MingWei Zhan
BinBin Zhao1†
Jingyu Zhu- 1Department of Urology, Hangzhou TCM Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Hangzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China
- 2Department of Urology, Hangzhou Integrative Medicine Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Hangzhou Red Cross Hospital), Hangzhou, China
- 3Department of Urology, Jinling Clinical Medical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
- 4Department of Nephrology, Hangzhou Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Hangzhou Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), Hangzhou, China
Prostate cancer (PCa) has long been viewed as an immunologically “cold” malignancy because immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show limited benefit in unselected patients, particularly after progression to metastatic castration-resistant PCa (mCRPC) or treatment-related neuroendocrine PCa (NEPC). Single-cell and spatial profiling now reveal immune heterogeneity across patients, between lesions, and along the path from localized disease to metastasis. Primary tumors form mosaics of immune-excluded glands, myeloid-suppressed stromal borders, and focal lymphocyte-rich niches with B-cell aggregates and tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS). TLS-high regions represent an actionable “hot minority” resembling inflamed, ICI-responsive cancers, supporting biomarker-guided neoadjuvant or focal immunotherapy. With dissemination, heterogeneity expands across sites; bone metastases become marrow immune organs dominated by suppressive macrophage/monocyte programs and dysfunctional T cells, often driven by the CCL2–CCR6 axis. Standard therapies remodel these ecosystems, creating inflammatory windows yet fostering adaptive resistance. Mechanistically, myeloid-driven, inflammation-coupled rewiring is central to escape: IL-8/CXCR2 signaling and therapy-induced senescence/SASP recruit and polarize suppressive myeloid cells, reinforcing T-cell exclusion and exhaustion. Variable HLA class I loss and hypoxic or metabolic “functional cold zones” add lesion-specific immune invisibility. Clinically, these insights motivate a heterogeneity-aware framework integrating genomic responder subsets with microenvironmental stratification. Barrier-matched strategies include T-cell redirection (PSMA/STEAP1 engagers, bispecifics, CAR-T) and combinations that heat or modulate myeloid cells. Treating immune heterogeneity as a clinical variable enables durable immunotherapy in PCa.
1 Introduction
Prostate cancer (PCa) is still one of the most common malignant tumors in men, and its mortality is mainly driven by progression to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and treatment-related neuroendocrine PCa (NEPC) (1). Although androgen-axis therapy and radioligand therapy have made significant progress, achieving lasting control in late-stage disease remains rare, prompting considerable attention for immunotherapy (2, 3). However, in several clinical trials, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy has shown a low objective remission rate in unselected PCa cohorts, further supporting the clinical impression that PCa is usually an immune “cold” tumor (2, 3). This phenotype is closely related to low-baseline T-cell infiltration, weak interferon/antigen-presentation programs in most tumors, and a microenvironment rich in inhibitory myeloid and stromal signals, which limits adaptive immune responses (2, 3).
However, the term “cold PCa” is merely a catchall that masks clinically significant immune diversity. Integrated single-cell and spatial transcriptomic studies revealed substantial differences in immune composition, activation status, and spatial tissue distribution across patients, lesions within the same patient, and disease stages. The common immune rejection area in the primary tumor can be accompanied by microfoci colocated with depleted T cells and an inhibitory myeloid population; in other regions, B cells were found to be aggregated, suggesting the formation of tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) (4, 5). In addition, the metastatic niche, especially the bone marrow, presents a unique ecosystem with highly enriched myeloid inflammation and suppressed T cells, suggesting that the lesion itself is the central axis of immune heterogeneity and a realistic determinant of treatment response (6). Importantly, immune heterogeneity is dynamic: standard treatment can reshape cytokine and chemokine circuits, change the balance between immune activation and suppression, and thus shape the trajectory of immune escape and drug resistance (3, 4).
The key is that there are still a few “immune-responsive” subgroups of great clinical significance in the overall cold layout. Patients with mismatch repair defect/microsatellite instability (MSI-H/dMMR) or high tumor mutation burden (TMB-high) can obtain durable benefits from pembrolizumab, supporting the use of biomarker-guided ICI in PCa (7). In addition, the CDK12-inactivated mCRPC represents another subgroup defined by the genome, with a higher neoantigen load and enhanced interferon tone, making it more likely to respond to ICI. However, its response remains highly heterogeneous and may depend on the coexisting microenvironment (8). These observations will change the clinical core question from “Is immunotherapy effective in PCa?” Change to “What immune niches exist in patients? How do they evolve under the pressure of treatment? How can we reprogram them into a responsive state?” Based on this, this review systematically integrates the immune heterogeneity data in the continuous PCa spectrum, emphasizes the immune escape mechanism of myeloid–inflammation coupling, and proposes new targets and clinical strategies to transform refractory niches into treatable vulnerabilities. An integrated framework summarizing stage- and site-specific immune ecosystems is presented in Figure 1, which serves as a roadmap for the sections below.
Figure 1. Immune heterogeneity map across the prostate cancer continuum. Conceptual schematic summarizing stage- and site-dependent immune ecosystems, spanning localized disease with pronounced spatial heterogeneity; TLS-associated “hot minority” niches; interlesion divergence in metastatic hormone-sensitive disease; therapy-induced transient inflammatory windows; myeloid-dominant suppressive barriers under chronic treatment pressure; and immune-refractory extremes in bone metastasis and lineage plasticity/NEPC. In bone-dominant niches, excessive CCL20 production by myeloid cells promotes CCR6+ T-cell dysfunction, amplifying local immune tolerance and reinforcing systemic immune escape. ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; AR, androgen receptor; TLS, tertiary lymphoid structures; TAM, tumor-associated macrophages; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cells; mCSPC, metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer; mCRPC, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; NEPC, neuroendocrine prostate cancer.
2 Immune heterogeneity atlas across the prostate cancer continuum
2.1 Roadmap: clinical states across PCa progression and representative immune features
To orient cross-disciplinary readers, we briefly define the central clinical states referenced throughout this progression-based review and highlight representative biological and immunological features. Localized hormone-sensitive PCa is organ-confined and typically remains androgen receptor (AR)-driven; across cohorts, the tumor immune microenvironment is often immune-cold on average, with substantial spatial heterogeneity in immune infiltration and functional states (9–11). mCSPC denotes systemic dissemination while disease remains responsive to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and metastatic niches—particularly bone—commonly display myeloid-enriched, T-cell-excluded, or dysfunctional immune contexts (8–10). mCRPC is defined by disease progression despite castrate testosterone levels and may manifest as rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA), radiographic progression, and/or new metastases; under the selective pressure of ADT and AR-targeted agents, mCRPC frequently exhibits immunosuppressive remodeling characterized by expanded suppressive myeloid compartments and impaired T-cell effector function (10, 12, 13). Finally, NEPC, including treatment-emergent NEPC, represents lineage plasticity toward an AR-indifferent phenotype and is increasingly recognized in contemporary treatment settings; this phenotype can be associated with altered target expression and additional constraints on effective antitumor immunity, with important implications for immunotherapy responsiveness and trial stratification (14, 15). A concise summary table (Table 1) is provided to serve as a roadmap for the stage-specific sections below.
Table 1. Clinical states across PCa progression and representative biological/immune features.
2.2 Neuroendocrine transformation and treatment-emergent NEPC: a brief primer
NEPC represents a clinically aggressive phenotype that can arise de novo or, more commonly in contemporary practice, as treatment-emergent NEPC (t-NEPC) under selective pressure from androgen deprivation and potent AR-targeted therapies (14). Biologically, NEPC reflects lineage plasticity toward an AR-indifferent state, often accompanied by neuroendocrine differentiation programs and distinct transcriptional/epigenetic regulation; clinically, this transition can coincide with rapid progression, atypical metastatic patterns, and reduced reliance on PSA kinetics (14, 16). Significantly, NEPC evolution may reshape therapeutic vulnerabilities and biomarker performance, including reduced prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) expression in subsets, which can complicate imaging- and target-based strategies (15). From an immunotherapy perspective, NEPC is often considered an “immune-cold” context, and lineage transition may further constrain effective antitumor immunity by altering antigen presentation and tumor–immune interactions, contributing to limited responsiveness to immune checkpoint blockade in many patients (14–16). These features underscore the need for state-aware stratification and rational combinations (e.g., approaches that bypass impaired priming via T-cell redirection, and/or strategies that modulate suppressive myeloid niches) when considering immunotherapy across the PCa continuum (15, 16).
2.3 Primary localized PCa: low-average infiltration but high spatial diversity
Limited PCa is often considered to have few immune cells, but the integrated single-cell and spatial transcriptomic maps show significant intratumoral variation underlying the “low overall invasion”. In the same prostate sample, the immune rejection gland region coexisted with a stromal interface rich in T cells and myeloid cells. The ligand–receptor network suggests that organized epithelial–fibroblast–myeloid cell crosstalk maintains local immune stagnation (17–19). These spatial neighborhoods are clinically significant because sampling can miss a small range of immunoreactive foci, and the dominant barriers in different regions may differ (physical rejection vs. functional inhibition). Therefore, even in early PCa, it should be regarded as a puzzle of multiple immune niches rather than a heterogeneous cold tumor.
2.4 TLS and B-cell aggregates define an actionable “hot minority” in primary disease
A considerable number of primary tumors contain B-cell clusters and TLS. Recent spatial studies have emphasized that TLS is also heterogeneous in location and maturity. Immature TLS showed loose B/T-cell aggregation, while mature TLS showed a structure similar to the germinal center, accompanied by stronger antigen presentation and effector T-cell characteristics; they can coexist in the same tumor, suggesting different local developmental trajectories (20–22). Clinically, the TLS-high/mature TLS region is similar to the immune-inflammatory microenvironment in ICI-responsive tumors, supporting the use of neoadjuvant or local immunotherapy in carefully selected patients for a limited period, rather than for all patients.
2.5 Metastatic hormone-sensitive PCa: dissemination amplifies interlesion heterogeneity
When PCa enters metastasis but is still sensitive to hormone, the immune diversity expands along a new axis—the differences between different lesions are significant. Different metastatic sites within the same patient often exhibit distinct immune density and composition, suggesting that diffusion is accompanied by site-specific microenvironment imprinting and a “Founding” immune state (17, 18). This has practical consequences: a single biopsy lesion cannot represent the overall immune landscape of patients, and treatment response may also be inconsistent across lesions. Therefore, multisite heterogeneity should be considered in the early joint scheme, especially when selecting monitoring or irradiation lesions.
2.6 Therapy-induced immune remodeling creates transient windows of vulnerability
Standard treatment will actively reshape the immune state, rather than only select drug-resistant clones. ADT can rapidly transform some lesions into a more inflammatory environment, increase the number of activated CD8+ T cells, and expand inhibitory regulatory T (Tregs) and myeloid cells (23, 24). In the metastatic castration-sensitive stage, the combination of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade and ADT can induce intense immune infiltration and interferon-related transcription programs in some patients, demonstrating the available “heating effect” (23). The treatment sequence is also important: a sequential study of ADT and vaccine shows that different sequences can alter the balance between the initiation of effects and compensatory inhibition (25). This evidence indicates that the immune heterogeneity of PCa is dynamic and treatment-dependent, and that the inflammatory window in the early posttreatment period is a key opportunity for rational combination therapy.
2.7 mCRPC: chronic treatment pressure drives myeloid-inflamed, T-cell-exhausted ecosystems
After long-term androgen axis inhibition, the immune landscape usually evolves toward more potent inhibition and greater heterogeneity. Multigroup studies showed an inflammatory monocyte/MDSC-like status and an amplification of the inhibitory tumor-associated macrophage(s) (TAM) program, while CD8+ T cells were depleted and spatially excluded from the gland (18). Importantly, mCRPC is not just “colder” but is differentiated into multiple myeloid-dominated inhibition niches, each with distinct reversibility and specific inhibition circuits. In clinical transformation, this means that T-cell-oriented therapies (ICI, vaccines, T-cell connector (TCE), etc.) often need supporting strategies to dismantle the lesion-specific myeloid barrier.
2.8 Lineage plasticity and bone metastasis represent immune-refractory extremes with site-specific rules
CRPC generates treatment-related NEPC through lineage plasticity, which is usually characterized by sparse adaptive immune infiltration and reduced antigen presentation. However, residual congenital inflammatory changes can still be observed across different lesions (26). Bone metastasis is the leading lethal site, forming a more highly specialized immune organ. Single-cell analysis of bone metastases revealed an inhibitory myeloid ecology of bone marrow imprinting, and depleted T cells were embedded within a chemokine field that promoted dysfunction (8). The recurrent and operable pathway is the CCL20–CCR6 axis: the excessive production of CCL20 by myeloid cells in bone marrow drives CCR6+ T cells into a tolerant state; blocking this axis can restore T-cell activity and improve survival in the model (8, 27, 28). In addition, heterogeneity in HLA class I expression across lesions can regulate immune visibility, which may explain why, even in a population selected for biomarkers, some metastatic lesions remain treatment-resistant (29). Clinically, these findings support bone-specific immune stratification and suggest that effective systemic immunotherapy must be tailored to the biology of metastatic sites. Together, these stage- and site-dependent immune ecosystems can be viewed as an integrated continuum; an overview is provided in Figure 1.
2.9 Histological variants: divergent immune landscapes of acinar and ductal architectures
PCa significantly dictates its tumor immune microenvironment. Conventional acinar adenocarcinoma (AA) typically represents an “immunologically cold” phenotype, characterized by limited T-cell infiltration and a “lymphocyte-excluded” pattern, where immune cells are physically sequestered in the periglandular stroma (30). In contrast, ductal adenocarcinoma (DA) and intraductal carcinoma of the prostate (IDC-P) exhibit a more aggressive and immunosuppressive niche. Recent spatial profiling has revealed that DA, despite higher immune cell densities in some instances, often harbors a higher proportion of dysfunctional CD8+ T cells and M2-type macrophages, driven by genomic instabilities such as PTEN loss and BRCA2 alterations (31). Furthermore, IDC-P has been identified as a distinct “hot” yet highly suppressed niche, characterized by significantly increased recruitment of Tregs and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) compared to adjacent acinar components (32, 33). This lineage-specific heterogeneity suggests that, while AA may require strategies to “heat up” the tumor, aggressive variants such as DA and IDC-P may necessitate combination therapies targeting myeloid-driven suppression or T-cell exhaustion (34).
3 Myeloid-driven and inflammation-coupled mechanisms of immune evasion and resistance
3.1 Myeloid heterogeneity forms the suppressive backbone of PCa TME
Myeloid cells are the most abundant and transcriptionally diverse immune components in PCa, with limited metastatic potential and therapeutic tolerance. Single-cell and spatial analysis distinguished a variety of TAM states (including SPP1^Hi, inflammatory, interferon-responsive, etc.), MDSC-like monocytes, and neutrophil/tan programs. These subgroups occupied distinct spatial neighborhoods and exerted distinct immune-regulatory effects (18, 35, 36). Functionally, they synergistically inhibit antigen presentation, suppress T cells, and produce inhibitory metabolites in a lesion-specific manner, which explains why “myeloid-high PCa” itself is also a heterogeneous clinical entity. Space studies further showed that the myeloid-rich areas were often aligned with fibroblasts and ECM-rich, high-density matrix areas, forming a physical and biochemical barrier that captured T cells at the edge of the tumor rather than allowing them to enter the gland (17–19, 36). The diversity of multiple myeloid systems determines the reversibility of different lesions to targeting strategies. It also explains why some lesions in the same patient respond to immunotherapy, while others remain tolerant.
3.2 Inflammatory chemokine circuits—especially IL-8/CXCR2—drive myeloid recruitment and T-cell dysfunction
One of the key findings in recent years is that androgen axis destruction and tumor stress can amplify the inflammatory cytokines/chemokines program and actively recruit inhibitory myeloid cells. Interleukin (IL)-8 (CXCL8) and its receptors, CXCR1/2, serve as core mediators linking inflammation and immune escape: IL-8 promotes neutrophil/MDSC chemotaxis, supports tumor cell survival and invasion, and is associated with androgen-independent progression (37–39). In the transformation queue, castration or AR blockade can enhance IL-8 signaling, leading to increased myeloid infiltration, decreased antigen-presenting tone, and increased immunosuppression (38, 40). This establishes a clinically operable logic. Although some lesions are “more inflamed” after treatment, the inflammation tends to be myeloid rather than T-cell-mediated, thus turning the potential “heat” into adaptive resistance. Moreover, IL-8/C-X-C chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2) upregulation was not consistent across all lesions, further indicating that inflammatory reprogramming was an essential source of heterogeneity between metastases.
3.3 Therapy-induced senescence and SASP create a feed-forward myeloid inflammatory loop
In addition to classical cytokines, treatment-induced cellular senescence is increasingly regarded as the driving factor of mCRPC immune heterogeneity and drug resistance. Aging tumor or stromal cells release an aging-related secretory phenotype (SASP) rich in proinflammatory factors, which recruits and polarizes myeloid cells into an immunosuppressive state (41–43). A landmark clinical transformation study showed that age-related myeloid inflammation promoted the progression of metastatic CRPC and blocked resistance to AR inhibition of myeloid chemotaxis, which can reduce inhibitory infiltration and bring lasting benefits in some patients (37). Conceptually, this supports the “inflammation switch” model of PCa resistance: treatment triggers senescence/SASP → SASP recruits inhibitory myeloid → myeloid, in turn, enhances tumor survival and immune escape. It is worth noting that aging is reversible in some situations, meaning that blocking the SASP–myeloid circuit may reopen the immune control window and restore the sensitivity of subsequent immune activation (41, 43).
3.4 Bone metastasis exemplifies myeloid-T–T-cell crosstalk as site-specific immune tolerance
The bone marrow niche will amplify the process described above. In bone metastases, macrophages and inflammatory monocytes are dominant, and depleted T cells are embedded within a chemokine field that renders them dysfunctional (8, 26, 27). The recurrent pathway is CCL20–CCR6 signaling: intramedullary myeloid cells produce CCL20, while CCR6+ T cells are tolerant; genetic or pharmacological blockade can restore T-cell activity and improve the survival of the model (8, 26). The clinical inference is that bone marrow-dominant lesions naturally tend to fail immunotherapy unless bone-specific myeloid circuits are neutralized at the same time. This also provides a mechanism explanation for the inconsistent response between lesions in systematic treatment, highlighting the necessity of using the metastasis site as a stratified variable in the experiment.
3.5 Antigen-presentation loss and metabolic suppression layer further heterogeneity onto myeloid dominance
Even in the presence of T cells, many PCa lesions still showed decreased HLA class I expression, limiting antigen presentation and facilitating immune escape. This phenomenon differs significantly across lesions and may be reversible via the epigenetic pathway (29, 44–46). Simultaneously, hypoxia and changes in lipid/adenosine metabolism form a spatially limited “functional cold zone”, which inhibits T-cell killing and cooperates with myeloid suppression (36). These immune stealth and metabolic binding layers explain why it is not enough to improve immune infiltration alone, unless the dominant inhibitory circuit (usually the medullary center, maintained by inflammation) is disassembled synchronously. Clinically, this strengthens the “two-step” strategy: immune visibility/effect fitness is first restored, and immune effect immunity is then amplified, rather than assuming that deep heterogeneity can be overcome simply by releasing checkpoints.
The circuits highlighted in this section are readily translatable to combination-trial design and correlative biomarker strategies. For instance, IL-8/CXCR2-driven neutrophil and MDSC recruitment can be monitored in peripheral blood (e.g., circulating IL-8 levels and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio), and elevated systemic or tumor-associated IL-8 has been linked to reduced clinical benefit from PD-(L)1 blockade, supporting its use as a clinically relevant biomarker/readout (40). These blood- and tissue-based readouts also support pharmacodynamic endpoints for CXCR1/2 blockade or IL-8-axis targeting, including rational combinations with ICIs (47, 48). In parallel, senescence/SASP-associated inflammatory programs can reinforce suppressive myeloid states and impair antitumor T-cell function, providing additional rationale for senescence-targeting (senomorphic/senolytic) components in combination regimens (49).
Likewise, lesion-level heterogeneity in antigen presentation—particularly human leukocyte antigen class I (HLA-I)/B2M loss—has been implicated in acquired resistance to PD-1 blockade, underscoring the need to assess baseline antigen presentation capacity when selecting immunotherapy strategies (50). Such profiling can help guide the choice between priming-dependent approaches (e.g., ICI or cancer vaccines) versus priming-bypassing strategies (e.g., bispecific T-cell engagers or chimeric antigen receptor T cell(s) (CAR-T) therapies) (51). Finally, hypoxia- and adenosine-associated immunometabolic suppression and TGF-β-driven immune exclusion provide a translational rationale for incorporating adenosine/CD73-axis or TGF-β-targeting add-ons into rational combinations to overcome “functional cold” barriers (52, 53).
4 Clinically actionable stratification and emerging targets/strategies
To translate immune heterogeneity into clinical decision-making, it is first necessary to recognize that, although the proportion of PCa patients who respond is small, distinct subgroups can benefit from ICI. At present, clinical practice supports the use of pembrolizumab in mCRPC defined by biomarkers, particularly in patients with MSI-H/dMMR and TMB-high. This is based on the tumor-agnostic approval and the durable PSA and imaging responses observed in the PCa-specific cohort (7, 54). CDK12-inactivated tumors represent another genomically enriched subgroup, characterized by a higher neoantigen load and a stronger interferon tone. Nevertheless, responses remain highly heterogeneous and may depend on the coexisting microenvironment (8). Overall, these data suggest that the apparent failure of ICI in “all patients” more likely reflects population heterogeneity rather than an absolute lack of immunotherapy efficacy.
In addition to genomic stratification, microenvironment-based typing is emerging as the next level of clinical operability. Spatial and single-cell studies in the second and third sections showed that some lesions were driven by TLS-high/CXCL13 programs, resembling an immune-inflammatory ecology, whereas others are characterized by myeloid dominance, immune exclusion, or metabolic inhibition (20–22, 36). Clinically, these observations support a “two-track framework”: (I) tumors with TLS enrichment or pre-existing lymphocyte infiltration may be prioritized for ICI-containing regimens or vaccine/ICI combinations; and (II) myeloid-inflammatory lesions may require relief of suppressive barriers (e.g., targeting chemotaxis, CSF1R, CXCR2, adenosine, or TGF-β pathways) before T-cell therapy can be effective (37–39). Another practical corollary is that the metastatic site should be incorporated as a stratification variable. Bone-dominant disease is often accompanied by CCL20–CCR6-associated T-cell dysfunction and myeloid tolerance. If the bone microenvironment is not cotargeted, responses in extraskeletal lesions are also diminished (55, 56). Taken together, these genomic- and niche-informed strata can be operationalized into a unified decision framework, as summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Clinical decision framework based on immune heterogeneity in prostate cancer.
Emerging treatment strategies can be organized according to the heterogeneous barriers they aim to overcome. T-cell redirection therapies—TCEs, bispecific antibodies, and CAR-T—aim to bypass endogenous hypopriming or loss of HLA-I and to physically recruit effector T cells to tumor antigens. PSMA-targeted BiTE, such as acapatamab (AMG-160), has shown encouraging early activity, with CRS remaining manageable in heavily pretreated mCRPC, thereby supporting the feasibility of this strategy (57, 58). STEAP1-targeted TCEs, such as xaluritamig (AMG-509), provide a second important antigen axis and have resulted in deep PSA declines in phase I studies, further demonstrating that antigen-specific redirection can remain effective even in immunologically cold tumors (57, 59). These approaches may be particularly suitable for NEPC or lesions with low antigen presentation, where immune checkpoint blockade alone is often insufficient (26, 29).
Another strategy aims to “heat” cold or immune-rejected lesions to unlock the effects of ICI or T-cell redirection. Rational combination strategies include PARP inhibitors + ICI (leveraging DNA damage → sting → type I IFN signal), radiotherapy or PSMA radioligand therapy + ICI (inducing immunogenic cell death and potential bystander effects), and carefully designed ADT/ARSI sequencing with ICI to exploit the transient inflammatory window before myeloid rebound becomes dominant (2, 3, 23–25). A central clinical insight emerging from immune heterogeneity research is that the same combination strategy will not be equally effective across all lesions. Regimens incorporating myeloid-targeting or regulatory components are more suitable for patients with myeloid-rich or bone-dominant lesions, whereas patients with high TLS content may benefit from a simpler ICI-anchored approach.
Nonclassical checkpoint antigens provide additional clinical leverage. B7-H3 (CD276) is highly expressed across multiple stages of PCa and is associated with immune escape and poor prognosis. It is currently being exploited in ADCs, bispecific costimulatory molecules, and CAR-T platforms to address antigen heterogeneity (60–62). In general, these emerging targets and strategies support a clinically oriented view that PCa comprises multiple coexisting immune niches. Only by accurately matching treatment to the dominant obstacles within each niche, rather than treating PCa as a single immune state, can durable therapeutic benefit be achieved.
Finally, despite the clinical potential of the aforementioned strategies, current stratification tools face significant hurdles. Liquid biopsies, while offering noninvasive monitoring, may fail to capture the full spatial complexity of multifocal primary tumors or heterogeneous metastatic niches (63). Similarly, functional imaging modalities such as PSMA-PET/CT can underestimate aggressive, PSMA-low, or neuroendocrine-like clones, resulting in incomplete immune mapping (64, 65). To address these challenges, future efforts must move toward multimodal stratification frameworks. By integrating AI-powered digital pathology, longitudinal ctDNA/CTC signatures, and radiomics, it is possible to construct a more dynamic and holistic “immune–clinical” map (66, 67). This integrated approach will be essential for identifying patients who require complex combinations, such as myeloid-modulating agents paired with T-cell redirectors, thereby moving beyond the “one-size-fits-all” immunotherapy paradigm (68, 69).
Beyond multimodal clinical stratification, emerging experimental and computational multiomics platforms will further enable mechanistic dissection of how TME composition and spatial organization shape tumor phenotypes and gene-regulatory responses to microenvironmental cues. First, multimodal AI frameworks can translate routinely available histology into higher-dimensional, population-scale representations of the tumor immune microenvironment, enabling in silico modeling of spatial protein organization and virtual cohort analyses of TME–phenotype associations (70). Second, large-scale genetic perturbation coupled with multimodal single-cell readouts provides a systematic approach to infer causal gene-regulatory networks and cell-state transitions underlying plasticity and therapy resistance (71). Third, single-cell approaches that directly link targeted genotypes to chromatin accessibility states enable mapping of clonal genetic programs to regulatory landscapes, offering a mechanistic bridge from tumor genotype to heterogeneous therapeutic responses (72). Integrating these modalities with spatial transcriptomics/proteomics and longitudinal sampling should accelerate identification of actionable TME–tumor regulatory circuits and improve rational design of barrier-matched combination strategies.
5 Conclusion
Immune heterogeneity provides a clinically valuable framework to explain why prostate cancer is typically unresponsive to immune checkpoint blockade in unselected populations, yet can show meaningful benefit in defined contexts. Across the disease continuum, prostate cancer is better viewed as a dynamic mosaic of immune niches that vary by stage, lesion, and metastatic site, in which the dominant barrier may include physical exclusion, myeloid-driven suppression, impaired antigen presentation, or marrow-imprinted tolerance in bone. Mechanistically, therapy- and stress-associated inflammatory rewiring—often converging on suppressive myeloid programs and T-cell dysfunction—supports a barrier-matched, two-step therapeutic logic: first, identifying and dismantling the dominant suppressive circuit within each niche, and then amplifying antitumor immunity using appropriately selected immunotherapies, including checkpoint blockade and T-cell-redirecting strategies that can bypass priming constraints. Moving forward, actionable stratification should integrate genomic responder subsets with microenvironmental and site-specific states, supported by multilesion assessment and longitudinal, multimodal monitoring. Treating immune heterogeneity as a clinical variable will enable more rational trial design and improve the likelihood of durable immunotherapy benefit in prostate cancer.
Author contributions
MZ: Conceptualization, Visualization, Software, Writing – original draft. BZ: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. JW: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. KL: Visualization, Writing – original draft. YC: Writing – review & editing. HC: Writing – review & editing. LZ: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization. JZ: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Supervision.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was supported by grants from the Hangzhou Agricultural and Social Development Key Project under Grant No. 20231203A12 (JZ) and the Huadong Medicine Joint Funds of the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. LHDMY23H070007 (LZ).
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. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. (2024) 74:229–63. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834
2. Lu H, Teng Z, Wang J, and Zhang W. Prostate cancer immunotherapy-based strategies: an updated review emphasizing immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1583363. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1583363
3. Liu D, Wang L, and Guo Y. Advances in and prospects of immunotherapy for prostate cancer. Cancer Lett. (2024) 601:217155. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2024.217155
4. Hirz T, Mei S, Sarkar H, Kfoury Y, Wu S, Verhoeven BM, et al. Dissecting the immune suppressive human prostate tumor microenvironment via integrated single-cell and spatial transcriptomic analyses. Nat Commun. (2023) 14:663. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-36325-2
5. Kiviaho A, Eerola SK, Kallio HML, Andersen MK, Hoikka M, Tiihonen AM, et al. Single cell and spatial transcriptomics highlight the interaction of club-like cells with immunosuppressive myeloid cells in prostate cancer. Nat Commun. (2024) 15:9949. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-54364-1
6. Tuong ZK, Loudon KW, Berry B, Richoz N, Jones J, Tan X, et al. Resolving the immune landscape of human prostate at a single-cell level in health and cancer. Cell Rep. (2021) 37:110132. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.110132
7. Trigos AS, Pasam A, Banks P, Wallace R, Guo C, Keam S, et al. Tumor immune microenvironment of primary prostate cancer with and without germline mutations in homologous recombination repair genes. J Immunother Cancer. (2022) 10:e003744. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2021-003744
8. Kfoury Y, Baryawno N, Severe N, Mei S, Gustafsson K, Hirz T, et al. Human prostate cancer bone metastases have an actionable immunosuppressive microenvironment. Cancer Cell. (2021) 39:1464–1478 e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2021.09.005
9. EAU Guidelines Office. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer (2025). Available online at: https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG-Guidelines-on-Prostate-Cancer-2025_2025-03-24-120144_rinw.pdf (Accessed January 6, 2026).
10. Schaeffer EM, Srinivas S, Adra N, An Y, Barocas D, Bitting R, et al. Prostate cancer, version 4.2023, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. (2023) 21:1067–96. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2023.0050
11. Brea L and Yu J. Tumor-intrinsic regulators of the immune-cold microenvironment of prostate cancer. Trends Endocrinol Metab. (2025) 36:855–66. doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2024.12.003
12. Saad F, Aprikian A, Finelli A, Fleshner NE, Gleave M, Kapoor A, et al. 2022 Canadian Urological Association (CUA)-Canadian Uro Oncology Group (CUOG) guideline: Management of castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Can Urol Assoc J. (2022) 16:E506–15. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.8161
13. Huang J, Ojo A, Tsao S, Horowitz A, Kyprianou N, and Tsao CK. Overcoming immune evasion in the prostate tumor microenvironment: novel targeted strategies to improve treatment outcomes. Cancers (Basel). (2025) 17:3441. doi: 10.3390/cancers17213441
14. Lobo A and Cheng L. Reappraisal of neuroendocrine tumor classification of the prostate gland: translating molecular insights into clinical practice. Endocr Pathol. (2025) 36:28. doi: 10.1007/s12022-025-09871-2
15. Belge Bilgin G, Lucien-Matteoni F, Chaudhuri AA, Orme JJ, Childs DS, Muniz M, et al. Current and future directions in theranostics for neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. (2025) 136:102941. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.102941
16. Beltran H, Hruszkewycz A, Scher HI, Hildesheim J, Isaacs J, Yu EY, et al. The role of lineage plasticity in prostate cancer therapy resistance. Clin Cancer Res. (2019) 25:6916–24. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-1423
17. Liu S, Yu Y, Zhou J, Yang L, Yan X, Liu X, et al. Characteristics of tertiary lymphoid structures in prostate cancer and the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on their formation and maturation. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1663396. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1663396
18. Ohandjo AQ, Liu Z, Dammer EB, Dill CD, Griffen TL, Carey KM, et al. Transcriptome network analysis identifies CXCL13-CXCR5 signaling modules in the prostate tumor immune microenvironment. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:14963. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-46491-3
19. Wang Z, Ge Q, Mo R, Lu J, Tian X, Anwaier A, et al. Spatial and maturity heterogeneity of tertiary lymphoid structures shapes immune microenvironment and progression in prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Cent. (2025) 5:501–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jncc.2025.06.003
20. Chen Y, Wu Y, Yan G, and Zhang G. Tertiary lymphoid structures in cancer: maturation and induction. Front Immunol. (2024) 15:1369626. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1369626
21. Deng S, Chen Y, Song B, Wang H, Huang S, Wu K, et al. Tertiary lymphoid structures in cancer: spatiotemporal heterogeneity, immune orchestration, and translational opportunities. J Hematol Oncol. (2025) 18:97. doi: 10.1186/s13045-025-01754-7
22. Tan C, Huang J, Gao N, Wu B, Juliet M, Xiao J, et al. Dynamic remodeling of tertiary lymphoid structures in response to cancer therapy: a recent review. Cancer Immunol Immunother. (2025) 74:313. doi: 10.1007/s00262-025-04183-0
23. Zhao F, Zeng J, Chen C, Zhao X, Zhang T, Thomas GV, et al. Deciphering single-cell heterogeneity and cellular ecosystem dynamics during prostate cancer progression. Preprint. bioRxiv. (2024), 2024.12.18.629070. doi: 10.1101/2024.12.18.629070
24. Ak Ç, Sayar Z, Thibault G, Burlingame EA, Kuykendall MJ, Eng J, et al. Multiplex imaging of localized prostate tumors reveals altered spatial organization of AR-positive cells in the microenvironment. iScience. (2024) 27:110668. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.110668
25. Fu Y, Li S, Zhao Y, Zhang X, Mao X, and Xu R. Integrative single-cell and spatial transcriptomics analysis reveals MDK-NCL pathway’s role in shaping the immunosuppressive environment of lung adenocarcinoma. Front Immunol. (2025) 16:1546382. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1546382
26. Bhinder B, Ferguson A, Sigouros M, Uppal M, Elsaeed AG, Bareja R, et al. Immunogenomic landscape of neuroendocrine prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2023) 29:2933–43. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-3743
27. Kwantwi LB, Boafo JD, Egleh BE, and Li M. CCL20 in the tumor microenvironment: implications for cancer progression and therapeutic approaches. Clin Transl Oncol. (2025) 27:3285–92. doi: 10.1007/s12094-025-03874-5
28. Ma C, Yang C, Peng A, Sun T, Ji X, Mi J, et al. Pan-cancer spatially resolved single-cell analysis reveals the crosstalk between cancer-associated fibroblasts and tumor microenvironment. Mol Cancer. (2023) 22:170. doi: 10.1186/s12943-023-01876-x
29. Lopez-Bujanda ZA, Haffner MC, Chaimowitz MG, Chowdhury N, Venturini NJ, Patel RA, et al. Castration-mediated IL-8 promotes myeloid infiltration and prostate cancer progression. Nat Cancer. (2021) 2:803–18. doi: 10.1038/s43018-021-00227-3
30. Marklund M, Schultz N, Friedrich S, Berglund E, Tarish F, Tanoglidi A, et al. Spatio-temporal analysis of prostate tumors in situ suggests pre-existence of treatment-resistant clones. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:5475. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33069-3
31. Zhou Z, Wang J, Wang J, Yang S, Wang R, Zhang G, et al. Deciphering the tumor immune microenvironment from a multidimensional omics perspective: insight into next-generation CAR-T cell immunotherapy and beyond. Mol Cancer. (2024) 23:131. doi: 10.1186/s12943-024-02047-2
32. Diop MK, Molina OE, Birlea M, LaRue H, Hovington H, Têtu B, et al. Leukocytic infiltration of intraductal carcinoma of the prostate: an exploratory study. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 15:2217. doi: 10.3390/cancers15082217
33. Wong HY, Sheng Q, Hesterberg AB, Croessmann S, Rios BL, Giri K, et al. Single cell analysis of cribriform prostate cancer reveals cell intrinsic and tumor microenvironmental pathways of aggressive disease. Nat Commun. (2022) 13:6036. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-33780-1
34. Murray NP. Immunomodulation and immunotherapy for patients with prostate cancer: an up-to-date review. Biomedicines. (2025) 13:1179. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines13051179
35. Madan RA and Palena C. Behind the IL-8 ball in prostate cancer. Nat Cancer. (2021) 2:775–6. doi: 10.1038/s43018-021-00235-3
36. Korbecki J, Bosiacki M, Pilarczyk M, Kot M, Defort P, Walaszek I, et al. The CXCL1-CXCR2 axis as a component of therapy resistance, a source of side effects in cancer treatment, and a therapeutic target. Cancers (Basel). (2025) 17:1674. doi: 10.3390/cancers17101674
37. McClelland S, Maxwell PJ, Branco C, Barry ST, Eberlein C, and LaBonte MJ. Targeting IL-8 and its receptors in prostate cancer: inflammation, stress response, and treatment resistance. Cancers (Basel). (2024) 16:2797. doi: 10.3390/cancers16162797
38. Guo C, Sharp A, Gurel B, Crespo M, Figueiredo I, Jain S, et al. Targeting myeloid chemotaxis to reverse prostate cancer therapy resistance. Nature. (2023) 623:1053–61. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06696-z
39. Bacca L, Brandariz J, Zacchi F, Zivi A, Mateo J, and Labbé DP. Therapy-induced senescence in prostate cancer: mechanisms, therapeutic strategies, and clinical implications. Gene. (2025) 972:149774. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2025.149774
40. Yuen KC, Liu LF, Gupta V, Madireddi S, Keerthivasan S, Li C, et al. High systemic and tumor-associated IL-8 correlates with reduced clinical benefit of PD-L1 blockade. Nat Med. (2020) 26:693–8. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-0860-1
41. 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) 26:4939. doi: 10.3390/ijms26104939
42. Colucci M, Sarill M, Maddalena M, Valdata A, Troiani M, Massarotti M, et al. Senescence in cancer. Cancer Cell. (2025) 43:1204–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2025.05.015
43. Mori JO, Elhussin I, Brennen WN, Graham MK, Lotan TL, Yates CC, et al. Prognostic and therapeutic potential of senescent stromal fibroblasts in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. (2024) 21:258–73. doi: 10.1038/s41585-023-00827-x
44. Martínez-Jiménez F, Muiños F, Sentís I, Deu-Pons J, Reyes-Salazar I, Arnedo-Pac C, et al. A compendium of mutational cancer driver genes. Nat Rev Cancer. (2020) 20:555–72. doi: 10.1038/s41568-020-0290-x
45. Pietrobon V and Marincola FM. Hypoxia and the phenomenon of immune exclusion. J Transl Med. (2021) 19:9. doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02667-4
46. Chen Z, Han F, Du Y, Shi H, and Zhou W. Hypoxic microenvironment in cancer: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic interventions. Signal Transduct Target Ther. (2023) 8:70. doi: 10.1038/s41392-023-01332-8
47. Highfill SL, Cui Y, Giles AJ, Smith JP, Zhang H, Morse E, et al. Disruption of CXCR2-mediated MDSC tumor trafficking enhances anti-PD1 efficacy. Sci Transl Med. (2014) 6:237ra67. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3007974
48. Steele CW, Karim SA, Leach JDG, Bailey P, Upstill-Goddard R, Rishi L, et al. CXCR2 inhibition profoundly suppresses metastases and augments immunotherapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Cell. (2016) 29:832–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2016.04.014
49. Ruhland MK, Loza AJ, Capietto AH, Luo X, Knolhoff BL, Flanagan KC, et al. Stromal senescence establishes an immunosuppressive microenvironment that drives tumorigenesis. Nat Commun. (2016) 7:11762. doi: 10.1038/ncomms11762
50. Zaretsky JM, Garcia-Diaz A, Shin DS, Escuin-Ordinas H, Hugo W, Hu-Lieskovan S, et al. Mutations associated with acquired resistance to PD-1 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med. (2016) 375:819–29. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1604958
51. June CH, O’Connor RS, Kawalekar OU, Ghassemi S, and Milone MC. CAR T cell immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. (2018) 359:1361–5. doi: 10.1126/science.aar6711
52. Mariathasan S, Turley SJ, Nickles D, Castiglioni A, Yuen K, Wang Y, et al. TGFβ attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells. Nature. (2018) 554:544–8. doi: 10.1038/nature25501
53. Allard B, Pommey S, Smyth MJ, and Stagg J. Targeting CD73 enhances the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs. Clin Cancer Res. (2013) 19:5626–35. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0545
54. Li S, Zhang Y, Tong H, Sun H, Liao H, Li Q, et al. Metabolic regulation of immunity in the tumor microenvironment. Cell Rep. (2025) 44:116463. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2025.116463
55. Cheng JN, Jin Z, Su C, Jiang T, Zheng X, Guo J, et al. Bone metastases diminish extraosseous response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy through osteopontin-producing osteoclasts. Cancer Cell. (2025) 43:1093–1107 e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2025.03.036
56. Scher HI, Morris MJ, Stadler WM, Higano C, Basch E, Fizazi K, et al. Trial design and objectives for castration-resistant prostate cancer: updated recommendations from the prostate cancer clinical trials working group 3. J Clin Oncol. (2016) 34:1402–18. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.2702
57. Lambert N, Moore C, Klavon J, Arafat W, Wang J, Zhang T, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic prostate cancer with microsatellite instability treated with pembrolizumab. Clin Genitourin Cancer. (2025) 23:102384. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2025.102384
58. Zang PD, Chawla NS, Barragan-Carrillo R, Chehrazi-Raffle A, Tripathi A, Pal SK, et al. Tumor mutational burden in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and response to checkpoint inhibition. JAMA Oncol. (2024) 10:531–2. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.6817
59. Wu YM, Cieslik M, Lonigro RJ, Vats P, Reimers MA, Cao X, et al. Inactivation of CDK12 delineates a distinct immunogenic class of prostate cancer. Cell. (2018) 173:1770–1782 e14. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.04.034
60. Dorff T, Horvath LG, Autio K, Bernard-Tessier A, Rettig MB, Machiels JP, et al. A phase I study of acapatamab, a half-life extended, PSMA-targeting bispecific T-cell engager for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2024) 30:1488–500. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-2978
61. Kelly WK, Danila DC, Lin CC, Lee JL, Matsubara N, Ward PJ, et al. Xaluritamig, a STEAP1 × CD3 xmAb 2 + 1 immune therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from dose exploration in a first-in-human study. Cancer Discov. (2024) 14:76–89. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-23-0964
62. Kwon WA and Joung JY. T-cell engager therapy in prostate cancer: molecular insights into a new frontier in immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel). (2025) 17:1820. doi: 10.3390/cancers17111820
63. Coppola CA, De Summa S, Matera G, Pilato B, Traversa D, and Tommasi S. Liquid biopsy: the challenges of a revolutionary approach in oncology. Int J Mol Sci. (2025) 26:5013. doi: 10.3390/ijms26115013
64. Iacovitti CM, Cuzzocrea M, Rizzo A, Bauckneht M, Delgado Bolton RC, Paone G, et al. Diagnostic value of dual-tracer PET/CT with [18F]FDG and PSMA ligands in prostate cancer: an updated systematic review. Front Med (Lausanne). (2025) 12:1607227. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1607227
65. Chen R, Wang Y, Chen Q, Dong L, Huang G, and Liu J. Dual-tracer PET/CT identifies an aggressive PSMA-negative/FDG-positive phenotype predicting early failure of radical prostatectomy in treatment-naive prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. (2025). doi: 10.1007/s00259-025-07646-9
66. Ni H-M, Kouzy R, Sabbagh A, Rooney MK, Feng J, Castillo SP, et al. The state of the art in artificial intelligence and digital pathology in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol. (2026) 23:13–28. doi: 10.1038/s41585-025-01070-2
67. Zhang Z, Liu H, Gu X, Qiu Y, Ma J, Ai G, et al. Multimodal fusion radiomic-immunologic scoring model: accurate identification of prostate cancer progression. BMC Med Imaging. (2025) 25:324. doi: 10.1186/s12880-025-01869-w
68. Lyu A, Fan Z, Clark M, Lea A, Luong D, Setayesh A, et al. Evolution of myeloid-mediated immunotherapy resistance in prostate cancer. Nature. (2025) 637:1207–17. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-08290-3
69. Park JA, Wang L, and Cheung NV. Modulating tumor infiltrating myeloid cells to enhance bispecific antibody-driven T cell infiltration and antitumor response. J Hematol Oncol. (2021) 14:142. doi: 10.1186/s13045-021-01156-5
70. Valanarasu JMJ, Xu H, Usuyama N, Kim C, Wong C, Argaw P, et al. Multimodal AI generates virtual population for tumor microenvironment modeling. Cell. (2025) 189(2):386–400.e19. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.11.016
71. Xu Z, Lu Z, Ugurbil A, Abdulraouf A, Liao A, Zhang J, et al. Uncovering convergent cell state dynamics across divergent genetic perturbations through single-cell high-content CRISPR screening. Preprint. bioRxiv. (2025) 2025:5. doi: 10.1101/2025.05.02.651939
Keywords: bone metastasis and immunotherapy, immune heterogeneity, myeloid-driven immunosuppression, prostate cancer, tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS), tumor immune microenvironment
Citation: Zhan M, Zhao B, Wu J, Li K, Chen Y, Chen H, Zhao L and Zhu J (2026) Clinically oriented immune heterogeneity in prostate cancer: emerging targets and strategies. Front. Immunol. 17:1753718. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1753718
Received: 25 November 2025; Accepted: 21 January 2026; Revised: 18 January 2026;
Published: 12 February 2026.
Edited by:
Yongqiang Zhang, Henan Academy of Innovations in Medical Science, ChinaReviewed by:
Guo Chengbin, Guangzhou Medical University, ChinaZihan Xu, The Rockefeller University, United States
Copyright © 2026 Zhan, Zhao, Wu, Li, Chen, Chen, Zhao and Zhu. 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: Haote Chen, Y2hlbmhhb3Rlcm9iZXJ0QDEyNi5jb20=; Lin Zhao, bGluLnpoYW9AemNtdS5lZHUuY24=; Jingyu Zhu, emp5dXJvbG9neUAxNjMuY29t
†These authors have contributed equally to this work