4.8 Article

Translational Nanomedicine Boosts Anti-PD1 Therapy to Eradicate Orthotopic PTEN-Negative Glioblastoma

期刊

ACS NANO
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 10127-10140

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.0c03386

关键词

glioblastoma; immune checkpoint inhibitor; polymeric micelles; anti-PD1 antibodies; epirubicin

资金

  1. Center of Innovation Program (COI stream) from the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) [JPMJCE1305]
  2. Project for Cancer Research and Therapeutic Evolution (P-CREATE) from the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) [16 cm0106202h0001]
  3. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) [JP18H04170, 20H04524]
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20H04524] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Glioblastoma (GBM) is resistant to immune checkpoint inhibition due to its low mutation rate, phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN)-deficient immunosuppressive microenvironment, and high fraction of cancer stein-like cells (CSCs). Nanomedicines fostering immunoactivating intratumoral signals could reverse GBM resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for promoting curative responses. Here, we applied pH-sensitive epirubicin-loaded micellar nanomedicines, which are under clinical evaluation, to synergize the efficacy of anti-PDlantibodies (aPD1) against PTEN-positive and PTEN-negative orthotopic GBM, the latter with a large subpopulation of CSCs. The combination of epirubicin-loaded micelles (Epi/m) with aPD1 overcame GBM resistance to ICIs by transforming cold GBM into hot tumors with high infiltration of antitumor immune cells through the induction of immunogenic cell death (ICD), elimination of immunosuppressive myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MSDCs), and reduction of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells. Thus, Epi/m plus aPD1 eradicated both PTEN-positive and PTEN-negative orthotopic GBM and provided long-term immune memory effects. Our results indicate the high translatable potential of Epi/m plus aPD1 for the treatment of GBM.

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

4.8
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