4.7 Review

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Colorectal Cancer: Challenges and Future Prospects

Journal

BIOMEDICINES
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines9091075

Keywords

cancer immunotherapy; immune checkpoints; colorectal cancer; monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunotherapy is a promising approach in colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment, with checkpoint-blocking antibodies showing promising outcomes. The immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment is a cause of poor treatment response in CRC patients. Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) shows potential for enhancing immune responses against CRC tumors.
Immunotherapy is a new pillar of cancer therapy that provides novel opportunities to treat solid tumors. In this context, the development of new drugs targeting immune checkpoints is considered a promising approach in colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment because it can be induce specific and durable anti-cancer effects. Despite many advances in the immunotherapy of CRC, there are still limitations and obstacles to successful treatment. The immunosuppressive function of the tumor microenvironment (TME) is one of the causes of poor response to treatment in CRC patients. For this reason, checkpoint-blocking antibodies have shown promising outcomes in CRC patients by blocking inhibitory immune checkpoints and enhancing immune responses against tumors. This review summarizes recent advances in immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), such as CTLA-4, PD-1, PD-L1, LAG-3, and TIM-3 in CRC, and it discusses various therapeutic strategies with ICIs, including the double blockade of ICIs, combination therapy of ICIs with other immunotherapies, and conventional treatments. This review also delineates a new hopeful path in the combination of anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 with other ICIs such as anti-CTLA-4, anti-LAG-3, and anti-TIM-3 for CRC treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available