the case of locally advanced HNSCC). Despite the beneficial effects of both nivolumab and pembrolizumab, the treatment of HNC is still a challenge, and better treatment approaches need to be investigated. -Omics insights, particularly the microbiome composition, may modulate both efficacy and toxicity; however, HNC-focused data remain sparse. Future investigations should integrate multi-omic analyses and microbiome-directed interventions in order to optimize ICI therapy for HNCs, balancing therapeutic gain against potential immune-mediated toxicities.
Statements
Author contributions
RK: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. AK: Writing – review & editing. LK: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KK-S: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education Poland, grant no. 2/566516/SPUB/SP/2023.
Conflict of interest
The 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.
References
1
DesaiMKunduAHagemanMLouHBoisvertD. Monoclonal antibody and protein therapeutic formulations for subcutaneous delivery: high-concentration, low-volume vs. low-concentration, high-volume. MAbs. (2023) 15:2285277. doi: 10.1080/19420862.2023.2285277
2
AastedMKMGroenACKeaneJTDabelsteenSTanESchnabelJet al. Targeting solid cancers with a cancer-specific monoclonal antibody to surface expressed aberrantly O-glycosylated proteins. Mol Cancer Ther. (2023) 22:1204–14. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-23-0221
3
SubbotinVFikselG. Modeling multi-needle injection into solid tumor. Am J Cancer Res. (2019) 9:2209–15.
4
MarabelleATselikasLde BaereTHouotR. Intratumoral immunotherapy: using the tumor as the remedy. Ann Oncol. (2017) 28:xii33–43. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx683
5
HumeauJLe NaourJGalluzziLKroemerGPolJG. Trial watch: intratumoral immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology. (2021) 10:1984677. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1984677
6
GonzalezNSLópezDGómezDRosJBaraibarISalvaFet al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of approved monoclonal antibody therapy for colorectal cancer. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. (2022) 18:755–67. doi: 10.1080/17425255.2022.2160316
7
PorcheriCMitsiadisTA. Notch in head and neck cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. (2021) 1287:81–103. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-55031-8_7
8
SilfverschiöldMJarlJHafströmAGreiffLSjövallJ. Cost of illness of head and neck cancer in Sweden. Value Health. (2024) 27:425–32. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.01.007
9
CreaneyGde Aquino GoulartMMcMahonAPatersonCMcCaulJPerdomoSet al. Advanced stage head and neck cancer diagnosis: HEADSpAcE consortium health systems benchmarking survey. Head Neck. (2025) 47:1977–88. doi: 10.1002/hed.28094
10
GrazianiGTentoriLNavarraP. Ipilimumab: a novel immunostimulatory monoclonal antibody for the treatment of cancer. Pharmacol Res. (2012) 65:9–22. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2011.09.002
11
ShiravandYKhodadadiFKashaniSMAHosseini-FardSRHosseiniSSadeghiradHet al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy. Curr Oncol. (2022) 29:3044–60. doi: 10.3390/curroncol29050247
12
AndersonRTheronAJRapoportBL. Immunopathogenesis of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events: roles of the intestinal microbiome and th17 cells. Front Immunol. (2019) 10:2254. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02254
13
VermaABurtnessB. Top advances of the year: Head and neck cancer. Cancer. (2023) 129:1308–12. doi: 10.1002/cncr.34654
14
VosJLElbersJBWKrijgsmanOTraetsJJHQiaoXvan der LeunAMet al. Neoadjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab induces major pathological responses in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nat Commun. (2021) 12:7348. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26472-9
15
WangDRWuXLSunYL. Therapeutic targets and biomarkers of tumor immunotherapy: response versus non-response. Signal Transduct Target Ther. (2022) 7:331. doi: 10.1038/s41392-022-01136-2
16
TheodorakiMNLabanSHoffmannTK. Immunotherapy of head and neck cancer : Highlights of the ASCO and ESMO annual meetings 2021. HNO. (2022) 70:271–7. doi: 10.1007/s00106-021-01142-w
17
HarringtonKJFerrisRLGillisonMTaharaMArgirisAFayetteJet al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab alone for treatment of recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: the phase 2 checkMate 714 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. (2023) 9:779–89. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.0147
18
VosJLBurmanBJainSFitzgeraldCWRShermanEJDunnLAet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced salivary gland cancer: a phase 2 trial. Nat Med. (2023) 29:3077–89. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02518-x
19
HarringtonKJBurtnessBGreilRSoulieresDTaharaMde CastroGJRet 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. J Clin Oncol. (2023) 41:790–802. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.02508
20
UppaluriRHaddadRITaoYLe TourneauCLeeNYWestraWet al. Neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab in locally advanced head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med. (2025) 393:37–50. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2415434
21
TheodorakiMNYerneniSGoodingWEOhrJClumpDABaumanJEet al. Circulating exosomes measure responses to therapy in head and neck cancer patients treated with cetuximab, ipilimumab, and IMRT. Oncoimmunology. (2019) 8:1593805. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1593805
22
Saddawi-KonefkaRAl MsariRTangSPhilipsCSadatSClubbLMet al. The tumor-sentinel lymph node immuno-migratome reveals CCR7+ dendritic cells drive response to sequenced immunoradiotherapy. Nat Commun. (2025) 16:6578. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-61780-4
23
HakozakiTTanakaKShiraishiYSekinoYMitomeNOkumaYet al. Gut microbiota in advanced NSCLC receiving chemoimmunotherapy: an ancillary biomarker study from the phase III trial JCOG2007 (NIPPON). J Thorac Oncol. (2025) 20:912–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2025.02.026
24
FanSJiangZZhangZXingJWangDTangD. Akkermansia muciniphila: a potential booster to improve the effectiveness of cancer immunotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. (2023) 149:13477–94. doi: 10.1007/s00432-023-05199-8
25
ShiYFuYTangD. The microbial revolution: Akkermansia muciniphila’s role in overcoming immunotherapy challenges. Int Immunopharmacol. (2025) 164:115374. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2025.115374
26
Al-FakhranyOMElekhnawyE. Next-generation probiotics: the upcoming biotherapeutics. Mol Biol Rep. (2024) 51:505. doi: 10.1007/s11033-024-09398-5
27
ZhuZHuangJZhangYHouWChenFMoYYet al. Landscape of tumoral ecosystem for enhanced anti-PD-1 immunotherapy by gut Akkermansia muciniphila. Cell Rep. (2024) 43:114306. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2024.114306
28
VétizouMPittJMDaillèreRLepagePWaldschmittNFlamentCet al. Anticancer immunotherapy by CTLA-4 blockade relies on the gut microbiota. Science. (2015) 350:1079–84. doi: 10.1126/science.aad1329
29
ZarrabiKKVaishampayanUBarataPC. Enhancing the immunogenicity of nivolumab plus ipilimumab with live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol Focus. (2024) 10:879–81. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2025.01.003
30
DizmanNMezaLBergerotPAlcantaraMDorffTLyouYet al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomized phase 1 trial. Nat Med. (2022) 28:704–12. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01694-6
31
PamungkasKMNDewiPISLAlamsyahAZDewiNLPYDewiNNGKMariadiIKet al. Microbiome dysbiosis and immune checkpoint inhibitors: Dual targets in Hepatocellular carcinoma management. World J Hepatol. (2025) 17:106810. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v17.i7.106810
32
LiuKWangYHLuoNGongJWangJChenB. Treatment-related gastrointestinal adverse events of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in randomized clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Future Oncol. (2023) 19:1865–75. doi: 10.2217/fon-2022-0615
33
NielsenDLJuhlCBChenIMKellermannLNielsenOH. Immune checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced diarrhea and Colitis: Incidence and Management. A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. (2022) 109:102440. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102440
34
KamatSPatelJBrownBRVyasA. Adverse Events Induced by Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab vs. Nivolumab Monotherapy among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancer Invest. (2022) 40:777–88. doi: 10.1080/07357907.2022.2108827
35
SehgalKKhannaS. Gut microbiome and checkpoint inhibitor colitis. Intest Res. (2021) 19:360–4. doi: 10.5217/ir.2020.00116
36
DesiletsAElkriefA. Following your gut: the emerging role of the gut microbiota in predicting and treating immune-related adverse events. Curr Opin Oncol. (2023) 35:248–53. doi: 10.1097/CCO.0000000000000957
37
ZhiJLiangYZhaoWQiaoJZhengYPengXet al. Oral microbiome-derived biomarkers for non-invasive diagnosis of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. (2025) 11:74. doi: 10.1038/s41522-025-00708-8
38
TingHSLChenZChanJYK. Systematic review on oral microbial dysbiosis and its clinical associations with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. (2023) 45:2120–35. doi: 10.1002/hed.27422
39
WangXXLiuYTRenJGLiuHMFuQYangYet al. Salivary microbiome relates to neoadjuvant immunotherapy response in OSCC. J Dent Res. (2024) 103:988–98. doi: 10.1177/00220345241262759
Summary
Keywords
head and neck cancers, immune checkpoint inhibitors, ipilimumab, microbial metabolites, microbiome, nivolumab
Citation
Kucharski R, Kosiński A, Kalinowski L and Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka K (2026) Ipilimumab, -omics, and head and neck cancers—update in 2025. Front. Immunol. 17:1737862. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1737862
Received
02 November 2025
Revised
16 December 2025
Accepted
23 January 2026
Published
27 February 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited by
Mario César Salinas-Carmona, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Mexico
Reviewed by
Victor Oyervides Juarez, Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Mexico
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Kucharski, Kosiński, Kalinowski and Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka.
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: Karolina Kaźmierczak-Siedlecka, leokadia@gumed.edu.pl; Leszek Kalinowski, leszek.kalinowski@gumed.edu.pl
Disclaimer
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.