Dendritic cell vaccine of gliomas: challenges from bench to bed

Abstract

Gliomas account for the majority of brain malignant tumors. As the most malignant subtype of glioma, glioblastoma (GBM) is barely effectively treated by traditional therapies (surgery combined with radiochemotherapy), resulting in poor prognosis. Meanwhile, due to its “cold tumor” phenotype, GBM fails to respond to multiple immunotherapies. As its capacity to prime T cell response, dendritic cells (DCs) are essential to anti-tumor immunity. In recent years, as a therapeutic method, dendritic cell vaccine (DCV) has been immensely developed. However, there have long been obstacles that limit the use of DCV yet to be tackled. As is shown in the following review, the role of DCs in anti-tumor immunity and the inhibitory effects of tumor microenvironment (TME) on DCs are described, the previous clinical trials of DCV in the treatment of GBM are summarized, and the challenges and possible development directions of DCV are analyzed.

1 Introduction

Diffuse glioma is diagnosed in approximately 100,000 people worldwide each year. Although it accounts for a small proportion (~1%) of all newly diagnosed cancers, diffuse glioma is related to high morbidity and mortality (1). According to the fifth edition of the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System, adult diffuse gliomas consist of three types: astrocytoma, IDH mutant (IDHmut); oligodendroglioma, IDHmut and 1p/19q co-deletion; glioblastoma (GBM), IDH wild type (IDHwt) (2). Glioblastoma is the most fatal subtype of glioma, accounting for 70 to 75% of all diffuse gliomas diagnosed, with a median overall survival range from 14 to 17 months (1).

Currently, first-line therapy for GBM typically consists of maximally safe resection followed by adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy, concurrent fractionated radiotherapy, and maintenance temozolomide chemotherapy (3). This multimodality approach significantly improves survival. However, the prognosis is still quite poor and the relapse of GBM is common, with a median survival of only 6.2 months after relapse. To date, the main treatment options for recurrent GBM, including tumor-treating field (TTF) therapy, lomustine, carmustine, and the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab (4, 5), are barely effective. Therefore, there is an urgent need to find more effective treatments for GBM.

Dendritic cells (DCs) are a kind of professional antigen-presenting cells (APCs) that are essential for the T cell response. They present extracellular antigens to CD4⁺ T helper (TH) cells via major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecules, and present intracellular antigens to CD8⁺ T cells via MHC class I molecules. This so-called “cross-presentation” phenomenon, takes an important part in antitumor immune responses (6). DC vaccine is a kind of immunotherapy based on the effect of DC. The blueprint is that patients are administrated with DCs activated by tumor-associated antigens (TAAs), inducing an antitumor T cell response. This response eliminates tumor cells selectively and prevents tumor relapse because of immunologic memory (7, 8) (Figure 1).

Figure 1

In recent decades, many advances have been achieved in the use of DC vaccines (DCV) in anti-tumor therapy. Since DCV made its debut in a B cell lymphoma clinical trial in 1996 (9), a large number of preclinical and clinical trials have been conducted using DCV for various tumors (10, 11). However, to date, only one tumor-targeted DCV therapy, sipuleucel-T, has Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to treat metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (12). The number of clinical trials using DCV has decreased significantly in recent years. This partly results from the rapid development of alternative immunotherapeutic methods, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (13–15), and partly results from the disappointing clinical performance of DCV.

Nevertheless, due to the unique immune microenvironment of GBM, many immunotherapies that have successfully treated other tumors do not work in GBM (16, 17). As a result, there has been renewed interest in using DCV for treating GBM, particularly when it is combined with conventional therapies (e.g., chemotherapy, radiation) or other immunotherapies (e.g., ICIs) (18–20). Clinical trial results have varied widely, with clinical responses ranging from minimal to significant. Overall, although there are some promising results, conclusive evidence is still lacking. In this review, we analyze the role DC plays in antitumor immunity and the immunosuppressive effect of the tumor microenvironment (TME) on DC, summarize clinical trials that have used DCV for treating GBM in recent years, and propose the challenges and possible development directions of DCV.

2 DCs in anti-tumor immunology

At present, our understanding of DC subsets and functions comes mainly from murine models, while recently the number of studies aimed at assessing the biological properties of human DCs has significantly increased. According to the differences in development, phenotype, and function (See Table 1), DCs can be classified into several subtypes: classical, or conventional DCs (cDCs), plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs), and monocyte-derived DCs (MoDCs), etc (7). cDCs, which consist of two major subsets: cDC1s and cDC2s, develop from common DC precursor cells (CDPs) in the bone marrow (21). In humans, cDC1s can be recognized by highly specific cell surface markers such as CD141, XCR1, CLEC9A, and DEC205 (7, 21–23). cDC2s are more heterogeneous in cell surface markers and can be further classified into CD5⁺ cDC2s (DC2s) and CD5^- cDC2s (DC3s) based on the presence or absence of CD5 expression (22, 24). It remains unknown whether DC3s are derived from CDPs (22). In addition, some studies have suggested the existence of other subsets of cDC2, such as DC4 (CD1C^- CD141^-) and DC5 (AXL⁺ SIGLEC6⁺), whose classification and function require further study (24). Although still controversial, current studies suggest that pDCs arise from both CDPs and lymphoid progenitors and that pDCs from different sources have different functions. During acute or chronic viral infection, mature pDC subsets of both different origins can secrete type I interferon, but only bone marrow-derived pDCs can process and present antigens (25, 26). Furthermore, pDCs are involved in the progression of autoimmune diseases (27), and the high frequency of pDCs in tumors is highly correlated with poor prognosis (28). In contrast to cDCs and pDCs, MoDCs originate in monocytes. Under the context of inflammation, monocytes in the blood are recruited through CC chemokine 2 (CCR2)-dependent pathways and differentiate into MoDCs in peripheral tissues (23). In response to inflammation, MoDCs allow CD4⁺ T cells’ differentiation into TH1, TH2, or IL-17-producing TH cell (TH17) phenotypes, depending on the context (29). Some investigators have suggested that CD16⁺ non-classical monocytes are also a type of DC, particularly those expressing carbohydrate-modified P-selectin glycoprotein ligand 1 (slanDCs) (23), which have potent pro-inflammatory properties.

DCs remain immature when pathophysiological stimuli are absent, and are crucial to immune surveillance (30, 31). Immature DCs (iDCs) are indispensable for maintaining tolerance to peripheral autoantigens (32). They can eliminate autoreactive T cells (33), and facilitate the expansion and differentiation of regulatory T cells (Tregs) (34). iDCs mature when they encounter microbial stimuli or endogenous stimuli associated with inflammation (35). Reduced phagocytic activity, increased expression of costimulatory ligands and MHC class I/II molecules on the cell surface, expression of chemokine receptors involved in lymph node homing and retention, and increased secretion of chemokines and proinflammatory cytokines are the main differences between mature DCs (mDCs) and iDCs (10).

cDC1s are of great importance in anti-tumor immunity and are the mere type of APC that effectively primes tumor-specific CD8⁺ T cells (36). In both murine and humans, cDC1s are crucial for the recruitment of CD8⁺ T cells to tumors (37). cDC1 is a major producer of IFN-λ, which induces TH1 responses (38, 39). cDC1s can also mediate TH type 1 (TH1) polarization of CD4⁺ T cells (40). Thus, the abundance of cDC1 in the tumor microenvironment (TME) has a positive correlation with patient survival (37). On the contrary, the understanding of the functions of cDC2s in antitumor responses is relatively new. cDC2s secrete a variety of cytokines, some of which are anti-inflammatory while some of which are pro-inflammatory, including interleukin-12 (IL-12), which is essential for the expansion and survival of T cells and natural killer (NK) cells (41, 42). cDC2s and MoDCs may also have the ability to cross-present antigens, and cDC2s appear to be required for initiating antitumor CD4⁺ T cell responses (7, 43). In addition, cDC2 and MoDC underlie direct or cross-presentation of TAAs after chemotherapy in some cancers (7, 44, 45). Among all the DC subtypes, pDCs have the strongest type I IFN responses and are the major producers of IFN-α (46). In anti-tumor immunity, type I IFNs are thought to be critical for immunogenic responses to anti-tumor therapies. However, high frequencies of pDCs in tumors are related to poor prognosis in a variety of cancers (47, 48). Persistent IFN-I response may be a key factor in immunodeficiency and treatment resistance, although the mechanism is not yet fully understood (49, 50).

3 The glioma microenvironment and DCs

3.1 The glioma microenvironment

Gliomas, especially GBM, have a unique TME compared to tumors at other sites. The central nervous system (CNS) used to be regarded as an immunologically privileged site. One of the reasons for this understanding is that the lymphatic drainage system of the brain has not been discovered for a long time. Another reason is the existence of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) (51). Recently, the discovery of the glial-lymphatic pathway has proposed a mechanism for connecting the parenchyma and interstitium with the cerebrospinal fluid space (52); meanwhile, the discovery of functional lymphatic vessels in the meninges confirms the existence of a direct drainage pathway for cerebrospinal fluid that contains solutes and immune cells from the brain to the cervical lymph nodes (53, 54). The brain is protected from pathogenic microorganisms by the BBB, consisting of pericytes, astrocyte processes, vascular endothelial cells, and extracellular matrix. Meanwhile, it makes it harder for drugs and peripheral immune cells to enter the CNS, facilitating tumor invasion and growth (55). However, it has been shown in recent studies that T cells can enter the brain and provide immune surveillance (56, 57), challenging the notion that the BBB is sealed to immune cell entry. Simultaneously, damaging the BBB by GBM itself can also limit the BBB’s ability to function (58). In summary, during inflammation, specific antigens are recognized by microglia, then microglia present them to activated lymphoid cells through the glial-lymphoid pathway, and subsequently more immune cells penetrate the BBB, leading to a more intense inflammatory response and following immune responses. Thus, CNS immunity is not so much “privileged” as it is “unique”.

However, compared to other tumor types, CNS tumors have lower levels of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and other types of immune effector cells (59). This “cold tumor” phenotype has been related to poor response to immunostimulatory therapies such as ICIs (17, 60). Even when inducing T cells to respond to CNS cancer, the number of antigen-specific TILs remains relatively low, and the TILs present often exhibit a depleted phenotype (18, 61). Upon inflammatory stimulation, brain stromal cells produce high levels of classical immunosuppressive cytokines such as TGFβ. These cytokines neutralize inflammatory factors to maintain homeostasis (62). Glioma cells produce high levels of indoleamine-2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), which, besides promoting Treg accumulation, inhibits T-cell activity by depleting microenvironmental tryptophan (63). Microglia and tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells reduce the arginine level in the tissues by producing high levels of arginase, which further suppresses the proliferation and functions of T cells (64). Additionally, the compromised BBB suppresses glioma patients’ adaptive immune response by upregulating programmed death ligand 1/2 (PD-L1/2) expression to prevent effector T-cell from activation (65).

3.2 DCs in the glioma microenvironment

Normally, peripheral circulating DCs reach the vascular-rich compartment through the central lymphatic vessels and are virtually absent in the brain parenchyma (66). However, a recent study found that CD141⁺ cDC1 can infiltrate the region of GBM and present antigens to T cells in deep cervical lymph nodes (dcLNs) (67). Nonetheless, extracranial antigen presentation failed to facilitate tumor eradication in the absence of immunotherapy in a melanoma brain metastasis model (68). This indicates that the presentation of antigens in the periphery is probably not sufficient to induce immunity against brain tumors.

A major barrier to the application of DCs for the treatment of GBM is that DCs must have the capacity to induce anti-tumor immune responses under immunosuppressive conditions. The mechanism of immunosuppression in GBM involves both the glioma cells themselves and the cells in the TME (Figure 2).

Figure 2

3.2.1 glioma cells

Glioma cells secrete cytokines like TGFβ, IL-10, VEGF, and CSF-1, which inhibit the differentiation of DCs (69). Glioma cell-produced PGE2 can promote DC-producing IL-10, inhibiting effector T-cell responses (70). Tumor cells release IL-6, inhibiting the CD34⁺ cell differentiation into DCs and promoting the transition of these cells to the monocytic lineage with deficient APC function (71). Some glioma cell products are linked to DC dysfunction, including R-2-hydroxyglutarate (R-2-HG), fibrinogen-like protein 2 (FGL2), Nrf2, etc. In high grade glioma (HGG) patients with IDHmut, reprogramming mediated by the tumor metabolite R-2-HG leads to poor antigen presentation of DCs (66). FGL2 inhibits GM-CSF-induced CD103⁺ DC differentiation through inhibition of NF-κB, STAT1/5, and p38 activation (72). Glioma cells can induce DCs to overexpress Nrf, which inhibits DC maturation and reduces effector T-cell activation (73). Glioma cells can affect DC lipid metabolism, leading to lipid accumulation in DCs and limiting T-cell activation (74). The Warburg effect of glioma cells can lead to lactic acid accumulation, and low pH affects immune cell metabolism and function (75).

3.2.2 Cells in the glioma microenvironment

TME components such as Tregs, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) can suppress antitumor immunity by reducing DC responses and causing T cell dysfunction, which is also known as “T cell exhaustion”.

Treg is an immunosuppressive T cell subset that helps to maintain immune tolerance, limits inordinate immune responses, and promotes homeostasis and tissue regeneration. In various solid tumors, the frequency of tumor-infiltrating effector Tregs is high, and the high proportion of Tregs: CD8⁺ T cells is inversely correlated with prognosis (76). Tregs are not detectable in normal brains and are seldom found in low-grade brain tumors. Intriguingly, despite lymphopenia, GBM patients have increased Treg frequencies in TME and blood (77). Treg frequencies vary by glioma subtypes, with higher frequencies in IDHwt than in IDHmut (78). In a murine model of astrocytoma, Tregs accumulate time-dependently after tumor cell implantation. The quantity of Tregs first increases in blood and then in tumor tissue during the asymptomatic phase (79). It can be seen that Tregs are recruited to tumors at an early stage when the number of tumor cells is still low. CD27(TNFRSF) expressed by Tregs can downregulate the expression of CD70 on the membrane of DCs, thereby limiting the activation of CD8⁺ T cells (80). The immune checkpoints BTLA, PD-1, Tim-3, and CTLA-4 expressed on Tregs also limit functions of DCs (65).

MDSCs are a population of immature bone marrow cells that are of high heterogeneity. In the TME, with their strong immunosuppressive activity, they continuously interact with infiltrating T cells, especially cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTLs), inhibiting their function and thus promoting the growth and progression of tumors (81). MDSCs can be detected in patients with cancer or the setting of chronic inflammation when sustained low-level stimulation of bone marrow cell generation leads to the development of immunosuppressive bone marrow cells (82, 83). First develop in the bone marrow, they then infiltrate and accumulate in solid tumors via factors such as GM-CSF, G-CSF, M-CSF, VEGF, IFN-γ, IL-6, and IL-4, which are secreted by tumor cells or other TME components. In GBM, MDSC is one of the major immunosuppressive components of the TME (84). Recent studies have shown that MDSCs are present in GBM patients’ blood, but not in patients with low-grade gliomas or healthy people (85). MDSCs can prevent CTL entry into tumors and T cell responses to HLA stimulation through ROS- and NO-dependent pathways (86). Like Tregs, MDSCs produce immunosuppressive cytokines such as IL-10 and TGFβ. In addition, MDSCs express immune checkpoint regulatory pathway ligands, such as PD-L1/2 and CD155. These ligands inhibit T-cell responses. When interacting with receptors on T cells, they can even induce T cell apoptosis (87, 88).

TAMs, representing 50% of the total number of living cells in the entire GBM tumor, are the largest immune cell population in the TME of GBM (89). TAMs are a highly heterogeneous cell population, and overall, in both murine and human models, the majority of TAMs in brain tumors seem to originate in circulating monocytes, while approximately 15% of TAMs originate in brain-resident microglia (51, 90). In GBM, however, this heterogeneity depends on the context (e.g., Microglia are relatively abundant in primary GBM, whereas monocyte-derived macrophages predominate in recurrent GBM.) (89). In general, TAMs are thought to promote tumor growth, and the number of TAMs is correlated with tumor grade (91). As is shown in previous in vitro studies, macrophages can be classified into two groups: M1 and M2, and the growth-promoting activity of TAM correlates with the M2 macrophage phenotype that is anti-inflammatory. However, TAMs are neither M1-like nor M2-like but exhibit a mixed phenotype (91). In the TME, the majority of TAMs were M2-like cells. Yet, there are also proinflammatory TAMs capable of engulfing tumor cells (92). Immunosuppressive cytokines, such as TGFβ and IL-10, which are expressed by M2-like TAMs, suppress T cell proliferation and function. Meanwhile, they promote extensive crosstalk with Tregs and MDSCs, along with chemokines like CCL20, CCL22, and CXCL12, further enhancing immunosuppression (93, 94).

4 Overview of DCV clinical trials

4.1 The source of DCs

A large majority of DC vaccines in clinical trials are based on MoDCs. In particular, DCV trials in GBM now all use MoDCs. The common method is to collect autologous monocytes from patients, induce them to differentiate into immature DCs in vitro, expose them to TAAs after induction of maturation, and then transfuse them into the same patient. In trials that used mDCs, DC maturation was mostly induced by GM-CSF combined with IL-4, PGE2, TNF-α, or IFN-γ (95–99). There are couples of trials that induce DC maturation by using IL-6, IL-1β, TNF-α, or PGE2 without GM-CSF (100–102). Although cDCs may be superior to MoDCs in their ability to stimulate T cells (7, 103), there are currently no established protocols for isolating or differentiating these cells in vitro. Nonetheless, in some diseases, most notably melanoma, the use of cDCs and pDCs as DC vaccines has shown some encouraging early results that may be extended to GBM research in the future (104–107).

In addition, since iDCs are less capable of stimulating T cells than mDCs and may even induce tolerance, mDCs are used in most DCV trials. However, there are trials using iDCs that have reported clinical benefits (108, 109).

4.2 Tumor-associated antigens

By priming CD8+ T cells against TAA, DCs are an important part in antitumor immunity. Thus, the efficacy of DCV is related to the existence of TAAs, also known as neoantigens, in individual tumors. The overall mutational burden of GBM is very low, but patients who relapse after TMZ chemotherapy have an increased mutational burden (110).

Previous trials using DCV used tumor lysates, tumor cell apoptotic bodies, irradiated tumor cells, DC-tumor cell fusion, and tumor cell surface eluted peptides as whole tumor cell TAAs. Whole tumor cell-derived TAAs contain numerous TAAs, assuring the diversity of antigens and reducing the risk of TAA-loss variants escaping (111). However, due to the immunosuppressive factors produced by glioma cells, whole tumor cell-derived TAAs may inhibit the DC differentiation and maturation or alter the function of generated DCs (112). Furthermore, whole tumor cell-derived TAA vaccines produced using current methods are poorly immunogenic and difficult to induce potent and durable T cell responses (113).

Some DCV studies use molecularly defined TAAs, including specific peptides, proteins, and DCs transfected with TAA-coding mRNA. The source of molecularly defined TAAs is more standardized and reproducible, making it easier to monitor target-specific responses. In addition, they can be personalized for different individuals (114). However, compared to TAAs derived from whole tumor cells, molecularly defined TAAs lack diversity. Therefore, to reduce the risk of escape of TAA-loss mutants, several molecularly defined TAAs should be used.

4.3 Dose and route of application

To induce a T cell response in a healthy subject, the minimum DC dose is 2×10^⁶ DC/vaccine (115), while no study to date has achieved dose-limiting toxicity. While several clinical studies aiming at determining the best dose of DCV therapy have been conducted previously, and some of them have been completed (e. g. NCT00612001, NCT01171469, NCT00068510, NCT00107185), the relationship between clinical outcomes and DC dose, and the dose-response relationship of the optimal dose have remained inconclusive. Studies have shown that patients receiving lower doses of DC have longer survival (116); while some studies suggest that improving the efficiency of DC migrating to lymph nodes may increase patient survival (117). This may be because the DCV used in these studies was handled differently as well as the status of DC, making it difficult to compare to derive the optimal dose of DC. In the existing clinical trials, almost all patients received multiple vaccinations, mainly using the prime-boost method (18). Several studies have reported a trend toward improved survival in booster recipients (102).

Different routes of injection of DCV result in different distributions of DC in vivo (118, 119). Currently, the routes of administration used in clinical trials of DCV include intravenous injection, subcutaneous injection, and nodal injection. Subcutaneous injection is by far the most common route of administration, with up to 4% of DCV reaching the draining lymph nodes. Irrespective of the routes of administration, high numbers of DCs remained at the injection site, lost viability, and were eliminated by infiltrating CD163+ macrophages within 48 hours (120). The intranodal injection may allow more DCs to migrate to the T-cell region, but whether it is more effective in inducing antigen-specific immune responses remains to be determined (120).

4.4 Treatment options

Most patients underwent cytoreductive surgery before DCV, while some patients underwent biopsy alone or without surgery. The extent of surgical resection is positively associated with survival (121), while minimal residual disease status also favors DCV therapy (121, 122), which may be related to a reduction in local immunosuppression (123). Yet, other studies have shown that the extent of resection is not related to survival in DCV treatment (124). Therefore, in addition to the absolute volume of the residual tumor, other factors such as the composition of the residual tumor may influence the effect of DCV.

DCV treatment is often combined with radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or both. Tumor cell death after chemoradiotherapy releases tumor antigens, then the brain endothelium presents MHC class I antigens to circulating CD8⁺ T cells, which can enhance the tumor-specific effector CTL homing to brain tumors (125). The most widely used chemotherapeutic agent combined with DCV is TMZ, which has been used in all current DCV-controlled trials. TMZ can improve immunoreactivity by reducing Tregs and interfering with their recruitment to tumors (126). Although TMZ often induces lymphopenia, the lymphocyte zone restored after chemotherapy can still induce an antitumor response (117, 127). The specific efficacy is related to the dose of TMZ: for example, lower doses of TMZ help deplete Tregs, whereas myelosuppressive doses enhance the response to peptide vaccines (128). However, there is also evidence that CD8⁺ T cells expanded by DCV previously may be depleted by TMZ (100, 129). Moreover, only in the absence of TMZ was DCV able to generate IFN-γ-producing effector memory T cells, which was positively related to survival (130). Thus, the effect of TMZ on DCV efficacy remains inconclusive.

4.5 Safety

By far, no serious vaccine-related adverse events have been observed, except for a few studies that reported severe adverse events (grade ≥3) according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI CTC). Some of these adverse events were severe peritumoral edema leading to other neurological symptoms (96, 131); some were allergies following co-injection of DCV and GM-CSF (132).

Commonly observed adverse reactions attributed to DCV are generally mild (≤ grade 2), including induration, pain, pruritus, and erythema in injection sites, as well as meningeal irritation, lymph node swelling, flu-like symptoms, edema, etc (95, 97, 98, 101, 102, 116, 133–143). These symptoms may be caused by disease progression or other concomitant therapies as well. All in all, DCV therapy was well tolerated as a therapeutic method (for a brief introduction of DCV clinical trials registered in clinical trials.gov, see Table 2 and Table 3).

5 Optimizing DCV therapy

5.1 Develop Other DC-derived vaccines

Although most DCVs use MoDCs that have been induced to differentiate in vitro, long-term in vitro culture can result in decreased MoDC migration and functional loss (7). Therefore, MoDC is probably not the best DC subpopulation for vaccine manufacturing, and the development of vaccines based on naturally circulating DC subtypes such as cDC, pDC, or Langhans cell may achieve better results. Among these DC subsets, it has been proven that cDCs have a stronger ability to induce CD8⁺ T cell response (7, 103). To date, the difficulty of producing cDC1/2 in large quantities from patients remains an obstacle to cDC-based DCVs. Therefore, future efforts should focus on solving the technical and cost issues of generating large numbers of cDCs.

5.2 Screen specific immune biomarkers

ICIs have achieved clinical success in effectively treating various cancers, which are related to specific immune biomarkers to guide application. Immune biomarkers such as tumor mutation burden and PD-L1 positivity provide accurate and non-invasive means for patient preselection (13, 15, 144), which are of great value to the success of antitumor immunotherapy. Unfortunately, the lack of strong patient-preselected biomarkers immensely limits the guide of application of DCV; therefore, there is a surge in urgency to screen out biomarkers that are most likely to predict a positive patient response to DCV. The selection of patient subgroups by specific biomarkers that improve the likelihood of a subject’s response to DCV will help guide the design of clinical trials.

5.3 Improve the function of DC in the glioma microenvironment

The glioma microenvironment is composed of various immunosuppressive cells, all of which are of great importance in disease progression. Targeting only one type of cell is not sufficient to modify the entire TME. Therefore, to improve DC function in the TME, it may be necessary to combine it with a variety of other immunotherapy methods to get over the negative effects of immunosuppression and immune checkpoint modulation.

In preclinical models, anti-CD25 antibodies are commonly used to deplete Tregs (145–147) or limit their immunosuppressive function by blocking molecules like PD-1, CTLA-4, and Tim-3 or enzymes such as IDO (146, 148, 149). However, it has been reported in murine models that high-dose unfractionated radiotherapy or low-dose TMZ or cyclophosphamide chemotherapy can deplete Tregs (150, 151). An encouraging approach is reducing the effect of Tregs by combining radiotherapy with anti-IDO, which eventually improves the survival of mice (152). When anti-CD25 therapy is combined, beneficial effects on survival caused by DCV have been reported by several other studies, especially when Tregs are depleted before vaccination (145, 153).

In vitro, paclitaxel promoted MDSC differentiation into DCs in a TLR4-independent manner (154). Docetaxel induces the transformation of MDSCs into M1-like macrophages and selectively enhances CTL responses (155). All-trans retinoic acid can promote MDSC maturation (156). In addition, low doses of 5-FU (157), capecitabine (158), etc. can deplete MDSCs. Pexidatinib reduced MDSCs and M2-like TAMs by blocking CSF-1 receptor signaling (159), while STAT3 inhibitors reduced MDSCs and impaired their function (160).

