• Users Online: 171
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 23-35

Tackling immunotherapy resistance: Developing rational combinations of immunotherapy and targeted drugs


The Drug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden Hospital/Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK

Date of Web Publication22-Mar-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Anna Minchom
Drug Development Unit, The Royal Marsden Hospital and The Institute of Cancer Research, London
UK
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JIPO.JIPO_24_18

Get Permissions

  Abstract 


Mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapies are multiple and complex with components intrinsic to the tumor cell and within the immune microenvironment. We review evidence of the interaction of tumor cell signaling pathways with immune pathways and the role this plays in de novo and acquired resistance. The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway activation and effects on T-cell function are discussed. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation (including PTEN loss of function) correlates with T-cell inhibition and immunotherapy resistance. Wnt signaling has been implicated in T-cell function suppression. Key evidence from preclinical models exists for the role of these signaling pathways and is described. Clinical evidence is less advanced though correlation of mutations in key nodes with immune resistance provides a limited clinical correlation. Serial biomarker analysis in patients receiving targeted drugs has been attempted with notable examples including BRAF inhibition in melanoma patients resulting in dynamic changes in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Drug combinations aim to overcome mechanisms of resistance, and recent years have seen numerous combinations of targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors proposed. However, clear biological rationale and thoughtful trial designs with a translational focus are required to allow such combinations to achieve their full potential.

Keywords: Cellular pathways, combination, early-phase trials, immunotherapy, resistance


How to cite this article:
Cojocaru E, Scaranti M, Minchom A. Tackling immunotherapy resistance: Developing rational combinations of immunotherapy and targeted drugs. J Immunother Precis Oncol 2019;2:23-35

How to cite this URL:
Cojocaru E, Scaranti M, Minchom A. Tackling immunotherapy resistance: Developing rational combinations of immunotherapy and targeted drugs. J Immunother Precis Oncol [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Apr 25];2:23-35. Available from: http://www.jipoonline.org/text.asp?2019/2/2/23/254761




  Introduction Top


Cancer and the immune system

The complex interactions between cancer and the immune system have gained significant interest in cancer therapeutics in the last decade. The immune system consists of the innate and adaptive immune response in a highly orchestrated response to pathogens.[1] The innate immune response is a nonspecific immune reaction against pathogens, containing cellular components that recognize nonspecific chemical properties of foreign antigens. In the adaptive (acquired) immune response, pathogen-specific receptors are acquired during the lifetime of an organism on exposure to antigens.[2] The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) consists of cell surface proteins that bind antigens and display for recognition by T-cells. Class I MHC is present on all nucleated cells. MHC Class II is present on antigen-presenting cells (APCs) such as macrophages, B-cells, and dendritic cells (DCs). The T-cell receptor recognizes self or foreign antigens presented by the MHC molecules and activates T-lymphocytes.[3] Activated CD8+ T-lymphocytes mount a cytotoxic response; activated CD4+ T cells mediate the immune response through the secretion of specific cytokines. T-cell responses persist long-term, building immunological memory. To avoid constant activation of the immune system while antigens are displayed, multiple immune checkpoints are activated, maintaining immune homeostasis. Co-inhibitory receptors include TIM-3, LAG-3, programmed-death 1 (PD-1) or CTLA-4.[4] Inflammatory chemokines are responsible for the recruitment of the immune cells to peripheral tissues. FoxP3+ T-reg cells are regulatory lymphocytes that downregulate induction and proliferation of effector T-cells, therefore maintaining tolerance to self-antigens, and prevent autoimmunity.[5]

It is increasingly recognized that immune evasion is a “hallmark of cancer.”[6] Innate and adaptive immunity contributes to immune surveillance and tumor cell eradication.[7],[8] Permanent immune vigilance destroys cancer cells by identifying and eliminating cancerous or precancerous cells based on the expression of tumor-specific antigens on their surface.[9] At the time of diagnosis, cancers have suppressed, evaded, and developed resistance against immune control by multiple mechanisms.[8],[10]

Immunotherapy resistance

The development of CTLA-4 inhibitors (ipilimumab and tremelimumab) was a pivotal moment in cancer immunotherapy and led to significant antitumor responses, particularly in melanoma.[11],[12] PD-1 inhibitors such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab and the ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors such as avelumab, durvalumab, and atezolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and have received approval in 11 cancer indications including non-small cell lung, melanoma, renal, bladder, or microsatellite instability (MSI)-high tumors.[13]

Despite the impressive responses that led to their approval, immunotherapy resistance is common, and there is a need to temper the great enthusiasm for the promise immunotherapy shows with realism about, and dedicated research into, mechanisms of immunotherapy resistance.[14] Resistance can be classified as primary/ de novo resistance (where no drug response is achieved) or secondary/acquired resistance (when an initial response to a drug is followed by tumor growth). In terms of primary resistance, PD-1 inhibition leads to objective responses in 20%–30% of patients with solid tumors.[15] Combined with CTLA-4 inhibition, objective responses were seen in 42% renal tumors [16] and 57% of patients with metastatic melanoma.[17] Secondary resistance is inevitable. In renal cell carcinoma, the immunotherapy combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab showed a progression-free survival (PFS) of 11.6 months.[16] In other “immunogenic cancers,” similar benefits of PFS have been noted.[18],[19] Although exceptionally long PFSs of over 24 months have been published, these occur in a small subpopulation of patients.[20],[21]

The mechanisms behind resistance have been explored. In primary resistance, T-cells may fail to recognize the tumoral antigens. This occurs in the case of an absence of tumor antigens or inability of presenting these antigens on the tumoral cell surface via MHC.[22] Potential mechanisms of acquired resistance include loss of T-cell function, new escape mutation variants in cancer, and absence of T-cell recognition by downregulation in tumor antigen presentation.[2],[22],[23]

Resistance mechanisms can be intrinsic or extrinsic to the cancer cell. Intrinsic mechanisms include the absence of antigenic proteins (e.g. in tumors with low mutational burden) and the absence of antigen presentation in the case of deregulations of the transporter associated with antigen processing of the β2-microglobulin or human leukocyte antigen (HLA).[2],[24] Other intrinsic mechanisms of resistance described are genetic T-cell exclusion, as seen in β-catenin inhibition, STAT3 activation, p53, nuclear factor-kappa β (NF-kβ), and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) upregulations or mutations in the interferon-γ pathway signaling, which result in insensibility to T-cells.[23] Extrinsic mechanisms are complex and include external metabolic and endocrine environmental factors, immunoregulation within tumor microenvironment via checkpoint molecules, or presence of FoxP3+ T-reg cells.[25],[26],[27]

Key to understanding immunotherapy resistance is the concept of “immune exhaustion.” When an antigen persists, CD8+ T-cells develop a progressive loss of function. Mechanisms of immune exhaustion include upregulation of T-cell immune checkpoints (including via PD-1, CTLA-4, TIM-3, LAG-3, and TIGIT), enhanced FoxP3+ T-regs expression, or an increase in tumor-associated macrophages.[28] Epigenetic factors play a role in T-cell exhaustion, through demethylation of PD-1 and transcription factors such as Blimp-1, T-bet, Eomes, NFATC1, BATF, or Maf, described in preclinical models.[2],[29] Epigenetic mechanisms may influence immune infiltration, as in the case of CXCL9 and CXCL10 silencing in ovarian cancer cells, which was associated with reduced recruitment of T-cells.[30]

Understanding mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapy will pave the way to therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance. Causes of resistance are diverse and include cellular signaling pathway misregulation. These can potentially be drugged by existing and developing targeted agents. This review will further expand on the mechanisms of resistance associated with the cell signaling pathways and the potential therapeutic applications this brings.


  Methods Top


In this review, online search tools (including PubMed and clinicaltrials.gov) were employed to obtain published papers. The search was limited to English language articles. Recent reviews and research articles were searched for on the web, using the keywords: immunotherapy, resistance, early-phase trials, combination, and cellular pathways. Articles were retrieved and screened for relevance to the research questions mentioned above. Preclinical research on resistance mechanism to immune checkpoints and interaction of the immune system with different cellular pathways, translational research, clinical trial data of combination immunotherapy and targeted therapies (in abstract and published form), and reviews were obtained and methodology assessed. If felt to be of sufficient robustness, data were extracted and presented in the complete or partial form. Reference lists from included papers were also reviewed and data were extracted.


  Signaling Pathways and Immunotherapy Resistance Top


The MAPK pathway

The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway regulates cell proliferation and is deregulated in almost one-third of human cancers.[31] The MAPK cascade [Figure 1] is activated when extracellular ligands are bound to protein kinase receptors, including EGFR or PDGFR. Through adaptor proteins, RAF is recruited. RAF activation activates a cascade downstream including MEK1 and MAPK (ERK) molecules, responsible for regulation of the proliferation, apoptosis, and metabolism.[32],[33] BRAF inhibitors have an overall survival benefit in melanoma, and addition of MEK inhibitors has enhanced the BRAF inhibition results.[34],[35],[36],[37] Reactivation of signaling downstream to RAF is a major mechanism of resistance to BRAF inhibition.[38]
Figure 1: Main cellular pathways and implication of their inhibition on immune function. Grb2: Growth factor receptor-bound protein 2, SOS: Son of Sevenless, GTP: Guanosine triphosphate, MAPK: Mitogen-activated protein kinase, PD-L1: Programmed death-ligand 1, PI3K: Phosphoinositide 3-kinase, PIP2: Phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate, PIP3: Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-trisphosphate, PTEN: Phosphatase and tensin homolog, TSC: tuberous sclerosis complex, AKT: Protein kinase B (PKB), mTOR: Mammalian target of rapamycin, PKC: Protein kinase C, NF-kb: Nuclear Factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B-cells, APC: Adenomatous polyposis coli.

Click here to view


PD-L1 in context of BRAF/KRAS mutations

Khalili et al. demonstrated that the BRAF (V600E) mutation in melanoma drives production of interleukin-1α (IL-1α) and IL-1b, with the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib reducing IL-1 expression in cell lines.[39] The upregulation was via upregulation of cyclooxygenase-2 and PD-L1/2 in tumor-associated fibroblasts.[39] Jiang et al. demonstrated that in this context, increased PD-L1 expression likely occurs via ERK 1/2 and JNK.[40]

Some clinical correlations have been found in retrospective clinical sample studies. In D'Incecco et al.'s study of postsurgical non-small cell lung cancer specimens, a correlation was shown between PD-1 and KRAS status (P = 0.005).[41] A study of >400 patient samples found PD-L1 expression more common in KRAS-mutated samples (P = 0.002).[42] A meta-analysis from Li et al. found a correlation with KRAS status and PD-L1 positivity, with those who were KRAS-mutant more likely to be PD-L1 positive (51% versus 36%, OR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.01–2.84; P = 0.045).[43] In BRAF mutant melanoma, retrospective studies of PD-L1 expression differ in their conclusions, as to the potential impact PD-L1 has a predictive biomarker of response to BRAF inhibitors.[44],[45]

T-cell effects of BRAF and MEK inhibition

BRAF inhibitors cause hyperactivation of the MAPK pathway in BRAF wild-type cells including T-cells.[46] This could lead to upregulation in T-cell function. MEK inhibitions, however, have been postulated as being detrimental to T-cell function.[47],[48],[49],[50] Shindo et al. demonstrated that, in the context of postallograft transplant, MEK inhibitors inhibit cytokine production and CD-4+ and CD-8+ T-cell function though sparing more differentiated T-cell function.[47] Boni et al. further demonstrated MEK inhibition resulted in impaired T-cell function, which is contrast to BRAF inhibition sparing T-cell function.[48] Vella et al. further corroborate this with suppressed T-lymphocyte proliferation, cytokine production, and antigen-specific expansion with MEK inhibition but not BRAF inhibition, though no decrease in T-cell viability was seen.[49]

The differential effects of BRAF and MEK inhibition on T-cell function are less clear in clinical data. Frederick et al. collected biopsies from 16 patients with melanoma receiving a BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib) or a BRAF inhibitor in combination with a MEK inhibitor (dabrafenib and trametinib) in BRAF mutant cancer.[51] They demonstrated that both BRAF inhibition alone and in combination with MEK inhibition led to increased melanoma antigen expression and CD8+ T-cell infiltrates, and decreased in immunosuppressive cytokines (IL6 and IL8). T-cell infiltrates and antigen expression decreased at progression on BRAF inhibitor and increased when combination of BRAF and MEK inhibitors was commenced. Dynamic changes in PD-L1, PD-1, and TIM-3 were seen.[51] Other groups report an increase in T-cell infiltrate with both BRAF inhibitors and combined BRAF and MEK inhibitors, though no difference in the degree of infiltration between single agent versus combination.

Immunotherapy and MEK/BRAF inhibitor combinations – preclinical data

Hu-Lieskovan conducted an experiment to evaluate if the addition of MEK inhibitor trametinib would improve the activity of BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib in combination with immunotherapy in a syngeneic BRAF-mutant melanoma mouse model (SM1).[53] Combination of dabrafenib and trametinib with an adoptive cell transfer (pmel-1 ACT) model showed complete tumor regression. Given the potential for upregulation of PD-L1, the team also tested dabrafenib and trametinib with anti-PD-1 therapy – with a corresponding increase in antitumor activity demonstrated.[53] Cooper et al. demonstrated that PD-1 blockade in combination with BRAF inhibition significantly delayed tumor growth and prolonged survival in mouse models treated with this combination compared to immunotherapy alone.[54]

Immunotherapy and MEK/BRAF inhibition – clinical trials

A Phase 1 of vemurafenib in combination with ipilimumab was closed prematurely due to liver toxicity.[55] PD-1 inhibition (pembrolizumab) combined with dabrafenib and trametinib resulted in Grade 3–4 toxicities in 73% of patients enrolled in the KEYNOTE-022 study of patients with BRAF-mutant-advanced melanoma, although antitumor activity (overall response rate) was seen in 67% of patients.[56],[57] Phase 2 of this trial is ongoing.[56]

In another Phase 1 trial, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer were treated with escalating doses of MEK inhibitor cobimetinib and a PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab.[58] All patients had MSI-stable disease; 4 out of 23 had a partial response to this treatment, while the other 5 patients had stable disease. In MSI-high colorectal cancer, the number of genetic mutations (tumor mutational burden), thus potential response to PD1/PD-L1 inhibition is considered to be high. Pembrolizumab is now FDA-approved in MSI-high colorectal cancer.[59],[60] The responses may, therefore, demonstrate that MEK inhibition might sensitize an otherwise immune-resistant cancer.[58]

A recently published Phase 2 trial evaluated the combined therapy with vemurafenib and IL-2 (aldesleukin) in patients with metastatic melanoma. The combination was associated with an impressive overall response rate of 83.3% and manageable toxicities.[61] However, the IL-2 induced an increase in regulatory T-cells that may override potential synergy. Other clinical studies are ongoing in order to help us to clarify the toxicity profile, maximum tolerated doses (MTDs), and the efficacy of these combinations [Table 1].[62],[63],[64],[65]
Table 1: Immunotherapy and targeted drug combinations in early.phase trials

Click here to view


The PI3K/AKT pathway

The PI3K/AKT pathway plays an important role in cell growth, proliferation, survival, and migration [Figure 1]. When activated, PI3K phosphorylates phosphoinositides (PIP3). PIP3 recruits to a range of signaling proteins including AKT; this activates a cascade involved in cell growth and survival. PI3K cascade activation is inhibited by the action of the PTEN, of which loss of function is commonly observed in cancers.[78],[79] Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) negatively regulates the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR).[80],[81]

PD-L1 upregulation with mTOR, PI3K, and AKT

PIK3CA mutations or PTEN loss in breast cancer, prostate cancers, and gliomas are associated with hyperactivity of the PI3K/AKT pathway and demonstrate an increased PD-L1 expression in cell line models.[82],[83],[84] In a cell line study, immunoblotting of EGFR and KRAS mutant lung cancer cell lines showed increased activation of AKT/mTOR signaling and expression of PD-L1 compared to the wild-type models. Furthermore, inhibition of PI3K, AKT, or mTOR decreased PD-L1 expressionin vitroandin vivoin mice with lung adenocarcinoma, when using the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin or AICAR, an activator of AMPK, which inhibits mTOR independently of PI3K or AKT.[85] Chen et al. have shown upregulation of PD-L1 in KRAS mutant cell lines via ERK rather than AKT.[86] Others have demonstrated an increase in PD-L1 in the context of KRAS mutant cancer on prolonged exposure to MEK and AKT although the PD-L1 changes were inconsistent.[87]

PI3K and immune-cell function

PI3K function is felt to be important in lymphocyte function where different catalytic isoforms of PI3K such as p110α and p110 δ exert different influences over the lymphocytes.In vitro inhibition of p110α has a minimal impact on lymphocyte proliferation and survival.[88] In mice models, p110α did not interfere with T-cell-dependent antibody secretion. However, the pan-class PI3K inhibitor and the selective p110 δ inhibitor strongly impaired B-cell division and survivalin vitroand germinal center responses in mice.[88]

The PI3K signaling pathway is also involved in macrophage functioning. Macrophage PI3K signaling inhibits NF-kβ activation and promotes suppression of the immune system and tumor cell proliferation in mice.[89] Conversely, blocking the subunit PI3Kγ activates NF-kβ and reestablishes CD8+ T-cell cytotoxicity.[89],[90],[91],[92]

The mTOR inhibitor rapamycin is associated with inflammatory adverse events such as pneumonitis and glomerulonephritis.[93],[94],[95],[96] Weichhart et al. have shown that inhibition of mTOR was associated with pro-inflammatory cytokines secretion via the transcription factor NF-kβ and impairment of the release of the anti-inflammatory cytokine IL-10. Deletion of TSC2, which negatively regulates mTOR, reversed pro-inflammatory cytokine release.[97]

Using the BRAF-mutant melanoma cell line A375, Peng et al. inhibited PTEN expression and evaluated antitumor response to immunotherapy.[98] Inhibition of PTEN resulted in decreased infiltration of CD8+ T-cells in melanoma cells regardless of their BRAF status; moreover, when melanoma cells were cultured with the tumor-reactive PMEL-1 T-cells in vitro, tumor cell lysis was reduced. In an ACT mouse model, PTEN loss was correlated with reduced antitumor responses, suggesting that PTEN loss can cause resistance to T-cell-mediated immune response. In the same experiment, using a selective PI3Kb inhibitor, the tumoral growth of PTEN-loss melanoma cells was significantly reduced; therefore, inhibition of PI3Kb could sensitize PTEN-loss melanoma cells to immunotherapy.[98]

HER-2, a receptor tyrosine kinase involved in cell proliferation and survival via MAPK and PI3K/AKT pathways, is expressed in 20% to 30% of breast cancers. Trastuzumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against the HER-2 extracellular domain, is widely used in breast cancer treatment.[99],[100],[101] In two different PTEN-loss-mediated trastuzumab-resistant mammary tumor mouse models, the combination of HER-2/Neu antibody with triciribine, an AKT inhibitor, impaired tumor growth and increased T-cell infiltration in the tumor microenvironment, by inducing Th1 polarization and Neu-specific CD8+ T-cell response.[102]

The WNT/β-catenin pathway

The canonical WNT pathway mediates cell proliferation and growth through β-catenin. β-catenin activates cyclin D1 and MYC through transcriptional mechanisms, which controls the transition of G1 to S phase in the cell cycle. Misregulation of these processes, in the case of Wnt hyperactivation, leads to carcinogenesis.[103] Increased levels of β-catenin have been correlated with poor prognosis in breast cancer and many other tumors present high levels of Wnt proteins.[104],[105],[106] β-catenin and APC gene are involved in the development of colorectal cancer, and APC involvement in familial adenomatous polyposis is well known.[107] Wnt inhibitors are in early drug development (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03264664).[108]

Wnt/β-catenin pathway and immune activation – clinical correlation

In tumors with known Wnt pathway activation, such as colorectal and ovarian cancer, analysis of tumor microenvironment revealed a lack of T-cell infiltration and poor response to immune checkpoint blockade.[109],[110] In a transcriptome analysis of 703 primary cutaneous melanoma samples, β-catenin immune evasion was identified in 42% of samples.[111] In an analysis of baseline melanoma samples, tumoral β-catenin expression was inversely correlated with FoxP3 and CD8 positivity).[112]

Wnt/β-catenin pathway in dendritic cells

Malignant tumors activate the Wnt/β-catenin pathway in DCs to induce immune tolerance through suppression of T-cell effector response and promotion of T-regs.[113] Decreased expression of β-catenin in DCs upregulates DCs in the tumoral microenvironment, leading to an enhanced immune response in mouse models.[114],[115] Retinoid acid (RA) plays a key role in DC regulation and immune tolerance.[116] Studies show that RA induces FoxP3 in CD4+ T-cells in vitro, in the presence of TGF-β.[117] Moreover, RA can suppress Th-1 and Th-17 by suppressing interferon-gamma and IL-17. β-catenin overexpression induces RA and IL-10 production via DCs, thus promoting immune suppression.[118] One of the possible mechanisms of the T-regs responses through β-catenin pathways is the binding of the β-catenin to the promoter of Aldh1 (aldehyde dehydrogenase) to drive RA synthesis. When expressed in intestinal DCs, β-catenin was correlated with IL-10 secretion and TGF-β and T-reg cell stimulation.[116]

In a genetically engineered mouse model of β-catenin-positive melanoma, T-cell infiltration was minimal and resistance to immune checkpoint blockade was noted. This was in part due to reduced CCL4, a chemokine responsible for BAT3 DC recruitment into the tumor microenvironment.[119],[120],[121] The absence of BAT3 DCs in the case of β-catenin-positive tumors can cause T-cell dysfunction by poor homing and trafficking to T-cell into the tumor microenvironment. Spranger et al. showed that intratumoral upregulated Wnt/β-catenin signaling is associated with poor immune infiltration and ineffective cytotoxic T-cells, due to a decrease in the recruitment and frequency of CD103+DCs.[122] Wnt/β-catenin signaling was correlated with increased ATF3 levels and decreased production of CCL4.[123]

MYC

MYC activation through MYC amplification is one of the most highly amplified oncogenes and is regularly present in aggressive cancers, such as breast, lymphoma, or ovarian cancer.[124] MYC inactivation in mice models resulted in decreased mRNA and protein expression of PD-L1 and CD47 and is associated with tumour shrinkage in these models.[125],[126]

The JAK-STAT pathway

The Janus family of cytoplasmic tyrosine kinase (JAK) and its associated transcription factors STAT3 and STAT5 regulate T-regs through enhancement of FoxP3 expression. In T-reg cells, activated STAT3 and FoxP3 regulate IL5 and TGFB1 genes and result in suppression of Th17 cell-mediated inflammation.[127] In a prostate cancer mice model, depletion of STAT3 signaling resulted in the elimination of macrophage accumulation and restoration of T-cells within the tumor microenvironment.[128] In gliomas, reduction of STAT1 was associated with reduced CXCL10 expression, an important cytokine for T-cell recruitment into the TME.[129] Inhibition of cytokine-dependent JAK-STAT3 pathway activation may potentially overcome the suppression of antitumor immunity.[130]


  Drug Development of Targeted Drugs and Immunotherapy Combinations Top


There are currently many ongoing Phase 1 or 2 trials of combination immunotherapy with targeted agents [Table 1]. The challenges of early-phase clinical trial design with immune checkpoint blockade have been previously described, emphasizing the focus on safety, selection of the trial population, and MTD definition. Parallel expansion cohorts have been established as part of Phase 1/2 design and have led to successful early licensing and drug approval.[131]

The traditional paradigm of escalating dose to MTD, based on the assumption that greater efficacy is linked to a higher dose, should be reviewed in the context of immunotherapy trials, given that most immunotherapy trials failed to identify an MTD. Phase 2 dose decision should be taken based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data. This challenge is exemplified by the number of dosing and scheduling investigated for immune checkpoint-targeted antibodies.[132],[133],[134] In designing a trial combining immunotherapy with a targeted drug, it is often felt logical to use the licensed or recommended Phase 2 dose of the immunotherapy and to dose escalate the targeted drug from a dose level below that of the recommended Phase 2 dose. This is supported by an analysis of 22 combination trials indicating that both targeted drug and immunotherapy drug can be given at full dose in 59% of studies with a dose reduction generally of the targeted drug.[135] The standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design is most frequently used. An alternative could be a model-based design, aiming to reduce the number of patients exposed to subtherapeutic doses and speed up dose escalation. This is of particular relevance in immunotherapy and targeted agent combinations where this model-design approach might treat a higher number of patients at a near-optimal dose and provides a broader characterization of the dose-toxicity profile.[136]

Many early trials of immunotherapy combined with targeted agents showed an unacceptable toxicity profile.[57],[137],[138] Such toxicity can be difficult to predict given the mechanistic differences in the pharmacodynamic effects of immunotherapy and targeted drugs. Pharmacokinetic measures and drug interaction play a key role in establishing dose and schedule. Drug interactions are seldom studied formally in immunotherapy and targeted agent combination trials, and unfortunately, current models are poor predictors. It is known that immunotherapy influences cytokine levels, which affect selected cytochrome P450 enzymes.[139]

Pharmacodynamic assessment is of particular importance in the context of immunotherapy and targeted drug combination trials given the complexity of effects from a targeted drug. Pharmacodynamic measurement of targeted agents is relatively established, with key downstream targets measured in tumor or circulating cells. Circulating biomarkers have an advantage in terms of ease of sample collection and include circulating tumor cells (CTCs) or peripheral blood mononuclear cells for target modulation. Circulating markers for immune activation include RNA profiling for cytokine profile, flow cytometry for T-cell subsets or CTCs for PD-L1 expression. Direct visualization of tumor inflammatory infiltrates is preferable given that the peripheral immune cell activation may not fully correlate with intratumoral immune effect, though serial invasive biopsies are challenging and not always feasible.[140],[141]

Regardless of the trial design and population selected, a clear biological rationale is needed, based on preclinical and pharmacodynamic data. If an effective immunotherapy and targeted drug combination are established in the context where both the first and the second are licensed individually, the timing and sequencing of the combination will become important. An important question that arises is the sequence of treatment when using two classes of drugs. Is it preferable to treat with immunotherapy and targeted drug upfront or blocking the immune checkpoint first then followed by targeted drug or vice versa? This relies on the answer to fundamental questions of the nature of immune exhaustion and the ability to overcome it. Though this scenario is not yet with us, a forward-thinking approach to consider future treatment paradigms is beneficial to successful drug development.

There is a critical need for validated biomarkers that predict response (and resistance) to immunotherapy in the cancer population.[142],[143] Much effort has been put to integrate the immunohistochemistry expression of PD-L1 with the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Although some studies reported positive correlations between the PD-L1 expression with the anticancer response, PD-L1 remains an imperfect biomarker.[144] Tumoral mutational burden (TMB) is a quantified measure of the number of acquired mutations carried by tumor cells derived from genomic sequencing data.[145],[146] Tumor cells with high TMB present a larger range of neoantigens that are recognized by T-cells, encouraging a stronger antitumoral reaction. TMB seems to correlate with response to immunotherapy in some settings.[147],[148] Scoring systems to quantify the number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TILS) within a tumoral microenvironment have been developed. The “immunoscore” quantifies CD3+/CD8+, CD3+/CD45RO+, or CD8+/CD45RO+ T-cells and can predict outcomes in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer.[149] The presence of TILS in the tumoral microenvironment has been correlated with improved survival in melanoma or ovarian cancer.[150],[151] The presence of cytotoxic CD8 T-cells correlated with response to pembrolizumab in melanoma patients.[152] Recent research focuses on the extent of the T-regs in the TME and its immune suppressive role, as is well known that T-reg expansion supports tumoral immune escape.[153] What is clear is that though these proposed biomarkers are of use in some clinical settings they are not absolute indicators of immunotherapy response. They are also limited by requiring invasive biopsies, and the role of circulating biomarkers is an important area of future research.[154]


  Conclusion and Future Directions Top


The development of cancer immunotherapy has been the largest breakthrough in cancer treatment of the last decade. Understanding the resistance mechanisms to immunotherapy should be a priority.

