4.7 Review

SBRT combined with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in NSCLC treatment: a focus on the mechanisms, advances, and future challenges

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY & ONCOLOGY
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13045-020-00940-z

关键词

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT); PD-1; PD-L1 inhibitors; Combination treatment; Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); Advances; Challenges

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81972796]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1), and others have shown potent clinical efficacy and have revolutionized the treatment protocols of a broad spectrum of tumor types, especially non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Despite the substantial optimism of treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors, there is still a large proportion of patients with advanced NSCLC who are resistant to the inhibitors. Preclinical and clinical trials have demonstrated that radiotherapy can induce a systemic antitumor immune response and have a great potential to sensitize refractory cold tumors to immunotherapy. Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), as a novel radiotherapy modality that delivers higher doses to smaller target lesions, has shown favorable antitumor effects with significantly improved local and distant control as well as better survival benefits in various solid tumors. Notably, research has revealed that SBRT is superior to conventional radiotherapy, possibly because of its more powerful immune activation effects. Thus, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with SBRT instead of conventional radiotherapy might be more promising to fight against NSCLC, further achieving more favorable survival outcomes. In this review, we focus on the underlying mechanisms and recent advances of SBRT combined with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with an emphasis on some future challenges and directions that warrant further investigation.

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