Blocking the CSF-1/CSF-1R axis prevents monocyte differentiation, thereby reducing the number of TAMs, while also reducing the survival of existing TAMs (161, 162). Blockade of the CCL2/CCR2 axis inhibited monocyte recruitment but did not affect the TAMs formed (163, 164). CD47 is a “don’t eat me” signal, and blocking CD47/SIRP enhances TAM phagocytosis of tumor cells (165). Oncolytic virotherapy repolarizes M2-like TAMs to M1-like TAMs (166, 167).

Although ICIs have achieved impressive results in various tumors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved survival in a mouse GBM model (146, 148, 149, 168), ICIs alone have not been effective in the treatment of GBM (17, 169). However, the combination of ICI and DCV was more effective than DCV alone. Currently, the most commonly used target of ICIs is PD-1, followed by CTLA-4 (10).

5.4 New routes of administration

To date, there haven’t been any reported clinical trials for glioma using intratumoral injection of DCV yet. It has been shown that in an orthotopic GL261 glioma murine model, compared with subcutaneous injection of GL261 lysate-loaded DCs, intratumoral injection is less effective; however, combining these two administration routes is more effective than subcutaneous injection alone (170). Intratumoral injected DCs could be detected in the tumor parenchyma while not in the cervical lymph nodes. Therefore, intratumoral injection of DC may have a distinct mechanism to improve survival. This may be because intratumoral DC injection enhances the anti-tumor immune response induced by subcutaneous injection of DC by pro-immunomodulating cytokines in the TME, reducing Treg cells, and directly inhibiting tumor proliferation by TNF (170, 171). Therefore, combining the two in clinical trials may lead to better results.

6 Conclusion

Thousands of glioma patients have been treated with DCV over the past few decades. During this period of time, the methods of production and treatment of DCV have also been gradually diversified. Due to the weak immunogenicity of DCV produced by conventional methods, which cannot induce strong and durable T-cell responses, many efforts have been made to improve their immunogenicity (172, 173). Yet, those DCVs with higher immunogenicity don’t seem to be as clinically successful as expected. Thus, whether there is a better way to improve immunogenicity or whether immunogenicity doesn’t take a crucial part in the effect of DCV remains a question. Although no definitive conclusion can be made about the efficacy of DCV, some promising results still show the great potential of DCV as a therapeutic tool for GBM. To conclude, the reasons why the clinical application of DCV is not as good as expected may be related to the limitation of DC function by the immunosuppressive microenvironment, the lack of optimal dosage standards, and the lack of specific immune biomarkers. Either way, if future studies address the above issues, DCV will have a significant impact on GBM treatment and significantly improve patient outcomes.

References

• 1

  MolinaroAMTaylorJWWienckeJKWrenschMR. Genetic and molecular epidemiology of adult diffuse glioma. Nat Rev Neurol (2019) 15(7):405–17. doi: 10.1038/s41582-019-0220-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  LouisDNPerryAWesselingPBratDJCreeIAFigarella-BrangerDet al. The 2021 WHO classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Neuro Oncol (2021) 23(8):1231–51. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noab106

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  WellerMvan den BentMHopkinsKTonnJCStuppRFaliniAet al. EANO guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of anaplastic gliomas and glioblastoma. Lancet Oncol (2014) 15(9):e395–403. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70011-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  FisherJPAdamsonDC. Current FDA-approved therapies for high-grade Malignant gliomas. Biomedicines (2021) 9(3):324. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines9030324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Cruz Da SilvaEMercierMCEtienne-SelloumNDontenwillMChoulierL. A systematic review of glioblastoma-targeted therapies in phases II, III, IV clinical trials. Cancers (Basel) (2021) 13(8):1795. doi: 10.3390/cancers13081795

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  JoffreOPSeguraESavinaAAmigorenaS. Cross-presentation by dendritic cells. Nat Rev Immunol (2012) 12(8):557–69. doi: 10.1038/nri3254

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  WculekSKCuetoFJMujalAMMeleroIKrummelMFSanchoD. Dendritic cells in cancer immunology and immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol (2020) 20(1):7–24. doi: 10.1038/s41577-019-0210-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  DatsiASorgRV. Dendritic cell vaccination of glioblastoma: road to success or dead end. Front Immunol (2021) 12:770390. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.770390

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  HsuFJBenikeCFagnoniFLilesTMCzerwinskiDTaidiBet al. Vaccination of patients with B-cell lymphoma using autologous antigen-pulsed dendritic cells. Nat Med (1996) 2(1):52–8. doi: 10.1038/nm0196-52

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  LaureanoRSSprootenJVanmeerbeerkIBorrasDMGovaertsJNaulaertsSet al. Trial watch: Dendritic cell (DC)-based immunotherapy for cancer. OncoImmunology (2022) 11(1):2096363. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2022.2096363

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  SprootenJCeustersJCoosemansAAgostinisPDe VleeschouwerSZitvogelLet al. Trial watch: dendritic cell vaccination for cancer immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology (2019) 8(11):e1638212. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1638212

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  KantoffPWHiganoCSShoreNDBergerERSmallEJPensonDFet al. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med (2010) 363(5):411–22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1001294

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DoroshowDBBhallaSBeasleyMBShollLMKerrKMGnjaticSet al. PD-L1 as a biomarker of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Clin Oncol (2021) 18(6):345–62. doi: 10.1038/s41571-021-00473-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  KlempnerSJFabrizioDBaneSReinhartMPeoplesTAliSMet al. Tumor mutational burden as a predictive biomarker for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors: A review of current evidence. Oncologist (2020) 25(1):e147–59. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0244

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  ShaDJinZBudcziesJKluckKStenzingerASinicropeFA. Tumor mutational burden as a predictive biomarker in solid tumors. Cancer Discov (2020) 10(12):1808–25. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0522

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  KurzSCCabreraLPHastieDHuangRUnadkatPRinneMet al. PD-1 inhibition has only limited clinical benefit in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. Neurology (2018) 91(14):e1355–9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000006283

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  LimMWellerMIdbaihASteinbachJFinocchiaroGRavalRRet al. Phase III trial of chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide plus nivolumab or placebo for newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. Neuro Oncol (2022) 24(11):1935–49. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noac116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  HarariAGraciottiMBassani-SternbergMKandalaftLE. Antitumour dendritic cell vaccination in a priming and boosting approach. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2020) 19(9):635–52. doi: 10.1038/s41573-020-0074-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  LiauLMAshkanKBremSCampianJLTrusheimJEIwamotoFMet al. Association of autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccination with extension of survival among patients with newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma: A phase 3 prospective externally controlled cohort trial. JAMA Oncol (2023) 9(1):112–21. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.5370

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  LiauLMAshkanKTranDDCampianJLTrusheimJECobbsCSet al. First results on survival from a large Phase 3 clinical trial of an autologous dendritic cell vaccine in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Transl Med (2018) 16(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s12967-018-1507-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  SchlitzerASivakamasundariVChenJSumatohHRSchreuderJLumJet al. Identification of cDC1- and cDC2-committed DC progenitors reveals early lineage priming at the common DC progenitor stage in the bone marrow. Nat Immunol (2015) 16(7):718–28. doi: 10.1038/ni.3200

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BrownCCGudjonsonHPritykinYDeepDLavalléeVPMendozaAet al. Transcriptional basis of mouse and human dendritic cell heterogeneity. Cell (2019) 179(4):846–863.e24. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.09.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  CollinMBigleyV. Human dendritic cell subsets: an update. Immunology (2018) 154(1):3–20. doi: 10.1111/imm.12888

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  VillaniACSatijaRReynoldsGSarkizovaSShekharKFletcherJet al. Single-cell RNA-seq reveals new types of human blood dendritic cells, monocytes, and progenitors. Science (2017) 356(6335):eaah4573. doi: 10.1126/science.aah4573

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  RodriguesPFAlberti-ServeraLEreminAGrajales-ReyesGEIvanekRTussiwandR. Distinct progenitor lineages contribute to the heterogeneity of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Nat Immunol (2018) 19(7):711–22. doi: 10.1038/s41590-018-0136-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ShigematsuHReizisBIwasakiHMizunoSHuDTraverDet al. Plasmacytoid dendritic cells activate lymphoid-specific genetic programs irrespective of their cellular origin. Immunity (2004) 21(1):43–53. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2004.06.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  SeverLRadomirLStirmKWienerASchottlenderNLewinskyHet al. SLAMF9 regulates pDC homeostasis and function in health and disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2019) 116(33):16489–96. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900079116

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  MitchellDChintalaSDeyM. Plasmacytoid dendritic cell in immunity and cancer. J Neuroimmunol (2018) 322:63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroim.2018.06.012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  SeguraETouzotMBohineustACappuccioAChiocchiaGHosmalinAet al. Human inflammatory dendritic cells induce Th17 cell differentiation. Immunity (2013) 38(2):336–48. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.10.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  AngelovaMMascauxCGalonJ. Evasion before invasion: Pre-cancer immunosurveillance. Oncoimmunology (2021) 10(1):1912250. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1912250

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  MahnkeKSchmittEBonifazLEnkAHJonuleitH. Immature, but not inactive: the tolerogenic function of immature dendritic cells. Immunol Cell Biol (2002) 80(5):477–83. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1711.2002.01115.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  IdoyagaJFioreseCZbytnuikLLubkinAMillerJMalissenBet al. Specialized role of migratory dendritic cells in peripheral tolerance induction. J Clin Invest (2013) 123(2):844–54. doi: 10.1172/JCI65260

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  SteinmanRMHawigerDNussenzweigMC. Tolerogenic dendritic cells. Annu Rev Immunol (2003) 21:685–711. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.21.120601.141040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  RoncaroloMGLevingsMKTraversariC. Differentiation of T regulatory cells by immature dendritic cells. J Exp Med (2001) 193(2):F5–9. doi: 10.1084/jem.193.2.f5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  DalodMChelbiRMalissenBLawrenceT. Dendritic cell maturation: functional specialization through signaling specificity and transcriptional programming. EMBO J (2014) 33(10):1104–16. doi: 10.1002/embj.201488027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Bowman-KiriginJADesaiRSaundersBTWangAZSchaettlerMOLiuCJet al. The conventional dendritic cell 1 subset primes CD8+ T cells and traffics tumor antigen to drive antitumor immunity in the brain. Cancer Immunol Res (2023) 11(1):20–37. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-22-0098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  BöttcherJPReis e SousaC. The role of type 1 conventional dendritic cells in cancer immunity. Trends Cancer (2018) 4(11):784–92. doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2018.09.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  HubertMGobbiniECouillaultCManhTVDoffinACBerthetJet al. IFN-III is selectively produced by cDC1 and predicts good clinical outcome in breast cancer. Sci Immunol (2020) 5(46):eaav3942. doi: 10.1126/sciimmunol.aav3942

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  LauterbachHBathkeBGillesSTraidl-HoffmannCLuberCAFejerGet al. Mouse CD8alpha+ DCs and human BDCA3+ DCs are major producers of IFN-lambda in response to poly IC. J Exp Med. (2010) 207(12):2703–17. doi: 10.1084/jem.20092720

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  WculekSKAmores-IniestaJConde-GarrosaRKhouiliSCMeleroISanchoD. Effective cancer immunotherapy by natural mouse conventional type-1 dendritic cells bearing dead tumor antigen. J Immunother Cancer (2019) 7(1):100. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0565-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  ReindlLMAlbingerNBexteTMüllerSHartmannJUllrichE. Immunotherapy with NK cells: recent developments in gene modification open up new avenues. Oncoimmunology (2020) 9(1):1777651. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1777651

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  NizzoliGKrietschJWeickASteinfelderSFacciottiFGruarinPet al. Human CD1c+ dendritic cells secrete high levels of IL-12 and potently prime cytotoxic T-cell responses. Blood (2013) 122(6):932–42. doi: 10.1182/blood-2013-04-495424

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  BinnewiesMMujalAMPollackJLCombesAJHardisonEABarryKCet al. Unleashing type-2 dendritic cells to drive protective antitumor CD4(+) T cell immunity. Cell (2019) 177(3):556–571.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  MaYAdjemianSMattarolloSRYamazakiTAymericLYangHet al. Anticancer chemotherapy-induced intratumoral recruitment and differentiation of antigen-presenting cells. Immunity (2013) 38(4):729–41. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2013.03.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  CasaresNPequignotMOTesniereAGhiringhelliFRouxSChaputNet al. Caspase-dependent immunogenicity of doxorubicin-induced tumor cell death. J Exp Med (2005) 202(12):1691–701. doi: 10.1084/jem.20050915

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  SprootenJAgostinisPGargAD. Type I interferons and dendritic cells in cancer immunotherapy. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol (2019) 348:217–62. doi: 10.1016/bs.ircmb.2019.06.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  GongWDonnellyCRHeathBRBellileEDonnellyLATanerHFet al. Cancer-specific type-I interferon receptor signaling promotes cancer stemness and effector CD8+ T-cell exhaustion. Oncoimmunology (2021) 10(1):1997385. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1997385

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  ZhangXWangSZhuYZhangMZhaoYYanZet al. Double-edged effects of interferons on the regulation of cancer-immunity cycle. Oncoimmunology (2021) 10(1):1929005. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1929005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  De MartinoMVanpouille-BoxC. Type I interferon induces cancer stem cells-mediated chemotherapy resistance. Oncoimmunology (2022) 11(1):2127274. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2022.2127274

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  MusellaMGuarracinoAManducaNGalassiCRuggieroEPotenzaAet al. Type I IFNs promote cancer cell stemness by triggering the epigenetic regulator KDM1B. Nat Immunol (2022) 23(9):1379–92. doi: 10.1038/s41590-022-01290-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  SampsonJHGunnMDFecciPEAshleyDM. Brain immunology and immunotherapy in brain tumours. Nat Rev Cancer (2020) 20(1):12–25. doi: 10.1038/s41568-019-0224-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  IliffJJWangMLiaoYPloggBAPengWGundersenGAet al. A paravascular pathway facilitates CSF flow through the brain parenchyma and the clearance of interstitial solutes, including amyloid β. Sci Transl Med (2012) 4(147):147ra111. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3003748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  AspelundAAntilaSProulxSTKarlsenTVKaramanSDetmarMet al. A dural lymphatic vascular system that drains brain interstitial fluid and macromolecules. J Exp Med (2015) 212(7):991–9. doi: 10.1084/jem.20142290

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  LouveauAHerzJAlmeMNSalvadorAFDongMQViarKEet al. CNS lymphatic drainage and neuroinflammation are regulated by meningeal lymphatic vasculature. Nat Neurosci (2018) 21(10):1380–91. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0227-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  SrivastavaSJacksonCKimTChoiJLimA. A characterization of dendritic cells and their role in immunotherapy in glioblastoma: from preclinical studies to clinical trials. Cancers (Basel) (2019) 11(4):537. doi: 10.3390/cancers11040537

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  OwensTBechmannIEngelhardtB. Perivascular spaces and the two steps to neuroinflammation. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol (2008) 67(12):1113–21. doi: 10.1097/NEN.0b013e31818f9ca8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  SchlägerCKörnerHKruegerMVidoliSHaberlMMielkeDet al. Effector T-cell trafficking between the leptomeninges and the cerebrospinal fluid. Nature (2016) 530(7590):349–53. doi: 10.1038/nature16939

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  WatkinsSRobelSKimbroughIFRobertSMEllis-DaviesGSontheimerH. Disruption of astrocyte-vascular coupling and the blood-brain barrier by invading glioma cells. Nat Commun (2014) 5:4196. doi: 10.1038/ncomms5196

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  GajewskiTFSchreiberHFuYX. Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nat Immunol (2013) 14(10):1014–22. doi: 10.1038/ni.2703

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  GajewskiTFCorralesLWilliamsJHortonBSivanASprangerS. Cancer immunotherapy targets based on understanding the T cell-inflamed versus non-T cell-inflamed tumor microenvironment. Adv Exp Med Biol (2017) 1036:19–31. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-67577-0_2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  KeskinDBAnandappaAJSunJTiroshIMathewsonNDLiSet al. Neoantigen vaccine generates intratumoral T cell responses in phase Ib glioblastoma trial. Nature (2019) 565(7738):234–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0792-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  GongDShiWjuYChenHGroffenJHeisterkampN. TGFβ signaling plays a critical role in promoting alternative macrophage activation. BMC Immunol (2012) 13:31. doi: 10.1186/1471-2172-13-31

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  WainwrightDABalyasnikovaIVChangALAhmedAUMoonKSAuffingerBet al. IDO expression in brain tumors increases the recruitment of regulatory T cells and negatively impacts survival. Clin Cancer Res (2012) 18(22):6110–21. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2130

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  ZhangIAlizadehDLiangJZhangLGaoHSongYet al. Characterization of arginase expression in glioma-associated microglia and macrophages. PloS One (2016) 11(12):e0165118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  ZhouJLiLJiaMLiaoQPengGLuoGet al. Dendritic cell vaccines improve the glioma microenvironment: Influence, challenges, and future directions. Cancer Med (2023) 12(6):7207–21. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5511

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  FriedrichMHahnMMichelJSankowskiRKilianMKehlNet al. Dysfunctional dendritic cells limit antigen-specific T cell response in glioma. Neuro-Oncology (2023) 25(2):263–76. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noac138

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  JohannsTMWardJPMillerCAWilsonCKobayashiDKBenderDet al. Endogenous neoantigen-specific CD8 T cells identified in two glioblastoma models using a cancer immunogenomics approach. Cancer Immunol Res (2016) 4(12):1007–15. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0156

