Dataset Information

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in solid tumors: opportunities and challenges.

ABSTRACT: The emergence of immune 'checkpoint inhibitors' such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) has revolutionized treatment of solid tumors including melanoma, lung cancer, among many others. The goal of checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy is to improve clinical response and minimize toxicities. Rational design of checkpoint combinations considers immune-mediated mechanisms of antitumor activity: immunogenic cell death, antigen release and presentation, activation of T-cell responses, lymphocytic infiltration into tumors and depletion of immunosuppression. Potential synergistic combinations include checkpoint blockade with conventional (radiation, chemotherapy and targeted therapies) and newer immunotherapies (cancer vaccines, oncolytic viruses, among others). Reliable biomarkers are necessary to define patients who will achieve best clinical benefit with minimal toxicity in combination therapy.

SUBMITTER: Kyi C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5619130 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in solid tumors: opportunities and challenges.

Kyi Chrisann C Postow Michael A MA

Immunotherapy 20160601 7

The emergence of immune 'checkpoint inhibitors' such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death receptor 1 (PD-1) has revolutionized treatment of solid tumors including melanoma, lung cancer, among many others. The goal of checkpoint inhibitor combination therapy is to improve clinical response and minimize toxicities. Rational design of checkpoint combinations considers immune-mediated mechanisms of antitumor activity: immunogenic cell death, antigen release and presentat ...[more]

PMID: 27349981

Similar Datasets

Project description:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common malignancy worldwide, and is especially common in China. A total of 70%-80% of patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and can receive only palliative care. Sorafenib has been the standard of care for a decade, and promising results for regorafenib as a second-line and lenvatinib as a first-line treatment were reported only 1 or 2 years ago. FOLFOX4 was recently recommended as a clinical practice guideline by the China Food and Drug Administration. All approved systemic therapies remain unsatisfactory, with limited objective response rates and poor overall survival. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) offer great promise in the treatment of a rapidly expanding spectrum of solid tumors. Immune checkpoint molecules are involved in almost the whole process of viral-related hepatitis with cirrhosis and HCC and in the most important resistance mechanism of sorafenib. The approval of nivolumab by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on September 23, 2017, for the treatment of patients with HCC, based only on a phase I/II clinical trial, is a strong hint that immunotherapy will introduce a new era of HCC therapy. CPI-based strategies will soon be a main approach in anticancer treatment for HCC, and we will observe the rapid advances in the therapeutic use of CPIs, even in an adjuvant setting, with great interest. How shall we face the opportunities and challenges? Can we dramatically improve the prognosis of patients with HCC? This review may provide some informed guidance. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Immune checkpoint molecules are involved in almost the whole process of viral-related hepatitis with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and in the most important resistance mechanism of sorafenib. As all approved systemic therapies in HCC remain unsatisfactory, checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based strategies will soon be a main approach in anticancer treatment for advanced stage of HCC, even in an adjuvant setting. In virus-related HCC, especially hepatitis B virus-related HCC, whether CPIs can control virus relapse should be further investigated. Combination strategies involving conventional therapies and immunotherapies are needed to increase clinical benefit and minimize adverse toxicities with regard to the underlying liver disease.

Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been increasingly used in cancer treatment, and a subset of patients undergo pseudoprogression. Recognizing the incidence of pseudoprogression is critical for clinical practice.PurposeTo evaluate by systematic review and meta-analysis the incidence of pseudoprogression in cancer treatment with ICIs, and compare the incidence according to response criteria, tumor types, and immunotherapeutic agents.Materials and MethodsMedline and Embase were searched to identify relevant studies published before December 31, 2018. Clinical trials, post hoc analysis of clinical trials, and prospective studies on ICI treatment in patients with malignant solid tumors were included. Pooled incidence of pseudoprogression for all included studies, per definition of pseudoprogression, cancer type, and drug type, was obtained by random-effects models with inverse variance weighting model.ResultsSeventeen studies with 3402 patients were analyzed. The pooled incidence of pseudoprogression was 6.0% (95% confidence interval: 5.0%, 7.0%). The definition of pseudoprogression were divided into four categories: progressive disease followed by partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) but not stable disease (SD) with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 (six studies); progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with RECIST 1.1 (five studies); progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with RECIST 1.0 (three studies); and progressive disease followed by SD or PR or CR with immune-related response criteria (irRC) (three studies). Incidence of pseudoprogression varied from 4.5% to 8.0% per definition, ranged from 5.0% to 7.0% per cancer type, and was 5.6% with the monotherapy of programmed cell death-1 inhibitor.ConclusionThe overall incidence of pseudoprogression was 6.0% and was less than 10% in subgroup analyses according to the definitions of pseudoprogression, cancer type, and immune checkpoint inhibitor type. Varying definitions across trials and studies indicates the need for uniform criteria of pseudoprogression for solid tumors.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the article by Dodd and MacDermott in this issue.

Dataset Information

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in solid tumors: opportunities and challenges.

Publications

Immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations in solid tumors: opportunities and challenges.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure