4.7 Review

Immunomodulatory Properties of PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK/MEK/ERK Inhibition Augment Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Melanoma and Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23137353

关键词

melanoma; triple-negative breast cancer; PI3K; AKT; mTOR; MAPK; MEK; ERK; immune checkpoint blockade

资金

  1. Lloyd Foundation Melanoma Research Grant
  2. Department of Veterans Affairs SRCS Award [IK6BX005225]
  3. Department of Veterans Affairs MERIT Award [101BX002301]
  4. [NCI R01-CA116021]
  5. [NCI-R01-CA243326]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperactivation of PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK/MEK/ERK signaling pathways is common in various cancers, and targeting these pathways may enhance the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as a strategy to overcome resistance.
Hyperactivation of PI3K/AKT/mTOR and MAPK/MEK/ERK signaling pathways is commonly observed in many cancers, including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and melanoma. Moreover, the compensatory upregulation of the MAPK/MEK/ERK pathway has been associated with therapeutic resistance to targeted inhibition of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway, and vice versa. The immune-modulatory effects of both PI3K and MAPK inhibition suggest that inhibition of these pathways might enhance response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). ICIs have become the standard-of-care for metastatic melanoma and are recently an option for TNBC when combined with chemotherapy, but alternative options are needed when resistance develops. In this review, we present the current mechanistic understandings, along with preclinical and clinical evidence, that outline the efficacy and safety profile of combinatorial or sequential treatments with PI3K inhibitors, MAPK inhibitors, and ICIs for treatment of malignant melanoma and metastatic TNBC. This approach may present a potential strategy to overcome resistance in patients who are a candidate for ICI therapy with tumors harboring either or both of these pathway-associated mutations.

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