Anshu
Nair Shantikumar V.
Roy Sreeja- Amrita Research Center Delhi NCR, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana, India
Immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape of several malignancies, yet solid tumors such as pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remain largely resistant due to poor immune infiltration, immunosuppressive tumor microenvironments (TMEs) and, the limited success of T cell–centric strategies. The lymphotoxin-beta receptor (LTβR), a member of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) receptor superfamily, is broadly expressed on stromal, endothelial, and myeloid cells within the TME and signals through both canonical and non-canonical NF-κB pathways. Depending on context and activation mode, LTβR can drive either tumor progression or anti-tumor immunity. While persistent LTβR signaling supports immunosuppressive macrophage phenotypes and promotes tumor growth in hepatocellular carcinoma, preclinical models of colorectal and cervical cancer have demonstrated that LTβR activation induces tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs), high endothelial venules (HEVs), and immune infiltration, thereby improving responsiveness to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB). This perspective examines in depth the functional duality of LTβR and its emerging therapeutic potential in solid tumors. LTβR agonism has been shown to promote TLS formation and immune activation, whereas antagonistic strategies such as ligand traps may suppress tumor-supportive LTβR signaling in immunosuppressive compartments. Strategically localized LTβR stimulation presents a promising avenue to induce targeted immune reprogramming within the TME. We further explore LTβR’s interactions with key immune subsets—myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), dendritic cells (DCs), and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs)—and its synergy with ICB and CAR T cell therapies. Selective LTβR modulation may reprogram the TME, overcome immunotherapy resistance, and broaden durable responses in refractory solid tumors.
Graphical Abstract. Therapeutic potential of LTβR agonism. (A) Systemic delivery of LTβR agonism-based therapeutics. Engagement of LTβR by systemically administered agonistic antibodies or recombinant LTα1β2 ligand activates LTβR signaling on various cells including stromal, endothelial, and myeloid cells, resulting in broad target distribution and less spatially controlled receptor activation within and beyond the tumor microenvironment (TME). (B) Tumor-restricted delivery of LTβR agonism-based therapeutics. In contrast, tumor-targeted strategies such as LIGHT-expressing mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), tumor cells, or engineered fusion proteins comprising an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeting domain fused to LIGHT enhance intra-tumoral bioavailability and preferentially activate LTβR signaling within the TME. (C) LTβR activation within the TME. LTβR agonism induces the expression of chemokines and cytokines including CXCL13, CCL19, and CCL21, as well as adhesion molecules (e.g., ICAM-1, VCAM-1), and promotes high endothelial venule (HEV) differentiation. These coordinated events support tertiary lymphoid structure (TLS) neogenesis, enhance antigen presentation, and facilitate local dendritic cell–T cell cross-talk, collectively promoting anti-tumor immunity. (i.t.: intratumoral; s.c.: subcutaneus; i.v.: intravenous).
Introduction
Conventional modalities such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy remain largely ineffective in advanced solid tumors including Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC, metastatic) and Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) (1). While immunotherapies, specifically immune checkpoint blockade (ICB), targeting Programmed Cell Death Protein 1 (PD-1), Programmed Death-Ligand 1 (PD-L1), or Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte–Associated Protein 4 (CTLA-4) has transformed outcomes in melanoma (2) and some lung cancers (3), its efficacy remains limited in tumors such as PDAC and GBM due to immune exclusion, low neoantigen burden, and active immunosuppression by the tumor microenvironment (TME) (4–7). Adoptive cell therapies including Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cells (8–10) have shown limited success in solid tumors, primarily due to poor tumor infiltration, T cell exhaustion, and immune escape (11). Cancer vaccines such as GM-CSF–secreting whole-tumor-cell vaccines (e.g., GVAX), peptide-based vaccines, and dendritic cell (DC)–based vaccines have also yielded limited benefit in solid tumors (12–15). While messenger RNA (mRNA)-based neoantigen vaccines and immunomodulatory chemotherapy such as 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) show promise in preclinical or early clinical settings (16, 17), durable responses remain uncommon. Together, these limitations highlight the urgent need for novel immunotherapeutic strategies beyond conventional T cell–centric approaches to overcome resistance and broaden durable clinical responses.
Reprogramming non–T cell compartments of the TME, including cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), is increasingly recognized as a viable immunotherapeutic strategy. These cells exhibit dual, context-dependent roles in tumor progression and immune activation, that can be therapeutically redirected toward tumor-restrictive phenotypes through CAF modulation and macrophage polarization strategies (18–21). These findings underscore a broader shift toward non–T cell–centric immunotherapeutic interventions. Within this broader landscape, the lymphotoxin-beta receptor (LTβR) emerges as another key immunoregulatory molecule with similarly context-dependent functions. LTβR is primarily expressed on non-hematopoietic cells, particularly stromal (22) and epithelial cells, across both lymphoid and non-lymphoid tissues such as the gut, respiratory tract, and vasculature (23, 24). LTβR is also expressed on tumor cells (22) and on hematopoietic cells, particularly myeloid populations (25), where it supports the homeostasis and function of distinct DC, macrophage, and granulocyte subsets (26–28). Functionally, LTβR is crucial for development and structural organization of lymphoid tissues such as lymph nodes (LN), spleen, and thymus, and regulation of inflammation, adaptive immune responses, and tissue homeostasis (29). LTβR binds to lymphotoxin (LT)αβ heterodimers and LIGHT (TNFSF14), members of the tumor necrosis factor (TNF) superfamily. LTα1β2 selectively engages LTβR, whereas LIGHT binds both LTβR and herpesvirus entry mediator (HVEM, TNFRSF14) (30, 31). LTβR signaling is modulated by the soluble decoy receptor DcR3 that sequesters LIGHT (32). Downstream, LTβR activates both canonical and non-canonical (alternative) NF-κB pathways, inducing transcription of diverse chemokines and cytokines (31, 33, 34) (Figure 1A). The context-dependent expression of LTβR and selective engagement of these pathways underpin its varied roles in tumor progression and anti-tumor immunity, as discussed below.
Figure 1. LTβR ligand engagement and downstream NF-κB signaling pathways. (A) Ligands and receptors of TNF/lymphotoxin family. The soluble homotrimer LTα3 signals through TNFRI, TNFRII and HVEM. Membrane-bound LTα1β2 is the dominant ligand for LTβR, while LTα2β1 can engage both LTβR and TNFRI/TNFRII. The homotrimeric ligand LIGHT binds to LTβR as well as HVEM. LTβR signaling is further regulated by DcR3, a soluble decoy receptor that neutralizes LIGHT and limits its interaction with LTβR. Upon activation, LTβR triggers both canonical and non-canonical NF-κB signaling pathways. (LT: Lymphotoxin; TNFR: Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor; LTβR: Lymphotoxin beta receptor; HVEM: Herpesvirus Entry Mediator; DcR3: Decoy Receptor 3). (B) LTβR-mediated NF-κB signaling in solid tumor immunity. Ligand engagement of LTβR induces receptor clustering, recruitment of TNF receptor–associated adaptor proteins (TRAFs), and assembly of the LTβR signaling complex (LTβR-SC). This initiates downstream NF-κB pathways that regulate context-dependent tumor promoting or tumor suppressive roles. Canonical NF-κB activation (rapid) involves TRAF2 recruitment to the cytoplasmic domain of LTβR, resulting in activation of the Inhibitor of κB Kinase (IKK) complex, IKK-mediated phosphorylation and proteasomal degradation of Inhibitor of κB alpha (IκBα), followed by nuclear translocation of RelA/p50 dimers and induction of pro- or anti- tumorigenic responses in the TME. In contrast, the non-canonical NF-κB pathway (slow activation) depends on stabilization of NF-κB–inducing kinase (NIK) and subsequent IKKα-mediated processing of p100 into p52, allowing nuclear translocation of RelB/p52 heterodimers and activation of transcriptional programs governing pro- or anti-tumorigenic outcomes. (123, 124).
This review focuses on the dual and context-dependent roles of LTβR signaling in solid tumors, highlighting its capacity to drive both tumor-promoting and anti-tumor immune responses. It emphasizes LTβR’s interactions with myeloid, stromal, and endothelial cells in the TME, and its potential as a therapeutic target. We discuss how selective LTβR modulation can induce tertiary lymphoid structure (TLS) formation, enhance immune cell infiltration, and synergize with existing immunotherapies. Insights from this review aim to guide innovative, TME-focused strategies that improve treatment outcomes in refractory solid cancers.
LTβR/NF-kB axis: dual role in tumor progression and anti- tumor immunity
The lymphotoxin-beta receptor (LTβR) signaling is initiated by ligand-induced receptor aggregation, leading to the recruitment of TNF receptor-associated factor (TRAF) proteins, assembly of the LTβR signaling complex (LTβR-SC), and activation of NF-κB pathways that mediate apoptosis, inflammation, and tumor progression (35). Rapid LTβR activation recruits TRAF2, triggering Inhibitor of κB kinase (IKK)-mediated phosphorylation and degradation of IκBα, allowing nuclear translocation of RelA/p50 heterodimers to activate the canonical NF-κB pathway. In contrast, slower LTβR activation recruits TRAF3-containing complexes, stabilizing NF-κB-inducing kinase (NIK) and activating IKKα, resulting in nuclear translocation of RelB/p52 dimers driving the non-canonical NF-κB pathway (34, 36–38) (Figure 1B). Functionally, canonical NF-κB promotes inflammation and cell survival, whereas non-canonical NF-κB supports lymphoid organ development and immune homeostasis.
Fernandes et al. reviewed the dual role of LTβR in cancer, highlighting the context-dependent LTβR/NF-κB axis in both tumor promotion and anti-tumor immunity (39). Persistent LTβR signaling through the canonical NF-κB pathway has been linked to chronic inflammation and tumor progression (40, 41), whilst non-canonical NF-κB signaling drives stromal differentiation, chemokine secretion and metastasis (42–47). More recently, LTβR has been identified as an immune checkpoint molecule on TAMs, where it sustains immunosuppressive phenotypes and drives ICB resistance via non-canonical NF-κB and Wnt/β-catenin signaling (48). Conversely, LTβR ligation can induce direct CD8+ T cell-mediated tumor cytotoxicity via both canonical and non-canonical NF-κB pathways (49). In addition, LTβR activation in tumor cells can indirectly promote anti-tumor responses by upregulating chemokines (50), adhesion molecules (51) and stimulating the formation of specialized blood vessels or high endothelial venules (HEVs). LTβR-induced HEV formation enhances the trafficking of immune cells including ICB-responsive CD8+ T cells, and B cells into the tumor that facilitate local immune activation through the development of functional TLS that are organized immune niches within non-lymphoid tissues that closely resemble LN in architecture and function. TLSs provide a localized platform for antigen presentation, lymphocyte priming, and the initiation of adaptive immune responses, thereby enhancing tumor immunosurveillance and promoting anti-tumor immunity (52–54). However, the precise contribution of LTβR-induced NF-κB activation to these processes remains to be fully elucidated.
Taken together, these studies indicate that both rapid (canonical) and slow (non-canonical) LTβR signaling pathways can mediate context-dependent pro- and anti-tumorigenic effects (Figure 1B). Notably, prolonged LTβR activation and sustained chronic inflammation have been associated with tumorigenesis (40, 41). Additionally, saturation of LTβR and Fc receptors by excessive ligand binding has been shown to impair receptor clustering and effector function (55). These findings suggest that low-level or transient activation of LTβR, upstream of NF-κB, may be more effective in promoting anti-tumor immunity in solid tumors. Importantly, the mode of LTβR engagement critically influences downstream signaling outcomes. While natural ligands (e.g., LTα1β2 or LIGHT) activate both canonical and non-canonical NF-κB pathways, they often require co-stimulatory signals or membrane-bound cell contact for full activity (31, 39). In contrast, agonistic LTβR antibodies can induce receptor signaling in a ligand-independent manner (56, 57), enabling more controlled and tunable pathway activation. This property makes agonistic LTβR antibodies particularly attractive as immunotherapeutics for solid tumors, where limited and spatially-restricted receptor clustering may be key to eliciting beneficial immune responses.
Impact of LTβR-based therapeutics on solid TME
LTβR agonism
Early studies by Browning and colleagues demonstrated that in vitro activation of LTβR using either recombinant LTα1β2 or an agonistic anti-LTβR monoclonal antibody can induce interferon-γ-dependent cell death in human colorectal adenocarcinoma cells, highlighting the potential of LTβR agonism as a tumoricidal strategy (58, 59). Subsequent investigations extended this role to LTβR-mediated T cell immunity, showing that LTβR signaling can drive tumor regression via immune mechanisms (50, 60, 61). Notably, Lukashev et al. employed a human-specific LTβR agonist antibody (CBE11) and demonstrated that systemic LTβR activation promotes T cell infiltration into the TME in humanized mouse models of colon and cervical cancer, significantly enhancing anti-tumor responses and sensitizing tumors to chemotherapy (62). The recognized role of LTβR in regulating tissue homeostasis, inflammatory responses, and lymphoid tissue organization (34, 63) has increasingly implicated it as a central mediator of TLS formation within solid tumors. Using a murine LTβR agonist (5G1), a recent study demonstrated that systemic LTβR stimulation induces TLS formation in colorectal tumors, characterized by HEVs and enhanced recruitment and interaction of DCs and T cells, ultimately driving tumor-inhibiting immunity (52). Mature TLS containing germinal centers (GCs) composed of follicular helper T (TFH) cells, follicular dendritic cells (FDCs), HEVs, and organized T and B cell zones have been associated with improved survival and enhanced ICB responsiveness across solid tumors (64–67), and are enriched in self-renewing progenitor exhausted T cells (TPEX) (68), that amplify therapeutic responses (69).
LTβR- agonism in combination with ICB therapy
T cell- based ICB, particularly PD-1 inhibition, frequently encounters adaptive resistance mechanisms, notably the induction of T cell exhaustion. This occurs through upregulation of molecules such as neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase 1 (Ntrk1) in tumors, which limits effector T cell function (70), or through compensatory expression of alternative co-inhibitory receptors like T cell Immunoglobulin and Mucin-domain containing-3 (TIM-3), which promote terminal T cell exhaustion even in the presence of PD-1 blockade (71). To counter this, combinatorial ICB strategies have shown improved efficacy. For instance, dual blockade of PD-1 and CTLA-4 significantly outperforms monotherapy in advanced melanoma patients (72). Similarly, co-targeting PD-1 with other inhibitory receptors such as TIM-3, Lymphocyte Activation Gene-3 (LAG-3), and T cell Immunoreceptor with Ig and ITIM domains (TIGIT) has elicited enhanced anti-tumor responses in clinical trials (73). Although ICB can partially reverse T cell exhaustion and expand responsive subsets such as TPEX, a greater pool of TPEX cells also increases the likelihood of their differentiation into terminally exhausted T cells (TEX) under persistent antigen exposure, ultimately contributing to treatment refractoriness and limiting long-term efficacy. Given these limitations, targeting immunoregulatory pathways outside of the T cell compartment, such as LTβR expressed on non-lymphoid cells, may alleviate immune pressure on T cells and limit exhaustion, offering a complementary approach to current ICB therapies. Indeed, LTβR agonism has been shown to sensitize tumors to PD-1 blockade and CAR-T cell therapies in murine models (52) and enhance the efficacy of anti-angiogenic and anti–PD-L1 treatments by inducing HEVs (74). In parallel, blockade of upstream T cell intrinsic checkpoint P-selectin glycoprotein ligand-1 (PSGL-1) has been shown to further synergize with PD-1 inhibition to expand ICB-responsive CD8+ T cell subsets (75–77). This suggests that combining PSGL-1 blockade with LTβR agonism could synergistically promote the formation of HEVs enriched in stem-like T cells, thereby enhancing ICB responsiveness and improving therapeutic outcomes in immunotherapy-resistant solid tumors.
LTβR ligands as immunotherapeutic targets
In addition to LTβR agonistic antibodies, LTβR ligands have also been leveraged for tumor targeting. A tumor-specific antibody, LTα fusion protein has been shown to induce TLS within the TME and inhibit both primary tumor growth and metastasis in xenografted and murine models of melanoma (78, 79). Another LTβR ligand, LIGHT (TNFSF14), which binds both LTβR and HVEM has been extensively studied for its anti-tumor potential. Tumor-restricted delivery of the LTβR ligand LIGHT via engineered tumor cells (51), viral vectors or mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) (80–82) have led to enhanced T cell infiltration, upregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and in some cases, activation of natural killer (NK) cells (83). Recent studies employing tumor-restricted LIGHT delivery via engineered CAR-T cells or nanoparticles have provided mechanistic insight into how LTβR engagement within the TME induces HEVs and TLS formation, thereby enhancing lymphocyte recruitment and local anti-tumor immunity (84, 85). Moreover, LIGHT-based fusion proteins have been shown to mediate vascular normalization and tumor growth inhibition in an LTβR-dependent manner (86–88). For example, a recombinant fusion protein comprising LIGHT and an anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody was engineered to specifically target EGFR-expressing tumor cells, enabling LIGHT engagement with LTβR/HVEM-expressing cells in the TME and facilitating the induction of tumor-reactive T cell immunity in an ICB-resistant fibrosarcoma model (89). Like direct LTβR agonism, LIGHT delivery strategies have also shown enhanced therapeutic efficacy when combined with ICB therapy, demonstrating synergistic anti-tumor effects in preclinical models (80).
Thus, these findings support both systemic and localized LTβR activation as therapeutically effective in promoting anti-tumor immunity via TLS formation in preclinical models (summarized in graphical abstract). However, given the broad immunomodulatory functions of LTβR, tumor-directed delivery, analogous to localized LIGHT- based strategies, may preferentially bias receptor engagement toward the TME and reduce the need for widespread systemic activation. Importantly, such approaches do not preclude systemic exposure, and their pharmacokinetics and signaling consequences remain to be defined.
LTβR blockade in cancer immunotherapy
In solid tumors where LTβR is expressed by immunosuppressive cells such as M2-polarized TAMs, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and anti-inflammatory stromal cells, LTβR blockade has been shown to reduce tumor burden in preclinical models. In lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), TAM-specific silencing of LTβR via small interfering RNA (siRNA) enhanced T cell–mediated anti-tumor immunity, reduced MDSC accumulation, and significantly improved the efficacy of ICB therapy (48). Similarly, systemic administration of an LTβR–immunoglobulin fusion protein (LTβR-Ig), which sequesters LTβR ligands and inhibits downstream signaling, resulted in tumor regression by targeting podoplanin-expressing lymph node stromal cells and promoting CD4+ T cell–driven anti-tumor responses (90). A recent pan-cancer analysis by Wu et al. demonstrated that LTβR expression correlates with poor prognosis in several tumor types (91). Supporting this, co-culture models revealed that LTβR-mediated cross-talk between stromal cells and ovarian cancer cells promotes tumor proliferation and metastasis (92). These findings suggest that LTβR inhibition in advanced-stage malignancies may improve survival outcomes and augment responsiveness to ICB therapy.
In summary, LTβR exerts dual, context-dependent roles in cancer that vary with tumor type and disease stage (91). Effective clinical translation of LTβR-based immunotherapies will require precise mapping of LTβR expression across TME cell types and their downstream NF-κB signaling dependencies. Persistent or excessive LTβR engagement can drive chronic pro-tumorigenic inflammation and impair receptor clustering through ligand and Fc-receptor saturation (40, 41, 55). Although optimal systemic “low-dose” activation thresholds remain undefined, avoiding excessive LTβR stimulation through tumor-targeted delivery strategies and tumor-specific dose optimization may maximize anti-tumor benefit. Given the heterogeneity of LTβR expression across tumor types, immune subsets, and patient demographics, stratified profiling will be required to guide personalized LTβR-directed immunotherapy.
Cell-specific expression of LTβR associated with the solid TME
Advanced solid tumors such as PDAC and GBM are classified as immunologically “cold,” “excluded,” or “hot” based on immune infiltration (93–95). Integrated profiling of multiple immune subsets predicts immunotherapy response more accurately than single-cell analyses (96). Tumor infiltration is initiated predominantly by myeloid cells (TAMs, MDSCs, DCs), followed by lymphoid cells (T, B, and NK cells), and is shaped by cytokine- and chemokine-driven recruitment and polarization (97, 98). Given its expression across stromal, endothelial, and myeloid compartments, LTβR-mediated cross-talk is therefore central to therapeutic reprogramming of the TME.
Non-hematopoietic cells (stromal and endothelial cells)
LTβR signaling plays an essential role in lymph node development through lymphoid tissue organizer (LTo) and lymphoid tissue inducer (LTi) cell interactions leading to chemokine secretion and stromal differentiation (63, 99). In endothelial cells, LTβR promotes HEV formation, facilitating lymphocyte trafficking (63, 99), and tumor studies show that LTβR agonism induces HEVs, TLS-associated chemokines (CXCL13, CCL19, CCL21), and immune infiltration, thereby enhancing ICB efficacy (52).
Stromal cells, particularly CAFs, shape the TME through cytokines, chemokines, extracellular matrix remodeling, and exosomes, fostering immunosuppression and therapy resistance (100). Additional stromal elements like MSCs and tumor endothelial cells (TECs) further regulate immune access and metastatic potential (100). LTβR activation in tumor or lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) via Treg-derived LTα1β2 promotes angiogenesis and immunosuppressive gene expression through non-canonical NF-κB signaling (101), effects that can be reversed using decoy peptides (nciLT), which reduce Treg/MDSC infiltration and enhance CD8+ T cell activity (101).
Hematopoietic cells (myeloid cells: DCs and macrophages)
In DCs, LTβR promotes maturation, antigen presentation (102), subset specification (103). It also drives TLS formation, chemokine production, and intratumoral T cell activation (52, 104). Within the TME, M1-like (classically activated) TAMs exert anti-tumor functions through Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase (iNOS), reactive oxygen species (ROS), and pro-inflammatory cytokines (105). Similarly, CD169+ macrophages display immunoregulatory and anti-tumor activity, correlating with enhanced cytotoxicity, improved disease prognosis, and increased responsiveness to ICB (106, 107). LTβR signaling regulates their recruitment, antigen capture, and CD8+ T cell priming (108).
Conversely, M2-like (alternatively activated) TAMs promote tumor progression via immunosuppressive cytokines, growth factors, and pro-angiogenic mediators (109). In TAMs, LTβR mediates context-specific outcomes, promoting either inflammatory M1-like phenotypes (108), or immunosuppressive M2-like states via noncanonical NF-κB and Wnt/β-catenin signaling, thereby fostering CD8+ T cell exhaustion and immune evasion (48). Consequently, LTβR knockdown reverses these immunosuppressive effects and improves immunotherapy outcomes (48). However, CD169+ TAMs can also acquire pro-tumorigenic functions in breast cancer through TLS-associated immunosuppression and PD-L1 induction (110–112), highlighting their functional duality in the TME (111).
Lymphoid cells
LTβR indirectly regulates lymphoid cells through stromal and myeloid intermediates. LTβR signaling in DCs drives Innate lymphoid cell (ILC)- mediated anti-bacterial cytokine production (113), while stromal cells support ILC homeostasis (114). ILC subsets display functional plasticity: NK/ILC1 cells are cytotoxic; ILC2s regulate DC and CD8+ T cell recruitment or suppression; and ILC3s modulate tumor growth via cytokines and TLS induction (115). In PDAC, Interleukin (IL)-33+ ILCs interact with LTβR+ myeloid cells to promote TLS formation and favorable prognosis (116). T cells, as key producers of LTα1β2, engage LTβR on stromal, myeloid, and ILC populations to drive LN and TLS formation and bidirectional immune modulation (26, 29, 31, 117, 118). Recent studies further show that enforced LTβR expression in CD4+ and CD8+ T cells enhances effector function and resistance to exhaustion, supporting CAR T cell efficacy (119). Although B cells were traditionally viewed solely as LTβR-ligand producers (29, 117, 118, 120, 121), emerging evidence indicates that murine plasma cells endogenously express LTβR, and enforced LTβR expression in B cells promotes long-lived plasma cell survival and enhanced anti-tumor humoral immunity (122).
Conclusion
LTβR emerges as a central immunoregulatory node within the solid TME, capable of mediating both tumor-promoting and anti-tumorigenic outcomes depending on cellular context and activation dynamics. Preclinical evidence underscores that judicious activation of LTβR can reprogram immunologically “cold” tumors by inducing TLSs, HEVs, and chemokine-driven lymphocyte trafficking, thereby enhancing responsiveness to ICB and other T cell–based therapies. Conversely, unchecked or chronic LTβR stimulation risks fostering immunosuppressive macrophage phenotypes, stromal remodeling, and tumor progression. These dual roles necessitate the development of precision strategies that balance efficacy with safety. Approaches such as localized delivery of LTβR agonist antibodies, LIGHT-based fusion proteins, or conditionally active bispecific molecules hold promise in achieving spatially controlled receptor clustering and tunable NF-κB activation. Equally important, LTβR blockade in tumors dominated by immunosuppressive myeloid and stromal compartments represents a complementary strategy to reverse resistance and restore anti-tumor immunity. Moving forward, defining the tumor type– and subset-specific expression patterns of LTβR and its downstream signaling dependencies will be critical for the clinical translation of LTβR-targeted therapies. Integration of LTβR modulation with ICB and next-generation vaccines offers a powerful opportunity to overcome T cell–centric immunotherapy limitations and broaden durable responses in refractory solid tumors.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
A: Writing – original draft. NS: Writing – review & editing. RS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. We acknowledge the funding and support from Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Faridabad. The funder(s) had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
We express our sincere gratitude to NS, Associate Provost, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Faridabad and Dr. Amit K. Dinda, Research Director, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Faridabad.
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. Guha P, Heatherton KR, O’Connell KP, Alexander IS, and Katz SC. Assessing the future of solid tumor immunotherapy. Biomedicines. (2022) 10. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines10030655
2. Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. (2015) 372:2521–32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503093
3. Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. (2015) 373:1627–39. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507643
4. Royal RE, Levy C, Turner K, Mathur A, Hughes M, Kammula US, et al. Phase 2 trial of single agent Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Immunother. (2010) 33:828–33. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181eec14c
5. Yarchoan M, Hopkins A, and Jaffee EM. Tumor mutational burden and response rate to PD-1 inhibition. N Engl J Med. (2017) 377:2500–1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1713444
6. Baskaran AB, Kozel OA, Venkatesh O, Wainwright DA, Sonabend AM, Heimberger AB, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in glioblastoma IDHwt treatment: A systematic review. Cancers (Basel). (2024) 16. doi: 10.3390/cancers16244148
7. Lim SY, Shklovskaya E, Lee JH, Pedersen B, Stewart A, Ming Z, et al. The molecular and functional landscape of resistance to immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:1516. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-36979-y
8. Bielamowicz K, Khawja S, and Ahmed N. Adoptive cell therapies for glioblastoma. Front Oncol. (2013) 3:275. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00275
9. Sarivalasis A, Morotti M, Mulvey A, Imbimbo M, and Coukos G. Cell therapies in ovarian cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. (2021) 13:17588359211008399. doi: 10.1177/17588359211008399
10. Timmer FEF, Geboers B, Nieuwenhuizen S, Dijkstra M, Schouten EAC, Puijk RS, et al. Pancreatic cancer and immunotherapy: A clinical overview. Cancers (Basel). (2021) 13. doi: 10.3390/cancers13164138
11. Kumar AR, Devan AR, Nair B, Vinod BS, and Nath LR. Harnessing the immune system against cancer: current immunotherapy approaches and therapeutic targets. Mol Biol Rep. (2021) 48:8075–95. doi: 10.1007/s11033-021-06752-9
12. Le DT, Picozzi VJ, Ko AH, Wainberg ZA, Kindler H, Wang-Gillam A, et al. Results from a phase IIb, randomized, multicenter study of GVAX pancreas and CRS-207 compared with chemotherapy in adults with previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ECLIPSE study). Clin Cancer Res. (2019) 25:5493–502. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2992
13. Wu AA, Bever KM, Ho WJ, Fertig EJ, Niu N, Zheng L, et al. A phase II study of allogeneic GM-CSF-transfected pancreatic tumor vaccine (GVAX) with ipilimumab as maintenance treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2020) 26:5129–39. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-1025
