4.7 Review

Why has active immunotherapy not worked in lung cancer?

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 11, 页码 2213-2220

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv323

关键词

active immunotherapy; vaccines; nonsmall-cell lung cancer; immune checkpoint; tumor-mediated immunosuppression

类别

资金

  1. Intramural program, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reviews the phase III trial results of antigen-specific immunotherapeutic approaches in nonsmall-cell lung cancer and explores in-depth the potential reasons behind their failure and discuss strategies for the future.Vaccines that rely on active specific stimulation of the host immune system have the potential to trigger durable antitumor responses with minimal toxicity. However, in nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), several large phase III trials of vaccines reported within the last year have yielded disappointing results. Compared with placebo, belagenpumatucel-L (an allogenic tumor cell vaccine), tecemotide (a peptide vaccine targeting MUC-1) and melanoma-associated antigen-A3 (a protein-based vaccine) did not improve outcomes in NSCLC. The lack of clinically significant outcomes, despite their ability to prime and expand tumor antigen-specific T cells could at least partly be attributed to the inability of vaccine-induced T-cell responses to overcome the tumoral mechanisms of immune escape which limit the clonal expansion of T cells following vaccination. A number of such mechanisms have been recognized including reduced antigen presentation, antigenic loss, cytokines, immunosuppressive cells and immune checkpoints. Strategies aimed at modulating the immune checkpoints have shown promise and are on the verge of revolutionizing the therapeutic landscape of metastatic NSCLC. Overcoming immune tolerance and improving the activation of antitumor T cells via combinatorial approaches may represent a new and more promising therapeutic application for active immunotherapies in NSCLC.

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