It has been appreciated for some time that immune markers (classically PD-L1) demonstrate a correlation with mutations in key node in signaling pathways. Detailed preclinical and translation work has unearthed the vast complexity of the interaction of signaling pathways with the immune system. Building on this, combination therapies of targeted agents and checkpoint inhibitors showed promising results. Of particular note is the role of BRAF and MEK inhibitors. Further emerging data should help to clarify, in particular, the nuances of MAPK pathway modulation in immune cells versus cancer cells and the overall impact on tumor and immune response. Given the PI3K pathway plays a pivotal role in both cancer and myeloid and lymphoid subsets, it can be expected that further drug development in this area will yield therapeutic effects; emerging data are eagerly anticipated. The Wnt-β-catenin pathway has a key role in DC function. Pharmacological modulators of this pathway are less developed and once successful pathway modulation is shown combination trials with immunotherapy will need to be developed.

In clinical practice, targeted agent and immunotherapy drug combinations may have high toxicity profiles, and a clear early drug development plan specific for these combinations is required.

Other immunological agents have shown activity against malignant tumors. Antigen-specific vaccines or DC vaccines are developed individually ex vivo and aim to elicit cellular immunity when re-introduced into the patient's blood stream.[155],[156],[157] This approach is currently under development and alongside ACT therapy could illustrate the future of cancer treatment. We have yet to see how these combine with targeted agents.

We are still in the very early stages of understanding the ideal combination of treatment for each patient and the most effective sequence of therapies [Figure 2]. The benefits of immunotherapy and targeted drug combinations have yet to realize their full potential.
Figure 2: Drug development of combination trials of immunotherapy agents and targeted agents. PK: Pharmacokinetics, RP2D: Recommended Phase 2 trial, DLT: Dose-limiting toxicities.

Click here to view


Financial support and sponsorship

The authors disclosed no funding related to this article.

Conflicts of interest

The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest related to this article.



 
  References Top

1.
Stephen B, Hajjar J. Overview of basic immunology and translational relevance for clinical investigators. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018;995:1-41.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Sharma P, Hu-Lieskovan S, Wargo JA, et al. Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Cell 2017;168:707-23.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Huse M. The T-cell-receptor signaling network. J Cell Sci 2009;122:1269-73.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Jiang Y, Li Y, Zhu B. T-cell exhaustion in the tumor microenvironment. Cell Death Dis 2015;6:e1792.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Josefowicz SZ, Lu LF, Rudensky AY. Regulatory T cells: Mechanisms of differentiation and function. Annu Rev Immunol 2012;30:531-64.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell 2011;144:646-74.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Teng MW, Swann JB, Koebel CM, et al. Immune-mediated dormancy: An equilibrium with cancer. J Leukoc Biol 2008;84:988-93.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kim R, Emi M, Tanabe K. Cancer immunoediting from immune surveillance to immune escape. Immunology 2007;121:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Amsen D, van Gisbergen KP, Hombrink P, et al. Tissue-resident memory T cells at the center of immunity to solid tumors. Nat Immunol 2018;19:538-46.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Beatty GL, Gladney WL. Immune escape mechanisms as a guide for cancer immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:687-92.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Postow MA, Callahan MK, Wolchok JD. Immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1974-82.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Hodi FS, O'Day SJ, McDermott DF, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010;363:711-23.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
U.S. FDA approved immune-checkpoint inhibitors for cancer. MediPaper website. Available from: https://medi-paper.com/us-fda-approved-immune-checkpoint-inhibitors-approved-immunotherapies/. [Last updated Mar 9, 2019 and Accessed accessed Mar 18, 2019]  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Naing A. Being realistic and optimistic in curing cancer. J Immunother Precis Oncol 2018;1:53-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Emens LA, Ascierto PA, Darcy PK, et al. Cancer immunotherapy: Opportunities and challenges in the rapidly evolving clinical landscape. Eur J Cancer 2017;81:116-29.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Motzer RJ, Tannir NM, McDermott DF, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus sunitinib in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1277-90.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
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.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Hellmann MD, Ciuleanu TE, Pluzanski A, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden. N Engl J Med 2018;378:2093-104.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: A single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2016;387:1909-20.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Gettinger S, Horn L, Jackman D, et al. Five-year follow-up of nivolumab in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from the CA209-003 study. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1675-84.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Gyawali B, Hey SP, Kesselheim AS. A comparison of response patterns for progression-free survival and overall survival following treatment for cancer with PD-1 inhibitors: A meta-analysis of correlation and differences in effect sizes. JAMA Netw Open 2018;1:e180416.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Gubin MM, Zhang X, Schuster H, et al. Checkpoint blockade cancer immunotherapy targets tumour-specific mutant antigens. Nature 2014;515:577-81.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Kelderman S, Schumacher TN, Haanen JB. Acquired and intrinsic resistance in cancer immunotherapy. Mol Oncol 2014;8:1132-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Sucker A, Zhao F, Real B, et al. Genetic evolution of T-cell resistance in the course of melanoma progression. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:6593-604.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Curiel TJ, Coukos G, Zou L, et al. Specific recruitment of regulatory T cells in ovarian carcinoma fosters immune privilege and predicts reduced survival. Nat Med 2004;10:942-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Campbell DJ, Koch MA. Phenotypical and functional specialization of FOXP3+regulatory T cells. Nat Rev Immunol 2011;11:119-30.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Leffers N, Gooden MJ, de Jong RA, et al. Prognostic significance of tumor-infiltrating T-lymphocytes in primary and metastatic lesions of advanced stage ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2009;58:449-59.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Franklin RA, Liao W, Sarkar A, et al. The cellular and molecular origin of tumor-associated macrophages. Science 2014;344:921-5.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Jenkins RW, Barbie DA, Flaherty KT. Mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Br J Cancer 2018;118:9-16.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Peng D, Kryczek I, Nagarsheth N, et al. Epigenetic silencing of TH1-type chemokines shapes tumour immunity and immunotherapy. Nature 2015;527:249-53.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Burotto M, Chiou VL, Lee JM, et al. The MAPK pathway across different malignancies: A new perspective. Cancer 2014;120:3446-56.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002;417:949-54.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Barras D. BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer: An update. Biomark Cancer 2015;7:9-12.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2507-16.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
McArthur GA, Chapman PB, Robert C, et al. Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAF (V600E) and BRAF (V600K) mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): Extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:323-32.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al. Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1694-703.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Larkin J, Ascierto PA, Dréno B, et al. Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1867-76.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Lim SY, Menzies AM, Rizos H. Mechanisms and strategies to overcome resistance to molecularly targeted therapy for melanoma. Cancer 2017;123:2118-29.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Khalili JS, Liu S, Rodríguez-Cruz TG, et al. Oncogenic BRAF (V600E) promotes stromal cell-mediated immunosuppression via induction of interleukin-1 in melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2012;18:5329-40.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Jiang X, Zhou J, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. The activation of MAPK in melanoma cells resistant to BRAF inhibition promotes PD-L1 expression that is reversible by MEK and PI3K inhibition. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:598-609.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
D'Incecco A, Andreozzi M, Ludovini V, et al. PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in molecularly selected non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2015;112:95-102.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Ansen S, Schultheis AM, Hellmich M, et al. PD-L1 expression and genotype in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J Clin Oncol 2014;32 15 Suppl: 7517.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Li D, Zhu X, Wang H, et al. Association between PD-L1 expression and driven gene status in NSCLC: A meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2017;43:1372-9.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Massi D, Brusa D, Merelli B, et al. The status of PD-L1 and tumor-infiltrating immune cells predict resistance and poor prognosis in BRAFi-treated melanoma patients harboring mutant BRAFV600. Ann Oncol 2015;26:1980-7.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Schaper-Gerhardt K, Okoye S, Herbst R, et al. PD-L1 status does not predict the outcome of BRAF inhibitor therapy in metastatic melanoma. Eur J Cancer 2018;88:67-76.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Koya RC, Mok S, Otte N, et al. BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib improves the antitumor activity of adoptive cell immunotherapy. Cancer Res 2012;72:3928-37.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Shindo T, Kim TK, Benjamin CL, et al. MEK inhibitors selectively suppress alloreactivity and graft-versus-host disease in a memory stage-dependent manner. Blood 2013;121:4617-26.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Boni A, Cogdill AP, Dang P, et al. Selective BRAFV600E inhibition enhances T-cell recognition of melanoma without affecting lymphocyte function. Cancer Res 2010;70:5213-9.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Vella LJ, Pasam A, Dimopoulos N, et al. MEK inhibition, alone or in combination with BRAF inhibition, affects multiple functions of isolated normal human lymphocytes and dendritic cells. Cancer Immunol Res 2014;2:351-60.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Vella LJ, Andrews MC, Pasam A, et al. The kinase inhibitors dabrafenib and trametinib affect isolated immune cell populations. Oncoimmunology 2014;3:e946367.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Frederick DT, Piris A, Cogdill AP, et al. BRAF inhibition is associated with enhanced melanoma antigen expression and a more favorable tumor microenvironment in patients with metastatic melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:1225-31.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Kakavand H, Wilmott JS, Menzies AM, et al. PD-L1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes define different subsets of MAPK inhibitor-treated melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:3140-8.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Hu-Lieskovan S, Mok S, Homet Moreno B, et al. Improved antitumor activity of immunotherapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors in BRAF (V600E) melanoma. Sci Transl Med 2015;7:279ra41.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Cooper ZA, Juneja VR, Sage PT, et al. Response to BRAF inhibition in melanoma is enhanced when combined with immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Immunol Res 2014;2:643-54.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Ribas A, Hodi FS, Callahan M, et al. Hepatotoxicity with combination of vemurafenib and ipilimumab. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1365-6.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Long GV, Hamid O, Hodi FS, et al. Phase 2 study of the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab (pembro) in combination with dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) for advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-022). Available from: http://www.ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.TPS9596. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Ribas A, Hodi FS, Lawrence D, et al. KEYNOTE-022 update: Phase 1 study of first-line pembrolizumab (pembro) plus dabrafenib (D) and trametinib (T) for BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma. Ann Oncol 2017;28 Suppl 5:v428-48.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Bendell J, TaeWon K, Ean CC, et al. Safety and efficacy of cobimetinib (cobi) and atezolizumab (atezo) in a Phase 1b study of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). NCT01988896. ESMO; 2018. p. 2475561. Available from: http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.4_suppl.560. [Last accessed 2018 Aug 28].  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2509-20.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 2017;357:409-13.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Mooradian MJ, Reuben A, Prieto PA, et al. A phase II study of combined therapy with a BRAF inhibitor (vemurafenib) and interleukin-2 (aldesleukin) in patients with metastatic melanoma. Oncoimmunology 2018;7:e1423172.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
US National Library of Medicine. A Phase 1b Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Vemurafenib or Vemurafenib Plus Cobimetinib in Participants With BRAFV600-Mutation Positive Metastatic Melanoma. NCT01656642. Available from: http://www. Clinicaltrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
US National Library of Medicine. Phase 1 Safety and Tolerability of MEDI4736 in Combination with Dabrafenib and Trametinib or with Trametinib Alone. NCT02027961. Available from: http://www. Clinicaltrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
US National Library of Medicine. Study Comparing Pembrolizumab With Dual MAPK Pathway Inhibition Plus Pembrolizumab in Melanoma Patients (IMPemBra). NCT02625337. Available from: http://www. Clinicaltrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
US National Library of Medicine. Abbreviated MAPK Targeted Therapy Plus Pembrolizumab in Melanoma. NCT03149029. Available from: http://www. Clinicaltrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
US National Library of Medicine. Atezolizumab Combinations With Chemotherapy for Anaplastic and Poorly Differentiated Thyroid Carcinomas. NCT03181100. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
US National Library of Medicine. Induction Therapy with Vemurafenib and Cobimetinib to Optimize Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Therapy (COWBOY). NCT02968303. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
US National Library of Medicine. Sequential Combo Immuno and Target Therapy (SECOMBIT) Study (SECOMBIT). NCT02631447. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
US National Library of Medicine. Combined BRAF-Targeted Therapy and Immunotherapy for Melanoma. NCT01754376. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Oct 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
US National Library of Medicine. Combination Immunotherapy with Herceptin and the HER2 Vaccine NeuVax. NCT01570036. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
US National Library of Medicine. A Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in Combination with Trametinib and Dabrafenib in Participants with Advanced Melanoma (MK-3475-022/KEYNOTE-022). NCT02130466. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
US National Library of Medicine. Pembrolizumab+Idelalisib for Lung Cancer Study (PIL). NCT03257722. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
US National Library of Medicine. Pre-operative Immunotherapy Combination Strategies in Breast Cancer (ECLIPSE). NCT03395899. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
US National Library of Medicine. A Study of Multiple Immunotherapy-Based Treatment Combinations in Hormone Receptor (HR)-Positive Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)-Negative Breast Cancer (MORPHEUS) NCT03280563. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
US National Library of Medicine. Safety and Efficacy Study of Tenalisib (RP6530) in Combination with Pembrolizumab in Relapsed or Refractory cHL (NCT03471351). Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
US National Library of Medicine. A Trial of Ipatasertib in Combination with Atezolizumab (IceCAP). NCT03673787. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
US National Library of Medicine. A Dose-Escalation Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of IPI-549. NCT02637531. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Cantley LC. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathway. Science 2002;296:1655-7.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Lee YR, Chen M, Pandolfi PP. The functions and regulation of the PTEN tumour suppressor: New modes and prospects. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2018;19:547-62.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Wullschleger S, Loewith R, Hall MN. TOR signaling in growth and metabolism. Cell 2006;124:471-84.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Paul E, Thiele E. Efficacy of sirolimus in treating tuberous sclerosis and lymphangioleiomyomatosis. N Engl J Med 2008;358:190-2.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Parsa AT, Waldron JS, Panner A, et al. Loss of tumor suppressor PTEN function increases B7-H1 expression and immunoresistance in glioma. Nat Med 2007;13:84-8.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Crane CA, Panner A, Murray JC, et al. PI(3) kinase is associated with a mechanism of immunoresistance in breast and prostate cancer. Oncogene 2009;28:306-12.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Martin KA, Blenis J. Coordinate regulation of translation by the PI 3-kinase and mTOR pathways. Adv Cancer Res 2002;86:1-39.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Lastwika KJ, Wilson W 3rd, Li QK, et al. Control of PD-L1 expression by oncogenic activation of the AKT-mTOR pathway in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res 2016;76:227-38.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Chen N, Fang W, Lin Z, et al. KRAS mutation-induced upregulation of PD-L1 mediates immune escape in human lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2017;66:1175-87.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Minchom A, Thavasu P, Ahmad Z, et al. A study of PD-L1 expression in KRAS mutant non-small cell lung cancer cell lines exposed to relevant targeted treatments. PLoS One 2017;12:e0186106.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
So L, Yea SS, Oak JS, et al. Selective inhibition of phosphoinositide 3-kinase p110α preserves lymphocyte function. J Biol Chem 2013;288:5718-31.  Back to cited text no. 88
    