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  TaggartDAndreouTScottKJWilliamsJRippausNBrownlieRJet al. Anti-PD-1/anti-CTLA-4 efficacy in melanoma brain metastases depends on extracranial disease and augmentation of CD8(+) T cell trafficking. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2018) 115(7):E1540–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1714089115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  CuiXMaCVasudevarajaVSerranoJTongJPengYet al. Dissecting the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments in Glioblastoma-on-a-Chip for optimized PD-1 immunotherapy. Elife (2020) 9:e52253. doi: 10.7554/eLife.52253

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  FuCJiangA. Dendritic cells and CD8 T cell immunity in tumor microenvironment. Front Immunol (2018) 9:3059. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.03059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  PatenteTAPinhoMPOliveiraAAEvangelistaGCMBergami-SantosPCBarbutoJAM. Human dendritic cells: their heterogeneity and clinical application potential in cancer immunotherapy. Front Immunol (2018) 9:3176. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.03176

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  YanJZhaoQGabrusiewiczKKongLYXiaXWangJet al. FGL2 promotes tumor progression in the CNS by suppressing CD103(+) dendritic cell differentiation. Nat Commun (2019) 10(1):448. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-08271-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  WangJLiuPXinSWangZLiJ. Nrf2 suppresses the function of dendritic cells to facilitate the immune escape of glioma cells. Exp Cell Res (2017) 360(2):66–73. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2017.07.031

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  KellyBO’NeillLAJ. Metabolic reprogramming in macrophages and dendritic cells in innate immunity. Cell Res (2015) 25(7):771–84. doi: 10.1038/cr.2015.68

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  BoedtkjerEPedersenSF. The acidic tumor microenvironment as a driver of cancer. Annu Rev Physiol (2020) 82:103–26. doi: 10.1146/annurev-physiol-021119-034627

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  ShangBLiuYjuanJSLiuY. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating FoxP3+ regulatory T cells in cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep (2015) 5:15179. doi: 10.1038/srep15179

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  FecciPEMitchellDAWhitesidesJFXieWFriedmanAHArcherGEet al. Increased regulatory T-cell fraction amidst a diminished CD4 compartment explains cellular immune defects in patients with Malignant glioma. Cancer Res (2006) 66(6):3294–302. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3773

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  RichardsonLGNiemanLTStemmer-RachamimovAOZhengXSStaffordKNagashimaHet al. IDH-mutant gliomas harbor fewer regulatory T cells in humans and mice. Oncoimmunology (2020) 9(1):1806662. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1806662

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Tran ThangNNDerouaziMPhilippinGArcidiacoSDi Berardino-BessonWMassonFet al. Immune infiltration of spontaneous mouse astrocytomas is dominated by immunosuppressive cells from early stages of tumor development. Cancer Res (2010) 70(12):4829–39. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-3074

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  MuthSKlaricARadsakMSchildHProbstHC. CD27 expression on Treg cells limits immune responses against tumors. J Mol Med (Berl) (2022) 100(3):439–49. doi: 10.1007/s00109-021-02116-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  QuPWangLZLinPC. Expansion and functions of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Lett (2016) 380(1):253–6. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2015.10.022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  TalmadgeJEGabrilovichDI. History of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Nat Rev Cancer (2013) 13(10):739–52. doi: 10.1038/nrc3581

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  GabrilovichDI. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Cancer Immunol Res (2017) 5(1):3–8. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0297

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  GielenPRSchulteBMKers-RebelEDVerrijpKPetersen-BaltussenHMter LaanMet al. Increase in both CD14-positive and CD15-positive myeloid-derived suppressor cell subpopulations in the blood of patients with glioma but predominance of CD15-positive myeloid-derived suppressor cells in glioma tissue. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol (2015) 74(5):390–400. doi: 10.1097/NEN.0000000000000183

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  AlbanTJBayikDOtvosBRabljenovicALengLJia-ShiunLet al. Glioblastoma myeloid-derived suppressor cell subsets express differential macrophage migration inhibitory factor receptor profiles that can be targeted to reduce immune suppression. Front Immunol (2020) 11:1191. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.01191

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  GabrilovichDINagarajS. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol (2009) 9(3):162–74. doi: 10.1038/nri2506

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HaistMStegeHGrabbeSBrosM. The Functional Crosstalk between Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cells and Regulatory T Cells within the Immunosuppressive Tumor Microenvironment. Cancers (Basel) (2021) 13(2):210. doi: 10.3390/cancers13020210

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  GabrilovichDIOstrand-RosenbergSBronteV. Coordinated regulation of myeloid cells by tumours. Nat Rev Immunol (2012) 12(4):253–68. doi: 10.1038/nri3175

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  KhanFPangLDuntermanMLesniakMSHeimbergerABChenP. Macrophages and microglia in glioblastoma: heterogeneity, plasticity, and therapy. J Clin Invest (2023) 133(1):e163446. doi: 10.1172/JCI163446

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  ChenZFengXHertingCJGarciaVANieKPongWWet al. Cellular and molecular identity of tumor-associated macrophages in glioblastoma. Cancer Res (2017) 77(9):2266–78. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  HambardzumyanDGutmannDHKettenmannH. The role of microglia and macrophages in glioma maintenance and progression. Nat Neurosci (2016) 19(1):20–7. doi: 10.1038/nn.4185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  QuailDFJoyceJA. The microenvironmental landscape of brain tumors. Cancer Cell (2017) 31(3):326–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.02.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  ChenYSongYDuWGongLChangHZouZ. Tumor-associated macrophages: an accomplice in solid tumor progression. J BioMed Sci (2019) 26(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12929-019-0568-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  CendrowiczESasZBremerERygielTP. The role of macrophages in cancer development and therapy. Cancers (Basel) (2021) 13(8):1946. doi: 10.3390/cancers13081946

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  YuJSWheelerCJZeltzerPMYingHFingerDNLeePKet al. Vaccination of Malignant glioma patients with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells elicits systemic cytotoxicity and intracranial T-cell infiltration. Cancer Res (2001) 61(3):842–7.

  • Google Scholar

• 96

  RutkowskiSDe VleeschouwerSKaempgenEWolffJEKühlJDemaerelPet al. Surgery and adjuvant dendritic cell-based tumour vaccination for patients with relapsed Malignant glioma, a feasibility study. Br J Cancer (2004) 91(9):1656–62. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602195

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  KikuchiTAkasakiYIrieMHommaSAbeTOhnoT. Results of a phase I clinical trial of vaccination of glioma patients with fusions of dendritic and glioma cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2001) 50(7):337–44. doi: 10.1007/s002620100205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  YamanakaRHommaJYajimaNTsuchiyaNSanoMKobayashiTet al. Clinical evaluation of dendritic cell vaccination for patients with recurrent glioma: results of a clinical phase I/II trial. Clin Cancer Res (2005) 11(11):4160–7. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0120

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  WenPYReardonDAArmstrongTSPhuphanichSAikenRDLandolfiJCet al. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial of dendritic cell vaccine ICT-107 in newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res (2019) 25(19):5799–807. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  BatichKAMitchellDAHealyPHerndonJE2ndSampsonJH. Once, twice, three times a finding: reproducibility of dendritic cell vaccine trials targeting cytomegalovirus in glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res (2020) 26(20):5297–303. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  JieXHuaLJiangWFengFFengGHuaZ. Clinical application of a dendritic cell vaccine raised against heat-shocked glioblastoma. Cell Biochem Biophys (2012) 62(1):91–9. doi: 10.1007/s12013-011-9265-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  OkadaHKalinskiPUedaRHojiAKohanbashGDoneganTEet al. Induction of CD8+ T-cell responses against novel glioma-associated antigen peptides and clinical activity by vaccinations with {alpha}-type 1 polarized dendritic cells and polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid stabilized by lysine and carboxymethylcellulose in patients with recurrent Malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol (2011) 29(3):330–6. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.7744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  LaouiDKeirsseJMoriasYVan OvermeireEGeeraertsXElkrimYet al. The tumour microenvironment harbours ontogenically distinct dendritic cell populations with opposing effects on tumour immunity. Nat Commun (2016) 7:13720. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13720

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  TelJAarntzenEHJGBabaTSchreibeltGSchulteBMBenitez-RibasDet al. Natural human plasmacytoid dendritic cells induce antigen-specific T-cell responses in melanoma patients. Cancer Res (2013) 73(3):1063–75. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2583

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  BloemendalMBolKFBoudewijnsSGorrisMAJde WiltJHWCroockewitSAJet al. Immunological responses to adjuvant vaccination with combined CD1c(+) myeloid and plasmacytoid dendritic cells in stage III melanoma patients. Oncoimmunology (2022) 11(1):2015113. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.2015113

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  SchreibeltGBolKFWestdorpHWimmersFAarntzenEHDuiveman-de BoerTet al. Effective clinical responses in metastatic melanoma patients after vaccination with primary myeloid dendritic cells. Clin Cancer Res (2016) 22(9):2155–66. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-2205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  CharlesJChaperotLHannaniDBruder CostaJTemplierITrabelsiSet al. An innovative plasmacytoid dendritic cell line-based cancer vaccine primes and expands antitumor T-cells in melanoma patients in a first-in-human trial. Oncoimmunology (2020) 9(1):1738812. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1738812

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  ChoDYYangWKLeeHCHsuDMLinHLLinSZet al. Adjuvant immunotherapy with whole-cell lysate dendritic cells vaccine for glioblastoma multiforme: a phase II clinical trial. World Neurosurg (2012) 77(5-6):736–44. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2011.08.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  YaoYLuoFTangCChenDQinZHuaWet al. Molecular subgroups and B7-H4 expression levels predict responses to dendritic cell vaccines in glioblastoma: an exploratory randomized phase II clinical trial. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2018) 67(11):1777–88. doi: 10.1007/s00262-018-2232-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  FinocchiaroGLangellaTCorbettaCPellegattaS. Hypermutations in gliomas: a potential immunotherapy target. Discovery Med (2017) 23(125):113–20.