14. Salahlou R, Farajnia S, Alizadeh E, and Dastmalchi S. Recent developments in peptide vaccines against Glioblastoma, a review and update. Mol Brain. (2025) 18:50. doi: 10.1186/s13041-025-01221-x
15. Pacheco HFM, Fernandes JLF, Dias FCR, Deus MC, Ribeiro DL, Michelin MA, et al. Efficacy of using dendritic cells in the treatment of prostate cancer: A systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. (2025) 26. doi: 10.3390/ijms26104939
16. Rappaport AR, Kyi C, Lane M, Hart MG, Johnson ML, Henick BS, et al. A shared neoantigen vaccine combined with immune checkpoint blockade for advanced metastatic solid tumors: phase 1 trial interim results. Nat Med. (2024) 30:1013–22. doi: 10.1038/s41591-024-02851-9
17. Mathew AA, Zakkariya ZT, Ashokan A, Manohar M, Keechilat P, Nair SV, et al. 5-FU mediated depletion of myeloid suppressor cells enhances T-cell infiltration and anti-tumor response in immunotherapy-resistant lung tumor. Int Immunopharmacol. (2023) 120:110129. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2023.110129
18. Ozdemir BC, Pentcheva-Hoang T, Carstens JL, Zheng X, Wu CC, Simpson TR, et al. Depletion of carcinoma-associated fibroblasts and fibrosis induces immunosuppression and accelerates pancreas cancer with reduced survival. Cancer Cell. (2014) 25:719–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.04.005
19. Rhim AD, Oberstein PE, Thomas DH, Mirek ET, Palermo CF, Sastra SA, et al. Stromal elements act to restrain, rather than support, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell. (2014) 25:735–47. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2014.04.021
20. Khan SU, Khan MU, Azhar Ud Din M, Khan IM, Khan MI, Bungau S, et al. Reprogramming tumor-associated macrophages as a unique approach to target tumor immunotherapy. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1166487. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1166487
21. Yang D, Liu J, Qian H, and Zhuang Q. Cancer-associated fibroblasts: from basic science to anticancer therapy. Exp Mol Med. (2023) 55:1322–32. doi: 10.1038/s12276-023-01013-0
22. Murphy M, Walter BN, Pike-Nobile L, Fanger NA, Guyre PM, Browning JL, et al. Expression of the lymphotoxin beta receptor on follicular stromal cells in human lymphoid tissues. Cell Death Differ. (1998) 5:497–505. doi: 10.1038/sj.cdd.4400374
23. Fu YX, Huang G, Wang Y, and Chaplin DD. B lymphocytes induce the formation of follicular dendritic cell clusters in a lymphotoxin alpha-dependent fashion. J Exp Med. (1998) 187:1009–18. doi: 10.1084/jem.187.7.1009
24. Gommerman JL and Browning JL. Lymphotoxin/light, lymphoid microenvironments and autoimmune disease. Nat Rev Immunol. (2003) 3:642–55. doi: 10.1038/nri1151
25. Browning JL, Sizing ID, Lawton P, Bourdon PR, Rennert PD, Majeau GR, et al. Characterization of lymphotoxin-alpha beta complexes on the surface of mouse lymphocytes. J Immunol. (1997) 159:3288–98. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.159.7.3288
26. Ehlers S, Holscher C, Scheu S, Tertilt C, Hehlgans T, Suwinski J, et al. The lymphotoxin beta receptor is critically involved in controlling infections with the intracellular pathogens Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Listeria monocytogenes. J Immunol. (2003) 170:5210–8. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.170.10.5210
27. Kabashima K, Banks TA, Ansel KM, Lu TT, Ware CF, and Cyster JG. Intrinsic lymphotoxin-beta receptor requirement for homeostasis of lymphoid tissue dendritic cells. Immunity. (2005) 22:439–50. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2005.02.007
28. Wege AK, Huber B, Wimmer N, Mannel DN, and Hehlgans T. LTbetaR expression on hematopoietic cells regulates acute inflammation and influences maturation of myeloid subpopulations. Innate Immun. (2014) 20:461–70. doi: 10.1177/1753425913497242
29. Upadhyay V and Fu YX. Lymphotoxin signalling in immune homeostasis and the control of microorganisms. Nat Rev Immunol. (2013) 13:270–9. doi: 10.1038/nri3406
30. Norris PS and Ware CF. The LT beta R signaling pathway. Adv Exp Med Biol. (2007) 597:160–72. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-70630-6_13
31. Ware CF. Network communications: lymphotoxins, LIGHT, and TNF. Annu Rev Immunol. (2005) 23:787–819. doi: 10.1146/annurev.immunol.23.021704.115719
32. Yu KY, Kwon B, Ni J, Zhai Y, Ebner R, and Kwon BS. A newly identified member of tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily (TR6) suppresses LIGHT-mediated apoptosis. J Biol Chem. (1999) 274:13733–6. doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.20.13733
33. Albarbar B, Dunnill C, and Georgopoulos NT. Regulation of cell fate by lymphotoxin (LT) receptor signalling: Functional differences and similarities of the LT system to other TNF superfamily (TNFSF) members. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. (2015) 26:659–71. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2015.05.001
34. Dejardin E, Droin NM, Delhase M, Haas E, Cao Y, Makris C, et al. The lymphotoxin-beta receptor induces different patterns of gene expression via two NF-kappaB pathways. Immunity. (2002) 17:525–35. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(02)00423-5
35. Chen YG, Rieser E, Bhamra A, Surinova S, Kreuzaler P, Ho MH, et al. LUBAC enables tumor-promoting LTbeta receptor signaling by activating canonical NF-kappaB. Cell Death Differ. (2024) 31:1267–84. doi: 10.1038/s41418-024-01355-w
36. Bista P, Zeng W, Ryan S, Bailly V, Browning JL, and Lukashev ME. TRAF3 controls activation of the canonical and alternative NFkappaB by the lymphotoxin beta receptor. J Biol Chem. (2010) 285:12971–8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M109.076091
37. Muller JR and Siebenlist U. Lymphotoxin beta receptor induces sequential activation of distinct NF-kappa B factors via separate signaling pathways. J Biol Chem. (2003) 278:12006–12. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M210768200
38. Sanjo H, Zajonc DM, Braden R, Norris PS, and Ware CF. Allosteric regulation of the ubiquitin:NIK and ubiquitin:TRAF3 E3 ligases by the lymphotoxin-beta receptor. J Biol Chem. (2010) 285:17148–55. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.105874
39. Fernandes MT, Dejardin E, and dos Santos NR. Context-dependent roles for lymphotoxin-beta receptor signaling in cancer development. Biochim Biophys Acta. (2016) 1865:204–19. doi: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2016.02.005
40. Haybaeck J, Zeller N, Wolf MJ, Weber A, Wagner U, Kurrer MO, et al. A lymphotoxin-driven pathway to hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Cell. (2009) 16:295–308. doi: 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.08.021
41. Simonin Y, Vegna S, Akkari L, Gregoire D, Antoine E, Piette J, et al. Lymphotoxin signaling is initiated by the viral polymerase in HCV-linked tumorigenesis. PloS Pathog. (2013) 9:e1003234. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003234
42. Conlon TM, John-Schuster G, Heide D, Pfister D, Lehmann M, Hu Y, et al. Inhibition of LTbetaR signalling activates WNT-induced regeneration in lung. Nature. (2020) 588:151–6. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2882-8
43. Daller B, Musch W, Rohrl J, Tumanov AV, Nedospasov SA, Mannel DN, et al. Lymphotoxin-beta receptor activation by lymphotoxin-alpha(1)beta(2) and LIGHT promotes tumor growth in an NFkappaB-dependent manner. Int J Cancer. (2011) 128:1363–70. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25456
44. Hehlgans T, Stoelcker B, Stopfer P, Muller P, Cernaianu G, Guba M, et al. Lymphotoxin-beta receptor immune interaction promotes tumor growth by inducing angiogenesis. Cancer Res. (2002) 62:4034–40.
45. Scherr AL, Nader L, Xu K, Elssner C, Ridder DA, Nichetti F, et al. Etiology-independent activation of the LTbeta-LTbetaR-RELB axis drives aggressiveness and predicts poor prognosis in HCC. Hepatology. (2024) 80:278–94. doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000657
46. Xu K, Kessler A, Nichetti F, Hoffmeister-Wittmann P, Scherr AL, Nader L, et al. Lymphotoxin beta-activated LTBR/NIK/RELB axis drives proliferation in cholangiocarcinoma. Liver Int. (2024) 44:2950–63. doi: 10.1111/liv.16069
47. Das R, Coupar J, Clavijo PE, Saleh A, Cheng TF, Yang X, et al. Lymphotoxin-beta receptor-NIK signaling induces alternative RELB/NF-kappaB2 activation to promote metastatic gene expression and cell migration in head and neck cancer. Mol Carcinog. (2019) 58:411–25. doi: 10.1002/mc.22938
48. Wang L, Fan J, Wu S, Cheng S, Zhao J, Fan F, et al. LTBR acts as a novel immune checkpoint of tumor-associated macrophages for cancer immunotherapy. Imeta. (2024) 3:e233. doi: 10.1002/imt2.233
49. Hu X, Zimmerman MA, Bardhan K, Yang D, Waller JL, Liles GB, et al. Lymphotoxin beta receptor mediates caspase-dependent tumor cell apoptosis in vitro and tumor suppression in vivo despite induction of NF-kappaB activation. Carcinogenesis. (2013) 34:1105–14. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgt014
50. Winter H, van den Engel NK, Poehlein CH, Hatz RA, Fox BA, and Hu HM. Tumor-specific T cells signal tumor destruction via the lymphotoxin beta receptor. J Transl Med. (2007) 5:14. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-5-14
51. Yu P, Lee Y, Liu W, Chin RK, Wang J, Wang Y, et al. Priming of naive T cells inside tumors leads to eradication of established tumors. Nat Immunol. (2004) 5:141–9. doi: 10.1038/ni1029
52. An D, Chen G, Cheng WY, Mohrs K, Adler C, Gupta NT, et al. LTbetaR agonism promotes antitumor immune responses via modulation of the tumor microenvironment. Cancer Res. (2024) 84:3984–4001. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-23-2716
53. Hua Y, Vella G, Rambow F, Allen E, Antoranz Martinez A, Duhamel M, et al. Cancer immunotherapies transition endothelial cells into HEVs that generate TCF1(+) T lymphocyte niches through a feed-forward loop. Cancer Cell. (2022) 40:1600–1618.e1610. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2022.11.002
54. Blanchard L and Girard JP. High endothelial venules (HEVs) in immunity, inflammation and cancer. Angiogenesis. (2021) 24:719–53. doi: 10.1007/s10456-021-09792-8
55. Shuptrine CW, Perez VM, Selitsky SR, Schreiber TH, and Fromm G. Shining a LIGHT on myeloid cell targeted immunotherapy. Eur J Cancer. (2023) 187:147–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.03.040
56. Mackay F, Majeau GR, Hochman PS, and Browning JL. Lymphotoxin beta receptor triggering induces activation of the nuclear factor kappaB transcription factor in some cell types. J Biol Chem. (1996) 271:24934–8. doi: 10.1074/jbc.271.40.24934
57. VanArsdale TL, VanArsdale SL, Force WR, Walter BN, Mosialos G, Kieff E, et al. Lymphotoxin-beta receptor signaling complex: role of tumor necrosis factor receptor-associated factor 3 recruitment in cell death and activation of nuclear factor kappaB. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. (1997) 94:2460–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.6.2460
58. Browning JL, Miatkowski K, Sizing I, Griffiths D, Zafari M, Benjamin CD, et al. Signaling through the lymphotoxin beta receptor induces the death of some adenocarcinoma tumor lines. J Exp Med. (1996) 183:867–78. doi: 10.1084/jem.183.3.867
59. Wilson CA and Browning JL. Death of HT29 adenocarcinoma cells induced by TNF family receptor activation is caspase-independent and displays features of both apoptosis and necrosis. Cell Death Differ. (2002) 9:1321–33. doi: 10.1038/sj.cdd.4401107
60. Dobrzanski MJ, Reome JB, Hollenbaugh JA, Hylind JC, and Dutton RW. Effector cell-derived lymphotoxin alpha and Fas ligand, but not perforin, promote Tc1 and Tc2 effector cell-mediated tumor therapy in established pulmonary metastases. Cancer Res. (2004) 64:406–14. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-2580
61. Yang D, Ud Din N, Browning DD, Abrams SI, and Liu K. Targeting lymphotoxin beta receptor with tumor-specific T lymphocytes for tumor regression. Clin Cancer Res. (2007) 13:5202–10. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1161
62. Lukashev M, LePage D, Wilson C, Bailly V, Garber E, Lukashin A, et al. Targeting the lymphotoxin-beta receptor with agonist antibodies as a potential cancer therapy. Cancer Res. (2006) 66:9617–24. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0217
63. Browning JL. Inhibition of the lymphotoxin pathway as a therapy for autoimmune disease. Immunol Rev. (2008) 223:202–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2008.00633.x
64. A JG, Rajamanickam V, Bui C, Bernard B, Pucilowska J, Ballesteros-Merino C, et al. Germinal center reactions in tertiary lymphoid structures associate with neoantigen burden, humoral immunity and long-term survivorship in pancreatic cancer. Oncoimmunology. (2021) 10:1900635. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2021.1900635
65. Posch F, Silina K, Leibl S, Mundlein A, Moch H, Siebenhuner A, et al. Maturation of tertiary lymphoid structures and recurrence of stage II and III colorectal cancer. Oncoimmunology. (2018) 7:e1378844. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1378844
66. Sautes-Fridman C, Petitprez F, Calderaro J, and Fridman WH. Tertiary lymphoid structures in the era of cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. (2019) 19:307–25. doi: 10.1038/s41568-019-0144-6
67. Silina K, Soltermann A, Attar FM, Casanova R, Uckeley ZM, Thut H, et al. Germinal centers determine the prognostic relevance of tertiary lymphoid structures and are impaired by corticosteroids in lung squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. (2018) 78:1308–20. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-1987
68. Steiner C, Denlinger N, Huang X, and Yang Y. Stem-like CD8(+) T cells in cancer. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1426418. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1426418
69. Li H, Zhang MJ, Zhang B, Lin WP, Li SJ, Xiong D, et al. Mature tertiary lymphoid structures evoke intra-tumoral T and B cell responses via progenitor exhausted CD4(+) T cells in head and neck cancer. Nat Commun. (2025) 16:4228. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025-59341-w
70. Konen JM, Rodriguez BL, Fradette JJ, Gibson L, Davis D, Minelli R, et al. Ntrk1 promotes resistance to PD-1 checkpoint blockade in mesenchymal kras/p53 mutant lung cancer. Cancers. (2019) 11:462. doi: 10.3390/cancers11040462
71. Koyama S, Akbay EA, Li YY, Herter-Sprie GS, Buczkowski KA, Richards WG, et al. Adaptive resistance to therapeutic PD-1 blockade is associated with upregulation of alternative immune checkpoints. Nat Commun. (2016) 7:10501. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10501
72. Zhang B, Zhou YL, Chen X, Wang Z, Wang Q, Ju F, et al. Efficacy and safety of CTLA-4 inhibitors combined with PD-1 inhibitors or chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. Int Immunopharmacol. (2019) 68:131–6. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2018.12.034
73. Lu C and Tan Y. Promising immunotherapy targets: TIM3, LAG3, and TIGIT joined the party. Mol Ther Oncol. (2024) 32:200773. doi: 10.1016/j.omton.2024.200773
74. Allen E, Jabouille A, Rivera LB, Lodewijckx I, Missiaen R, Steri V, et al. Combined antiangiogenic and anti-PD-L1 therapy stimulates tumor immunity through HEV formation. Sci Transl Med. (2017) 9. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aak9679
75. Hope JL, Otero DC, Bae EA, Stairiker CJ, Palete AB, Faso HA, et al. PSGL-1 attenuates early TCR signaling to suppress CD8(+) T cell progenitor differentiation and elicit terminal CD8(+) T cell exhaustion. Cell Rep. (2023) 42:112436. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.112436
76. Tinoco R, Carrette F, Barraza ML, Otero DC, Magana J, Bosenberg MW, et al. PSGL-1 is an immune checkpoint regulator that promotes T cell exhaustion. Immunity. (2016) 44:1190–203. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.04.015
77. Hope JL, Zhang Y, Hetrick HAF, Sanchez-Hernandez ES, Silvestri B, Smith BJ, et al. Disabling PSGL-1 abrogates immune suppression and resistance to PD-1 blockade in pancreatic cancer. bioRxiv. (2025) 2025.05.22.655365.
78. Reisfeld RA, Gillies SD, Mendelsohn J, Varki NM, and Becker JC. Involvement of B lymphocytes in the growth inhibition of human pulmonary melanoma metastases in athymic nu/nu mice by an antibody-lymphotoxin fusion protein. Cancer Res. (1996) 56:1707–12.
79. Schrama D, thor Straten P, Fischer WH, McLellan AD, Brocker EB, Reisfeld RA, et al. Targeting of lymphotoxin-alpha to the tumor elicits an efficient immune response associated with induction of peripheral lymphoid-like tissue. Immunity. (2001) 14:111–21. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(01)00094-2
80. Skeate JG, Otsmaa ME, Prins R, Fernandez DJ, Da Silva DM, and Kast WM. TNFSF14: LIGHTing the way for effective cancer immunotherapy. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:922. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.00922
81. Zou W, Zheng H, He TC, Chang J, Fu YX, and Fan W. LIGHT delivery to tumors by mesenchymal stem cells mobilizes an effective antitumor immune response. Cancer Res. (2012) 72:2980–9. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-4216
82. Yu P, Lee Y, Wang Y, Liu X, Auh S, Gajewski TF, et al. Targeting the primary tumor to generate CTL for the effective eradication of spontaneous metastases. J Immunol. (2007) 179:1960–8. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.3.1960
83. Fan Z, Yu P, Wang Y, Wang Y, Fu ML, Liu W, et al. NK-cell activation by LIGHT triggers tumor-specific CD8+ T-cell immunity to reject established tumors. Blood. (2006) 107:1342–51. doi: 10.1182/blood-2005-08-3485
84. Hu L, Li T, Deng S, Gao H, Jiang Y, Chen Q, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structure formation induced by LIGHT-engineered and photosensitive nanoparticles-decorated bacteria enhances immune response against colorectal cancer. Biomaterials. (2025) 314:122846. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2024.122846
85. Zhang N, Liu X, Qin J, Sun Y, Xiong H, Lin B, et al. LIGHT/TNFSF14 promotes CAR-T cell trafficking and cytotoxicity through reversing immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Mol Ther. (2023) 31:2575–90. doi: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.06.015
86. He B, Jabouille A, Steri V, Johansson-Percival A, Michael IP, Kotamraju VR, et al. Vascular targeting of LIGHT normalizes blood vessels in primary brain cancer and induces intratumoural high endothelial venules. J Pathol. (2018) 245:209–21. doi: 10.1002/path.5080
87. Johansson-Percival A, He B, Li ZJ, Kjellen A, Russell K, Li J, et al. De novo induction of intratumoral lymphoid structures and vessel normalization enhances immunotherapy in resistant tumors. Nat Immunol. (2017) 18:1207–17. doi: 10.1038/ni.3836
88. Johansson-Percival A, Li ZJ, Lakhiani DD, He B, Wang X, Hamzah J, et al. Intratumoral LIGHT restores pericyte contractile properties and vessel integrity. Cell Rep. (2015) 13:2687–98. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.12.004
89. Tang H, Wang Y, Chlewicki LK, Zhang Y, Guo J, Liang W, et al. Facilitating T cell infiltration in tumor microenvironment overcomes resistance to PD-L1 blockade. Cancer Cell. (2016) 29:285–96. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.02.004
90. Hatzioannou A, Nayar S, Gaitanis A, Barone F, Anagnostopoulos C, and Verginis P. Intratumoral accumulation of podoplanin-expressing lymph node stromal cells promote tumor growth through elimination of CD4(+) tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Oncoimmunology. (2016) 5:e1216289. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1216289
91. Wu Y, Zhao S, Guo W, Liu Y, Requena Mullor MDM, Rodriguez RA, et al. Systematic analysis of the prognostic value and immunological function of LTBR in human cancer. Aging (Albany NY). (2024) 16:129–52. doi: 10.18632/aging.205356
92. Lau TS, Chung TK, Cheung TH, Chan LK, Cheung LW, Yim SF, et al. Cancer cell-derived lymphotoxin mediates reciprocal tumour-stromal interactions in human ovarian cancer by inducing CXCL11 in fibroblasts. J Pathol. (2014) 232:43–56. doi: 10.1002/path.4258
93. Chen DS and Mellman I. Elements of cancer immunity and the cancer-immune set point. Nature. (2017) 541:321–30. doi: 10.1038/nature21349
94. Joyce JA and Fearon DT. T cell exclusion, immune privilege, and the tumor microenvironment. Science. (2015) 348:74–80. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa6204
95. Lanitis E, Dangaj D, Irving M, and Coukos G. Mechanisms regulating T-cell infiltration and activity in solid tumors. Ann Oncol. (2017) 28:xii18–32. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdx238
96. Kather JN, Suarez-Carmona M, Charoentong P, Weis CA, Hirsch D, Bankhead P, et al. Topography of cancer-associated immune cells in human solid tumors. Elife. (2018) 7. doi: 10.7554/eLife.36967
97. Hong Q, Ding S, Xing C, and Mu Z. Advances in tumor immune microenvironment of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: A review of literature. Med (Balt). (2024) 103:e37387. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037387
98. Ahmadpour S, Habibi MA, Ghazi FS, Molazadeh M, Pashaie MR, and Mohammadpour Y. The effects of tumor-derived supernatants (TDS) on cancer cell progression: A review and update on carcinogenesis and immunotherapy. Cancer Treat Res Commun. (2024) 40:100823. doi: 10.1016/j.ctarc.2024.100823
99. Onder L, Danuser R, Scandella E, Firner S, Chai Q, Hehlgans T, et al. Endothelial cell-specific lymphotoxin-beta receptor signaling is critical for lymph node and high endothelial venule formation. J Exp Med. (2013) 210:465–73. doi: 10.1084/jem.20121462
100. Zhao Y, Shen M, Wu L, Yang H, Yao Y, Yang Q, et al. Stromal cells in the tumor microenvironment: accomplices of tumor progression? Cell Death Dis. (2023) 14:587. doi: 10.1038/s41419-023-06110-6
101. Piao W, Wu L, Xiong Y, Zapas GC, Paluskievicz CM, Oakes RS, et al. Regulatory T cells crosstalk with tumor cells and endothelium through lymphotoxin signaling. Nat Commun. (2024) 15:10468. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54874-y
102. Remouchamps C, Boutaffala L, Ganeff C, and Dejardin E. Biology and signal transduction pathways of the Lymphotoxin-alphabeta/LTbetaR system. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev. (2011) 22:301–10. doi: 10.1016/j.cytogfr.2011.11.007
103. Lewis KL, Caton ML, Bogunovic M, Greter M, Grajkowska LT, Ng D, et al. Notch2 receptor signaling controls functional differentiation of dendritic cells in the spleen and intestine. Immunity. (2011) 35:780–91. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2011.08.013
104. Fritz JH, Rojas OL, Simard N, McCarthy DD, Hapfelmeier S, Rubino S, et al. Acquisition of a multifunctional IgA+ plasma cell phenotype in the gut. Nature. (2011) 481:199–203. doi: 10.1038/nature10698
105. Pan Y, Yu Y, Wang X, and Zhang T. Tumor-associated macrophages in tumor immunity. Front Immunol. (2020) 11:583084. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2020.583084
106. Liu Y, Xia Y, and Qiu CH. Functions of CD169 positive macrophages in human diseases (Review). BioMed Rep. (2021) 14:26. doi: 10.3892/br.2020.1402
107. Anami T, Pan C, Fujiwara Y, Komohara Y, Yano H, Saito Y, et al. Dysfunction of sinus macrophages in tumor-bearing host induces resistance to immunotherapy. Cancer Sci. (2024) 115:59–69. doi: 10.1111/cas.16003
108. Camara A, Lavanant AC, Abe J, Desforges HL, Alexandre YO, Girardi E, et al. CD169(+) macrophages in lymph node and spleen critically depend on dual RANK and LTbetaR signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. (2022) 119. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2108540119
109. Zhou K, Cheng T, Zhan J, Peng X, Zhang Y, Wen J, et al. Targeting tumor-associated macrophages in the tumor microenvironment. Oncol Lett. (2020) 20:234. doi: 10.3892/ol.2020.12097
110. Briem O, Kallberg E, Kimbung S, Veerla S, Stenstrom J, Hatschek T, et al. CD169(+) macrophages in primary breast tumors associate with tertiary lymphoid structures, T(regs) and a worse prognosis for patients with advanced breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 15. doi: 10.3390/cancers15041262
111. Gunnarsdottir FB, Briem O, Lindgren AY, Kallberg E, Andersen C, Grenthe R, et al. Breast cancer associated CD169(+) macrophages possess broad immunosuppressive functions but enhance antibody secretion by activated B cells. Front Immunol. (2023) 14:1180209. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1180209
112. Jing W, Guo X, Wang G, Bi Y, Han L, Zhu Q, et al. Breast cancer cells promote CD169(+) macrophage-associated immunosuppression through JAK2-mediated PD-L1 upregulation on macrophages. Int Immunopharmacol. (2020) 78:106012. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2019.106012
113. Tumanov AV, Koroleva EP, Guo X, Wang Y, Kruglov A, Nedospasov S, et al. Lymphotoxin controls the IL-22 protection pathway in gut innate lymphoid cells during mucosal pathogen challenge. Cell Host Microbe. (2011) 10:44–53. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2011.06.002
114. Cheng HW, Morbe U, Lutge M, Engetschwiler C, Onder L, Novkovic M, et al. Intestinal fibroblastic reticular cell niches control innate lymphoid cell homeostasis and function. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:2027. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-29734-2
115. Yuan X, Rasul F, Nashan B, and Sun C. Innate lymphoid cells and cancer: Role in tumor progression and inhibition. Eur J Immunol. (2021) 51:2188–205. doi: 10.1002/eji.202049033
116. Amisaki M, Zebboudj A, Yano H, Zhang SL, Payne G, Chandra AK, et al. IL-33-activated ILC2s induce tertiary lymphoid structures in pancreatic cancer. Nature. (2025) 638:1076–84. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08426-5
117. Drayton DL, Liao S, Mounzer RH, and Ruddle NH. Lymphoid organ development: from ontogeny to neogenesis. Nat Immunol. (2006) 7:344–53. doi: 10.1038/ni1330
118. Shou Y, Koroleva E, Spencer CM, Shein SA, Korchagina AA, Yusoof KA, et al. Redefining the role of lymphotoxin beta receptor in the maintenance of lymphoid organs and immune cell homeostasis in adulthood. Front Immunol. (2021) 12:712632. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.712632
119. Legut M, Gajic Z, Guarino M, Daniloski Z, Rahman JA, Xue X, et al. A genome-scale screen for synthetic drivers of T cell proliferation. Nature. (2022) 603:728–35. doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-04494-7
120. Gonzalez M, Mackay F, Browning JL, Kosco-Vilbois MH, and Noelle RJ. The sequential role of lymphotoxin and B cells in the development of splenic follicles. J Exp Med. (1998) 187:997–1007. doi: 10.1084/jem.187.7.997
121. Tumanov A, Kuprash D, Lagarkova M, Grivennikov S, Abe K, Shakhov A, et al. Distinct role of surface lymphotoxin expressed by B cells in the organization of secondary lymphoid tissues. Immunity. (2002) 17:239–50. doi: 10.1016/S1074-7613(02)00397-7
122. Kotov JA, Xu Y, Carey ND, and Cyster JG. LTbetaR overexpression promotes plasma cell accumulation. PloS One. (2022) 17:e0270907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270907
123. Piao W, Kasinath V, Saxena V, Lakhan R, Iyyathurai J, and Bromberg JS. Ltbetar Signaling Controls Lymphatic Migration of Immune Cells. Cells. (2021) 10(4). doi: 10.3390/cells10040747
Keywords: anti-tumor immunity and immunotherapy, lymphotoxin beta receptor, lymphotoxin beta receptor pleiotropy, myeloid reprogramming, non-T cell-based immunotherapy, novel immunotherapeutic approaches, solid tumor immunity, solid tumor microenvironment
Citation: Anshu, Shantikumar V. N and Sreeja R (2026) Pleiotropic and multicellular roles of lymphotoxin beta receptor in solid tumor immunity and therapeutic targeting. Front. Immunol. 17:1693507. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1693507
Received: 27 August 2025; Accepted: 15 January 2026; Revised: 28 November 2025;
Published: 04 February 2026.
Edited by:
Claudia Peitzsch, Technical University Dresden, GermanyReviewed by:
Manoj Chelvanambi, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, United StatesCandice Byers, Northeastern University, United States
Copyright © 2026 Anshu, Shantikumar V. and Sreeja. 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: Roy Sreeja, c3JlZWphLnJveUBmYmQuYW1yaXRhLmVkdQ==