4.7 Review

Synergistic effect of immune checkpoint blockade and anti-angiogenesis in cancer treatment

期刊

MOLECULAR CANCER
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12943-019-0974-6

关键词

Immune checkpoint inhibitor; PD-1; PD-L1; CTLA-4; VEGF; Anti-angiogenesis; TKI; Tumor immune microenvironment

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81874120, 81572608, 81672984]
  2. Wuhan Science and Technology Bureau [2017060201010170]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) activates host's anti-tumor immune response by blocking negative regulatory immune signals. A series of clinical trials showed that ICI could effectively induce tumor regression in a subset of advanced cancer patients. In clinical practice, a main concerning for choosing ICI is the low response rate. Even though multiple predictive biomarkers such as PD-L1 expression, mismatch-repair deficiency, and status of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes have been adopted for patient selection, frequent resistance to ICI monotherapy has not been completely resolved. However, some recent studies indicated that ICI resistance could be alleviated by combination therapy with anti-angiogenesis treatment. Actually, anti-angiogenesis therapy not only prunes blood vessel which is essential to cancer growth and metastasis, but also reprograms the tumor immune microenvironment. Preclinical studies demonstrated that the efficacy of combination therapy of ICI and anti-angiogenesis was superior to monotherapy. In mice model, combination therapy could effectively increase the ratio of anti-tumor/pro-tumor immune cell and decrease the expression of multiple immune checkpoints more than PD-1. Based on exciting results from preclinical studies, many clinical trials were deployed to investigate the synergistic effect of the combination therapy and acquired promising outcome. This review summarized the latest understanding of ICI combined anti-angiogenesis therapy and highlighted the advances of relevant clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据