  • Google Scholar

• 111

  SampsonJHHeimbergerABArcherGEAldapeKDFriedmanAHFriedmanHSet al. Immunologic escape after prolonged progression-free survival with epidermal growth factor receptor variant III peptide vaccination in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol (2010) 28(31):4722–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.6963

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  ErhartFWeissTKlingenbrunnerSFischhuberKReitermaierRHalfmannAet al. Spheroid glioblastoma culture conditions as antigen source for dendritic cell-based immunotherapy: spheroid proteins are survival-relevant targets but can impair immunogenic interferon γ production. Cytotherapy (2019) 21(6):643–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2019.03.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  ChiangCLLCoukosGKandalaftLE. Whole tumor antigen vaccines: where are we? Vaccines (Basel) (2015) 3(2):344–72. doi: 10.3390/vaccines3020344

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  WangQTNieYSunSNLinTHanRJJiangJet al. Tumor-associated antigen-based personalized dendritic cell vaccine in solid tumor patients. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2020) 69(7):1375–87. doi: 10.1007/s00262-020-02496-w

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  DhodapkarMVSteinmanRMSappMDesaiHFossellaCKrasovskyJet al. Rapid generation of broad T-cell immunity in humans after a single injection of mature dendritic cells. J Clin Invest (1999) 104(2):173–80. doi: 10.1172/JCI6909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  PrinsRMSotoHKonkankitVOdesaSKEskinAYongWHet al. Gene expression profile correlates with T-cell infiltration and relative survival in glioblastoma patients vaccinated with dendritic cell immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res (2011) 17(6):1603–15. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-2563

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  MitchellDABatichKAGunnMDHuangMNSanchez-PerezLNairSKet al. Tetanus toxoid and CCL3 improve dendritic cell vaccines in mice and glioblastoma patients. Nature (2015) 519(7543):366–9. doi: 10.1038/nature14320

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  QuillienVMoisanACarsinALesimpleTLefeuvreCAdamskiHet al. Biodistribution of radiolabelled human dendritic cells injected by various routes. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging (2005) 32(7):731–41. doi: 10.1007/s00259-005-1825-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  ShemeshCSHsuJCHosseiniIShenBQRotteATwomeyPet al. Personalized cancer vaccines: clinical landscape, challenges, and opportunities. Mol Ther (2021) 29(2):555–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2020.09.038

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  VerdijkPAarntzenEHJGLesterhuisWJBoullartACKokEvan RossumMMet al. Limited amounts of dendritic cells migrate into the T-cell area of lymph nodes but have high immune activating potential in melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res (2009) 15(7):2531–40. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2729

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  JanCITsaiWCHarnHJShyuWCLiuMCLuHMet al. Predictors of response to autologous dendritic cell therapy in glioblastoma multiforme. Front Immunol (2018) 9:727. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00727

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  PellegattaSEoliMFrigerioSAntozziCBruzzoneMGCantiniGet al. The natural killer cell response and tumor debulking are associated with prolonged survival in recurrent glioblastoma patients receiving dendritic cells loaded with autologous tumor lysates. Oncoimmunology (2013) 2(3):e23401. doi: 10.4161/onci.23401

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  ChoiSHStuckeyDWPignattaSReinshagenCKhalsaJKRoozendaalNet al. Tumor resection recruits effector T cells and boosts therapeutic efficacy of encapsulated stem cells expressing IFNβ in glioblastomas. Clin Cancer Res (2017) 23(22):7047–58. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-0077

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  BuchroithnerJErhartFPichlerJWidhalmGPreusserMStockhammerGet al. Audencel immunotherapy based on dendritic cells has no effect on overall and progression-free survival in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: A phase II randomized trial. Cancers (Basel) (2018) 10(10):372. doi: 10.3390/cancers10100372

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  GaleaIBernardes-SilvaMForsePAvan RooijenNLiblauRSPerryVH. An antigen-specific pathway for CD8 T cells across the blood-brain barrier. J Exp Med (2007) 204(9):2023–30. doi: 10.1084/jem.20070064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  JordanJTSunWHussainSFDeAnguloGPrabhuSSHeimbergerAB. Preferential migration of regulatory T cells mediated by glioma-secreted chemokines can be blocked with chemotherapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2008) 57(1):123–31. doi: 10.1007/s00262-007-0336-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  SampsonJHAldapeKDArcherGECoanADesjardinsAFriedmanAHet al. Greater chemotherapy-induced lymphopenia enhances tumor-specific immune responses that eliminate EGFRvIII-expressing tumor cells in patients with glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol (2011) 13(3):324–33. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  Sanchez-PerezLAChoiBDArcherGECuiXFloresCJohnsonLAet al. Myeloablative temozolomide enhances CD8⁺ T-cell responses to vaccine and is required for efficacy against brain tumors in mice. PloS One (2013) 8(3):e59082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  PellegattaSEoliMCuccariniVAnghileriEPolloBPessinaSet al. Survival gain in glioblastoma patients treated with dendritic cell immunotherapy is associated with increased NK but not CD8(+) T cell activation in the presence of adjuvant temozolomide. Oncoimmunology (2018) 7(4):e1412901. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1412901

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  EoliMCorbettaCAnghileriEDi IanniNMilaniMCuccariniVet al. Expansion of effector and memory T cells is associated with increased survival in recurrent glioblastomas treated with dendritic cell immunotherapy. Neurooncol Adv (2019) 1(1):vdz022. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdz022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  De VleeschouwerSFieuwsSRutkowskiSVan CalenberghFVan LoonJGoffinJet al. Postoperative adjuvant dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in patients with relapsed glioblastoma multiforme. Clin Cancer Res (2008) 14(10):3098–104. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4875

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  MitchellDASayourEJReapESchmittlingRDeLeonGNorbergPet al. Severe adverse immunologic reaction in a patient with glioblastoma receiving autologous dendritic cell vaccines combined with GM-CSF and dose-intensified temozolomide. Cancer Immunol Res (2015) 3(4):320–5. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0100

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  YamanakaRAbeTYajimaNTsuchiyaNHommaJKobayashiTet al. Vaccination of recurrent glioma patients with tumour lysate-pulsed dendritic cells elicits immune responses: results of a clinical phase I/II trial. Br J Cancer (2003) 89(7):1172–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601268

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  KikuchiTAkasakiYAbeTFukudaTSaotomeHRyanJLet al. Vaccination of glioma patients with fusions of dendritic and glioma cells and recombinant human interleukin 12. J Immunother (2004) 27(6):452–9. doi: 10.1097/00002371-200411000-00005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  AkasakiYKikuchiTHommaSKoidoSOhkusaTTasakiTet al. Phase I/II trial of combination of temozolomide chemotherapy and immunotherapy with fusions of dendritic and glioma cells in patients with glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2016) 65(12):1499–509. doi: 10.1007/s00262-016-1905-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  IwamiKShimatoSOhnoMOkadaHNakaharaNSatoYet al. Peptide-pulsed dendritic cell vaccination targeting interleukin-13 receptor α2 chain in recurrent Malignant glioma patients with HLA-A*24/A*02 allele. Cytotherapy (2012) 14(6):733–42. doi: 10.3109/14653249.2012.666633

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  SakaiKShimodairaSMaejimaSUdagawaNSanoKHiguchiYet al. Dendritic cell-based immunotherapy targeting Wilms’ tumor 1 in patients with recurrent Malignant glioma. J Neurosurg (2015) 123(4):989–97. doi: 10.3171/2015.1.JNS141554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  LiauLMPrinsRMKiertscherSMOdesaSKKremenTJGiovannoneAJet al. Dendritic cell vaccination in glioblastoma patients induces systemic and intracranial T-cell responses modulated by the local central nervous system tumor microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res (2005) 11(15):5515–25. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0464

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  KhanJAYaqinS. Dendritic cell therapy with improved outcome in glioma multiforme–a case report. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B (2006) 7(2):114–7. doi: 10.1631/jzus.2006.B0114

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  PrinsRMWangXSotoHYoungELisieroDNFongBet al. Comparison of glioma-associated antigen peptide-loaded versus autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccination in Malignant glioma patients. J Immunother (2013) 36(2):152–7. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3182811ae4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  OkadaHLiebermanFSWalterKALunsfordLDKondziolkaDSBejjaniGKet al. Autologous glioma cell vaccine admixed with interleukin-4 gene transfected fibroblasts in the treatment of patients with Malignant gliomas. J Transl Med (2007) 5:67. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-5-67

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  ArdonHDe VleeschouwerSVan CalenberghFClaesLKrammCMRutkowskiSet al. Adjuvant dendritic cell-based tumour vaccination for children with Malignant brain tumours. Pediatr Blood Cancer (2010) 54(4):519–25. doi: 10.1002/pbc.22319

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  YuJSLiuGYingHYongWHBlackKLWheelerCJ. Vaccination with tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cells elicits antigen-specific, cytotoxic T-cells in patients with Malignant glioma. Cancer Res (2004) 64(14):4973–9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-3505

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  ChanTAYarchoanMJaffeeESwantonCQuezadaSAStenzingerAet al. Development of tumor mutation burden as an immunotherapy biomarker: utility for the oncology clinic. Ann Oncol (2019) 30(1):44–56. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy495

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  FecciPESweeneyAEGrossiPMNairSKLearnCAMitchellDAet al. Systemic anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody administration safely enhances immunity in murine glioma without eliminating regulatory T cells. Clin Cancer Res (2006) 12(14 Pt 1):4294–305. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  GrauerOMNierkensSBenninkEToonenLWBoonLWesselingPet al. CD4+FoxP3+ regulatory T cells gradually accumulate in gliomas during tumor growth and efficiently suppress antiglioma immune responses. vivo. Int J Cancer (2007) 121(1):95–105. doi: 10.1002/ijc.22607

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  MitchellDACuiXSchmittlingRJSanchez-PerezLSnyderDJCongdonKLet al. Monoclonal antibody blockade of IL-2 receptor α during lymphopenia selectively depletes regulatory T cells in mice and humans. Blood (2011) 118(11):3003–12. doi: 10.1182/blood-2011-02-334565

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  WainwrightDAChangALDeyMBalyasnikovaIVKimCKTobiasAet al. Durable therapeutic efficacy utilizing combinatorial blockade against IDO, CTLA-4, and PD-L1 in mice with brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res (2014) 20(20):5290–301. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  LiJLiuXDuanYLiuYWangHLianSet al. Combined blockade of T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain 3 and carcinoembryonic antigen-related cell adhesion molecule 1 results in durable therapeutic efficacy in mice with intracranial gliomas. Med Sci Monit (2017) 23:3593–602. doi: 10.12659/msm.903098

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  BanissiCGhiringhelliFChenLCarpentierAF. Treg depletion with a low-dose metronomic temozolomide regimen in a rat glioma model. Cancer Immunol Immunother (2009) 58(10):1627–34. doi: 10.1007/s00262-009-0671-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  RivaMWoutersRNittnerDCeustersJSterpinEGiovannoniRet al. Radiation dose-escalation and dose-fractionation modulate the immune microenvironment, cancer stem cells and vasculature in experimental high-grade gliomas. J Neurosurg Sci (2023) 67(1):55–65. doi: 10.23736/S0390-5616.20.05060-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  KesarwaniPPrabhuAKantSKumarPGrahamSFBuelowKLet al. Tryptophan metabolism contributes to radiation-induced immune checkpoint reactivation in glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res (2018) 24(15):3632–43. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  MaesWRosasGGVerbinnenBBoonLDe VleeschouwerSCeuppensJLet al. DC vaccination with anti-CD25 treatment leads to long-term immunity against experimental glioma. Neuro Oncol (2009) 11(5):529–42. doi: 10.1215/15228517-2009-004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  MichelsTShurinGVNaiditchHSevkoAUmanskyVShurinMR. Paclitaxel promotes differentiation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells into dendritic cells in vitro in a TLR4-independent manner. J Immunotoxicol (2012) 9(3):292–300. doi: 10.3109/1547691X.2011.642418

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  KodumudiKNWoanKGilvaryDLSahakianEWeiSDjeuJY. A novel chemoimmunomodulating property of docetaxel: suppression of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in tumor bearers. Clin Cancer Res (2010) 16(18):4583–94. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0733

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  MirzaNFishmanMFrickeIDunnMNeugerAMFrostTJet al. All-trans-retinoic acid improves differentiation of myeloid cells and immune response in cancer patients. Cancer Res (2006) 66(18):9299–307. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-1690

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  OtvosBSilverDJMulkearns-HubertEEAlvaradoAGTuragaSMSorensenMDet al. Cancer stem cell-secreted macrophage migration inhibitory factor stimulates myeloid derived suppressor cell function and facilitates glioblastoma immune evasion. Stem Cells (2016) 34(8):2026–39. doi: 10.1002/stem.2393

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  PeereboomDMAlbanTJGrabowskiMMAlvaradoAGOtvosBBayikDet al. Metronomic capecitabine as an immune modulator in glioblastoma patients reduces myeloid-derived suppressor cells. JCI Insight (2019) 4(22):130748. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.130748

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  CannarileMAWeisserMJacobWJeggAMRiesCHRüttingerD. Colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) inhibitors in cancer therapy. J Immunother Cancer (2017) 5(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s40425-017-0257-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  AbadCNobutaHLiJKasaiAYongWHWaschekJA. Targeted STAT3 disruption in myeloid cells alters immunosuppressor cell abundance in a murine model of spontaneous medulloblastoma. J Leukoc Biol (2014) 95(2):357–67. doi: 10.1189/jlb.1012531

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  PyonteckSMAkkariLSchuhmacherAJBowmanRLSevenichLQuailDFet al. CSF-1R inhibition alters macrophage polarization and blocks glioma progression. Nat Med (2013) 19(10):1264–72. doi: 10.1038/nm.3337

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  StanleyERChituV. CSF-1 receptor signaling in myeloid cells. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol (2014) 6(6):a021857. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a021857

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  Macanas-PirardPQuezadaTNavarreteLBroekhuizenRLeisewitzANerviBet al. The CCL2/CCR2 axis affects transmigration and proliferation but not resistance to chemotherapy of acute myeloid leukemia cells. PloS One (2017) 12(1):e0168888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168888

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  ZhuYHerndonJMSojkaDKKimKWKnolhoffBLZuoCet al. Tissue-resident macrophages in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma originate from embryonic hematopoiesis and promote tumor progression. Immunity (2017) 47(2):323–338.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2017.07.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  WillinghamSBVolkmerJPGentlesAJSahooDDalerbaPMitraSSet al. The CD47-signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPa) interaction is a therapeutic target for human solid tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2012) 109(17):6662–7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1121623109

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  SahaDMartuzaRLRabkinSD. Macrophage polarization contributes to glioblastoma eradication by combination immunovirotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Cell (2017) 32(2):253–267.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  van den BosscheWBLKleijnATeunissenCEVoermanJSATeodosioCNoskeDPet al. Oncolytic virotherapy in glioblastoma patients induces a tumor macrophage phenotypic shift leading to an altered glioblastoma microenvironment. Neuro Oncol (2018) 20(11):1494–504. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noy082

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  FecciPEOchiaiHMitchellDAGrossiPMSweeneyAEArcherGEet al. Systemic CTLA-4 blockade ameliorates glioma-induced changes to the CD4+ T cell compartment without affecting regulatory T-cell function. Clin Cancer Res (2007) 13(7):2158–67. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2070

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  ReardonDABrandesAAOmuroAMulhollandPLimMWickAet al. Effect of nivolumab vs bevacizumab in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: the checkMate 143 phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol (2020) 6(7):1003–10. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.1024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  PellegattaSPolianiPLStucchiECornoDColomboCAOrzanFet al. Intra-tumoral dendritic cells increase efficacy of peripheral vaccination by modulation of glioma microenvironment. Neuro Oncol (2010) 12(4):377–88. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nop024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  MassonFCalzasciaTDi Berardino-BessonWde TriboletNDietrichPYWalkerPR. Brain microenvironment promotes the final functional maturation of tumor-specific effector CD8+ T cells. J Immunol (2007) 179(2):845–53. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.2.845

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  VerheyeEBravo MelgarJDeschoemaekerSRaesGMaesADe BruyneEet al. Dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in multiple myeloma: challenges, opportunities, and future directions. Int J Mol Sci (2022) 23(2):904. doi: 10.3390/ijms23020904

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  ConstantinoJGomesCFalcãoACruzMTNevesBM. Antitumor dendritic cell-based vaccines: lessons from 20 years of clinical trials and future perspectives. Transl Res (2016) 168:74–95. doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2015.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar