REVIEW article

Front. Oncol., 01 November 2016

Sec. Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy

Volume 6 - 2016 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2016.00233

Combination Approaches with Immune-Checkpoint Blockade in Cancer Therapy

  • MS

    Maarten Swart 1

  • IV

    Inge Verbrugge 2

  • JB

    Joost B. Beltman 1*

  • 1. Division of Toxicology, Leiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

  • 2. Division of Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Abstract

In healthy individuals, immune-checkpoint molecules prevent autoimmune responses and limit immune cell-mediated tissue damage. Tumors frequently exploit these molecules to evade eradication by the immune system. Over the past years, immune-checkpoint blockade of cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 and programed death-1 emerged as promising strategies to activate antitumor cytotoxic T cell responses. Although complete regression and long-term survival is achieved in some patients, not all patients respond. This review describes promising, novel combination approaches involving immune-checkpoint blockade in the context of the cancer-immunity cycle, aimed at increasing response rates to the single treatments. Specifically, we discuss combinations that promote antigen release and presentation, that further amplify T cell activation, that inhibit trafficking of regulatory T cells or MSDCs, that stimulate intratumoral T cell infiltration, that increase cancer recognition by T cells, and that stimulate tumor killing.

Introduction

Historically, the importance of the immune system in restraining cancer development has been demonstrated by the observation that immune-deficient patients and organ-transplant recipients treated with immunosuppressive drugs have an increased risk to develop cancer (1). The steps involved in the development and maintenance of tumor immunity were recently conceptualized in the “cancer-immunity” cycle (and schematically depicted in Figure 1, outer circle) (2). This cycle describes the steps that are required to generate tumor-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes [CTLs, also known as CD8+ (effector) T cells] that are capable of killing tumor cells. Defects/impediments in the cycle due to inhibitory receptor signaling frequently lead to evasion of tumor eradication by the immune system. This may explain the clinical success of immune-checkpoint therapies. Two important immune-checkpoint molecules include cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4, also known as CD152) and programed death-1 (PD-1, also known as CD279).

Figure 1

Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte Antigen-4

Like CD28, CTLA-4 binds to the co-stimulatory molecules CD80 or CD86, but instead attenuates T cell activation (3). Therefore, CTLA-4 mainly exerts its immunosuppressive effect during activation in secondary lymphoid organs (Figure 2A) (4, 5). However, CTLA-4 signaling also enhances immunosuppression in other ways, e.g., by promoting the activity of regulatory T cells (Tregs) inside the tumor-microenvironment (6, 7), and the relative importance of these different mechanisms is not fully understood nor their contribution to therapy success. The anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody ipilimumab (fully human IgG1, Bristol-Myers Squibb) increased the median overall survival (OS) among metastatic melanoma patients in a pooled analysis of phase II and III data and some patients even survived 10 years after treatment (8). However, 60% of the patients treated with anti-CTLA-4 experienced immune-related adverse events, which were severe (grade 3 or 4) in 10–15% of the patients (9).

Figure 2

Anti-CTLA-4 treatment has also been studied in non-melanoma tumors, demonstrating an 8% partial response rate in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in a phase II study (10). Nevertheless, anti-CTLA-4 treatment is generally not effective in non-melanoma tumors, which might for instance be due to a low fraction of tumor-reactive T cells in these tumors, high expression of PD-L1, or the secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines. Overall, long-term survival can be obtained with anti-CTLA-4 treatment in melanoma patients, but the toxicity is quite high and it is typically less effective in other tumor types.

Programed Death-1

Similar to CTLA-4, PD-1 signaling within secondary lymphoid organs impairs T cell priming and enhances differentiation into Tregs (11, 12). Moreover, because PD-L1 expression is frequently upregulated in cancers and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) can express high levels of PD-1 (4, 13), PD-1 inhibits T cell responses in the tumor. PD-1 can also be expressed on tumor cells, such as melanoma subpopulations, and contribute to tumorigenesis (14). Therefore, a part of the efficacy of anti-PD-1 therapy may be due to inhibition of this cell-intrinsic pathway active in some tumor cells (Figure 2B) (14). As expected from the predominantly peripheral role of PD-1, Pdcd1−/− (the gene encoding for PD-1) mice developed mild, organ-specific autoimmune responses (15, 16). Large phase I studies led to the prompt approval of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies pembrolizumab (humanized IgG4, Merck) and nivolumab (fully human IgG4, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals) for patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma not responding to anti-CTLA-4 (17–19). Importantly, anti-PD-1 was superior to anti-CTLA-4 in the treatment of advanced melanoma in terms of progression-free survival (PFS; 47.3 versus 26.5%) (20). Because severe (grade 3–5) side effects also occurred less frequently in anti-PD-1-treated (13.3%) compared with anti-CTLA-4-treated patients (19.9%), anti-PD-1 treatment is currently the first-line treatment for unresectable or metastatic melanoma in the USA and the EU. In addition, the FDA approved anti-PD-1 for the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma, non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), RCC, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), because clinical trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy in these cancer types (21–26). Anti-PD-1 might also improve the treatment of bladder, gastric, ovarian, and triple negative breast cancer (4, 19). Furthermore, anti-PD-L1 (atezolizumab) was recently approved for the treatment of bladder cancer (urothelial carcinoma) (27). In summary, anti-PD-1 is less toxic yet more effective than anti-CTLA-4 and is also effective in the treatment of non-melanoma tumors.

Improving Tumor Regression upon CTLA-4 or PD-1 Blockade

Despite the general success of checkpoint therapies, not all patients respond or achieve only partial tumor regression to anti-PD-1 or anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy (20). This is probably due to impediments somewhere in the cancer-immunity cycle (Figure 1): release of cancer antigens (step 1), antigen presentation (step 2), T cell priming and activation (step 3), T cell trafficking to tumors [step 4; note that, in this review, we specifically consider blocking the trafficking of immunosuppressive Tregs and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs)], T cell infiltration into the tumor (step 5), cancer cell recognition by T cells (step 6), and killing of tumor cells (step 7). Therefore, higher response rates may be achieved using combination approaches of anti-PD-1 or anti-CTLA-4 with therapies that stimulate various steps of the cancer-immunity cycle, which we will discuss in this review. In brief, this involves combinations with conventional (e.g., chemotherapy and radiotherapy) and targeted therapies to promote antigen release (step 1) (28); combinations with vaccination to promote antigen presentation (step 2); combinations with agonists for co-stimulatory molecules or blockade of co-inhibitory molecules to further amplify T cell activation (step 3); combinations with trafficking inhibition of Tregs or MSDCs (step 4); combinations with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) to stimulate intratumoral T cell infiltration (step 5); combinations with adoptive cell transfer (ACT) to increase cancer recognition by T cells (step 6); and combinations that stimulate tumor killing (step 7). Finally, individualized treatment, based on biomarkers that predict clinical responses, could potentially optimize the management of various cancer types (29). In the following, we will discuss the progress with respect to the mentioned combination strategies step by step.

Combinations with Stimulation of Antigen Release and Danger Signals (Step 1)

Chemotherapy, targeted therapies, and radiotherapy can promote immunogenic cell death (ICD) of tumor cells. ICD results in the release of tumor antigens and “danger signals,” also known as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPS), such as calreticulin, ATP, type I IFN, and non-histone chromatin-binding protein high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) (30, 31). Binding to their receptors (CD91, the purinergic receptors P2RX7 and P2RY2, IFNAR, and the toll-like receptor TLR4, respectively) on DCs, results in their activation, enhanced antigen presentation, upregulation of co-stimulatory receptors, and induction of adaptive immune responses (32), whereas cell death that is “immunologically silent” induces tolerance.

Chemotherapy

Promising preclinical studies have shown that chemotherapy can indeed sensitize tumors to immune-checkpoint blockade by promoting T cell activation and infiltration into the tumor (33). Moreover, chemotherapy, such as by cisplatin, can also enhance responses to T cell based immune therapies by sensitizing the tumor cells to T cell-induced death rather than by ICD (34). For example, cisplatin has been shown to synergize with synthetic long peptide (SLP) vaccination and improve tumor-cell killing in a preclinical tumor model (35). With respect to the clinical application, chemotherapy (dacarbazine) combined with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) was first tested in metastatic melanoma patients. A phase II study showed that more patients responded to dacarbazine plus anti-CTLA-4 when compared to anti-CTLA-4 alone (14.3 versus 5.4%) (36). In addition, a phase III study demonstrated that this combination slightly increased the OS, when compared to dacarbazine alone (11.2 versus 9.1 months) (37) (note the difference between the latter two studies in terms of the monotherapy). However, immune-related severe adverse events (grade 3 or 4) also increased (56.3 versus 27.5%) (37).

Since chemotherapeutics promote antigen release and may promote the activation of tumor-specific T cells, combined chemotherapy and immune-checkpoint blockade may also be clinically effective in non-melanoma tumors. However, chemotherapy (paclitaxel and carboplatin) followed by anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) resulted in only a minor increase of the immune-related PFS in a phase II and phase IIIb/IV study in NSCLC and extensive disease SCLC patients, compared with chemotherapy alone (38, 39). In conclusion, despite promising preclinical studies, combination therapies of immune-checkpoint blockade with chemotherapy have so far only slightly enhanced the clinical efficacy, while amplifying adverse effects. The lack of efficacy might be attributed to limited induction of ICD by chemotherapy. As ATP is thought to be important in the recruitment and activation of DCs during ICD, combinations of chemotherapy and inhibition of the ATP degrading enzyme CD39 followed by immune-checkpoint blockade might improve the clinical efficacy (40, 41).

Targeted Therapies

Targeted therapies can also restore T cell activation, but subsequent expression of PD-L1 on tumor cells can lead to immune escape. For example, clinical data demonstrated that such escape occurred within 10–14 days after BRAF inhibition in tumors of patients with metastatic melanoma (42). Thus, combination approaches with immune-checkpoint blockade may function synergistically. However, a phase I trial combining BRAFV600E inhibitor vemurafenib with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) in metastatic melanoma was halted due to severe hepatotoxicity (43). To date, such hepatoxity did not occur in an ongoing phase I trial with the BRAFV600E inhibitor dabrafenib in combination with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) (44, 45), but clinical efficacy data are not yet available. Because PD-L1 is upregulated on tumor cells following BRAF inhibition, and anti-PD-1 therapy is less toxic compared to anti-CTLA-4, combining BRAFV600E inhibitors with anti-PD-1 therapy seems promising. Indeed, preclinical data showed that the combination of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 with BRAF inhibition enhanced antitumor responses in a BRAF/PTEN inducible melanoma model (46), thus warranting clinical studies. Still, BRAFV600E inhibition can potentially lead to activation of MAPK signaling in T cells, since wild-type BRAF is not inhibited. This may result in exhaustion or enhance immune suppression (47).

Until recently, the preclinical and clinical assessment of MEK inhibitors (e.g., tramatinib) in combination with immune-checkpoint blockade was limited, because MEK inhibitors disrupt T cell function transiently in vitro (48). Nevertheless, a synergistic effect of trametinib plus anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, or anti-CTLA-4 was observed in the preclinical CT26 carcinoma model (49). Triple therapy with MEK inhibitors, BRAFV600E inhibitors, and anti-CTLA-4 may potentially optimize antitumor T cell responses with limited autoimmune side effects, since the additional MEK inhibitors might circumvent T cell hyper-activation caused by BRAF inhibition (47). Nevertheless, the combination of MEK inhibitors (trametinib), BRAFV600E inhibitors (dabrafenib), and anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) resulted in severe gastrointestinal toxicity in patients with metastatic melanoma in a phase I/II study (45). In contrast, MEK inhibitors (trametinib) and BRAFV600E inhibitors (dabrafenib) have been successfully combined with anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab; MEDI4736) in melanoma patients in a phase I study (50). Thus, MEK or BRAFV600E inhibitors might be safely and effectively used in combination with anti-PD-L1, but little clinical efficacy data are currently available.

Radiotherapy

Radiotherapy induces local tumor cell death, but can also modulate local and systemic immunity, in essence acting as an in situ vaccine. Radiotherapy can promote CD8+ T cell responses to radiotherapy-induced peptides (51), natural (52, 53) or exogenous tumor antigens (54, 55), or by promoting immune control within the tumor-microenvironment (51, 56–58) [reviewed in Ref. (59)]. CD8+ T cells can contribute to radiotherapy-induced reduction of the primary tumor (55), and radiotherapy can even induce regression of lesions that reside outside the field of radiotherapy, called the “abscopal effect.” However, this is a very rare phenomenon, reported 34 times since 1969 [reviewed in Ref. (60)], indicating that radiotherapy alone sub-optimally engages the cancer-immunity cycle (or does not overrule all the impediments that may still be there).

However, local and systemic responses may be achieved at the same time when radiotherapy is combined rationally with immunotherapy. Indeed, the Demaria/Formenti groups first demonstrated that radiotherapy combined with anti-CTLA-4 improved control of irradiated tumors and reduced non-irradiated lung metastases in preclinical models (61, 62). Similarly, PD-L1 or PD-1 blockade and radiotherapy-induced local combined responses in mouse models for colon carcinoma (MC38) and mammary tumors (4T1 and TUBO) (63), and resulted in long-term survival in a mouse model for intracranial gliomas (GL261) (64). In the latter case, long-term immunologic memory was achieved, because rechallenged, long-term surviving mice did not develop new tumors.

A number of clinical case studies showed that concurrent treatment with radiotherapy and anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) promoted an abscopal effect in metastatic melanoma (3 × 9.5 Gy) as well as in NSCLC (5 × 6 Gy in 10 days) (65, 66). However, it is unclear whether this effect is caused by the combination of radiotherapy and anti-CTLA-4 (systemic effect of combination) or anti-CTLA-4 alone (systemic effect of immunotherapy), since the latter control was obviously not included in these case studies.

Confirming the challenge of obtaining systemic combined effects between radiotherapy and aCTLA-4 comes from a phase I/II study with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients, in which the tumors were first irradiated (1 × 8 Gy), followed by anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) administration 2 days later in an attempt to maximize antigen presentation (67). In this study, relatively few severe adverse events (10%) were reported and a complete response occurred. However, no differences in median survival were found in a phase III trial among metastatic CRPC patients applying radiotherapy plus anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) or placebo (11.2 versus 10.0 months) (68), again indicating that systemic combined effects between radiotherapy and anti-CTLA-4 are sub-optimal. Finally, a recent phase I study in metastatic melanoma patients reported an 18% abscopal response rate, but this is also expected from anti-CTLA-4 treatment alone (69). Anti-CTLA-4 treatment can result in the upregulation of tumoral PD-L1 expression (69). Indeed, the addition of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 to radiotherapy plus anti-CTLA-4 in a mouse model increased local combined responses and achieved cures in up to 80% of the animals, but combined effects on non-irradiated tumors were not assessed in this setting (69).

Hence, high (local) response rates are currently only achieved in combination with double immune-checkpoint blockade, and convincing clinical abscopal effects with radiotherapy and immune-checkpoint blockade are yet to be reported. In order to optimize the efficacy of combination approaches with radiotherapy, it is important to mechanistically understand how radiotherapy can optimally induce ICD to kickstart a new T cell response, which likely depends on the tumor type and location (hypoxic versus normoxic environment) and how irradiated and distal tumor-microenvironment are influenced by radiotherapy. Then, irradiation dose, scheduling, size of radiotherapy field (note: want this as small as possible to prevent damage to circulating lymphocytes that circulate through the RT field), timing, and delivery method can be optimized to achieve local and systemic therapeutic effects with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (70–72). For more details on preclinical and clinical efficacy of radiotherapy combined with aCTLA-4 see an elegant, recent review by Vanpouille-Box et al. (73).

In summary, the preclinical studies on combination approaches of immune-checkpoint blockade with stimulation of antigen release are promising, yet the clinical efficacy is currently limited. Furthermore, combination therapies with chemotherapy of BRAF-targeted therapies are potentially accompanied by severe side effects. Combination approaches with radiotherapy seem to have a more favorable toxicity profile, but, to date, local and abscopal antitumor responses are limited.

Combinations with Stimulation of Antigen Presentation and Co-Stimulation (Step 2)

Peptide vaccines, live attenuated vaccines, cellular vaccines, oncolytic viruses, and agonists for co-stimulatory molecules on antigen-presenting cells (APCs), such as DCs, can be used to stimulate antigen presentation.

Peptide

In a phase I study with advanced melanoma patients, vaccination with a modified sequence from glycoprotein 100 (gp100), a melanoma tumor antigen, increased the frequency of melanoma-specific CD8+ T cells (74). Nevertheless, the tumors progressed, implying that vaccination may benefit from combination with immune-checkpoint blockade. However, anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) plus gp100 peptide vaccine did not improve the OS, compared with anti-CTLA-4 alone (10.0 versus 10.1 months) in a phase III trial in advanced melanoma patients (9). Thus, multiple antigens may need to be targeted to induce sufficient antitumor CD8+ T cell responses. Such a multi-peptide vaccine (gp100, MART-1, NY-ESO-1) increased the number of gp100+, MART-1+, and NY-ESO-1+ CD8+ T cells in advanced melanoma patients when combined with anti-PD-1 (nivolumab), and a promising 1-year survival of 87% was obtained in this phase I trial (75). Thus, early clinical data indicate that multi-peptide vaccines combined with immune-checkpoint blockade are highly promising.

Live Attenuated Vaccines

Vaccination strategies in combination with immune-checkpoint blockade are also studied in non-melanoma tumors. Currently, a vaccine with a live-attenuated Listeria strain encoding the human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 oncoprotein E7 (ADXS11-001) in combination with anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) is studied in a phase I/II trial in patients with cervical cancer or HPV-positive head and neck cancer (NCT02291055). Furthermore, a live-attenuated Listeria strain encoding for prostate-specific antigen level (PSA) (ADXS31-142) in combination with anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) is studied in a phase I/II trial in patients with prostate cancer (NCT02325557). In summary, combination approaches with live attenuated viruses are currently tested in the clinic, but clinical safety and efficacy data are not available yet.

Cellular Vaccines

Clinical trials combining checkpoint therapy with cellular vaccines are also ongoing, such as a phase I trial combining MART-126–35-loaded DC injection with anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) in metastatic melanoma patients (76) and with anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) in patients with recurrent brain tumors (NCT02529072).

However, cellular vaccines consisting of irradiated GM-CSF-producing tumor cells (GVAX) may be more suitable, since they deliver multiple antigens. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) attracts DCs, stimulates the differentiation of monocytes into DCs, and amplifies DC cell maturation and antigen presentation (77, 78). Preclinical studies showed that subcutaneous injection of GVAX plus CTLA-4 blockade synergistically promoted tumor eradication in the B16 mouse melanoma model (response rate 80 versus 16% with GVAX alone) (79) due to an increase in CD8+ T cells and in effector T cell/Treg ratio in the tumor (80). GVAX plus PD-1 blockade also enhanced survival in the murine B16 melanoma, CT26 colon carcinoma, and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma models (81, 82). Furthermore, GVAX plus double checkpoint blockade (anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1) enhanced tumor rejection to 100% in CT26 colon carcinoma and to 75% in ID8 ovarian carcinoma, compared to, respectively, 75 and 50% with double checkpoint blockade only (83). It should be noted that depigmentation was observed in 56% of the mice after combined GVAX and immune-checkpoint blockade (79), which correlated with antitumor activity. Clinical studies with cellular vaccines and checkpoint therapy are still rare. In a phase I/II trial with metastatic CRPC patients, treatment with GVAX plus anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) was found to be safe and decreased the PSA by ≥50% in 25% of the patients (84). Thus, preclinical and early clinical data of cellular vaccines in combination with immune-checkpoint blockade are promising, warranting future clinical studies.

GM-CSF and Oncolytic Viruses

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor can also be directly administered instead of through production by irradiated tumor cells. In a phase II trial of systemic administration of recombinant GM-CSF (sargramostim) plus ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma patients, their 1-year survival increased upon combination therapy compared with anti-CTLA-4 alone (68.9 versus 52.9%) without toxicity differences (85). In addition, to minimize toxicity and optimize efficacy, GM-CSF can also be locally delivered in the tumor using modified oncolytic herpes viruses (talimogene laherperepvec; T-VEC) to produce GM-CSF. Such oncolytic viruses infect melanoma cells and then directly promote cell death with antigen release, stimulating antitumor immune responses (86). Intratumoral injection of T-VEC in melanoma patients in combination with ipilimumab treatment resulted in a response rate of 50% with a tolerable safety profile in a phase Ib trail. Currently, T-VEC combined with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) is studied in a phase II trial (NCT01740297) and combined with anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) in a phase Ib/III trail (NCT02263508), both in melanoma patients. The latter provided a clinical benefit and a phase III trial is planned (87, 88). Based on the clinical response rate of T-VEC and anti-CTLA-4, immune-checkpoint blockade with oncolytic viruses might be one of the most promising combination approaches.

Anti-CD40 and Anti-CD47

CD40 is constitutively expressed on APCs and, like GM-CSF, agonistic antibodies for CD40 (anti-CD40) provoke DC maturation and the expression of co-stimulatory molecules. A 27.3% response rate was obtained with anti-CD40 (CP-870893) plus anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) in a phase I study in melanoma patients (NCT01103635) (89). As anti-CD40 has been shown to upregulate PD-L1 in a mouse model (90), higher response rates might be obtained with anti-CD40 plus anti-PD-1. Indeed, anti-CD40 (APX005M) is currently studied in combination with anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) in a phase I/II trial in melanoma patients (NCT02706353). Furthermore, combination therapies with antagonistic antibodies for CD47, which provide “do not eat me” signals to APCs, might be used in the future in order to stimulate the engulfment of antigens (91). Thus, combination approaches with anti-CD40 or anti-CD47 can also be used to improve antigen presentation, but the available data show a smaller effect than other approaches to affect antigen presentation.

Overall, both the preclinical and initial clinical data for combination therapy with immune-checkpoint blockade and multi-peptide vaccines and oncolytic viruses are promising, whereas the combination with single peptide vaccines and anti-CD40 so far seem less effective.

Combinations with Stimulation of T Cell Activation (Step 3)

Combination approaches of anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 with the blockade of other immune-checkpoints or with activation of co-stimulatory molecules may also further amplify antitumor immune responses.

Double Immune-Checkpoint Blockade

CTLA-4 plus PD-1 Blockade

Preclinical models revealed that blocking of CTLA-4 or PD-1 alone led to upregulation of the unblocked pathway (92); hence, the efficacy of either monotherapy is limited by increased suppression of T cell responses through the other of the two pathways. Indeed, combined blockade of CTLA-4 and PD-1 prolonged survival in a B16 melanoma model (92), and combined PD-L1 and CTLA-4 blockade prolonged disease-free survival in the K7M2 model for metastatic osteosarcoma (93). This was due to enhanced effector T cell infiltration, proliferation, inflammatory cytokine production (e.g., IFN-γ), and an increase in the ratio of CD8+ T cells to Tregs and MDSCs in the tumor (92, 94).

Phase II clinical trials involving combination treatment with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) and anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) resulted in a higher response rate (61 versus 11% with anti-CTLA-4 only), more complete responses (22 versus 0% with anti-CTLA-4 only), and higher PFS in a phase III trial (11.2; anti-CTLA-4 2.9; anti-PD-1 6.9 months) (95, 96). However, severe (grade 3 or 4) treatment-related autoimmune adverse events were also amplified (55%; anti-CTLA-4 27.3%; anti-PD-1 16.3%) (96). In 2015, these studies led to the accelerated approval of anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) in combination with anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma in the USA. Still, optimization of this combination therapy, other combination approaches, or an individualized treatment is required to obtain clinical responses in a fraction of the patients above the current 60%. Currently, a phase I/II trial combining anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 therapy is ongoing in patients with solid tumors or sarcomas (NCT02304458), which will provide information about the efficacy and safety of double immune-checkpoint blockade in tumor types other than melanoma. Overall, double immune-checkpoint blockade with anti-CTLA-4 anti-PD-1 is currently the most effective combination approach and is approved for the treatment of melanoma.

Novel Immune Checkpoints

The immune-checkpoint molecules lymphocyte-activation gene-3 (LAG-3), T cell ITIM domain (TIGIT), or T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-3 (TIM-3) may also contribute to the immune evasion of tumor cells because they are primarily expressed on exhausted T cells (97–100). Various combinations have been tested in mouse models (Table 1). Blocking PD-1 and LAG-3 is particularly interesting because both are mainly expressed on TILs (101), which may result in a favorable safety profile due to restriction of T cell responses to the tumor-microenvironment. Results for this combination were promising in fibrosarcoma and colon cancer models, but tumor growth in the B16 melanoma model was not affected (101), possibly due to low LAG-3 and PD-1 expression on TILs in the B16 model. These observations highlight the importance to establish biomarkers that predict treatment responses to these combination approaches.

Table 1

CombinationTumor modelResponse monotherapyResponse combination therapyReference
Anti-CTLA-4IDOi (1MT)B16F1020 and 0% OS55% OS(102)
B16.SIY0 and 0% CR18.8% CR(103)
Anti-PD-1 (or anti-PD-L1)IDOi (1MT)B16.SIY0 and 0% CR13.3% CR(103)
Anti-LAG-3As1N20 and 10% CR70% CR(101)
B160 and 0% CR0% CR(101)
MC3840 and 0% CR80% CR(101)
Anti-TIGITCT260 and 10% OS70% OS, 75% decrease TV(100)
EMT-6–75% decrease TV(100)
Anti-TIM3CT260 and 0% CR50% CR(104)
GL261? and 0% OS60% OS(105)
Anti-VISTACT2637.5 and 12.5% OS100% OS(106)
Anti-CTLA-4+ anti-PD-1 (or anti-PD-L1)–B1610 and 25% OS50% OS(92)
B16.SIY0 and 0% CR55.5% CR(103)
K7M20 and 0% OS60% OS(93)
IDOi (1MT)GL26190 and 20% OS100% OS(107)
B16.SIY55.5 and 0% CR55.5% CR(103)

Preclinical studies double or triple immune-checkpoint blockade.

Note that the response data are not meant for direct comparison among the various preclinical models, but are merely presented to give an overview.

CR, complete respone; OS, overall survival; TV, tumor volume; TG, tumor growth.

The question mark indicates that the effect of anti-PD-1 was not assessed in this study.

Furthermore, the inhibitory ligand V-domain immunoglobulin (Ig)-containing suppressor of T cell activation [VISTA, also known as PD-1 homolog (PD-1H)] is expressed on hematopoietic cells (e.g., T cells) and in particular on myeloid cells in tumors (108–110). The combination of anti-VISTA and anti-PD-1 synergistically promoted regression and long-term survival in a colon carcinoma (CT26) model (106). Therefore, it would be interesting to test this combination in the clinic.

In addition to T cell immune checkpoints, NK cells express killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors (KIRs), which inhibit the cytotoxic activity of NK cells after interaction with MHC-I on tumor cells (111). Co-blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 and KIR might be beneficial due to the activation of both T- and NK cells. Currently, the effect of combination therapy with anti-KIR (lirilumab) and anti-PD-1 (nivolumab; NCT01714739) or anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab; NCT01750580) are investigated in phase I clinical studies in patients with advanced solid tumors. In summary, combination therapies with novel immune checkpoints might have a more favorable safety profile compared to anti-CTLA-4 with anti-PD-1, and clinical assessment of these approaches is needed.

Co-Stimulatory Molecules

Like immune-checkpoint blockade, agonistic antibodies for co-stimulatory molecules (e.g., CD27, CD137, GITR, and OX40) amplify T cell activation and, as a consequence, they may also enhance antitumor T cell responses. Various combinations with checkpoint blockade have been tested in mouse models (Table 2). The combination of OX40 and anti-CTLA-4 is synergistic in ovarian carcinoma (ID8), fibrosarcoma (MCA-205), and prostate cancer (TRAMP1) models (112, 113). Moreover, anti-GITR and anti-PD-1 have synergistic effects in the ID8 model (114). Some of these combinations have potentially less autoimmune side effects than double immune-checkpoint blockade while still having beneficial effects, for example, combination therapy involving anti-CD137 and CTLA-4 blockade in MC38 colon carcinoma tumors and GL261 glioblastoma (115, 116). In contrast, this combination treatment had no effect on B16 melanoma tumors (115, 116), which may be due to increased PD-L1 expression on those tumors.

Table 2

CombinationTumor modelResponse monotherapyResponse combination therapyReference
Anti-CTLA-4CD137CL2610 and 0% OS18% OS(116)
ID8No effectNo effect(117)
MC3814 and 14% CR86% CR(115)
B16F1/F10No effectNo effect(115, 118)
OX40ID80 and 0% OS60% OS(112)
MCA-20518 and 22% OS75% OS(113)
TRAMP-C120 and 18% OS75% OS(113)
CD27TC-10 and 50% OS50% OS(119)
Anti-PD-1CD137B16F10No effect85% decrease TG(120)
CT260 and – CR100% CR(121)
ID8No effectMedian survival + 30 days(117)
GITRID80 and 0% OS20% OS(114)
CD27TC-10 and 50% OS100% OS(119)

Preclinical studies immune-checkpoint blockade plus co-stimulation.

Note that the response data are not meant for direct comparison among the various preclinical models, but are merely presented to give an overview.

CR, complete respone; OS, overall survival; TV, tumor volume; TG, tumor growth.

Since PD-L1 expression can confer resistance to anti-CD137 treatment (122), combined CD137 activation and PD-1 rather than CTLA-4 blockade may further improve antitumor responses. Indeed, anti-CD137 plus anti-PD-1 resulted in increased efficacy in mouse models for colon carcinoma (ID8), melanoma (B16F10), and ovarian carcinoma (ID8) (117, 120, 121). Furthermore, triple therapy (activation of CD137 and blockade of PD-1 and CTLA-4) was even more effective in the ID8 model (117). However, CD137 agonists have been reported to induce severe liver inflammation (123, 124), and, therefore, more studies determining the toxic effects of combinations involving such agonists are needed. Moreover, intratumoral administration may help to minimize liver toxicity. Although liver inflammation was not detected in combination with anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 in preclinical studies (115, 117, 120), caution should be taken during its clinical assessment. Currently, a phase I study, in which the toxicity of anti-CD137 and anti-PD-1 is determined in patients with solid tumors, is in progress (NCT02179918). Combination approaches with anti-CD27 (Tnfrsf7) are also promising (125). The combination of anti-CD27 with anti-PD-1, but not anti-CTLA-4, eradicated tumors in a cervical cancer model (TC-1) (119). Currently, the combination of anti-CD27 (varlilumab) with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) or anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) is investigated in respectively patients with melanoma (NCT02413827) and solid tumors (NCT02335918) in phase I/II studies. Like the combination approaches with blockade of novel immune checkpoints, agonists for co-stimulatory molecules might have a more favorable safety profile, but caution is required with anti-CD137.

Summarizing the combinations with T cell stimulation, double immune-checkpoint blockade of CTLA-4 and PD-1 dramatically increased the response rate compared with monotherapy, but personalized treatment of anti-PD-1 with new immune-checkpoint inhibitors or agonists for co-stimulatory molecules can potentially minimize the severe side effects observed with CTLA-4/PD-1 combined blockade.

Combinations with Trafficking Inhibition of Tregs or MSDCs (Step 4)

Apart from recruiting antitumor T cells in step 4 of the cancer-immunity cycle, tumors also attract MDSCs and Tregs, which contribute to evasion of immune destruction. Therefore, trafficking inhibition of MDSCs and Tregs to the tumor using specific chemokine receptor inhibitors could abrogate immune evasion and improve antitumor T cell responses. Subpopulations of MDSCs express high levels of C–C chemokine receptor 1 (CCR1) or CXC chemokine receptor 2 (CXCR2) (126, 127). Their ligands, respectively, CCL5 (MCP-1), CCL7 (RANTES), and CXCL8, are secreted by tumors and mediate the recruitment of CCR1 or CXCR2 positive MDSCs. Combination of a CCR1 antagonist (CCX9588) and anti-PD-L1 synergistically reduced the tumor burden in a preclinical breast cancer model (126). Moreover, anti-CXCR2 plus anti-PD-1 enhanced survival in a rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) model (127).

Regulatory T cells (FOXP3hi and CD45RA−) express high levels of CCR4 in the blood and inside tumors (128). Therefore, combination approaches of immune-checkpoint blockade and inhibition of Treg recruitment employing anti-CCR4 is promising. In addition, anti-CCR4 promotes antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC), which may further reduce the Treg population (129). Currently, anti-CCR4 (mogamulizumab) in combination with anti-PD-1 (nivolumab; NCT02705105, phase I/II), anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab; NCT02301130, phase I), and anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab; NCT02301130, phase I) is being tested in the clinic in patients with various advanced solid tumors. In summary, preclinical studies indicate the potential of trafficking inhibition of Tregs or MDSCs, but clinical efficacy data are not reported yet.

Combinations with T Cell Infiltration Stimulators (Step 5)

Deficient T cell infiltration can contribute to tumor immune escape because of the absence of sufficient numbers of T cells. T cell infiltration can be stimulated using anti-VEGF, agonists for innate immune receptors, and epigenetic modification.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor

The growth factor VEGF inhibits T cell infiltration into the tumor by downregulation of adhesion molecules on endothelial cells (130). However, the immunosuppressive function of VEGF is much more diverse. For instance, VEGF also inhibits antigen presentation by DCs, enhances the expansion of Tregs, and mediates PD-1 upregulation on tumor-infiltrated T cells (131–133). High VEGF levels are associated with decreased OS in advanced melanoma patients after treatment with anti-CTLA-4 (134). Therefore, the combination of anti-VEGF-A (bevacizumab; humanized IgG1, Roche) and anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) was investigated in a phase I trial in advanced melanoma patients. This combination resulted in a high CD8+ T cell infiltration and a median survival of 25.1 months (135), suggesting a substantial benefit compared to the 10.1 months median survival of anti-CTLA4 alone (9) (note though that this is another trial). In this trial, 28.3% of the patients experienced severe (grade 3 or 4) adverse events (135).

Another phase I trial applying a small molecule tyrosine kinase VEGF receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor (sunitinib) plus anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) to patients with metastatic RCC resulted in acute renal failure, and the study was therefore halted (136). However, combined treatment with the generally safer anti-PD-1 and the VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib may be feasible. In preclinical studies, the combination of anti-VEGF-A and anti-PD-1 therapy was more effective than the monotherapies in a CT26 carcinoma mouse model (131). Moreover, preliminary clinical data of a phase I trial investigating the combination of anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) with either the VEGFR inhibitor sunitinib or with a multikinase VEGFR inhibitor (pazopanib) are promising (137, 138). In summary, combination therapies with anti-VEGF might provide a substantial survival benefit to patients, whereas caution is required with VEGFR inhibitor combination therapies due to renal toxicity.

Innate Immune Receptors

Innate immune receptors (also known as pattern recognition receptors; PRR) such as TLR can detect a broad range of pathogen- and danger-associated patterns. Binding of these ligands to TLRs on DCs results in their maturation (139, 140). In addition, TLR9 agonists have been shown to increase T cell infiltration in the CT26 colon cancer model (141). Therefore, TLR9 agonists might be used to enhance T cell infiltration into the tumor. Currently, anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) combined with a TLR9 agonist (MGN1703) is studied in a phase I trial in patients with advanced solid malignancies (NCT02668770). In summary, although clinical data are not yet available, combinations with innate immune receptor stimulation might improve T cell infiltration.

Epigenetic Modulation

Epigenetic silencing of immune-related genes using hypermethylation contributes to immune evasion during tumor progression (142, 143). Hypomethylating agents, of which the nucleoside DNA methylation inhibitor Azacitidine (AZA) and 5-aza-2′-deoxycitidine (5AZA2) are most extensively studied, can be used to restore gene expression (144). 5AZA2 treatment has been shown to promote CD8+ T cell infiltration into the tumor in the EL4 lymphoma model, which was attributed to demethylation-induced CD80 expression on tumor cells (145). Therefore, hypomethylation can be used as a strategy to stimulate T cell infiltration into the tumor. Moreover, 5AZA2 treatment combined with anti-CTLA-4 is synergistic in murine mammary carcinoma TS/A and in mesothelioma AB1 models and results in high CD8+ and CD4+ T cell infiltration (146). Thus, clinical studies are needed as a next step to investigate the safety and efficacy of combination approaches with epigenetic modulation.

In conclusion, several approaches to stimulate T cell infiltration have been attempted but our knowledge on the efficacy of T cell infiltration stimulators combined with checkpoint blockade remains limited. This clearly is an area where more research is needed.

Combinations with Antigen Recognition Stimulators (Step 6)

Adoptive cell transfer is another promising strategy for the treatment of melanoma with objective response rates of approximately 50% and complete tumor regression in 22% of the patients (147). This approach involves the ex vivo culture of a tumor biopsy, the expansion and selection of TILs for tumor specificity, and reinfusion of the tumor-reactive cells into the patient. Instead of TILs, T cells expressing antigen-specific chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) are alternatively used to target specific tumor antigens (148). However, the lack of sufficient T cell infiltration into the tumor, as well as an immunosuppressive tumor-microenvironment may limit ACT success in some patients (149). Indeed, ACT plus anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, or anti-CTLA4 synergistically reduced tumor growth in the MC38 carcinoma, B16 and B16F10 melanoma mouse models (150–152) and increased the long-term survival in transgenic Her-2 mice upon ACT of Her-2+-specific CAR T cells and anti-PD-1 compared to the monotherapies (153). Combination therapy enhanced the proliferation of T cells within tumors, their cytotoxic activity, and IFN-γ production, which mediated chemokine upregulation (e.g., CXCL10) and further T cell infiltration (150). Thus, the application of immune-checkpoint blockade after ACT may result in complete tumor regression in a large population in the clinic. Currently, the combination of ACT and anti-CTLA-4 is studied in a phase II study in patients with metastatic melanoma (NCT02027935).

Because anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 promote intratumoral T cell infiltration, immune-checkpoint blockade prior to ACT may increase the number of TILs that can be derived from a tumor biopsy. Moreover, expanded TILs derived from anti-CTLA4-treated patients have a less exhausted phenotype, which is associated with improved clinical responses (154). In summary, applying immune-checkpoint blockade either before or after ACT is a promising approach, but clinical data are currently lacking.

Combinations That Increase Tumor Killing (Step 7)

As discussed, tumor cells can evade killing via PD-L1 expression, since the interaction of PD-L1 with PD-1 inhibits the secretion of cytotoxic mediators by CD8+ T cells (2). Moreover, other molecules expressed on APCs or tumor cells may limit killing, such as indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO), or immune suppressive mediators accumulating in the tumor environment, like adenosine and transforming growth factor β (TGF-β). Note that also the earlier discussed approaches of chemo- and radiotherapy can help to sensitize tumor cells to T cell-induced death.

Adenosine

Adenosine inhibits T cell proliferation and cytotoxicity upon binding to the A2A receptor on T cells (155–157). In addition, adenosine can directly provoke metastasis upon interaction with the A2B receptor on tumor cells (158). As a consequence, the combination of an A2A receptor antagonist and anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 synergistically inhibited (metastatic) tumor growth in breast cancer (4T1) and melanoma (B16F10) preclinical models (159–161). Currently, the safety and tolerability of combined A2A receptor antagonist (CPI-444) and anti-PD-L1 (atezolizumab) treatment is studied in a phase I trial in advanced cancers (NCT02655822).

Adenosine is formed by dephosphorylation of adenosine monophosphate (AMP) by the ecto-enzyme CD73 (162). Thus, CD73 has an immunosuppressive and pro-metastatic effect. Moreover, CD73 stimulates angiogenesis through upregulated VEGF secretion by tumor cells (163). As a consequence, high expression of the enzyme CD73 is associated with a poor prognosis in various cancer types (164–166). This enzyme is also a potential biomarker for anti-PD-1 therapy, since CD73 expression limits anti-PD-1 efficacy (161, 167). Indeed, both combined treatment with anti-CD73 and anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 enhanced the antitumor activity in colon (MC38), prostate (RM-1), and metastatic breast cancer (4T1.2) models (168). Currently, the combination of anti-CD73 (MEDI9447) plus anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) is investigated in the clinic in patients with advanced solid cancer (NCT02503774) in a phase I study. In summary, combination approaches with A2A receptor antagonists and anti-CD73 to improve tumor killing are currently studied in the clinic due to their success in preclinical studies.

Transforming Growth Factor-β

Transforming growth factor-β can also contribute to immune suppression by stimulating Tregs (169). Preclinically, combined treatment with a TFG-β receptor kinase inhibitor I and anti-CTLA-4 synergistically inhibited primary and metastatic tumor growth in a melanoma model (BRAFV600EPTEN−/−) (170). The combination of the TFG-β receptor kinase inhibitor I (galunisertib) and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) or anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) are currently being clinically tested in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (NCT02734160, phase I) and NSCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma, or glioblastoma (NCT02423343, phase I/II). These clinical studies will demonstrate if combination approaches with TGF-β receptor kinase inhibitors may improve the treatment of various tumors.

In addition, TGF-β may impair radiotherapy-induced T cell priming, and TGF-β blocking antibodies can enhance T cell priming (step 2–3) and promote abscopal responses induced by (fractionated) radiotherapy in the 4T1 mouse model (53).

IDO

The presence of the tryptophan degrading enzyme IDO on APCs or tumor cells may also limit the killing efficacy of CTLA-4 or PD-1 blockade because tryptophan is required for T cell proliferation (171). Indeed, several preclinical studies demonstrated a survival benefit of combinations of anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-L1 with IDO inhibition by 1-methyl-d-tryptophan (1MT) treatment (Table 1). Thus, combination approaches with IDO inhibition may be efficacious, especially in patients with a high IDO expression. Finally, triple immune-checkpoint blockade of CTLA-4, PD-1, and IDO could further improve antitumor responses, but this approach probably does not increase the effectiveness compared to double checkpoint blockade in more established tumors (107).

Early clinical safety and efficacy data for the IDO1 inhibitor (epacadostat) in combination with anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) were promising for the treatment of various advanced cancers in a phase I/II study (e.g., melanoma, RCC, and NSCLC) (172). Currently, the IDO inhibitor epacadostat is also being tested in combination with anti-PD-1 (nivolumab; NCT02327078) and anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab; NCT02318277) for various cancers in phase I/II studies. In addition, 1MT (indoximod) plus anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) or anti-PD-1 is being tested in melanoma patients (NCT02073123) in a phase I/II study. Thus, both preclinical and early clinical studies involving IDO inhibition have yielded promising results. However, because IDO inhibition seems particularly effective in tumors with a high IDO expression, it would be useful to target these patients specifically.

Summarizing the approaches that stimulate killing by T cells, various clinical trials currently investigate combination therapies that enhance such killing, but to date clinical safety and efficacy data are limited.

Conclusion

Various combination approaches with immune-checkpoint blockade have been studied in preclinical models, but to date the clinical efficacy and toxicity data are limited. It is difficult to compare the efficacy of the preclinical studies, since various cell lines and tumor models are used. A step forward here would be to employ a combination of experimental approaches and mathematical modeling to quantify the CTL-mediated killing rates (173, 174) for tumor destruction in different settings (i.e., tumor models, treatments) as well as the variability of these rates among mice, taking into account factors such as T cell infiltration and tumor size.

Double immune-checkpoint blockade or combinations with agonists for co-stimulatory molecules are effective at amplifying T cell activation. High response rates have especially been obtained by the combination of CTLA-4 and PD-1 and as a consequence this combination was approved in 2015 for the treatment of melanoma. Nevertheless, these approaches are not effective in all patients. Preclinical data suggest that complete tumor regression may be achieved in a large part of the population after combined treatment with ACT and immune-checkpoint blockade, but its widespread employment may be limited due to extensive laboratory requirements and the high costs involved. Initial clinical data also indicate that combination approaches with multi-peptide vaccines are effective, but patients with non-melanoma tumors expressing low levels of tumor antigens do not benefit from such an approach. In order to improve the efficacy of immune-checkpoint blockade in patients with non-melanoma tumors, combinations with chemotherapy or targeted therapies may be effective, since they induce antigen release and provide danger signals, but the adverse effects are often severe. Combined double immune-checkpoint blockade and radiotherapy might be a promising combination therapy in case the abscopal responses can be optimized (Figure 1). Moreover, the optimal timing of immune-checkpoint blockade relative to the “backbone” radiotherapy needs to be determined. Although combination approaches can increase the fraction of patients that respond to treatment in various cancer types, individualized immune-checkpoint combination approaches, based on predictive biomarkers, has an even higher potential to ensure that each patient is provided with the optimal care. Therefore, establishing biomarkers specifically for combination therapies involving immune-checkpoint blockade has high priority in future research.

Statements

Author contributions

MS and JB conceptualized the manuscript; MS drafted the manuscript and composed the figures; and MS, JB, and IV carefully revised the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a Bas Mulder award from the Dutch Cancer Society/Alpe d’Huzes (NKI2013-5951, to IV) and by a Vidi grant from NWO (864.12.013, to JB).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

1MT, 1-methyl-d-tryptophan; ACT, adoptive cell transfer; APC, antigen-presenting cell; BRAFi, BRAF inhibitor; CARs, chimeric antigen receptors; CD, cluster of differentiation; CR, complete response; CRPC, castration-resistant prostate cancer; CTL, cytotoxic T lymphocyte; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4; CXCL, C–X–C motif chemokine ligand; GITR, glucocorticoid-induced TNFR family-related gene; GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; gp100, glycoprotein 100; GVAX, cellular vaccines consisting of irradiated GM-CSF producing tumor cells; HNSCC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; HPV, human papillomavirus; ICD, immunogenic cell death; IDO, indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase; IFN-γ, interferon gamma; KIRs, killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptors; LAG-3, lymphocyte-activation gene-3; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinases; MART-1, protein melan-A; MEKi, mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitor; MHC, major histocompatibility complex; NCT, national clinical trial; NK cell, natural killer cell; NSCLC, non-small-cell lung carcinoma; NY-ESO-1, cancer-testis antigen; ORR, overall response rate; OS, overall survival; PD-1, programed death-1; PD-L1,2, programed death-ligand 1,2; PFS, progression-free survival; PSA, prostate-specific antigen; PTEN, phosphatase and tensin homolog; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; SLP, synthetic long peptide; TCR, T cell receptor; TG, tumor growth; TIGIT, T cell ITIM domain; TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte; TIM-3, T cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-3; TNFR, tumor necrosis factor receptor; Treg, regulatory T cell; TV, tumor volume; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor; VEGFR, VEGF receptor.

References

  • 1

    CorthayA. Does the immune system naturally protect against cancer?Front Immunol (2014) 5:197.10.3389/fimmu.2014.00197

  • 2

    ChenDSMellmanI. Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle. Immunity (2013) 39(1):1–10.10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.012

  • 3

    PardollDM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer (2012) 12(4):252–64.10.1038/nrc3239

  • 4

    TopalianSLDrakeCGPardollDM. Immune checkpoint blockade: a common denominator approach to cancer therapy. Cancer Cell (2015) 27(4):450–61.10.1016/j.ccell.2015.03.001

  • 5

    KvistborgPPhilipsDKeldermanSHagemanLOttensmeierCJoseph-PietrasDet alAnti-CTLA-4 therapy broadens the melanoma-reactive CD8+ T cell response. Sci Transl Med (2014) 6(254):254ra128.10.1126/scitranslmed.3008918

  • 6

    PeggsKSQuezadaSAChambersCAKormanAJAllisonJP. Blockade of CTLA-4 on both effector and regulatory T cell compartments contributes to the antitumor activity of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. J Exp Med (2009) 206(8):1717–25.10.1084/jem.20082492

  • 7

    BlankCUEnkA. Therapeutic use of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. Int Immunol (2015) 27(1):3–10.10.1093/intimm/dxu076

  • 8

    SchadendorfDHodiFSRobertCWeberJSMargolinKHamidOet alPooled analysis of long-term survival data from phase II and phase III trials of ipilimumab in unresectable or metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2015) 33(17):1889–94.10.1200/JCO.2014.56.2736

  • 9

    HodiFSO’DaySJMcDermottDFWeberRWSosmanJAHaanenJBet alImproved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med (2010) 363(8):711–23.10.1056/NEJMoa1003466

  • 10

    YangJCHughesMKammulaURoyalRSherryRMTopalianSLet alIpilimumab (anti-CTLA4 antibody) causes regression of metastatic renal cell cancer associated with enteritis and hypophysitis. J Immunother (2007) 30(8):825–30.10.1097/CJI.0b013e318156e47e

  • 11

    GoldbergMVMarisCHHipkissELFliesASZhenLTuderRMet alRole of PD-1 and its ligand, B7-H1, in early fate decisions of CD8 T cells. Blood (2007) 110(1):186–92.10.1182/blood-2006-12-062422

  • 12

    FranciscoLMSalinasVHBrownKEVanguriVKFreemanGJKuchrooVKet alPD-L1 regulates the development, maintenance, and function of induced regulatory T cells. J Exp Med (2009) 206(13):3015–29.10.1084/jem.20090847

  • 13

    OkazakiTHonjoT. PD-1 and PD-1 ligands: from discovery to clinical application. Int Immunol (2007) 19(7):813–24.10.1093/intimm/dxm057

  • 14

    KleffelSPoschCBarthelSRMuellerHSchlapbachCGuenovaEet alMelanoma cell-intrinsic PD-1 receptor functions promote tumor growth. Cell (2015) 162(6):1242–56.10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.052

  • 15

    NishimuraHNoseMHiaiHMinatoNHonjoT. Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying immunoreceptor. Immunity (1999) 11(2):141–51.10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80089-8

  • 16

    NishimuraHOkazakiTTanakaYNakataniKHaraMMatsumoriAet alAutoimmune dilated cardiomyopathy in PD-1 receptor-deficient mice. Science (2001) 291(5502):319–22.10.1126/science.291.5502.319

  • 17

    RobertCRibasAWolchokJDHodiFSHamidOKeffordRet alAnti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet (2014) 384(9948):1109–17.10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60958-2

  • 18

    LarkinJLaoCDUrbaWJMcDermottDFHorakCJiangJet alEfficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with BRAF V600 mutant and BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma. JAMA Oncol (2015) 1(4):433.10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1184

  • 19

    AsciertoPAMarincolaFM. 2015: the year of anti-PD-1/PD-L1s against melanoma and beyond. EBioMedicine (2015) 2(2):92–3.10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.01.011

  • 20

    RobertCSchachterJLongGVAranceAGrobJJMortierLet alPembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med (2015) 372(26):150419053123009.10.1056/NEJMoa1503093

  • 21

    BorghaeiHPaz-AresLHornLSpigelDRSteinsMReadyNEet alNivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(17):1627–39.10.1056/NEJMoa1507643

  • 22

    GaronEBRizviNAHuiRLeighlNBalmanoukianASEderJPet alPembrolizumab for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2015) 372(21):2018–28.10.1056/NEJMoa1501824

  • 23

    BrahmerJReckampKLBaasPCrinòLEberhardtWEEPoddubskayaEet alNivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(2):123–35.10.1056/NEJMoa1504627

  • 24

    MotzerRJEscudierBMcDermottDFGeorgeSHammersHJSrinivasSet alNivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(19):1803–13.10.1056/NEJMoa1510665

  • 25

    AnsellSMLesokhinAMBorrelloIHalwaniAScottECGutierrezMet alPD-1 Blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med (2015) 372(4):311–9.10.1056/NEJMoa1411087

  • 26

    MuroKChungHCShankaranVGevaRCatenacciDGuptaSet alPembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-012): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol (2016) 17(6):717–26.10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00175-3

  • 27

    RosenbergJEHoffman-CensitsJPowlesTvan der HeijdenMSBalarAVNecchiAet alAtezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet (2016) 387(10031):1909–20.10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00561-4

  • 28

    ZitvogelLGalluzziLSmythMJKroemerG. Mechanism of action of conventional and targeted anticancer therapies: reinstating immunosurveillance. Immunity (2013) 39(1):74–88.10.1016/j.immuni.2013.06.014

  • 29

    BlankCUHaanenJBRibasASchumacherTN. The “cancer immunogram”. Science (2016) 352(6286):658–60.10.1126/science.aaf2834

  • 30

    BezuLGomes-de-SilvaLCDewitteHBreckpotKFucikovaJSpisekRet alCombinatorial strategies for the induction of immunogenic cell death. Front Immunol (2015) 6:187.10.3389/fimmu.2015.00187

  • 31

    VandenabeelePVandecasteeleKBachertCKryskoOKryskoDV. Immunogenic Apoptotic Cell Death and Anticancer Immunity. New York: Springer International Publishing (2016). p. 133–49.

  • 32

    MartinKSchreinerJZippeliusA. Modulation of APC function and anti-tumor immunity by anti-cancer drugs. Front Immunol (2015) 6:501.10.3389/fimmu.2015.00501

  • 33

    PfirschkeCEngblomCRickeltSCortez-RetamozoVGarrisCPucciFet alImmunogenic chemotherapy sensitizes tumors to checkpoint blockade therapy. Immunity (2016) 44(2):343–54.10.1016/j.immuni.2015.11.024

  • 34

    van der SluisTCvan der BurgSHMeliefCJ. Synergy between chemotherapy and cancer vaccination. Aging (Albany NY) (2015) 7(6):340–1.10.18632/aging.100752

  • 35

    van der SluisTCvan DuikerenSHuppelschotenSJordanovaESBeyranvand NejadESlootsAet alVaccine-induced tumor necrosis factor-producing T cells synergize with cisplatin to promote tumor cell death. Clin Cancer Res (2015) 21(4):781–94.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2142

  • 36

    HershEMO’DaySJPowderlyJKhanKDPavlickACCranmerLDet alA phase II multicenter study of ipilimumab with or without dacarbazine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced melanoma. Invest New Drugs (2011) 29(3):489–98.10.1007/s10637-009-9376-8

  • 37

    RobertCThomasLBondarenkoIO’DaySWeberJGarbeCet alIpilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med (2011) 364(26):2517–26.10.1056/NEJMoa1104621

  • 38

    LynchTJBondarenkoILuftASerwatowskiPBarlesiFChackoRet alIpilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study. J Clin Oncol (2012) 30(17):2046–54.10.1200/JCO.2011.38.4032

  • 39

    ReckMBondarenkoILuftASerwatowskiPBarlesiFChackoRet alIpilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial. Ann Oncol (2012) 24(1):75–83.10.1093/annonc/mds213

  • 40

    MichaudMMartinsISukkurwalaAQAdjemianSMaYPellegattiPet alAutophagy-dependent anticancer immune responses induced by chemotherapeutic agents in mice. Science (2011) 334(6062):1573–7.10.1126/science.1208347

  • 41

    MichaudMSukkurwalaAQMartinsIShenSZitvogelLKroemerG. Subversion of the chemotherapy-induced anticancer immune response by the ecto-ATPase CD39. Oncoimmunology (2012) 1(3):393–5.10.4161/onci.19070

  • 42

    FrederickDTPirisACogdillAPCooperZALezcanoCFerroneCRet alBRAF inhibition is associated with enhanced melanoma antigen expression and a more favorable tumor microenvironment in patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res (2013) 19(5):1225–31.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1630

  • 43

    RibasAHodiFSCallahanMKontoCWolchokJ. Hepatotoxicity with combination of vemurafenib and ipilimumab. N Engl J Med (2013) 368(14):1365–6.10.1056/NEJMc1302338

  • 44

    PuzanovICallahanMLinetteGPatelSLukeJSosmanJ. Phase I study of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (D) with or without the MEK inhibitor trametinib (T) in combination with ipilimumab (Ipi) for V600E/K mutation-positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2014) 32(5s):suppl; abstr 2511.

  • 45

    MinorDRPuzanovICallahanMKHugBAHoosA. Severe gastrointestinal toxicity with administration of trametinib in combination with dabrafenib and ipilimumab. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res (2015) 28(5):611–2.10.1111/pcmr.12383

  • 46

    CooperZAJunejaVRSagePTFrederickDTPirisAMitraDet alResponse to BRAF inhibition in melanoma is enhanced when combined with immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(7):643–54.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0215

  • 47

    Hu-LieskovanSRobertLHomet MorenoBRibasA. Combining targeted therapy with immunotherapy in BRAF-mutant melanoma: promise and challenges. J Clin Oncol (2014) 32(21):2248–54.10.1200/JCO.2013.52.1377

  • 48

    VellaLJPasamADimopoulosNAndrewsMKnightsAPuauxA-Let alMEK inhibition, alone or in combination with BRAF inhibition, affects multiple functions of isolated normal human lymphocytes and dendritic cells. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(4):351–60.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0181

  • 49

    LiuLMayesPAEastmanSShiHYadavilliSZhangTet alThe BRAF and MEK inhibitors dabrafenib and trametinib: effects on immune function and in combination with immunomodulatory antibodies targeting PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4. Clin Cancer Res (2015) 21(7):1639–51.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2339

  • 50

    RibasAButlerMLutzkyJLawrenceDRobertCMillerWet alPhase I study combining anti-PD-L1 (MEDI4736) with BRAF (dabrafenib) and/or MEK (trametinib) inhibitors in advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2015) 33:suppl; abstr 3003.

  • 51

    ReitsEAHodgeJWHerbertsCAGroothuisTAChakrabortyMWansleyEKet alRadiation modulates the peptide repertoire, enhances MHC class I expression, and induces successful antitumor immunotherapy. J Exp Med (2006) 203(5):1259–71.10.1084/jem.20052494

  • 52

    SharmaABodeBWengerRHLehmannKSartoriAAMochHet alγ-Radiation promotes immunological recognition of cancer cells through increased expression of cancer-testis antigens in vitro and in vivo. PLoS One (2011) 6(11):e28217.10.1371/journal.pone.0028217

  • 53

    Vanpouille-BoxCDiamondJMPilonesKAZavadilJBabbJSFormentiSCet alTGFβ is a master regulator of radiation therapy-induced antitumor immunity. Cancer Res (2015) 75(11):2232–42.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-3511

  • 54

    LugadeAAMoranJPGerberSARoseRCFrelingerJGLordEM. Local radiation therapy of B16 melanoma tumors increases the generation of tumor antigen-specific effector cells that traffic to the tumor. J Immunol (2005) 174(12):7516–23.10.4049/jimmunol.174.12.7516

  • 55

    LeeYAuhSLWangYYBurnetteBWangYYMengYet alTherapeutic effects of ablative radiation on local tumor require CD8+ T cells: changing strategies for cancer treatment. Blood (2009) 114(3):589–95.10.1182/blood-2009-02-206870

  • 56

    VatnerRECooperBTVanpouille-BoxCDemariaSFormentiSC. Combinations of immunotherapy and radiation in cancer therapy. Front Oncol (2014) 4:325.10.3389/fonc.2014.00325

  • 57

    ApetohLGhiringhelliFTesniereACriolloAOrtizCLidereauRet alThe interaction between HMGB1 and TLR4 dictates the outcome of anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Immunol Rev (2007) 220:47–59.10.1111/j.1600-065X.2007.00573.x

  • 58

    LomaxMEFolkesLKO’NeillP. Biological consequences of radiation-induced DNA damage: relevance to radiotherapy. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) (2013) 25(10):578–85.10.1016/j.clon.2013.06.007

  • 59

    DemariaSGoldenEBFormentiSC. Role of local radiation therapy in cancer immunotherapy. JAMA Oncol (2015) 1(9):1325–32.10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2756

  • 60

    AbuodehYVenkatPKimS. Systematic review of case reports on the abscopal effect. Curr Probl Cancer (2016) 40(1):25–37.10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2015.10.001

  • 61

    DemariaSKawashimaNYangAMDevittMLBabbJSAllisonJPet alImmune-mediated inhibition of metastases after treatment with local radiation and CTLA-4 blockade in a mouse model of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2005) 11(2 Pt 1):728–34.

  • 62

    RuoccoMGPilonesKAKawashimaNCammerMHuangJBabbJSet alSuppressing T cell motility induced by anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy improves antitumor effects. J Clin Invest (2012) 122(10):3718–30.10.1172/JCI61931

  • 63

    SharabiABNirschlCJKochelCMNirschlTRFrancicaBJVelardeEet alStereotactic radiation therapy augments antigen-specific PD-1-mediated antitumor immune responses via cross-presentation of tumor antigen. Cancer Immunol Res (2015) 3(4):345–55.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0196

  • 64

    ZengJSeeAPPhallenJJacksonCMBelcaidZRuzevickJet alAnti-PD-1 blockade and stereotactic radiation produce long-term survival in mice with intracranial gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2013) 86(2):343–9.10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.12.025

  • 65

    PostowMACallahanMKBarkerCAYamadaYYuanJKitanoSet alImmunologic correlates of the abscopal effect in a patient with melanoma. N Engl J Med (2012) 366(10):925–31.10.1056/NEJMoa1112824

  • 66

    GoldenEBDemariaSSchiffPBChachouaAFormentiSC. An abscopal response to radiation and ipilimumab in a patient with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Immunol Res (2013) 1(6):365–72.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0115

  • 67

    SlovinSFHiganoCSHamidOTejwaniSHarzstarkAAlumkalJJet alIpilimumab alone or in combination with radiotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from an open-label, multicenter phase I/II study. Ann Oncol (2013) 24(7):1813–21.10.1093/annonc/mdt107

  • 68

    KwonEDDrakeCGScherHIFizaziKBossiAvan den EertweghAJet alIpilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol (2014) 15(7):700–12.10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70189-5

  • 69

    VictorCT-SRechAJMaityARenganRPaukenKEStelekatiEet alRadiation and dual checkpoint blockade activate non-redundant immune mechanisms in cancer. Nature (2015) 520(7547):373–7.10.1038/nature14292

  • 70

    TengFKongLMengXYangJYuJ. Radiotherapy combined with immune checkpoint blockade immunotherapy: achievements and challenges. Cancer Lett (2015) 365(1):23–9.10.1016/j.canlet.2015.05.012

  • 71

    DemariaSPilonesKAVanpouille-BoxCGoldenEBFormentiSC. The optimal partnership of radiation and immunotherapy: from preclinical studies to clinical translation. Radiat Res (2014) 182(2):170–81.10.1667/RR13500.1

  • 72

    DemariaSFormentiSC. Radiation as an immunological adjuvant: current evidence on dose and fractionation. Front Oncol (2012) 2:153.10.3389/fonc.2012.00153

  • 73

    Vanpouille-BoxCPilonesKAWennerbergEFormentiSCDemariaS. In situ vaccination by radiotherapy to improve responses to anti-CTLA-4 treatment. Vaccine (2015) 33(51):7415–22.10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.05.105

  • 74

    RosenbergSASherryRMMortonKEScharfmanWJYangJCTopalianSLet alTumor progression can occur despite the induction of very high levels of self/tumor antigen-specific CD8+ T cells in patients with melanoma. J Immunol (2005) 175(9):6169–76.10.4049/jimmunol.175.9.6169

  • 75

    GibneyGTKudchadkarRRDeContiRCThebeauMSCzuprynMPTettehLet alSafety, correlative markers, and clinical results of adjuvant nivolumab in combination with vaccine in resected high-risk metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res (2015) 21(4):712–20.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-2468

  • 76

    RibasAComin-AnduixBChmielowskiBJalilJde la RochaPMcCannelTAet alDendritic cell vaccination combined with CTLA4 blockade in patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res (2009) 15(19):6267–76.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1254

  • 77

    GearySMLemkeCDLubaroffDMSalemAK. Proposed mechanisms of action for prostate cancer vaccines. Nat Rev Urol (2013) 10(3):149–60.10.1038/nrurol.2013.8

  • 78

    KaufmanHLRubyCEHughesTSlingluffCL. Current status of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in the immunotherapy of melanoma. J Immunother cancer (2014) 2:11.10.1186/2051-1426-2-11

  • 79

    van ElsasAHurwitzAAAllisonJP. Combination immunotherapy of B16 melanoma using anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-producing vaccines induces rejection of subcutaneous and metastatic tumors accompanied. J Exp Med (1999) 190(3):355–66.10.1084/jem.190.3.355

  • 80

    QuezadaSAPeggsKSCurranMAAllisonJP. CTLA4 blockade and GM-CSF combination immunotherapy alters the intratumor balance of effector and regulatory T cells. J Clin Invest (2006) 116(7):1935–45.10.1172/JCI27745

  • 81

    LiBVanRoeyMWangCChenTTKormanAJoossK. Anti-programmed death-1 synergizes with granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor – secreting tumor cell immunotherapy providing therapeutic benefit to mice with established tumors. Clin Cancer Res (2009) 15(5):1623–34.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1825

  • 82

    SoaresKCRuckiAAWuAAOlinoKXiaoQChaiYet alPD-1/PD-L1 blockade together with vaccine therapy facilitates effector T-cell infiltration into pancreatic tumors. J Immunother (2015) 38(1):1–11.10.1097/CJI.0000000000000062

  • 83

    DuraiswamyJKaluzaKMFreemanGJCoukosG. Dual blockade of PD-1 and CTLA-4 combined with tumor vaccine effectively restores T-cell rejection function in tumors. Cancer Res (2013) 73(12):3591–603.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-4100

  • 84

    van den EertweghAJMVersluisJvan den BergHPSantegoetsSJAMvan MoorselaarRJAvan der SluisTMet alCombined immunotherapy with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-transduced allogeneic prostate cancer cells and ipilimumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a phase 1 dose-escalation trial. Lancet Oncol (2012) 13(5):509–17.10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70007-4

  • 85

    HodiFSLeeSMcDermottDFRaoUNButterfieldLHTarhiniAAet alIpilimumab plus sargramostim vs ipilimumab alone for treatment of metastatic melanoma: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA (2014) 312(17):1744–53.10.1001/jama.2014.13943

  • 86

    JohnsonDBPuzanovIKelleyMC. Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) for the treatment of advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy (2015) 7(6):611–9.10.2217/imt.15.35

  • 87

    LongGVDummerRRibasAPuzanovIMichielinOVanderWaldeAet alA phase I/III, multicenter, open-label trial of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) in combination with pembrolizumab for the treatment of unresected, stage IIIb-IV melanoma (MASTERKEY-265). J Immunother Cancer (2015) 3(Suppl 2):181.10.1186/2051-1426-3-S2-P181

  • 88

    LongGVDummerRRibasAPuzanovIWaldeA. Efficacy analysis of MASTERKEY-265 phase 1b study of talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) and pembrolizumab (pembro) for unresectable stage IIIB-IV melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2016) 34:suppl; abstr 9568.

  • 89

    BajorDLMickRRieseMJRichmanLPXuXTorigianDAet alAbstract CT137: combination of agonistic CD40 monoclonal antibody CP-870,893 and anti-CTLA-4 antibody tremelimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. Cancer Res (2015) 75(15 Suppl):CT137.10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-CT137

  • 90

    ZippeliusASchreinerJHerzigPMüllerP. Induced PD-L1 expression mediates acquired resistance to agonistic anti-CD40 treatment. Cancer Immunol Res (2015) 3(3):236–44.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0226

  • 91

    LiuXPuYCronKDengLKlineJFrazierWAet alCD47 blockade triggers T cell-mediated destruction of immunogenic tumors. Nat Med (2015) 21(10):1209–15.10.1038/nm.3931

  • 92

    CurranMAMontalvoWYagitaHAllisonJP. PD-1 and CTLA-4 combination blockade expands infiltrating T cells and reduces regulatory T and myeloid cells within B16 melanoma tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2010) 107(9):4275–80.10.1073/pnas.0915174107

  • 93

    LussierDMJohnsonJLHingoraniPBlattmanJN. Combination immunotherapy with α-CTLA-4 and α-PD-L1 antibody blockade prevents immune escape and leads to complete control of metastatic osteosarcoma. J Immunother Cancer (2015) 3(1):21.10.1186/s40425-015-0067-z

  • 94

    SelbyMEngelhardtJLuLQuigleyMWangCChenBet alAntitumor activity of concurrent blockade of immune checkpoint molecules CTLA-4 and PD-1 in preclinical models. J Clin Oncol (2013) 31:suppl; abstr 3061.

  • 95

    PostowMAChesneyJPavlickACRobertCGrossmannKMcDermottDet alNivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med (2015) 372(21):2006–17.10.1056/NEJMoa1414428

  • 96

    LarkinJChiarion-SileniVGonzalezRGrobJJCoweyCLLaoCDet alCombined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med (2015) 373(1):23–34.10.1056/NEJMoa1504030

  • 97

    GrossoJFGoldbergMVGetnetDBrunoTCYenH-RPyleKJet alFunctionally distinct LAG-3 and PD-1 subsets on activated and chronically stimulated CD8 T cells. J Immunol (2009) 182(11):6659–69.10.4049/jimmunol.0804211

  • 98

    MatsuzakiJGnjaticSMhawech-FaucegliaPBeckAMillerATsujiTet alTumor-infiltrating NY-ESO-1-specific CD8+ T cells are negatively regulated by LAG-3 and PD-1 in human ovarian cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2010) 107(17):7875–80.10.1073/pnas.1003345107

  • 99

    JonesRBNdhlovuLCBarbourJDShethPMJhaARLongBRet alTim-3 expression defines a novel population of dysfunctional T cells with highly elevated frequencies in progressive HIV-1 infection. J Exp Med (2008) 205(12):2763–79.10.1084/jem.20081398

  • 100

    JohnstonRJComps-AgrarLHackneyJYuXHuseniMYangYet alThe immunoreceptor TIGIT regulates antitumor and antiviral CD8+ T cell effector function. Cancer Cell (2014) 26(6):923–37.10.1016/j.ccell.2014.10.018

  • 101

    WooS-RTurnisMEGoldbergMVBankotiJSelbyMNirschlCJet alImmune inhibitory molecules LAG-3 and PD-1 synergistically regulate T-cell function to promote tumoral immune escape. Cancer Res (2012) 72(4):917–27.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-1620

  • 102

    HolmgaardRBZamarinDMunnDHWolchokJDAllisonJP. Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase is a critical resistance mechanism in antitumor T cell immunotherapy targeting CTLA-4. J Exp Med (2013) 210(7):1389–402.10.1084/jem.20130066

  • 103

    SprangerSKoblishHKHortonBScherlePANewtonRGajewskiTF. Mechanism of tumor rejection with doublets of CTLA-4, PD-1/PD-L1, or IDO blockade involves restored IL-2 production and proliferation of CD8(+) T cells directly within the tumor microenvironment. J Immunother cancer (2014) 2:3.10.1186/2051-1426-2-3

  • 104

    SakuishiKApetohLSullivanJMBlazarBRKuchrooVKAndersonAC. Targeting Tim-3 and PD-1 pathways to reverse T cell exhaustion and restore anti-tumor immunity. J Exp Med (2010) 207(10):2187–94.10.1084/jem.20100643

  • 105

    KimJEPatelMAMangravitiAVelardeETheodrosDMathiosDet alThe combination of anti-TIM-3 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors with focused radiation resulted in a synergistic antitumor immune response in a preclinical glioma model. Neurosurgery (2015) 62(Suppl 1):212.10.1227/01.neu.0000467105.60300.04

  • 106

    LiuJYuanYChenWPutraJSuriawinataAASchenkADet alImmune-checkpoint proteins VISTA and PD-1 nonredundantly regulate murine T-cell responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2015) 112(21):6682–7.10.1073/pnas.1420370112

  • 107

    WainwrightDAChangALDeyMBalyasnikovaIVKimCKTobiasAet alDurable therapeutic efficacy utilizing combinatorial blockade against IDO, CTLA-4, and PD-L1 in mice with brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res (2014) 20(20):5290–301.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0514

  • 108

    WangLRubinsteinRLinesJLWasiukAAhonenCGuoYet alVISTA, a novel mouse Ig superfamily ligand that negatively regulates T cell responses. J Exp Med (2011) 208(3):577–92.10.1084/jem.20100619

  • 109

    FliesDBWangSXuHChenL. Cutting edge: a monoclonal antibody specific for the programmed death-1 homolog prevents graft-versus-host disease in mouse models. J Immunol (2011) 187(4):1537–41.10.4049/jimmunol.1100660

  • 110

    LinesJLSempereLFBroughtonTWangLNoelleR. VISTA is a novel broad-spectrum negative checkpoint regulator for cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(6):510–7.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0072

  • 111

    BensonDMCaligiuriMA. Killer immunoglobulin-like receptors and tumor immunity. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(2):99–104.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0219

  • 112

    GuoZWangXChengDXiaZLuanMZhangS. PD-1 blockade and OX40 triggering synergistically protects against tumor growth in a murine model of ovarian cancer. PLoS One (2014) 9(2):e89350.10.1371/journal.pone.0089350

  • 113

    RedmondWLLinchSNKasiewiczMJ. Combined targeting of costimulatory (OX40) and coinhibitory (CTLA-4) pathways elicits potent effector T cells capable of driving robust antitumor immunity. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(2):142–53.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0031-T

  • 114

    LuLXuXZhangBZhangRJiHWangX. Combined PD-1 blockade and GITR triggering induce a potent antitumor immunity in murine cancer models and synergizes with chemotherapeutic drugs. J Transl Med (2014) 12(1):36.10.1186/1479-5876-12-36

  • 115

    KocakELuteKChangXMayKFExtenKRZhangHet alCombination therapy with anti-CTL antigen-4 and anti-4-1BB antibodies enhances cancer immunity and reduces autoimmunity. Cancer Res (2006) 66(14):7276–84.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2128

  • 116

    BelcaidZPhallenJAZengJSeeAPMathiosDGottschalkCet alFocal radiation therapy combined with 4-1BB activation and CTLA-4 blockade yields long-term survival and a protective antigen-specific memory response in a murine glioma model. PLoS One (2014) 9(7):e101764.10.1371/journal.pone.0101764

  • 117

    DaiMWeiHYipYYFengQHeKPopovVet alLong-lasting complete regression of established mouse tumors by counteracting Th2 inflammation. J Immunother (2013) 36(4):248–57.10.1097/CJI.0b013e3182943549

  • 118

    JensenBAHPedersenSRChristensenJPThomsenAR. The availability of a functional tumor targeting T-cell repertoire determines the anti-tumor efficiency of combination therapy with anti-CTLA-4 and anti-4-1BB antibodies. PLoS One (2013) 8(6):e66081.10.1371/journal.pone.0066081

  • 119

    AhrendsTBabalaNXiaoYYagitaHvan EenennaamHBorstJ. CD27 agonism plus PD-1 blockade recapitulates CD4+ T cell help in therapeutic anti-cancer vaccination. Cancer Res (2016) 76(10):2921–31.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3130

  • 120

    ChenSLeeL-FFisherTSJessenBElliottMEveringWet alCombination of 4-1BB agonist and PD-1 antagonist promotes antitumor effector/memory CD8 T cells in a poorly immunogenic tumor model. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 3(2):149–60.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0118

  • 121

    ShindoYYoshimuraKKuramasuAWatanabeYItoHKondoTet alCombination immunotherapy with 4-1BB activation and PD-1 blockade enhances antitumor efficacy in a mouse model of subcutaneous tumor. Anticancer Res (2015) 35(1):129–36.

  • 122

    HiranoFKanekoKTamuraHDongHWangSIchikawaMet alBlockade of B7-H1 and PD-1 by monoclonal antibodies potentiates cancer therapeutic immunity. Cancer Res (2005) 65(3):1089–96.

  • 123

    AsciertoPASimeoneESznolMFuY-XMeleroI. Clinical experiences with anti-CD137 and anti-PD1 therapeutic antibodies. Semin Oncol (2010) 37(5):508–16.10.1053/j.seminoncol.2010.09.008

  • 124

    BartkowiakTCurranMA. 4-1BB agonists: multi-potent potentiators of tumor immunity. Front Oncol (2015) 5:117.10.3389/fonc.2015.00117

  • 125

    van de VenKBorstJ. Targeting the T-cell co-stimulatory CD27/CD70 pathway in cancer immunotherapy: rationale and potential. Immunotherapy (2015) 7(6):655–67.10.2217/imt.15.32

  • 126

    JungH. Abstract A90: combination therapy of chemokine receptor inhibition plus PDL-1 blockade potentiates anti-tumor effects in a murine model of breast cancer. Mol Cancer Ther (2015) 14(12 Suppl 2):A90–90.10.1158/1535-7163.TARG-15-A90

  • 127

    HighfillSLCuiYGilesAJSmithJPZhangHMorseEet alDisruption of CXCR2-mediated MDSC tumor trafficking enhances anti-PD1 efficacy. Sci Transl Med (2014) 6(237):237ra67.10.1126/scitranslmed.3007974

  • 128

    SugiyamaDNishikawaHMaedaYNishiokaMTanemuraAKatayamaIet alAnti-CCR4 mAb selectively depletes effector-type FoxP3+CD4+ regulatory T cells, evoking antitumor immune responses in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2013) 110(44):17945–50.10.1073/pnas.1316796110

  • 129

    ChangD-KSuiJGengSMuvaffakABaiMFuhlbriggeRCet alHumanization of an anti-CCR4 antibody that kills cutaneous T-cell lymphoma cells and abrogates suppression by T-regulatory cells. Mol Cancer Ther (2012) 11(11):2451–61.10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0278

  • 130

    DirkxAEMoude EgbrinkMGCastermansKvan der SchaftDWThijssenVLDingsRPet alAnti-angiogenesis therapy can overcome endothelial cell anergy and promote leukocyte-endothelium interactions and infiltration in tumors. FASEB J (2006) 20(6):621–30.10.1096/fj.05-4493com

  • 131

    VoronTColussiOMarcheteauEPernotSNizardMPointetA-Let alVEGF-A modulates expression of inhibitory checkpoints on CD8+ T cells in tumors. J Exp Med (2015) 212(2):139–48.10.1084/jem.20140559

  • 132

    OhmJECarboneDP. VEGF as a mediator of tumor-associated immunodeficiency. Immunol Res (2001) 23(2–3):263–72.10.1385/IR:23:2-3:263

  • 133

    TermeMPernotSMarcheteauESandovalFBenhamoudaNColussiOet alVEGFA-VEGFR pathway blockade inhibits tumor-induced regulatory T-cell proliferation in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res (2013) 73(2):539–49.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-2325

  • 134

    YuanJZhouJDongZTandonSKukDPanageasKSet alPretreatment serum VEGF is associated with clinical response and overall survival in advanced melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(2):127–32.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-13-0163

  • 135

    HodiFSLawrenceDLezcanoCWuXZhouJSasadaTet alBevacizumab plus ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. Cancer Immunol Res (2014) 2(7):632–42.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0053

  • 136

    RiniBISteinMShannonPEddySTylerAStephensonJJet alPhase 1 dose-escalation trial of tremelimumab plus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer (2011) 117(4):758–67.10.1002/cncr.25639

  • 137

    AminAPlimackEInfanteJ. Nivolumab (anti-PD-1; BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in combination with sunitinib or pazopanib in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). J Clin Oncol (2014) 32(5s):suppl; abstr 5010.

  • 138

    OttPAHodiFSBuchbinderEI. Inhibition of immune checkpoints and vascular endothelial growth factor as combination therapy for metastatic melanoma: an overview of rationale, preclinical evidence, and initial clinical data. Front Oncol (2015) 5:202.10.3389/fonc.2015.00202

  • 139

    LuH. TLR agonists for cancer immunotherapy: tipping the balance between the immune stimulatory and inhibitory effects. Front Immunol (2014) 5:83.10.3389/fimmu.2014.00083

  • 140

    DowlingJKMansellA. Toll-like receptors: the swiss army knife of immunity and vaccine development. Clin Transl Immunology (2016) 5(5):e85.10.1038/cti.2016.22

  • 141

    ShirotaYShirotaHKlinmanDM. Intratumoral injection of CpG oligonucleotides induces the differentiation and reduces the immunosuppressive activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. J Immunol (2012) 188(4):1592–9.10.4049/jimmunol.1101304

  • 142

    KarpfARJonesDA. Reactivating the expression of methylation silenced genes in human cancer. Oncogene (2002) 21(35):5496–503.10.1038/sj.onc.1205602

  • 143

    De SmetCDe BackerOFaraoniILurquinCBrasseurFBoonT. The activation of human gene MAGE-1 in tumor cells is correlated with genome-wide demethylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (1996) 93(14):7149–53.10.1073/pnas.93.14.7149

  • 144

    HéningerEKruegerTEGLangJM. Augmenting antitumor immune responses with epigenetic modifying agents. Front Immunol (2015) 6:29.10.3389/fimmu.2015.00029

  • 145

    WangL-XMeiZ-YZhouJ-HYaoY-SLiY-HXuY-Het alLow dose decitabine treatment induces CD80 expression in cancer cells and stimulates tumor specific cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. PLoS One (2013) 8(5):e62924.10.1371/journal.pone.0062924

  • 146

    CovreACoralSNicolayHParisiGFazioCColizziFet alAntitumor activity of epigenetic immunomodulation combined with CTLA-4 blockade in syngeneic mouse models. Oncoimmunology (2015) 4(8):e1019978.10.1080/2162402X.2015.1019978

  • 147

    RosenbergSAYangJCSherryRMKammulaUSHughesMSPhanGQet alDurable complete responses in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic melanoma using t-cell transfer immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res (2011) 17(13):4550–7.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0116

  • 148

    KalosMJuneCH. Adoptive T cell transfer for cancer immunotherapy in the era of synthetic biology. Immunity (2013) 39(1):49–60.10.1016/j.immuni.2013.07.002

  • 149

    WuRForgetM-AChaconJBernatchezCHaymakerCChenJQet alAdoptive T-cell therapy using autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for metastatic melanoma: current status and future outlook. Cancer J (2012) 18(2):160–75.10.1097/PPO.0b013e31824d4465

  • 150

    PengWLiuCXuCLouYChenJYangYet alPD-1 blockade enhances T-cell migration to tumors by elevating IFN-γ inducible chemokines. Cancer Res (2012) 72(20):5209–18.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-1187

  • 151

    BlakeSJPChingALHKennaTJGaleaRLargeJYagitaHet alBlockade of PD-1/PD-L1 promotes adoptive T-cell immunotherapy in a tolerogenic environment. PLoS One (2015) 10(3):e0119483.10.1371/journal.pone.0119483

  • 152

    MahviDAMeyersJVTatarAJContrerasASureshMLeversonGEet alCtla-4 blockade plus adoptive T-cell transfer promotes optimal melanoma immunity in mice. J Immunother (2015) 38(2):54–61.10.1097/CJI.0000000000000064

  • 153

    JohnLBDevaudCDuongCPMYongCSBeavisPAHaynesNMet alAnti-PD-1 antibody therapy potently enhances the eradication of established tumors by gene-modified t cells. Clin Cancer Res (2013) 19(20):5636–46.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0458

  • 154

    BjoernJDoniaMAndersenRHadrupSLyngaaRSvaneI. Effects of ipilimumab on expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with stage IV malignant melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2014) 32(5s):suppl; abstr 3020.

  • 155

    ZhangHConradDMButlerJJZhaoCBlayJHoskinDW. Adenosine acts through A2 receptors to inhibit IL-2-induced tyrosine phosphorylation of STAT5 in T lymphocytes: role of cyclic adenosine 3’,5’-monophosphate and phosphatases. J Immunol (2004) 173(2):932–44.10.4049/jimmunol.173.2.932

  • 156

    HuangSApasovSKoshibaMSitkovskyM. Role of A2a extracellular adenosine receptor-mediated signaling in adenosine-mediated inhibition of T-cell activation and expansion. Blood (1997) 90(4):1600–10.

  • 157

    OhtaAOhtaAMadasuMKiniRSubramanianMGoelNet alA2A adenosine receptor may allow expansion of T cells lacking effector functions in extracellular adenosine-rich microenvironments. J Immunol (2009) 183(9):5487–93.10.4049/jimmunol.0901247

  • 158

    MittalDSinhaDBarkauskasDYoungAKalimuthoMStannardKet alAdenosine 2B receptor expression on cancer cells promotes metastasis. Cancer Res (2016) 76(15):4372–82.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-0544

  • 159

    IannoneRMieleLMaiolinoPPintoAMorelloS. Adenosine limits the therapeutic effectiveness of anti-CTLA4 mAb in a mouse melanoma model. Am J Cancer Res (2014) 4(2):172–81.

  • 160

    MittalDYoungAStannardKYongMTengMWLAllardBet alAntimetastatic effects of blocking PD-1 and the adenosine A2A receptor. Cancer Res (2014) 74(14):3652–8.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0957

  • 161

    BeavisPAMilenkovskiNHendersonMAJohnLBAllardBLoiSet alAdenosine receptor 2A blockade increases the efficacy of Anti-PD-1 through enhanced antitumor T-cell responses. Cancer Immunol Res (2015) 3(5):506–17.10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0211

  • 162

    StaggJDivisekeraUMcLaughlinNSharkeyJPommeySDenoyerDet alAnti-CD73 antibody therapy inhibits breast tumor growth and metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2010) 107(4):1547–52.10.1073/pnas.0908801107

  • 163

    AllardBTurcotteMSpringKPommeySRoyalIStaggJ. Anti-CD73 therapy impairs tumor angiogenesis. Int J Cancer (2014) 134(6):1466–73.10.1002/ijc.28456

  • 164

    LoiSPommeySHaibe-KainsBBeavisPADarcyPKSmythMJet alCD73 promotes anthracycline resistance and poor prognosis in triple negative breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2013) 110(27):11091–6.10.1073/pnas.1222251110

  • 165

    TurcotteMSpringKPommeySChouinardGCousineauIGeorgeJet alCD73 is associated with poor prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Cancer Res (2015) 75(21):4494–503.10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-3569

  • 166

    LeclercBGCharleboisRChouinardGAllardBPommeySSaadFet alCD73 expression is an independent prognostic factor in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res (2016) 22(1):158–66.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1181

  • 167

    BeavisPASlaneyCYMilenkovskiNHendersonMALoiSStaggJet alCD73: a potential biomarker for anti-PD-1 therapy. Oncoimmunology (2015) 4(11):e1046675.10.1080/2162402X.2015.1046675

  • 168

    AllardBPommeySSmythMJStaggJ. Targeting CD73 enhances the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 mAbs. Clin Cancer Res (2013) 19(20):5626–35.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0545

  • 169

    LebrunJ-JLebrunJ-J. The dual role of TGF β in human cancer: from tumor suppression to cancer metastasis. ISRN Mol Biol (2012) 2012:1–28.10.5402/2012/381428

  • 170

    HanksBHoltzhausenAEvansKHeidMBlobeGC. Combinatorial TGF-β signaling blockade and anti-CTLA-4 antibody immunotherapy in a murine BRAFV600E-PTEN-/-transgenic model of melanoma. J Clin Oncol (2014) 32(5s):suppl; abstr 3011.

  • 171

    MunnDHMellorAL. IDO and tolerance to tumors. Trends Mol Med (2004) 10(1):15–8.10.1016/j.molmed.2003.11.003

  • 172

    GangadharTCHamidOSmithDCBauerTMWasserJSLukeJJet alPreliminary results from a Phase I/II study of epacadostat (incb024360) in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with selected advanced cancers. J Immunother Cancer (2015) 3(Suppl 2):O7.10.1186/2051-1426-3-S2-O7

  • 173

    RegoesRRBarberDLAhmedRAntiaR. Estimation of the rate of killing by cytotoxic T lymphocytes in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2007) 104(5):1599–603.10.1073/pnas.0508830104

  • 174

    GadhamsettySMaréeAFMBeltmanJBde BoerRJ. A general functional response of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-mediated killing of target cells. Biophys J (2014) 106(8):1780–91.10.1016/j.bpj.2014.01.048

Summary

Keywords

cancer immunotherapy, checkpoint blockade, CTLA-4, PD-1

Citation

Swart M, Verbrugge I and Beltman JB (2016) Combination Approaches with Immune-Checkpoint Blockade in Cancer Therapy. Front. Oncol. 6:233. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2016.00233

Received

20 August 2016

Accepted

18 October 2016

Published

01 November 2016

Volume

6 - 2016

Edited by

Sherven Sharma, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VHA), USA

Reviewed by

John Stagg, Université de Montréal, Canada; Alexandre Corthay, University of Oslo, Norway

Updates

Copyright

© 2016 Swart, Verbrugge and Beltman.

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) or licensor 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: Joost B. Beltman,

Specialty section: This article was submitted to Cancer Immunity and Immunotherapy, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Share on WeChat

Scan with WeChat to share this article

Article metrics