89.
Kaneda MM, Messer KS, Ralainirina N, et al. PI3Kγ is a molecular switch that controls immune suppression. Nature 2016;539:437-42.  Back to cited text no. 89
    
90.
Arranz A, Doxaki C, Vergadi E, et al. Akt1 and akt2 protein kinases differentially contribute to macrophage polarization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012;109:9517-22.  Back to cited text no. 90
    
91.
De Henau O, Rausch M, Winkler D, et al. Overcoming resistance to checkpoint blockade therapy by targeting PI3Kγ in myeloid cells. Nature 2016;539:443-7.  Back to cited text no. 91
    
92.
Yin Y, Shen WH. PTEN: A new guardian of the genome. Oncogene 2008;27:5443-53.  Back to cited text no. 92
    
93.
Miura M, Yanai M, Fukasawa Y, et al. De novo proteinuria with pathological evidence of glomerulonephritis after everolimus induction. Nephrology (Carlton) 2014;19 Suppl 3:57-9.  Back to cited text no. 93
    
94.
Siddiqui AS, Zimmerman JL. Everolimus associated interstitial pneumonitis in a liver transplant patient. Respir Med Case Rep 2016;19:15-7.  Back to cited text no. 94
    
95.
Lopez P, Kohler S, Dimri S. Interstitial lung disease associated with mTOR inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients: Results from a large phase III clinical trial program of everolimus and review of the literature. J Transplant 2014;2014:305931.  Back to cited text no. 95
    
96.
Zhang X, Ran YG, Wang KJ. Risk of mTOR inhibitors induced severe pneumonitis in cancer patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Future Oncol 2016;12:1529-39.  Back to cited text no. 96
    
97.
Weichhart T, Costantino G, Poglitsch M, et al. The TSC-mTOR signaling pathway regulates the innate inflammatory response. Immunity 2008;29:565-77.  Back to cited text no. 97
    
98.
Peng W, Chen JQ, Liu C, et al. Loss of PTEN promotes resistance to T cell-mediated immunotherapy. Cancer Discov 2016;6:202-16.  Back to cited text no. 98
    
99.
Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1673-84.  Back to cited text no. 99
    
100.
Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1659-72.  Back to cited text no. 100
    
101.
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet 2014;384:164-72.  Back to cited text no. 101
    
102.
Wang Q, Li SH, Wang H, et al. Concomitant targeting of tumor cells and induction of T-cell response synergizes to effectively inhibit trastuzumab-resistant breast cancer. Cancer Res 2012;72:4417-28.  Back to cited text no. 102
    
103.
Sheikh A, Niazi AK, Ahmed MZ, et al. The role of wnt signaling pathway in carcinogenesis and implications for anticancer therapeutics. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2014;12:13.  Back to cited text no. 103
    
104.
Pohl SG, Brook N, Agostino M, et al. Wnt signaling in triple-negative breast cancer. Oncogenesis 2017;6:e310.  Back to cited text no. 104
    
105.
Yu QC, Verheyen EM, Zeng YA. Mammary development and breast cancer: A Wnt perspective. Cancers (Basel) 2016;8. pii: E65.  Back to cited text no. 105
    
106.
Xu Q, Krause M, Samoylenko A, et al. Wnt signaling in renal cell carcinoma. Cancers (Basel) 2016;8. pii: E57.  Back to cited text no. 106
    
107.
Gumbiner BM. Carcinogenesis: A balance between beta-catenin and APC. Curr Biol 1997;7:R443-6.  Back to cited text no. 107
    
108.
US National Library of Medicine. Study of E7386 in Subjects with Selected Advanced Neoplasms. NCT03264664. Available from: http://www. ClinicalTrials.gov. [Accessed Aug 28, 2018].  Back to cited text no. 108
    
109.
Mlecnik B, Bindea G, Angell HK, et al. Integrative analyses of colorectal cancer show immunoscore is a stronger predictor of patient survival than microsatellite instability. Immunity 2016;44:698-711.  Back to cited text no. 109
    
110.
Jiménez-Sánchez A, Memon D, Pourpe S, et al. Heterogeneous tumor-immune microenvironments among differentially growing metastases in an ovarian cancer patient. Cell 2017;170:927-38.e20.  Back to cited text no. 110
    
111.
Nsengimana J, Laye J, Filia A, et al. B-catenin-mediated immune evasion pathway frequently operates in primary cutaneous melanomas. J Clin Invest 2018;128:2048-63.  Back to cited text no. 111
    
112.
Massi D, Romano E, Rulli E, et al. Baseline β-catenin, programmed death-ligand 1 expression and tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes predict response and poor prognosis in BRAF inhibitor-treated melanoma patients. Eur J Cancer 2017;78:70-81.  Back to cited text no. 112
    
113.
Suryawanshi A, Manicassamy S. Tumors induce immune tolerance through activation of β-catenin/TCF4 signaling in dendritic cells: A novel therapeutic target for cancer immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology 2015;4:e1052932.  Back to cited text no. 113
    
114.
Hong Y, Manoharan I, Suryawanshi A, et al. B-catenin promotes regulatory T-cell responses in tumors by inducing Vitamin A metabolism in dendritic cells. Cancer Res 2015;75:656-65.  Back to cited text no. 114
    
115.
Swafford D, Manicassamy S. Wnt signaling in dendritic cells: Its role in regulation of immunity and tolerance. Discov Med 2015;19:303-10.  Back to cited text no. 115
    
116.
Manicassamy S, Pulendran B. Retinoic acid-dependent regulation of immune responses by dendritic cells and macrophages. Semin Immunol 2009;21:22-7.  Back to cited text no. 116
    
117.
Coombes JL, Siddiqui KR, Arancibia-Cárcamo CV, et al. A functionally specialized population of mucosal CD103+ DCs induces foxp3+ regulatory T cells via a TGF-beta and retinoic acid-dependent mechanism. J Exp Med 2007;204:1757-64.  Back to cited text no. 117
    
118.
Wang B, Tian T, Kalland KH, et al. Targeting Wnt/β-catenin signaling for cancer immunotherapy. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2018;39:648-58.  Back to cited text no. 118
    
119.
Holtzhausen A, Zhao F, Evans KS, et al. Melanoma-derived wnt5a promotes local dendritic-cell expression of IDO and immunotolerance: Opportunities for pharmacologic enhancement of immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res 2015;3:1082-95.  Back to cited text no. 119
    
