K. Esfahani, MD MSc*, L. Roudaia, MD*, N. Buhlaiga, MD*, S.V. Del Rincon, PhD†, N. Papneja, MD*, W.H. Miller, MD PhD*
Compared with previous standards of care (including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery), cancer immunotherapy has brought significant improvements for patients in terms of survival and quality of life. Immunotherapy has now firmly established itself as a novel pillar of cancer care, from the metastatic stage to the adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings in numerous cancer types. In this review article, we highlight how the history of cancer immunotherapy paved the way for discoveries that are now part of the standard of care. We also highlight the current pitfalls and limitations of cancer checkpoint immunotherapy and how novel research in the fields of personalized cancer vaccines, autoimmunity, the microbiome, the tumour microenvironment, and metabolomics is aiming to solve those challenges.
KEYWORDS: Immune checkpoint inhibitors, personalized cancer vaccines, immune-related adverse events, microbiome studies, metabolomics
The field of immuno-oncology has been transformational in the care of cancer patients. William B. Coley, now widely accepted as the father of immunotherapy, first attempted to harness the power of the immune system for treating cancer in the late 19th century. As an orthopedic surgeon who operated on patients with bone sarcomas, he noticed that some patients with significant postoperative wound infections—a common occurrence when aseptic technique had not yet been optimized—would undergo spontaneous regression of their unresected tumours. Beginning in 1891, Coley injected more than a thousand patients with mixtures of live and inactivated bacteria such as Streptococcus pyogenes and Serratia marcescens with the hope of inducing sepsis and strong immune and antitumour responses. His cocktail of bacteria became widely known as “Coley’s toxin” and represents the first documented active cancer immunotherapy intervention1. Coley achieved durable complete remissions in several types of malignancies, including sarcoma, lymphoma, and testicular carcinoma. However, the lack of a known mechanism of action for Coley’s toxin and the risks of deliberately infecting cancer patients with pathogenic bacteria caused oncologists to adopt surgery and radiotherapy as alternative standard treatments early in the 20th century2.
It would take more than half a century before a better understanding of the key mediators of sepsis would shed some light on the mechanisms of action of Coley’s toxin. Those mediators constitute a cytokine family including interleukins, interferons, and chemokines3. Once again, the race was on to apply those novel discoveries to cancer therapy4. Physicians and researchers achieved modest success with this novel approach, occasionally inducing clinical remissions with high-dose interleukin 2 (il-2) in metastatic renal cell carcinoma5 and debatable responses with interferon in stages iii and iv melanoma6. Those modest successes were often counterbalanced with significant adverse events. Although novel methods of delivery such as pegylation would abate some of the toxicities, the sporadic and unpredictable immune responses seen with those therapies meant that only a small, carefully selected subgroup of cancer patients would benefit.
The next revolutionary wave in cancer immunotherapy came with the better understanding of the process of immune surveillance, by which innate immune cells eliminate cancer cells. The recent discovery of T cell immune checkpoints, such as ctla-4 and PD-1, propelled the field of immuno-oncology into its current era and saw the awarding of the 2018 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine to Drs. Allison and Honjo. Those hardwired signals have the crucial task of maintaining a fine balance between immune surveillance against foreign pathogens or abnormal cells and autoimmunity. Blocking those T cell surface receptors results in enhanced autoimmunity that induces an immune response against tumours, but can also increase the chance of autoimmune reactions.
In this review article, we highlight the current standards of care in cancer immunotherapy, with a strong focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors (icis), their limitations and pitfalls, and promising novel approaches.
Cancer immuno-editing is the process by which various immune system components protect the host against primary tumour development or enhance tumour escape, or both, either by sculpting tumour immunogenicity or attenuating antitumour immune responses7. The process is tightly regulated by immune checkpoints, which are immune-cell surface receptors controlling either the activation or the inhibition of immune responses. Activation of the immune system is, on the one hand, the desired outcome to achieve tumour control, but on the other hand, responsible for autoimmunity. The discovery and development of monoclonal antibodies against the inhibitory immune checkpoints ctla-4 and PD-1 have resulted in dramatic antitumour responses by the up-regulation of immune activation at various stages of the immune cycle.
Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies are now widely indicated in numerous cancer types (Table I). Furthermore, numerous ongoing clinical trials are assessing the potential of other agonistic or inhibitory checkpoints to affect tumour-related outcomes (Table II). The checkpoints are not equal in their potential. For example, the agonistic OX40 antibody has modest clinical activity, but the CD28 antibody—even at very subtherapeutic doses—resulted in massive cytokine syndrome and the intensive-care hospitalization of the first 6 healthy volunteers treated8. In that light, finding the right combination of ici therapy to induce the optimal amount of immune activation remains an active area of clinical research.
TABLE I Indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced-stage cancers, as currently approved by Health Canadaa
TABLE II Agonistic and antagonistic immune checkpoint modulators currently under investigation
Immunotherapies are often limited by their immune-related adverse events (iraes), an immune activation and inflammatory response against the host’s healthy tissues. Immune activation against the host’s tumour is the desired outcome, but iraes are challenging to predict, diagnose, and treat. In the setting of metastatic melanoma, the addition of a ctla-4 antibody to PD-1 blockade is associated with only an incremental increase in survival, but at the cost of more than double the rate of serious iraes9. A recent meta-analysis reported a fatality rate of up to 1 patient in every 77 treated using an ici combination10. For specific iraes, such as immune-related myocarditis, the mortality rate is as high as 50% in treated patients11. Numerous predictors of iraes have been proposed (baseline lymphopenia and eosinophilia, B cell changes, T cell repertoire, circulating il-17, and gut microbiota changes12–17), but few have been prospectively validated.
For serious iraes, guidelines recommend broad immunosuppression consisting of corticosteroids, followed by one or more biologics (tumour necrosis factor inhibitors) or T cell suppressants (such as mycophenolate mofetil)18–20. Very little prospective knowledge has been developed about the consequences of those therapies for cancer-related outcomes. An analysis of the baseline use of corticosteroids in patients with lung cancer reported an association with worse survival outcomes21. Similarly, the use of high-dose steroids in the setting of immune-related hypophysitis in patients with metastatic melanoma was also associated with worse survival22. On the other hand, the use of corticosteroids in other clinical settings in which patients experience iraes was not associated with a reduced response to ici therapy or with survival23. More studies are needed to assess the optimal immunosuppression regimen to be used with icis to avoid impairing their efficacy. The use of mtor (mechanistic target of rapamycin) inhibitors shows promise to abate toxicities without impairing ici efficacy in the specific setting of organ transplantation24–26.
Modulating cytokines in the setting of an ici is a dualedged sword. Many of those soluble factors, such as tumour necrosis factor α and il-17, are called “pleiotropic cytokines” for the dual roles they play in immunity: on the one hand, they promote tumour surveillance; on the other hand, they can be key mediators of autoimmune reactions. As discussed earlier, circulating il-17 is a biomarker for the prediction of ici-induced colitis16. The addition of the il-17 monoclonal antibody secukinumab for the treatment of immune-related colitis and psoriasis, while effective at abating immune toxicities, has been reported to induce tumour escape27. The same effect has not yet been reported for tumour necrosis factor α or il-6. Tumour necrosis factor blockade seems not only to be safe for the treatment of ici-related colitis, but in animal models of melanoma, also adds synergistic antitumour efficacy to PD-1 inhibition28,29. Those early observations collectively highlight the importance of further study of the role of various cytokines and immune cells in the pathogenesis of iraes.
Despite promising results with icis, single-agent PD-1 inhibitor has an objective response rate that varies from almost nonexistent in pancreatic cancer and microsatellite-stable colonic adenocarcinoma, to an average of 15%–30% in most other tumour types, but 50%–80% in melanoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, squamous-cell carcinoma of the skin, and Merkel cell carcinoma. The addition of an anti–ctla-4 agent increases the response rate, but comes with a significantly higher toxicity rate. A rational approach to achieving a higher response rate without increasing autoimmunity has been to combine an ici with a therapy that can sensitize the host’s immune system to the tumour in advance. Recent studies have shown that personalized neoantigen-based tumour-specific vaccines hold considerable promise.
Unlike hematologic malignancies, in which a common antigen is uniformly expressed on the surface of all malignant cells, making them amenable to targeted therapies such as therapy with chimeric antigen receptor T cells, solid tumours either lack such an antigen or undergo mutations under natural selection when exposed to therapeutic interventions such as monoclonal antibodies. Traditional cancer vaccines have failed for a number of potential reasons, including improper selection of a target antigen, lack of immunogenicity, or inadequate patient selection. In the new era of cancer vaccines, efficacy relies on computational pipelines geared to identify personal candidate neoantigens in real time. Comprehensive mutation analysis is performed by whole-exome sequencing, and based on affinity predictions, neo-epitopes encoded by somatic mutations in the tumour are selected given their probability of being presented by the individual’s major histocompatibility class molecules30–34. One of the most commonly used prediction algorithms for major histocompatibility class i binding, NetMHCpan (DTU Health Tech, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark), relies on state-of-the-art neural networks, putting the spotlight on the current power of bioinformatics for guiding precision immuno-oncology35. The concept has been translated to multiple phase i clinical trials evaluating neoantigen-based vaccines36–38. Other clinical trials are testing this novel vaccination strategy in combination with ipilimumab (NCT02950766 at https://ClinicalTrials.gov/) or nivolumab (NCT02897765), or as a personalized messenger rna mutatome vaccine in combination with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (NCT03289962).
An important advance in the field of immuno-oncology came from the increased understanding of the crucial role of the tumour microenvironment in the modulation of anticancer immune responses. In colorectal cancers, immune cell infiltration into the tumour microenvironment has been correlated with a strong immune response to treatment with icis, with even better correlation than for microsatellite instability39,40. Based on those findings, the concept of “immune contexture” has been proposed and validated, with tumours classified into four proposed categories (hot, excluded, immunosuppressed, and cold)41,42. Apart from the presence of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes, additional features such as the expression of anti–PD-L1 on tumour-associated immune cells, genomic instability, and the presence of a pre-existing antitumour immune response have been described as characteristics of “hot” tumours, which are associated with a good response to icis43. Conversely, apart from being poorly infiltrated, “cold” tumours have also been described to be immunologically “ignorant” (scarcely expressing PD-L1) and characterized by high proliferation with a low mutational burden (low expression of neoantigens) and by low expression of antigen presentation machinery markers such as major histocompatibility class i43. Transforming “cold” tumours into fertile “hot” tumours responsive to icis is an active area of investigation.
Radiotherapy and chemotherapy have both been used in combination with icis to increase the antigenicity and priming potential of tumours, which in turn could be applied to turn “cold” tumours into “hot” ones. Ionizing radiation–induced immunogenic cell death and antigen release could potentially turn tumour cells into an in situ vaccine44. The outcome of that approach is not only local tumour control, but possibly a response at distant tumour sites through the abscopal effect45. On the other hand, chemotherapy can induce mutations, leading to the generation of neo-epitopes and therefore increasing the antigenicity of tumours46. Other approaches with proven benefit have been the local injection of oncolytic viruses into tumour beds. These native or genetically modified viruses selectively infect and replicate within tumour cells, eventually leading to tumour cell lysis and antigen release47. Again, that process results in local priming of the immune system, with responses seen both locally and systemically. The effect is accentuated when those therapies are combined with icis48.
Another key targetable characteristic of “cold” tumours is strong expression of mesenchymal and collagen barrier molecules that prevent the migration of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes to the tumour bed49,50. As an example, inhibition of transforming growth factor β, a key player in the formation of the mesenchymal barrier, when combined with an ici resulted in a strong antitumour response in mouse models51. That approach is now being tested in clinical trials.
Finally, another strategy that can convert a “cold” to a “hot” tumour microenvironment uses inhibitors of oncogenic kinases (reviewed in Guo et al.52). The pi3k/akt pathway, glycogen synthase kinase 3α/β, and Mnk1 and Mnk2 are often aberrantly activated in cancer, and appreciation for their tumour-extrinsic effects in the cells of the tumour microenvironment to promote immune suppression is growing. For example, Mnk1 and Mnk2, which are critical regulators of messenger rna translation, have important immunomodulatory antitumor effects. Inhibitors of Mnk1 and Mnk2 can block the expression of secreted factors such as Nodal and Angptl453,54, inhibiting the survival of neutrophils55 and suppressing the expression of PD-L156. The Mnk1 and Mnk2 inhibitors are actively being pursued in the clinic (see NCT04261218, NCT03616834, and NCT03258398 at https://ClinicalTrials.gov/).
There is growing evidence that the tumour microenvironment supports inappropriate metabolic reprogramming, negatively affecting T cell function and resulting in attenuated antitumour immune responses57,58. In that context, targeting both tumour and T cell metabolism can beneficially enhance immunity in an inhospitable microenvironment and markedly improve the success of immunotherapies. As discussed earlier, tils in the tumour microenvironment have significant prognostic and predictive significance. Their function is limited not only by immune checkpoints, but also by increasingly recognized “metabolic checkpoints”59.
Rapidly dividing tumour cells show complex and dynamic metabolic reprogramming and high glycolytic activity, a phenomenon called the “Warburg effect,” which is recognized as one of the hallmarks of carcinogenesis60. Thus, tumour cells impede the access of T cells to nutrients necessary for their activation and generate high levels of lactate. The resulting scarcity of nutrients and accumulation of metabolic waste products in the tumour microenvironment lead to a til metabolic switch that impairs optimal proliferation and function61.
Recent evidence suggests that icis might directly sculpt the metabolic landscape in the tumour microenvironment, thus affecting the functioning of effector T cells. On the one hand, ctla-4 and PD-1 binding to their respective ligands impairs the metabolic til phenotype by inhibiting glycolysis62, thus causing reduced cytokine secretion and leading to an exhausted effector T cell phenotype63. On the other hand, icis also have the opposite effect on metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells. Ligation of PD-L1 directly upregulates glycolysis in cancer cells by promoting glucose uptake and production of lactate, thus promoting tumour growth and metastasis64,65. Many therapeutic strategies have been proposed to tackle that imbalance.
The pi3k/akt/mtor pathway is well known to play a critical role in integrating the metabolism signals of cancer and immune cells. Recent preclinical evidence suggests that rapamycin, in combination with icis, augments cytotoxic and memory T cell function24,66. Another promising therapeutic is metformin in combination with icis. Metformin is known to target the mitochondrial respiratory complex i and to activate ampk pathway signal transduction, a key pathway in T cell regulatory and metabolic functioning67,68. In a cohort of patients with metastatic melanoma who received metformin in combination with icis, favourable treatment-related outcomes (objective response rate, disease control rate, median progression-free survival, and median overall survival) were observed69. Those findings await further validation in larger randomized studies.
Besides glycolysis, another key element of metabolism dictating immune function in the tumour microenvironment is amino-acid catabolism. It is well established that l-arginine, tryptophan (Trp), and glutamine play fundamental roles in tumour progression and immunity70. Targeting those amino acids and their metabolic pathways in cancer therapy therefore becomes a promising strategy for the development of novel therapeutic agents. As one example, the depletion of tryptophan and the increase in kynurenine (Kyn) exert an important immunosuppressive function by activating T regulatory cells and suppressing the functioning of effector T cells71. The catabolic ido1 enzyme in the Trp–Kyn–AhR metabolic pathway thus became an interesting therapeutic target. Despite promising results in early-phase clinical trials in a range of tumour types, a phase iii study of the ido1-selective inhibitor epacadostat in combination with pembrolizumab in metastatic melanoma showed no difference between the epacadostat–pembrolizumab group and the placebo–pembrolizumab group72. That resulted in a diminution of interest in ido1 inhibitors; however, other approaches to inhibiting that pathway continue to be considered. Novel Trp–Kyn–AhR pathway inhibitors such as Kyn-degrading enzymes, direct AhR antagonists, and Trp mimetics are advancing in early-stage or preclinical development73. Despite the uncertainty surrounding ido1 inhibition, ample preclinical evidence supports the continued development of Trp–Kyn–AhR pathway inhibitors to enhance ici efficacy.
The host microbiome plays an important role in the efficacy of vaccine immune responses74, the promotion of carcinogenesis75–81, and the efficacy and toxicity of anticancer treatments82–84, including icis82,85. A foundational study in mice showed that manipulation of the baseline flora of the gut microbiome affects melanoma growth kinetics and can enhance ici efficacy86. Other preclinical studies showed that the efficacy of anti–ctla-4 therapy can be compromised by antibiotic-induced dysbiosis or use of germ-free mice87. The efficacy of the ici could be restored in antibiotic-treated mice after gavage with Bacteroides fragilis or Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (order Burkholderiales), or both, through an enhanced il-12–dependent type 1 T helper immune response87. Furthermore, analysis of stool from patients with ipilimumab-treated melanoma demonstrated selective enrichment of B. fragilis in clinical responders, possibly suggesting the presence of a ctla-4 blockade–induced gut dysbiosis.
Other key studies have focused on identifying human microbiota signatures predictive of clinical ici responses88–92. Patients with metastatic melanoma who were responders to anti–PD-1 therapy were shown to have enrichment of Bifidobacterium longum, Collinsella aerofaciens, and Enterococcus faecium in pre-treatment stool samples89. Subsequent fecal microbiota transplantation (fmt) of “responder” gut flora into germ-free mice was associated with improved melanoma tumour control through a CD8+ T cell immune response89. Furthermore, the ratio of “beneficial” to “non-beneficial” bacteria species in patients was the best predictor of an antitumour clinical response89. Another group identified enrichment of Akkermansia muciniphila in the microbiota of responders to anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 icis in 3 cancer subtypes. They further demonstrated that oral supplementation with A. muciniphila, Alistipes indistinctus, or Enterococcus hirae could restore ici antitumour efficacy in germ-free mice colonized with bacterial species from non-responder fmt88. A third fundamental study showed that patients with melanoma responding to ici had greater alpha diversity in their gut flora, with selective enrichment in order Clostridiales family Ruminococcaceae, especially genus Faecalibacterium90. On the other hand, the microbiomes in ici non-responders showed a shift toward order Bacteroidales. Taken together, those studies demonstrate that the antitumour immune response depends on the composition of the gut microbiome and that antibiotic-induced dysbiosis is associated with reduced immune priming and primary resistance to immunotherapy. The deleterious effect of antibiotics given close to the time of ici treatment was confirmed in retrospective analyses of ici-treated patients with various cancers (renal cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and melanoma) 88,93–95. Thus far, a modest overlap in key microbiome mediators of response to anti–PD-1 or PD-L1 therapies has been observed across cohorts, with an apparent common responder signature enriched in A. muciniphila, Clostridiales, E. faecium, Eubacterium species, the Firmicutes, and Ruminococcus species96. Although poor overlap between study cohorts might be a result of differences in technique or tumour type, additional heterogeneity of the gut microbiome linked to genetics, geography, lifestyle, or prior antibiotic and other drug exposure must be considered. Ultimately, “responder” gut profiles will likely reflect combinations of taxonomic orders and families rather than the presence or absence of one or a few particular species.
Besides priming the immune response to icis, the microbiome also modulates iraes17,91. For instance, metagenomic sequencing found members of the Bacteroidetes phylum (families Bacteroidaceae, Rikenellaceae, and Barnesiellaceae) to be more abundant in stools obtained before treatment from patients with melanoma who did not develop ipilimumab-induced colitis, implying a protective effect of those microorganisms17. Importantly, specific microbial metabolic pathways (polyamine transport and vitamin B synthesis) were found to be predictive of resistance to ctla-4 blockade–induced colitis17. Another group corroborated the protective effect of a Bacteroidetes-rich phylotype against ctla-4 blockade–induced colitis in patients with melanoma. They further demonstrated that favourable clinical responses and susceptibility to colitis were both correlated with baseline microbiota enrichment in phylum Firmicutes (unclassified Ruminococcaceae, Clostridium cluster XIVa, and Blautia) and, in particular, Faecalibacterium, which is known to exert an anti-inflammatory role in the gut91. Further, the resolution of refractory ici-associated colitis in 2 patients with cancer was achieved by fmt from a healthy donor97. Thus, a critical goal of microbiome manipulation is to disentangle the modulation of toxicity from the preservation or enhancement of ici efficacy98.
There is a strong push to translate those newly acquired basic science findings about the microbiota into therapeutic clinical tools. Several trials are evaluating safety, efficacy, and immune profile changes in patients with ici-resistant cancer treated with “complete responder” fmt (see NCT03353402, NCT03341143, and NCT03637803 at https://ClinicalTrials.gov/). The safety of fmt is particularly important and under scrutiny, given that fmt or bacterial colonization experiments in mice have revealed a potential for transfer of chronic diseases99,100 or increased risk of tumorigenesis76,101. Probiotics—loosely defined as health-promoting live organisms or fermented foods—are so far being assessed mostly in clinical trials aiming to reduce anticancer treatment toxicities; only one registered trial is testing their efficacy in the context of icis (NCT03829111). The optimal probiotic cocktail for immunotherapy remains to be determined and might vary with the ici or the tumour type. Additionally, reliable preparation of probiotics will be essential, likely requiring changes to their regulation. Ultimately, clinical studies of the effects of the microbiome on ici efficacy or toxicity will have to consider other confounding factors known to affect the commensal microbiome, such as concomitant radiation therapy102, exposure to antibiotics or other drugs (proton-pump inhibitors, antipsychotics, antimetabolites) 103, and diet (including method and composition).
Cancer immunotherapy has dramatically changed survival and quality of life for patients. However, not all cancers are equal, and very few predictors of response and toxicity currently exist. Despite the rapid advances made in the field, immuno-oncology is still in its relative infancy, with numerous challenges and hurdles yet to be overcome. Over time, a realization grew that the standard tools used to assess choice of treatments in the era of chemotherapy and targeted therapies might not be valid for the new immunotherapies. As an example, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (recist) used to assess response to treatments were modified to create irecist, which accounts for the novel patterns of response seen during immunotherapy, including tumour pseudoprogression104. In the same way that TNM staging has been crucial in guiding treatments in the era of chemotherapy, novel tools are required in the era of cancer immunotherapy. The Immunoscore has already been validated as adding important prognostic information to TNM staging in colon cancer39. The fact that T cells are currently widely recognized as the key mediators of antitumour efficacy with ici treatment suggests that use of the Immunoscore is an attractive option to help guide treatment selection in other cancer types as well. Still, that option does not exclude the possible use of additional parameters that might provide further insights into the specifics of each case.
It is becoming more challenging to increase the efficacy of combination therapies already established in clinical practice. In metastatic melanoma, combined ctla-4 and PD-1 blockade has achieved an unprecedented five-year overall survival above 50%105. In metastatic renal cell carcinoma, the same combination has been associated with an overall survival rate exceeding 60% at 3 years in the intention-to-treat population106,107. In the large landscape of ongoing early-phase clinical trials, few novel combinations have achieved a level of efficacy rivalling those new standards of care. What certainly remains to be improved is their safety profiles.
The approved induction and regimen dose of combination icis (ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and nivolumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks) in the setting of melanoma is associated with a 59% rate of grades 3–4 toxicities108. Preliminary results from CheckMate 511, which used alternative dosing (ipilimumab 1 mg/kg and nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks), showed a significant improvement in toxicity without loss of efficacy109. Given that iraes can sometimes be associated with mortality and significant lifelong morbidity (for example, de novo insulin-dependent diabetes, persistent pituitary dysfunction, or immune-related inflammatory arthropathies), predictors and novel strategies to abate those toxicities are urgently needed.
Another area of urgent need is to find novel treatments both for patients who are primary non-responders to icis and for those who develop secondary resistance to those therapies. Beyond ici failure, very few treatments have been studied, and physicians often rely on previously validated standards of care for each specific cancer. Early observational data suggest that exposure to icis might modulate the response to standard treatments received after progression. For instance, exceptionally high response rates to chemotherapy have occasionally been documented after ici failure110,111. Those observations might be secondary to immunotherapy having removed the inhibition initially exerted by tumour cells or other immune cells, followed by cytotoxic chemotherapy–mediated killing of tumour cells. On the other hand, progression-free survival and the adverse event profiles associated with exposure to targeted therapies (such as braf inhibition in melanoma) might be adversely affected by first-line exposure to icis112.
To summarize, the future of cancer immunotherapy could rely on combination therapies using checkpoint inhibitors not with other novel checkpoint inhibitors, but rather with personalized cancer vaccines and novel targeted therapies directed at the tumour microenvironment, tumour glycosylation, and the host microbiome, as outlined in the present review. Advances in those fields will allow movement away from the current broad “shotgun” approach, which exposes all comers within the approved indications to icis, to treatments tailored to the factors that make each cancer and host a unique pairing.
We have read and understood Current Oncology’s policy on disclosing conflicts of interest, and we declare the following interests: WHM reports personal fees from Bristol–Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, Novartis, and Amgen outside the submitted work; and KE reports personal fees from Bristol–Myers Squibb outside the submitted work. LR and NB have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
*Departments of Medicine and Oncology, Segal Cancer Centre, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, Rossy Cancer Network, McGill University, Montreal, QC,
†Department of Oncology, Lady Davis Institute, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC.
1 McCarthy EF. The toxins of William B. Coley and the treatment of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Iowa Orthop J 2006; 26:154–8.
2 Decker WK, Safdar A. Bioimmunoadjuvants for the treatment of neoplastic and infectious disease: Coley’s legacy revisited. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2009;20:271–81.
3 Dinarello CA. Historical insights into cytokines. Eur J Immunol 2007;37(suppl 1):S34–45.
4 Lee S, Margolin K. Cytokines in cancer immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2011;3:3856–93.
5 Rosenberg SA. Interleukin 2 for patients with renal cancer. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4:497. [Comment on: Twardowski P, Figlin RA. What are the indications for sorafenib treatment in patients with renal cell carcinoma? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4:456–7; and Stadler WM, Szmulewitz RZ. Sunitinib—a new standard of care for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2007;4:458–9]
6 Di Trolio R, Simeone E, Di Lorenzo G, Buonerba C, Ascierto PA. The use of interferon in melanoma patients: a systematic review. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2015;26:203–12.
7 O’Donnell JS, Teng MWL, Smyth MJ. Cancer immunoediting and resistance to T cell-based immunotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2019;16:151–67.
8 Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S, et al. Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. N Engl J Med 2006;355:1018–28.
9 Hodi FS, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2018;19:1480–92.
10 Wang DY, Salem JE, Cohen JV, et al. Fatal toxic effects associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:1721–8.
11 Moslehi JJ, Salem JE, Sosman JA, Lebrun-Vignes B, Johnson DB. Increased reporting of fatal immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated myocarditis. Lancet 2018;391:933.
12 Schindler K, Harmankaya K, Kuk D, et al. Correlation of absolute and relative eosinophil counts with immune-related adverse events in melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab [abstract 9096]. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:. [Available online at: https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/jco.2014.32.15_suppl.9096; cited 9 September 2019]
13 Liudahl SM, Coussens LM. B Cells as biomarkers: predicting immune checkpoint therapy adverse events. J Clin Invest 2018;128:577–9.
14 Oh DY, Cham J, Zhang L, et al. Immune toxicities elicited by ctla-4 blockade in cancer patients are associated with early diversification of the T-cell repertoire. Cancer Res 2017; 77:1322–30.
15 Diehl A, Yarchoan M, Hopkins A, Jaffee E, Grossman SA. Relationships between lymphocyte counts and treatment-related toxicities and clinical responses in patients with solid tumors treated with PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors. Oncotarget 2017;8:114268–80.
16 Callahan MK, Yang A, Tandon S, et al. Evaluation of serum il-17 levels during ipilimumab therapy: correlation with colitis [abstract 2505]. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:. [Available online at: https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.2505; cited 9 September 2019]
17 Dubin K, Callahan MK, Ren B, et al. Intestinal microbiome analyses identify melanoma patients at risk for checkpoint-blockade–induced colitis. Nat Commun 2016;7:10391.
18 Brahmer JR, Lacchetti C, Schneider BJ, et al. on behalf of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1714–68.
19 Haanen JBAG, Carbonnel F, Robert C, et al. on behalf of the esmo Guidelines Committee. Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: esmo clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2018; 29(suppl 4):iv264–6.
20 Puzanov I, Diab A, Abdallah K, et al. on behalf of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer Toxicity Management Working Group. Managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: consensus recommendations from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (sitc) Toxicity Management Working Group. J Immunother Cancer 2017;5:95.
21 Arbour KC, Mezquita L, Long N, et al. Impact of baseline steroids on efficacy of programmed cell death–1 and programmed death–ligand 1 blockade in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:2872–8.
22 Faje AT, Lawrence D, Flaherty K, et al. High-dose glucocorticoids for the treatment of ipilimumab-induced hypophysitis is associated with reduced survival in patients with melanoma. Cancer 2018;124:3706–14.
23 Petrelli F, Signorelli D, Ghidini M, et al. Association of steroids use with survival in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:pii:E546.
24 Esfahani K, Al-Aubodah TA, Thebault P, et al. Targeting the mtor pathway uncouples the efficacy and toxicity of PD-1 blockade in renal transplantation. Nat Commun 2019; 10:4712.
25 Barnett R, Barta VS, Jhaveri KD. Preserved renal-allograft function and the PD-1 pathway inhibitor nivolumab. N Engl J Med 2017;376:191–2.
26 Sadaat M, Jang S. Complete tumor response to pembrolizumab and allograft preservation in renal allograft recipient on immunosuppressive therapy. J Oncol Pract 2018;14:198–9.
27 Esfahani K, Miller WH Jr. Reversal of autoimmune toxicity and loss of tumor response by interleukin-17 blockade. N Engl J Med 2017;376:1989–91.
28 Johnson DH, Zobniw CM, Trinh VA, et al. Infliximab associated with faster symptom resolution compared with corticosteroids alone for the management of immune-related enterocolitis. J Immunother Cancer 2018;6:103. [Erratum in: J Immunother Cancer 2019;7:107]
29 Bertrand F, Montfort A, Marcheteau E, et al. tnfα blockade overcomes resistance to anti–PD-1 in experimental melanoma. Nat Commun 2017;8:2256.
30 van Rooij N, van Buuren MM, Philips D, et al. Tumor exome analysis reveals neoantigen-specific T-cell reactivity in an ipilimumab-responsive melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:e439–42.
31 Robbins PF, Lu YC, El-Gamil M, et al. Mining exomic sequencing data to identify mutated antigens recognized by adoptively transferred tumor-reactive T cells. Nat Med 2013;19:747–52.
32 Matsushita H, Vesely MD, Koboldt DC, et al. Cancer exome analysis reveals a T-cell–dependent mechanism of cancer immunoediting. Nature 2012;482:400–4.
33 Castle JC, Kreiter S, Diekmann J, et al. Exploiting the mutanome for tumor vaccination. Cancer Res 2012;72:1081–91.
34 Hu Z, Ott PA, Wu CJ. Towards personalized, tumour-specific, therapeutic vaccines for cancer. Nat Rev Immunol 2018; 18:168–82.
35 Nielsen M, Andreatta M. NetMHCpan-3.0; improved prediction of binding to mhc class i molecules integrating information from multiple receptor and peptide length datasets. Genome Med 2016;8:33.
36 Sahin U, Derhovanessian E, Miller M, et al. Personalized rna mutanome vaccines mobilize poly-specific therapeutic immunity against cancer. Nature 2017;547:222–6.
37 Carreno BM, Magrini V, Becker-Hapak M, et al. Cancer immunotherapy. A dendritic cell vaccine increases the breadth and diversity of melanoma neoantigen–specific T cells. Science 2015;348:803–8.
38 Ott PA, Hu Z, Keskin DB, et al. An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for patients with melanoma. Nature 2017;547:217–21.
39 Pages F, Mlecnik B, Marliot F, et al. International validation of the consensus Immunoscore for the classification of colon cancer: a prognostic and accuracy study. Lancet 2018;391:2128–39.
40 Camus M, Tosolini M, Mlecnik B, et al. Coordination of intratumoral immune reaction and human colorectal cancer recurrence. Cancer Res 2009;69:2685–93.
41 Gajewski TF, Corrales L, Williams J, Horton B, Sivan A, Spranger S. Cancer immunotherapy targets based on understanding the T cell–inflamed versus non–T cell–inflamed tumor microenvironment. Adv Exp Med Biol 2017;1036:19–31.
42 Fridman WH, Zitvogel L, Sautès-Fridman C, Kroemer G. The immune contexture in cancer prognosis and treatment. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14:717–34.
43 Hegde PS, Karanikas V, Evers S. The where, the when, and the how of immune monitoring for cancer immunotherapies in the era of checkpoint inhibition. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:1865–74.
44 Golden EB, Apetoh L. Radiotherapy and immunogenic cell death. Semin Radiat Oncol 2015;25:11–17.
45 Liu Y, Dong Y, Kong L, Shi F, Zhu H, Yu J. Abscopal effect of radiotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors. J Hematol Oncol 2018;11:104.
46 McGranahan N, Furness AJ, Rosenthal R, et al. Clonal neoantigens elicit T cell immunoreactivity and sensitivity to immune checkpoint blockade. Science 2016;351:1463–9.
47 Kaufman HL, Kohlhapp FJ, Zloza A. Oncolytic viruses: a new class of immunotherapy drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2015;14:642–62. [Erratum in: Nat Rev Drug Discov 2016;15:143]
48 Conry RM, Westbrook B, McKee S, Norwood TG. Talimogene laherparepvec: first in class oncolytic virotherapy. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2018;14:839–46.
49 Spranger S, Bao R, Gajewski TF. Melanoma-intrinsic beta-catenin signalling prevents anti-tumour immunity. Nature 2015;523:231–5.
50 Ros XR, Vermeulen L. Turning cold tumors hot by blocking tgf-β. Trends Cancer 2018;4:335–7.
51 Ganesh K, Massague J. tgf-β inhibition and immunotherapy: checkmate. Immunity 2018;48:626–8. [Comment on: Mariathasan S, Turley SJ, Nickles D, et al. tgfβ attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells. Nature 2018;554:544–8]
52 Guo Q, Huang F, Goncalves C, Del Rincón SV, Miller WH Jr. Translation of cancer immunotherapy from the bench to the bedside. Adv Cancer Res 2019;143:1–62.
53 Guo Q, Li VZ, Nichol JN, et al. Mnk1/Nodal signaling promotes invasive progression of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer Res 2019;79:1646–57.
54 Yang W, Khoury E, Guo Q, et al. Mnk1 signaling induces an Angptl4-mediated gene signature to drive melanoma progression. Oncogene 2020;:[Epub ahead of print].
55 Robichaud N, Hsu BE, Istomine R, et al. Translational control in the tumor microenvironment promotes lung metastasis: phosphorylation of eIF4E in neutrophils. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018;115:E2202–9.
56 Xu Y, Poggio M, Jin HY, et al. Translation control of the immune checkpoint in cancer and its therapeutic targeting. Nat Med 2019;25:301–11.
57 Martinez-Outschoorn UE, Peiris-Pagés M, Pestell RG, Sotgia F, Lisanti MP. Cancer metabolism: a therapeutic perspective. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14:11–31. [Erratum in: Martinez-Outschoorn UE, Peiris-Pagés M, Pestell RG, Sotgia F, Lisanti MP. Cancer metabolism: a therapeutic perspective. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2017;14:113]
58 Kouidhi S, Elgaaied AB, Chouaib S. Impact of metabolism on T-cell differentiation and function and cross talk with tumor microenvironment. Front Immunol 2017;8:270.
59 Scharping NE, Delgoffe GM. Tumor microenvironment metabolism: a new checkpoint for anti-tumor immunity. Vaccines (Basel) 2016;4:pii:E46.
60 Kareva I, Hahnfeldt P. The emerging “hallmarks” of metabolic reprogramming and immune evasion: distinct or linked? Cancer Res 2013;73:2737–42.
61 Qorraj M, Böttcher M, Mougiakakos D. PD-L1/PD-1: new kid on the “immune metabolic” block [editorial]. Oncotarget 2017;8:73364–5.
62 Patsoukis N, Bardhan K, Chatterjee P, et al. PD-1 alters T-cell metabolic reprogramming by inhibiting glycolysis and promoting lipolysis and fatty acid oxidation. Nat Commun 2015;6:6692.
63 Saunders PA, Hendrycks VR, Lidinsky WA, Woods ML. PD-L2:PD-1 involvement in T cell proliferation, cytokine production, and integrin-mediated adhesion. Eur J Immunol 2005;35:3561–9.
64 Wangpaichitr M, Kandemir H, Li YY, et al. Relationship of metabolic alterations and PD-L1 expression in cisplatin resistant lung cancer. Cell Dev Biol 2017;6:pii:183.
65 Chang CH, Qiu J, O’Sullivan D, et al. Metabolic competition in the tumor microenvironment is a driver of cancer progression. Cell 2015;162:1229–41.
66 Mineharu Y, Kamran N, Lowenstein PR, Castro MG. Blockade of mtor signaling via rapamycin combined with immunotherapy augments antiglioma cytotoxic and memory T-cell functions. Mol Cancer Ther 2014;13:3024–36.
67 Rena G, Pearson ER, Sakamoto K. Molecular mechanism of action of metformin: old or new insights? Diabetologia 2013;56:1898–906.
68 Ma EH, Poffenberger MC, Wong AH, Jones RG. The role of ampk in T cell metabolism and function. Curr Opin Immunol. 2017;46:45–52.
69 Afzal MZ, Mercado RR, Shirai K. Efficacy of metformin in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti–PD-1/anti–ctla-4) in metastatic malignant melanoma. J Immunother Cancer 2018;6:64.
70 Lukey MJ, Katt WP, Cerione RA. Targeting amino acid metabolism for cancer therapy. Drug Discov Today 2017;22:796–804.
71 Liu M, Wang X, Wang L, et al. Targeting the ido1 pathway in cancer: from bench to bedside. J Hematol Oncol 2018;11:100.
72 Long GV, Dummer R, Hamid O, et al. Epacadostat plus pembrolizumab versus placebo plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma (echo-301/keynote-252): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1083–97.
73 Labadie BW, Bao R, Luke JJ. Reimagining ido pathway inhibition in cancer immunotherapy via downstream focus on the tryptophan–kynurenine–aryl hydrocarbon axis. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:1462–71.
74 Zimmermann P, Curtis N. The influence of the intestinal microbiome on vaccine responses. Vaccine 2018;36:4433–9.
75 Yoshimoto S, Loo TM, Atarashi K, et al. Obesity-induced gut microbial metabolite promotes liver cancer through senescence secretome. Nature 2013;499:97–101.
76 Dejea CM, Fathi P, Craig JM, et al. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis harbor colonic biofilms containing tumorigenic bacteria. Science 2018;359:592–7.
77 Di Domenico EG, Cavallo I, Pontone M, Toma L, Ensoli F. Biofilm producing Salmonella typhi: chronic colonization and development of gallbladder cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2017;18:pii:E1887.
78 Wang F, Meng W, Wang B, Qiao L. Helicobacter pylori–induced gastric inflammation and gastric cancer. Cancer Lett 2014; 345:196–202.
79 Wu S, Rhee KJ, Albesiano E, et al. A human colonic commensal promotes colon tumorigenesis via activation of T helper type 17 T cell responses. Nat Med 2009;15:1016–22.
80 Rubinstein MR, Baik JE, Lagana SM, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal cancer by inducing Wnt/beta-catenin modulator annexin A1. EMBO Rep 2019;20: pii:e47638.
81 Kostic AD, Chun E, Robertson L, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 2013;14:207–15.
82 Iida N, Dzutsev A, Stewart CA, et al. Commensal bacteria control cancer response to therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment. Science 2013;342:967–70.
83 Viaud S, Saccheri F, Mignot G, et al. The intestinal microbiota modulates the anticancer immune effects of cyclophosphamide. Science 2013;342:971–6.
84 Geller LT, Barzily-Rokni M, Danino T, et al. Potential role of intratumor bacteria in mediating tumor resistance to the chemotherapeutic drug gemcitabine. Science 2017;357: 1156–60.
85 McQuade JL, Daniel CR, Helmink BA, Wargo JA. Modulating the microbiome to improve therapeutic response in cancer. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:e77–91.
86 Sivan A, Corrales L, Hubert N, et al. Commensal Bifidobacterium promotes antitumour immunity and facilitates anti–PD-L1 efficacy. Science 2015;350:1084–9.
87 Vetizou M, Pitt JM, Daillere R, et al. Anticancer immunotherapy by ctla-4 blockade relies on the gut microbiota. Science 2015;350:1079–84.
88 Routy B, Le Chatelier E, Derosa L, et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1–based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science 2018;359:91–7.
89 Matson V, Fessler J, Bao R, et al. The commensal microbiome is associated with anti–PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients. Science 2018;359:104–8.
90 Gopalakrishnan V, Spencer CN, Nezi L, et al. Gut microbiome modulates response to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy in melanoma patients. Science 2018;359:97–103.
91 Chaput N, Lepage P, Coutzac C, et al. Baseline gut microbiota predicts clinical response and colitis in metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab. Ann Oncol 2017;28:1368–79.
92 Frankel AE, Coughlin LA, Kim J, et al. Metagenomic shotgun sequencing and unbiased metabolomic profiling identify specific human gut microbiota and metabolites associated with immune checkpoint therapy efficacy in melanoma patients. Neoplasia 2017;19:848–55.
93 Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, et al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2018;29:1437–44.
94 Hakozaki T, Okuma Y, Omori M, Hosomi Y. Impact of prior antibiotic use on the efficacy of nivolumab for non–small cell lung cancer. Oncol Lett 2019;17:2946–52.
95 Elkrief A, El Raichani L, Richard C, et al. Antibiotics are associated with decreased progression-free survival of advanced melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Oncoimmunology 2019;8:e1568812.
96 Derosa L, Routy B, Kroemer G, Zitvogel L. The intestinal microbiota determines the clinical efficacy of immune checkpoint blockers targeting PD-1/PD-L1. Oncoimmunology 2018;7:e1434468.
97 Wang Y, Wiesnoski DH, Helmink BA, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation for refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated colitis. Nat Med 2018;24:1804–8. [Erratum in: Nat Med 2019;25:188]
98 Wang F, Yin Q, Chen L, Davis MM. Bifidobacterium can mitigate intestinal immunopathology in the context of ctla-4 blockade. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2018;115:157–61.
99 Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature 2006;444:1027–31.
100 Ridaura VK, Faith JJ, Rey FE, et al. Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice. Science 2013;341:1241214.
101 Wong SH, Zhao L, Zhang X, et al. Gavage of fecal samples from patients with colorectal cancer promotes intestinal carcinogenesis in germ-free and conventional mice. Gastroenterology 2017;153:1621–33.
102 Gerassy-Vainberg S, Blatt A, Danin-Poleg Y, et al. Radiation induces proinflammatory dysbiosis: transmission of inflammatory susceptibility by host cytokine induction. Gut 2018;67:97–107.
103 Maier L, Pruteanu M, Kuhn M, et al. Extensive impact of non-antibiotic drugs on human gut bacteria. Nature 2018; 555:623–8.
104 Seymour L, Bogaerts J, Perrone A, et al. on behalf of the recist working group. irecist: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:e143–52.
105 Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Five-year survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1535–46.
106 Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DF, et al. on behalf of the CheckMate 214 investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma: extended follow-up of efficacy and safety results from a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1370–85. [Erratum in: Correction to Lancet Oncol 2019;20:1370–85. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:e559]
107 Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. on behalf of the CheckMate 214 investigators. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1277–90.
108 Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1345–56. [Erratum in: Neoadjuvant PD-1 blockade in resectable lung cancer; Nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma; Overall survival with combined nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma; Prolonged survival in stage iii melanoma with ipilimumab adjuvant therapy; Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma; Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma; Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma; Rapid eradication of a bulky melanoma mass with one dose of immunotherapy; Genetic basis for clinical response to ctla-4 blockade; Genetic basis for clinical response to ctla-4 blockade in melanoma; Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma; Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti–PD-1) in melanoma; Hepatotoxicity with combination of vemurafenib and ipilimumab. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2185]
109 Lebbé C, Meyer N, Mortier L, et al. Evaluation of two dosing regimens for nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma: results from the phase iiib/iv CheckMate 511 trial. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:867–75.
110 Dwary AD, Master S, Patel A, et al. Excellent response to chemotherapy post immunotherapy. Oncotarget 2017;8: 91795–802.
111 Aguilera JV, Paludo J, Bangalore A, et al. Chemoimmunotherapy combination after PD-1 inhibitor failure to improve clinical outcomes in metastatic melanoma patients [abstract 9558]. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:. [Available online at: https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.9558; cited 9 September 2019]
112 Xia CY, Wang DY, Mason R, et al. Activity of targeted therapy after failure of first-line immunotherapy in BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma [abstract 9532]. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:. [Available online at: https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.9532; cited 9 September 2019]
(Return to Top)
Current Oncology, VOLUME 27, Supp. 2, April 2020