120.
Fu C, Liang X, Cui W, et al. B-catenin in dendritic cells exerts opposite functions in cross-priming and maintenance of CD8+ T cells through regulation of IL-10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:2823-8.  Back to cited text no. 120
    
121.
Liang X, Fu C, Cui W, et al. B-catenin mediates tumor-induced immunosuppression by inhibiting cross-priming of CD8 + T cells. J Leukoc Biol 2014;95:179-90.  Back to cited text no. 121
    
122.
Spranger S, Bao R, Gajewski TF. Melanoma-intrinsic β-catenin signalling prevents anti-tumour immunity. Nature 2015;523:231-5.  Back to cited text no. 122
    
123.
Binnewies M, Roberts EW, Kersten K, et al. Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy. Nat Med 2018;24:541-50.  Back to cited text no. 123
    
124.
Kalkat M, De Melo J, Hickman KA, et al. MYC deregulation in primary human cancers. Genes (Basel) 2017;8. pii: E151.  Back to cited text no. 124
    
125.
Casey SC, Tong L, Li Y, et al. MYC regulates the antitumor immune response through CD47 and PD-L1. Science 2016;352:227-31.  Back to cited text no. 125
    
126.
Jaiswal S, Jamieson CH, Pang WW, et al. CD47 is upregulated on circulating hematopoietic stem cells and leukemia cells to avoid phagocytosis. Cell 2009;138:271-85.  Back to cited text no. 126
    
127.
Chaudhry A, Rudra D, Treuting P, et al. CD4+ regulatory T cells control TH17 responses in a stat3-dependent manner. Science 2009;326:986-91.  Back to cited text no. 127
    
128.
Toso A, Revandkar A, Di Mitri D, et al. Enhancing chemotherapy efficacy in pten-deficient prostate tumors by activating the senescence-associated antitumor immunity. Cell Rep 2014;9:75-89.  Back to cited text no. 128
    
129.
Kohanbash G, Carrera DA, Shrivastav S, et al. Isocitrate dehydrogenase mutations suppress STAT1 and CD8+ T cell accumulation in gliomas. J Clin Invest 2017;127:1425-37.  Back to cited text no. 129
    
130.
Buchert M, Burns CJ, Ernst M. Targeting JAK kinase in solid tumors: Emerging opportunities and challenges. Oncogene 2016;35:939-51.  Back to cited text no. 130
    
131.
Postel-Vinay S, Aspeslagh S, Lanoy E, et al. Challenges of phase 1 clinical trials evaluating immune checkpoint-targeted antibodies. Ann Oncol 2016;27:214-24.  Back to cited text no. 131
    
132.
Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2443-54.  Back to cited text no. 132
    
133.
Brahmer JR, Drake CG, Wollner I, et al. Phase I study of single-agent anti-programmed death-1 (MDX-1106) in refractory solid tumors: Safety, clinical activity, pharmacodynamics, and immunologic correlates. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3167-75.  Back to cited text no. 133
    
134.
Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2013;369:134-44.  Back to cited text no. 134
    
135.
Nikanjam M, Patel H, Kurzrock R. Dosing immunotherapy combinations: Analysis of 3,526 patients for toxicity and response patterns. Oncoimmunology 2017;6:e1338997.  Back to cited text no. 135
    
136.
Harrington JA, Wheeler GM, Sweeting MJ, et al. Adaptive designs for dual-agent phase I dose-escalation studies. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2013;10:277-88.  Back to cited text no. 136
    
137.
Yamazaki N, Uhara H, Fukushima S, et al. Phase II study of the immune-checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab plus dacarbazine in Japanese patients with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2015;76:969-75.  Back to cited text no. 137
    
138.
Arriola E, Wheater M, Galea I, et al. Outcome and biomarker analysis from a multicenter phase 2 study of ipilimumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide as first-line therapy for extensive-stage SCLC. J Thorac Oncol 2016;11:1511-21.  Back to cited text no. 138
    
139.
Huang SM, Zhao H, Lee JI, et al. Therapeutic protein-drug interactions and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;87:497-503.  Back to cited text no. 139
    
140.
Gentles AJ, Newman AM, Liu CL, et al. The prognostic landscape of genes and infiltrating immune cells across human cancers. Nat Med 2015;21:938-45.  Back to cited text no. 140
    
141.
Mehnert JM, Monjazeb AM, Beerthuijzen JM, et al. The challenge for development of valuable immuno-oncology biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:4970-9.  Back to cited text no. 141
    
142.
Fujii T, Naing A, Rolfo C, et al. Biomarkers of response to immune checkpoint blockade in cancer treatment. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2018;130:108-20.  Back to cited text no. 142
    
143.
Angell H, Galon J. From the immune contexture to the immunoscore: The role of prognostic and predictive immune markers in cancer. Curr Opin Immunol 2013;25:261-7.  Back to cited text no. 143
    
144.
Topalian SL, Taube JM, Anders RA, et al. Mechanism-driven biomarkers to guide immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2016;16:275-87.  Back to cited text no. 144
    
145.
Steuer CE, Ramalingam SS. Tumor mutation burden: Leading immunotherapy to the era of precision medicine? J Clin Oncol 2018;36:631-2.  Back to cited text no. 145
    
146.
Alexandrov LB, Nik-Zainal S, Wedge DC, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature 2013;500:415-21.  Back to cited text no. 146
    
147.
Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A, et al. Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science 2015;348:124-8.  Back to cited text no. 147
    
148.
Hellmann MD, Callahan MK, Awad MM, et al. Tumor mutational burden and efficacy of nivolumab monotherapy and in combination with ipilimumab in small-cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell 2018;33:853-61.  Back to cited text no. 148
    
149.
Pagès F, Kirilovsky A, Mlecnik B, et al. In situ cytotoxic and memory T cells predict outcome in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5944-51.  Back to cited text no. 149
    
150.
Taylor RC, Patel A, Panageas KS, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes predict sentinel lymph node positivity in patients with cutaneous melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:869-75.  Back to cited text no. 150
    
151.
Zhang L, Conejo-Garcia JR, Katsaros D, et al. Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:203-13.  Back to cited text no. 151
    
152.
Tumeh PC, Harview CL, Yearley JH, et al. PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance. Nature 2014;515:568-71.  Back to cited text no. 152
    
153.
Facciabene A, Motz GT, Coukos G. T-regulatory cells: Key players in tumor immune escape and angiogenesis. Cancer Res 2012;72:2162-71.  Back to cited text no. 153
    
154.
Kitano S, Nakayama T, Yamashita M. Biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma. Front Oncol 2018;8:270.  Back to cited text no. 154
    
155.
Palucka K, Banchereau J. Dendritic-cell-based therapeutic cancer vaccines. Immunity 2013;39:38-48.  Back to cited text no. 155
    
156.
Tagliamonte M, Petrizzo A, Tornesello ML, et al. Antigen-specific vaccines for cancer treatment. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2014;10:3332-46.  Back to cited text no. 156
    
157.
Terbuch A, Lopez J. Next generation cancer vaccines-make it personal! Vaccines (Basel) 2018;6. pii: E52.  Back to cited text no. 157
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
  Methods
   Signaling Pathwa...
   Drug Development...
   Conclusion and F...
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed248    
    Printed32    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded61    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal