Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Search in PMCSearch
  • View on publisher site icon
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logo
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Apr 29.

Inhibitors of the PD-1 Pathway in Tumor Therapy

Martin W LaFleur*,†,1,Yuki Muroyama‡,§,1,Charles G Drake§,¶,2,Arlene H Sharpe*,‖,2
*Department of Microbiology and Immunobiology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115
†Department of Pediatric Oncology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115
‡Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21231
§Columbia Center for Translational Immunology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032
Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032
‖Evergrande Center for Immunologic Diseases, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115
✉

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Arlene H. Sharpe or Dr. Charles G. Drake, Department of Microbiology and Immunobiology, Harvard Medical School, 77 Avenue Louis Pasteur, NRB-837, Boston, MA 02115 (A.H.S.) or Columbia Center for Translational Immunology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY 10032 (C.G.D.).arlene_sharpe@hms.harvard.edu (A.H.S.) orcgd2139@columbia.edu (C.G.D.)

1

M.W.L. and Y.M. contributed equally to this work.

2

C.G.D. and A.H.S. contributed equally to this work.

PMCID: PMC5924692  NIHMSID: NIHMS960342  PMID:29311378
The publisher's version of this article is available atJ Immunol

Abstract

The programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway delivers inhibitory signals that function as a brake for immune responses. This pathway limits the initiation and duration of immune responses, thereby protecting tissues from immune-mediated damage and autoimmune diseases. However, the PD-1 pathway also inhibits immune responses to tumors. The critical role of PD-1 in preventing antitumor immunity is demonstrated by the transformative effects of PD-1 pathway blockade in a broad range of cancers with the hallmark of durability of response. Despite this success, most patients do not respond to PD-1 monotherapy, and some patients experience adverse events. In this review, we discuss the functions of the PD-1 pathway and its translation to cancer immunotherapy. We also consider current challenges and opportunities for PD-1 cancer immunotherapy, including mechanisms of response and resistance, identification of biomarkers of response to PD-1 therapy, characterization and treatment of PD-1 therapy–related adverse events, and development of safe and effective combination therapies.

The immune system can recognize and destroy tumors, but tumors evolve to escape immune attack. The tumor microenvironment (TME) is immunosuppressive and exploits inhibitory checkpoints, which normally promote T cell tolerance and control resolution of immune responses, to limit antitumor immunity. The remarkable success of immune checkpoint blockade, in which Abs are used to block checkpoints that inhibit T cell responses to tumors, illustrates the critical roles of these inhibitory checkpoints in obstructing antitumor immunity. The programmed death 1 (PD-1) pathway is a key target of checkpoint blockade.

The PD-1 inhibitory receptor regulates T cell activation, effector T cell responses, T cell tolerance, and T cell exhaustion (1,2). PD-1 is rapidly induced on naive T cells following TCR engagement, countering T cell activation, and PD-1 expression decreases when Ag is cleared. When T cells are repetitively stimulated (as in cancer and chronic infection), PD-1 expression is sustained at high levels and T cells enter a dysfunctional state, termed exhaustion (2). Thus, PD-1 is expressed on both activated and exhausted T cells, and PD-1 expression alone does not signify T cell exhaustion. PD-1 is not only expressed on conventional CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, but also on regulatory T cells, B cells, NK cells, and NKT cells (3).

PD-1 has two ligands, programmed death-ligand (PD-L)1 (also called B7-H1; CD274) (4,5) and PD-L2 (also called B7-DC; CD273) (6,7). PD-L2 has higher affinity for PD-1, but more restricted expression than PD-L1. PD-L1 is widely expressed on many types of hematopoietic (T, B, macrophages, dendritic cells [DCs]) and nonhematopoietic cells (epithelial, stromal, and endothelial). PD-L2 is expressed mainly on hematopoietic cells (DCs, macrophages, B cells, and Th2 cells), but also on some epithelial cells, especially in the lung. Type 1 and type II IFNs, common γ-chain family cytokines (IL-2, IL-7, IL-15, and IL-21), IL-10, TNF, and VEGF can stimulate PD-L1 expression. IL-4 and GM-CSF are the most common stimuli for PD-L2 expression, but IFNs and common γ-chain family cytokines also can stimulate PD-L2. Upregulation of PD-1 ligands by proinflammatory stimuli may serve as a negative feedback mechanism to attenuate effector T cell responses, protecting tissues from immune-mediated injury or tumors from immune attack; this phenomenon has been termed “adaptive immune resistance” (8).

In addition to binding to PD-1, PD-L1 and PD-L2 each have a second unique binding partner. PD-L1 engagement of B7-1 (CD80) on T cells inhibits T cell responses (9). PD-L2 engagement of repulsive guidance molecule b (RGMb) (10) promotes respiratory tolerance. Further work is needed to understand the functional effects of these interactions and how they are affected by PD-1 pathway blockade.

PD-1 signaling and molecular mechanisms

Most of our knowledge of PD-1 signaling in T cells comes from studies of PD-1 engagement following activation of naive T cells. Upon PD-L1 or PD-L2 engagement, PD-1 becomes phosphorylated on its two tyrosine motifs: an ITIM and an immunoreceptor tyrosine-based switch motif in its cytoplasmic domain (11). This results in recruitment of protein tyrosine phosphatases (particularly SHP2), which dephosphorylate signaling molecules (including Lck and ZAP-70), and oppose positive signals downstream of the TCR and CD28 (11–13), leading to reduced T cell activation and effector functions. This leads to diminished signaling through the PI3K-AKT and Ras-MEK-ERK pathways (13), decreased expression of transcription factors important for effector T cell function (Tbet, Gata3, and Eomes), and diminished expression of the prosurvival factor Bcl-xL (14). Inhibition of the PI3K-AKT and Ras-MEK-ERK pathways also blocks cell cycle progression by reducing transcription of SKP2 (a ubiquitin ligase that regulates degradation of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27kip1), resulting in p27kip1 accumulation and cell cycle inhibition at the G1 phase (15). PD-1 signaling also reduces production of cytotoxic molecules, thereby decreasing T cell killing capacity (16). PD-1 signaling has further suppressive roles; it can increase expression of the proapoptotic molecule Bim (17) and the transcription factor BATF, which inhibits T cell proliferation and cytokine production (18). Inhibition of T cell function depends on the level of PD-1 expression, with IL-2, TNF, and proliferation being most readily inhibited, followed by both cytotoxicity and IFN-γ and then by MIP-1β (16). In addition, PD-1 alters T cell motility and length of contact between T cells and DCs or target cells (19). PD-1 appears to prevent formation of stable contacts between T cells and DCs during T cell activation, thereby impairing development of effector functions.

PD-1 signaling also modulates T cell metabolism. Upon activation, naive T cells undergo metabolic reprograming to enable proliferation and differentiation, and glycolysis becomes the dominant energy source. PD-1 signals lead to a metabolic shift in T cells, suppressing glycolysis and enhancing fatty acid oxidation (20). By impairing metabolic reprogramming, PD-1 may affect T cell differentiation and function. Given the central role of AKT in metabolism, PD-1 inhibition of AKT activation likely contributes to this altered metabolic state. The molecular mechanisms by which PD-1 regulates T cells other than during their initial activation are less clear. Further work is needed to understand the effects of PD-1 signals in memory T cells, tolerant T cells, exhausted T cells, and regulatory T cells, as well as in other immune cell (IC) types. T cell differentiation state, Ag, inflammation, metabolic state, and other factors may influence the consequences of PD-1 signaling.

The PD-1 ligands also may regulate immune responses by sending a signal into ligand-expressing cells (21). There is evidence for cell-intrinsic functions of PD-L1 in tumor cells, myeloid cells, and T cells. Culture of tumor cell lines in vitro with anti–PD-L1 directly affected tumor cell metabolism in the absence of PD-1–expressing T cells (21). Expression of glycolytic enzymes, AKT phosphorylation, and glucose uptake were reduced after anti–PD-L1 treatment in vitro (21). Consistent with this, the PD-L1 intracellular domain does not possess canonical conserved signaling motifs, but is highly conserved, suggesting functional significance.

Inhibitory functions of PD-1 signaling

Regulating tolerance and autoimmunity

The PD-1 pathway regulates both central and peripheral tolerance. PD-1 signaling influences positive selection in the thymus, because lack of PD-1 or PD-L1 at this stage increases the number of double positive thymocytes by reducing the TCR signaling threshold during positive selection (22). How PD-1 pathway modulation affects the T cell repertoire remains to be determined.

The PD-1 pathway controls both the induction and the maintenance of peripheral T cell tolerance. PD-1 limits the initial activation, proliferation, and differentiation of self-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and constrains potentially pathogenic self-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ effector T cells. PD-1 deficiency or blockade accelerates autoimmunity in several mouse models of autoimmunity including lupus-prone mice (23), experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (24), type 1 diabetes in NOD (25), and the rat insulin promoter–membrane-bound OVA model of diabetes (26). The PD-1 pathway restrains priming and differentiation of naive self-reactive T cells in secondary lymphoid organs. PD-L1 is expressed on tolerogenic DCs and helps to control the T cell fate decision between activation and tolerance (27). PD-1/PD-L1 interactions have crucial functions in target organs, controlling self-reactive T cells locally, maintaining tolerance in tissues, and protecting them from autoimmune-mediated damage. For example, in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis and diabetes models, PD-1 is highly expressed in the target organ on self-reactive T cells, and inflammation stimulates PD-L1 expression in the target organ, so PD-1/PD-L1 interactions have the potential to counteract stimulatory signals in the target tissues. PD-L1 expression on epithelial cells of organs such as the lungs, liver, and pancreas likely serves as a final barrier to immune destruction when tolerance is lost (1). The functional consequences of PD-L1 expression on other types of non-hematopoietic cells (e.g., endothelial and stromal cells) in tolerance is less clear. In NOD mice, PD-L1 on non-hematopoietic cells, including islet cells, plays an important role in inhibiting effector T cell responses and diabetes onset (25). Thus, the PD-1 pathway can regulate self-reactive T cells at multiple levels: thymic repertoire development, activation and differentiation in secondary lymphoid organs, and effector responses in target organs. Intriguingly, single nucleotide polymorphisms in the PDCD1 gene have been associated with human autoimmune diseases (28), but it is unclear whether any of these SNPs are causative or predictive of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs) in cancer patients treated with PD-1 pathway inhibitors.

Exploiting PD-1 inhibitory signals during chronic viral infection

The importance of the PD-1 pathway in regulating chronic viral infection was first described using the chronic lymphocytic choriomeningitis (LCMV) infection model in mice (2), and it rapidly extended to human chronic viral infections (HIV, hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B virus) (18,29). During chronic viral infections, cytotoxic T cells progressively lose the ability to produce IL-2, TNF-α, and IFN-γ and enter a dysfunctional state termed exhaustion (30). Persistent Ag encounter and TCR signaling stimulate high and sustained PD-1 expression (2), whereas inflammatory stimuli upregulate and sustain PD-L1 expression. The PD-1 pathway plays a major role in regulating T cell exhaustion, because its blockade during chronic viral infection can enhance CD8+ T cell responses and reduce viral burden (2).

PD-1 is not absolutely required for induction of the T cell exhaustion program; PD-1 prevents early overstimulation of T cells and excessive T cell death during chronic LCMV infection. In contrast, PD-1 plays a crucial role in the maintenance stage of the exhaustion program; the absence of PD-1 signaling results in accumulation of terminally exhausted T cells (31). Thus, PD-1 preserves exhausted T cells from terminal exhaustion and instead maintains partially exhausted T cells in a dysfunctional state from which they can be reinvigorated.

PD-1 blockade after the onset of LCMV-induced exhaustion enhances CD8+ T cell effector functions, due to response of a subset of cells to PD-1 blockade (32–34). High PD-1 expression on HIV-specific CD8+ T cells isolated from PBMCs of viremic individuals was associated with impaired cytokine production, proliferation, and survival. Further work is needed to understand relationships between populations of HIV-specific CD8+ T cells that express different PD-1 levels and their responses to PD-1 blockade during chronic human viral infections (35). During chronic LCMV infection, two distinct populations of Ag-specific dysfunctional T cells can be distinguished based on their PD-1 expression levels and responses to PD-1 blockade (36): T cells with intermediate levels of PD-1 (PD-1int) are dysfunctional but can be reinvigorated, whereas T cells with high PD-1 expression (PD-1hi) are terminally exhausted and cannot be reinvigorated (36). PD-1int are found primarily in secondary lymphoid organs, whereas the PD-1hi predominate in nonlymphoid tissues. PD-1int have a better ability to proliferate and produce effector cytokines compared with PD-1hi, and they can convert into PD-1hi, which have higher cytotoxic function. Exhausted CD8+ T cells from mice and humans have a distinct epigenetic landscape compared with naive, effector, and memory cells (37), and PD-1 pathway blockade does not durably reprogram exhausted T cells epigenetically (38). Combination therapy with epigenetic-modifying agents may provide a means to reverse epigenetic changes in exhausted T cells.

Inhibiting antitumor immunity in preclinical models and translation to cancer

The PD-1/PD-L1 axis is of vital importance for restraining the antitumor T cell response (8). In preclinical models, PD-1/PD-L1 blockade results in enhanced antitumor T cell cytotoxicity, proinflammatory cytokine production, and proliferation. In addition, PD-1 blockade increased concentrations of glucose in the TME and rates of glycolysis (21). Thus, PD-1 pathway blockade may also function by altering metabolism in the TME (39).

Tumor cells can express PD-L1 and/or PD-L2, which can be induced by multiple pathways, including upregulation by cytokines, chromosomal copy gain, disruptions of thePDL1 3′ untranslated region, mutations of the genes encoding PI3K AKT, EGFR, and CDK5, MYC overexpression, and viral proteins (EBV LMP1) (40). PD-1 may restrain T cells that have been activated by tumor Ag-bearing APCs in lymph nodes, T cells trafficking to the tumor, and effector T cells within the tumor. In the TME, PD-L1 can be expressed on tumor cells, as well as endothelial cells, stromal cells, APC/myeloid subsets, and T cells. All can contribute to the immunosuppressive environment. Further studies are needed to address their specific contributions during antitumor immunity and the response to PD-1 checkpoint blockade.

In animal models, the effects of PD-1 pathway blockade vary with tumor type; some tumors are resistant to PD-1 blockade or clearance in PD-1−/− mice, whereas others are very susceptible to loss of PD-1 signaling (41,42). The cellular PD-1/PD-L1 interaction may also vary; tumor-derived PD-L1 was required for blocking CTL-mediated killing in the highly immunogenic MC38 colorectal carcinoma, yet host-derived PD-L1 was more important for the less immunogenic B16 and D4m melanoma lines (41). Differences in tumor immunogenicity may impact the relative contributions of tumor versus host-derived PD-L1. Moreover, studies of methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas showed that the level of tumor-derived PD-L1 needed for immune escape was inversely proportional to the antigenicity of the tumor cell (42). More work is needed to understand differential sensitivity of PD-1 blockade in different tumor models (MC38, B16), as well as different TMEs, which have been broadly classified into: 1) inflamed or “hot” tumors with robust immune infiltration; 2) immune-excluded in which inflammatory cells are present at the tumor margin but do not enter the tumor parenchyma; and 3) “cold” tumors, which are devoid of inflammatory cells, that is, an “immune desert.”

The effects of PD-1 blockade depend on the presence of T cells, BATF3+ cross-presenting DCs, and the Sec22b cross-presentation pathway (39,43). Priming of the antitumor T cell response also depends on activation of the STING pathway in these DCs, which produce IFN-β to initiate this response (44,45). Furthermore, the microbiome plays a role becauseBifidobacterium is important for promoting initial T cell priming during PD-1 blockade by enhancing the priming potential of DCs via a yet unknown mechanism (46). Given its broad expression, understanding differential roles of PD-1 signaling in CD4+ and CD8+ effector cells and regulatory T cells will be important for optimally targeting this pathway for cancer therapy. Fc Ab design will be important as well, given that Fc receptors on macrophages can affect the potency of PD-1 blockade (47,48).

Most tumors require combination therapies for optimal clinical efficacy, and PD-1 has become a foundational building block for combination therapies primarily at the priming and effector steps (8,49,50). In animal models, enhancing T cell priming using combinations with TLR ligands such as CpG, vaccines such as GVAX, or oncolytic viruses have shown additive or synergistic effects with PD-1 blockade. At the tumor site, dysfunctional T cells express multiple coinhibitory receptors such as TIM-3, LAG-3, TIGIT, and VISTA, and their coblockade with PD-1 is generally at least additive. Dysfunctional T cells can also express costimulatory receptors, and stimulation of these pathways (OX-40, CD137, ICOS, and GITR) using agonist Abs also provides an additive effect with PD-1 blockade. Lastly, current cancer therapies such as BRAF inhibitors, angiogenesis blockade, radiation, chemotherapies that induce immunogenic cell death (doxorubicin, oxaliplatin, and cyclophosphamide), and HDAC inhibitors also are additive with PD-1 blockade. Given the wide range of potential combinations, a mechanistic understanding of synergies is needed to rationally develop effective combination therapies.

PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in the clinic

A number of anti–PD-1 and anti–PD-L1 Abs have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer treatment (Fig. 1,Table I) (51–76). The first approval was for the anti–PD-1 Ab pembrolizumab for melanoma in 2014, followed closely by a second anti–PD-1 Ab (nivolumab) (51–53). In 2015, a number of additional approvals followed, notably in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (56–58). The year 2015 also marked the first approval of combined immune checkpoint blockade; the combination of anti–PD-1 (nivolumab) and anti–CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) was approved for the treatment of melanoma (54). Subsequent approvals demonstrated the truly broad-spectrum activity of these agents in cancer, with approvals in urothelial cancer (67–72), head and neck cancer (73,74), and Hodgkin’s lymphoma, where the objective response rate approaches 55–75% (64–66). In a recent landmark trial, the anti–PD-1 agent pembrolizumab was granted cross-cancer approval for tumors with microsatellite instability (MSI) (76). In colorectal carcinoma, MSI is relatively common (∼15% of cases) (77), but there are significant numbers of MSI+ cases among nearly all cancer types, including tumor types considered refractory to immunotherapy, such as prostate cancer. This approval marked the first time an agent has been approved across multiple tumor types, based on a predictive genetic biomarker.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Timeline for basic and clinical development of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted cancer immunotherapy. Upper timeline, Preclinical studies. Lower/magnified timeline, FDA approvals.

Table I.

FDA-approved anti–PD-1/PD-L1 agents

TargetGeneric NameIsotypeTumor Types
PD-1PembrolizumabHumanized IgG4 (hinge region modified)Melanoma, NSCLC, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, urothelial carcinoma, HNSCC, MSI-H, dMMR
NivolumabFully human IgG4/κ (hinge region modified)Melanoma, NSCLC, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, RCC, urothelial carcinoma, HNSCC
PD-L1AtezolizumabHumanized IgG1 (FcR-binding deficient)NSCLC, urothelial carcinoma
DurvalumabHumanized IgG1 (FcR-binding deficient)Urothelial carcinoma
AvelumabFully human IgG1 λUrothelial carcinoma, Merkel cell carcinoma

dMMR, mismatch repair deficient; HNSCC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; MSI-H, MSI-high.

Mechanism of action of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in humans

As described earlier, studies in animal models show that PD-1 blockade augments a CD8+ T cell antitumor response. Similar data have been generated in patients; for example, the presence of proliferating (Ki67+) T cells at the invasive tumor margin correlated with response in melanoma patients treated with anti–PD-1 (78). Similarly, a recent study showed that CD8+ T cell expansion mediated by PD-1 blockade can also be detected in the peripheral blood, where the ratio of reinvigorated circulating (Ki67+) exhausted CD8+ T cells to tumor burden appears to correlate with response (79). In addition, this reinvigoration was indicative of a clonal response because several of the T cell clones that were Ki67+ were also found in the tumor. As is the case in animal models, one open question is whether PD-1 immunotherapy blocks PD-1 interaction with PD-L1 on tumor cells or PD-L1 on APCs in the tumor or in the tumor-draining lymph node. Two recent studies showed CD28/B7 interactions are required for PD-1/PD-L1 blockade to function, implying that the primary interaction involves APCs (80,81). Even though elegant knockout and blocking studies like this are impossible in patients, the observation that PD-L1 staining on tumor-infiltrating ICs correlates with response to PD-L1 blockade (with atezolizumab) (82) provides some support for this hypothesis. However, in other studies, responses to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade seem to correlate more strongly with PD-L1 expression on tumor cells (83); one factor that may explain these opposing findings is the use of different metrics/reagents for scoring PD-L1 positivity in the tumor. Similar to animal models, the role of PD-L1 on tumor cells, hematopoietic cells, and nonhematopoietic cells may differ with differ types of tumors.

Adverse events: mechanism, timing, and treatment

As discussed earlier, the PD-1/PD-L1 axis protects normal tissues from immune attack during episodes of local inflammation by promoting T cell tolerance. These PD-1 immunoregulatory functions likely explain why PD-1/PD-L1 blockade is associated with IRAEs. IRAEs can affect most major organs and include fever, rash, diarrhea, colitis, pneumonitis, myocarditis, hepatitis, elevated AST/ALT, endocrinopathies (hypothyroidism/hypophysitis), and pancreatitis/diabetes. Across multiple trials with multiple agents in multiple cancer types, the rate of grade III/IV adverse events (ones that must be treated) is remarkably consistent in the 15–20% range (84). The organ most commonly affected by IRAEs is the skin, with toxicity ranging from mild rash to more severe skin involvement requiring treatment with either topical or systemic corticosteroids. The two other most common IRAEs are fatigue and diarrhea, whereas pneumonitis, colitis, pancreatitis, myocarditis, hepatitis, and endocrinopathies are rarer. Whereas IRAEs are often mild, the involvement of certain organ systems is more worrisome and requires aggressive treatment. In the phase Ib trial of the anti–PD-1 Ab nivolumab, several cases of severe lung inflammation (pneumonitis) occurred, some of which were fatal (85). More recently, prompt intervention with immunosuppressive corticosteroids and TNF-α blockade has improved treatment safety (86). Another worrisome IRAE is inflammation of the cardiac muscle (myocarditis), which can also prove deadly (87). As described earlier, colitis may occur but is less common than that seen with CTLA-4 blockade. Interestingly, IRAEs involving various organ systems occur at different points in the treatment course, with skin-related events occurring early (generally 2–6 wk) and other IRAEs appearing later in the treatment course (within 12 wk) (84). There appear to be very few new events that occur after the first 6–9 mo of treatment (88–90). When tissue is available, pathological examination generally reveals a T cell infiltrate, consistent with the mechanism of action of PD-1/PD-L1 blocking agents. Immunologically, a deeper understanding of the immunological mechanisms involved in IRAEs is likely to provide additional insights regarding the pathogenesis of autoimmunity.

Biomarkers to predict anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 activity

Despite its remarkable success in some patients, objective tumor responses occur only in a minority of patients treated. This, coupled with the possibility of IRAEs, has led to the search for tissue or serum biomarkers that might predict which patients respond to anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Based on the notion that PD-1 pathway blockade inhibits interactions between tumor cell PD-L1 and PD-1 on T cells, much work has focused on investigating PD-L1 expression as a biomarker to predict response using immunohistochemical quantification of PD-L1 in pretreatment and/or archival tumor tissue samples. These studies indicate that PD-L1 expression on either tumor or tumor-infiltrating ICs is at best an imperfect tool by which to enrich patients for treatment (83,85,91). One key challenge has been that clinical agents have each been paired with a different companion diagnostic (92). A second related challenge is that the various assays chose disparate cut points for PD-L1 positivity. In some instances, such as RCC and first-line bladder cancer (63,67), there appears to be no correlation between PD-L1 expression and the likelihood of clinical response. Even when PD-L1 expression is predictive, there are always PD-L1–“negative” patients who respond, although this perhaps reflects sampling error (93), it makes it challenging for clinicians to withhold a potentially beneficial drug from patients with few or no other treatment options. The use of multiple biomarkers is likely to be more effective for predicting responders than PD-L1 expression alone. Nevertheless, in certain clinical scenarios, that is, first-line treatment of patients with lung cancer where chemotherapy is effective, PD-1 blockade with pembrolizumab is FDA-approved only for patients whose tumors are positive for PD-L1 expression (61).

Based on the notion that nonsynonymous mutations in cancer may give rise to novel class I–restricted epitopes (neoantigens), another potential biomarker under study is tumor mutational burden. Indeed, in melanoma (94), NSCLC (95,96), and urothelial bladder cancer (97), tumor mutational burden correlates with the likelihood of response, although an optimal cut point for patient selection has yet to be defined prospectively for any of these cancer types. In addition, transcriptional signatures, including metabolic and immunological signatures, are actively being investigated (98,99). A molecular signature of IFN signaling (100) is under development, which will quantify a set of 16 target gene expression levels, and is being prospectively analyzed in three ongoing randomized phase III trials. The use of PD-1 signaling and expression of downstream signaling molecules as potential biomarkers are also being investigated for identifying potential responders to PD-1 blockade (101).

Mechanisms of resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade

Despite impressive clinical activity, most patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 blocking agents either fail to respond or eventually develop resistance. Three interesting studies highlighted mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint blockade (102). Defects in class I Ag presentation (β2-microglobulin mutations) were associated with nonresponse; these data are consistent with the notion that PD-1/PD-L1 blockade requires tumor Ag presentation to specific CD8+ T cells to be successful (103). A second study indicated the potential importance of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, which had previously been shown to be immunosuppressive (104). Tumors in which this pathway was active were relatively noninflamed, that is, cold, and hence far less likely to respond to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade (105). A third study, in which patients were treated with anti–CTLA-4, identified defects in IFN (IFNGR1, IFNGR2, and JAK2) signaling in resistance (106). Additional work is needed to identify additional resistance mechanisms, determine the extent to which individual mechanisms are involved, and stratify which mechanisms are applicable to specific tumor types. Clinically, combination treatment regimens also highlight potential mechanisms of resistance; for example, the activity of combined PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma (54) and in RCC (107) strongly implicate CTLA-4 activity as a factor limiting the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in patients. Other clinically apparent mechanisms of resistance include LAG-3 expression (108), IDO expression (109–111), as well as many others (112).

Combination therapies with PD-1

Mirroring animal studies (113,114), combined checkpoint blockade has already enjoyed clinical success, with PD-1/CTLA-4 blockade FDA-approved in melanoma and the results of pivotal phase III trials eagerly awaited in multiple other tumor types including RCC (NCT02231749), NSCLC (NCT01454102,NCT02453282), and others. Building further upon preclinical studies, clinical trials that coordinately block other inhibitory checkpoints, including LAG-3 (115), TIM-3 (50), TIGIT (50,116), and VISTA (117), are under way. Additional clinical trials combine PD-1 blockade with agents that address other aspects of the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment, that is, inhibitors of the IDO pathway (118), adenosine signaling (119), and agents that affect CSF-1R signaling (120). There are also multiple “vaccine” approaches under study; these seek to turn cold tumors hot, hence enabling PD-1/PD-L1 blockade efficacy. Perhaps most exciting among the various vaccine approaches are personalized cancer vaccines, which seek to target a patient’s individual mutated peptides (121). Two very recent publications highlight the feasibility and potential activity of this approach (122,123), yet the complexity and time frame involved in generating patient-specific vaccines still presents a clinical challenge. It is further worth noting that conventional cancer treatments such as radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted agents can induce immunogenic cell death and might thus also serve in a way as cancer vaccines to prime an antitumor response (124).

Future directions

The impressive clinical success of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade is a great example of translation of basic immunology to patient care. To build on this success and develop effective combination therapies, a better mechanistic understanding of the efficacy of PD-1 pathway blockade is needed. More work is needed to understand mechanisms of response and resistance, and to develop biomarkers to predict response and IRAEs. In addition, further investigations are needed to rationally develop effective combinations with PD-1 pathway inhibitors. For example, understanding the unique and overlapping functions and signaling pathways of PD-1 with other inhibitory receptors is needed to optimally combine them. In addition to increasing the number of patients who do respond, there is a need to develop predictive biomarkers and understand the immunological mechanisms underlying durability. Tying into this, increased understanding of the role that PD-1 blockade plays in the formation and maintenance of memory T cells will be important. Lastly, by utilizing the newest genome-editing approaches, it may be possible to target coinhibitory molecules more specifically by modulating context-specific enhancers as opposed to the genes themselves. In summary, a deep understanding of the antitumor immune response generated by basic science studies will continue to drive the field forward, with favorable results for patients.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants P01 AI56299, AI 40614 (both to A.H.S.) R01CA127153, and P30CA006973 (both to C.G.D.) and grants from the Evergrande Center for Immunological Diseases (to A.H.S.) and the Prostate Cancer Foundation (to C.G.D.).

Abbreviations

DC

dendritic cell

FDA

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

IC

immune cell

IRAE

immune-related adverse event

LCMV

lymphocytic choriomeningitis

MSI

microsatellite instability

NSCLC

non–small cell lung cancer

PD-1

programmed death 1

PD-1hi

T cell with high PD-1 expression

PD-1int

T cell with intermediate levels of PD-1

PD-L

programmed death-ligand

RCC

renal cell carcinoma

Footnotes

ORCIDs: 0000-0002-5017-774X (M.W.L.); 0000-0001-9839-6370 (Y.M.).

Disclosures

A.H.S. has served as a paid consultant for Novartis, Surface Oncology, SQZ Biotechnologies, and Adaptimmune and has patents on the PD-1 pathway licensed by Roche and Novartis. C.G.D. has served as a paid consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Compugen, Roche/Genentech, Regeneron, AstraZeneca/Medimmune, and Merck and is a coinventor on patents licensed from Johns Hopkins to AstraZeneca/Medimmune and to Bristol-Myers Squibb. The other authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

References

  • 1.Francisco LM, Sage PT, Sharpe AH. The PD-1 pathway in tolerance and autoimmunity. Immunol Rev. 2010;236:219–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-065X.2010.00923.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Barber DL, Wherry EJ, Masopust D, Zhu B, Allison JP, Sharpe AH, Freeman GJ, Ahmed R. Restoring function in exhausted CD8 T cells during chronic viral infection. Nature. 2006;439:682–687. doi: 10.1038/nature04444. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Schildberg FA, Klein SR, Freeman GJ, Sharpe AH. Coinhibitory pathways in the B7-CD28 ligand-receptor family. Immunity. 2016;44:955–972. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Freeman GJ, Long AJ, Iwai Y, Bourque K, Chernova T, Nishimura H, Fitz LJ, Malenkovich N, Okazaki T, Byrne MC, et al. Engagement of the PD-1 immunoinhibitory receptor by a novel B7 family member leads to negative regulation of lymphocyte activation. J Exp Med. 2000;192:1027–1034. doi: 10.1084/jem.192.7.1027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dong H, Zhu G, Tamada K, Chen L. B7-H1, a third member of the B7 family, co-stimulates T-cell proliferation and interleukin-10 secretion. Nat Med. 1999;5:1365–1369. doi: 10.1038/70932. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Latchman Y, Wood CR, Chernova T, Chaudhary D, Borde M, Chernova I, Iwai Y, Long AJ, Brown JA, Nunes R, et al. PD-L2 is a second ligand for PD-1 and inhibits T cell activation. Nat Immunol. 2001;2:261–268. doi: 10.1038/85330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tseng SY, Otsuji M, Gorski K, Huang X, Slansky JE, Pai SI, Shalabi A, Shin T, Pardoll DM, Tsuchiya H. B7-DC, a new dendritic cell molecule with potent costimulatory properties for T cells. J Exp Med. 2001;193:839–846. doi: 10.1084/jem.193.7.839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pardoll D, Drake C. Immunotherapy earns its spot in the ranks of cancer therapy. J Exp Med. 2012;209:201–209. doi: 10.1084/jem.20112275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Butte MJ, Keir ME, Phamduy TB, Sharpe AH, Freeman GJ. Programmed death-1 ligand 1 interacts specifically with the B7-1 costimulatory molecule to inhibit T cell responses. Immunity. 2007;27:111–122. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2007.05.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Xiao Y, Yu S, Zhu B, Bedoret D, Bu X, Francisco LM, Hua P, Duke-Cohan JS, Umetsu DT, Sharpe AH, et al. RGMb is a novel binding partner for PD-L2 and its engagement with PD-L2 promotes respiratory tolerance. J Exp Med. 2014;211:943–959. doi: 10.1084/jem.20130790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chemnitz JM, Parry RV, Nichols KE, June CH, Riley JL. SHP-1 and SHP-2 associate with immunoreceptor tyrosine-based switch motif of programmed death 1 upon primary human T cell stimulation, but only receptor ligation prevents T cell activation. J Immunol. 2004;173:945–954. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.173.2.945. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hui E, Cheung J, Zhu J, Su X, Taylor MJ, Wallweber HA, Sasmal DK, Huang J, Kim JM, Mellman I, Vale RD. T cell costimulatory receptor CD28 is a primary target for PD-1-mediated inhibition. Science. 2017;355:1428–1433. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf1292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Patsoukis N, Li L, Sari D, Petkova V, Boussiotis VA. PD-1 increases PTEN phosphatase activity while decreasing PTEN protein stability by inhibiting casein kinase 2. Mol Cell Biol. 2013;33:3091–3098. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00319-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Parry RV, Chemnitz JM, Frauwirth KA, Lanfranco AR, Braunstein I, Kobayashi SV, Linsley PS, Thompson CB, Riley JL. CTLA-4 and PD-1 receptors inhibit T-cell activation by distinct mechanisms. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25:9543–9553. doi: 10.1128/MCB.25.21.9543-9553.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Patsoukis N, Brown J, Petkova V, Liu F, Li L, Boussiotis VA. Selective effects of PD-1 on Akt and Ras pathways regulate molecular components of the cell cycle and inhibit T cell proliferation. Sci Signal. 2012;5 doi: 10.1126/scisignal.2002796. ra46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wei F, Zhong S, Ma Z, Kong H, Medvec A, Ahmed R, Freeman GJ, Krogsgaard M, Riley JL. Strength of PD-1 signaling differentially affects T-cell effector functions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:E2480–E2489. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1305394110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Gibbons RM, Liu X, Pulko V, Harrington SM, Krco CJ, Kwon ED, Dong H. B7-H1 limits the entry of effector CD8(+) T cells to the memory pool by upregulating Bim. OncoImmunology. 2012;1:1061–1073. doi: 10.4161/onci.20850. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Quigley M, Pereyra F, Nilsson B, Porichis F, Fonseca C, Eichbaum Q, Julg B, Jesneck JL, Brosnahan K, Imam S, et al. Transcriptional analysis of HIV-specific CD8+ T cells shows that PD-1 inhibits T cell function by upregulating BATF. Nat Med. 2010;16:1147–1151. doi: 10.1038/nm.2232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fife BT, Pauken KE, Eagar TN, Obu T, Wu J, Tang Q, Azuma M, Krummel MF, Bluestone JA. Interactions between PD-1 and PD-L1 promote tolerance by blocking the TCR-induced stop signal. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:1185–1192. doi: 10.1038/ni.1790. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Patsoukis N, Bardhan K, Chatterjee P, Sari D, Liu B, Bell LN, Karoly ED, Freeman GJ, Petkova V, Seth 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. doi: 10.1038/ncomms7692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chang CH, Qiu J, O’Sullivan D, Buck MD, Noguchi T, Curtis JD, Chen Q, Gindin M, Gubin MM, van der Windt GJ, et al. Metabolic competition in the tumor microenvironment is a driver of cancer progression. Cell. 2015;162:1229–1241. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.08.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Keir ME, Latchman YE, Freeman GJ, Sharpe AH. Programmed death-1 (PD-1):PD-ligand 1 interactions inhibit TCR-mediated positive selection of thymocytes. J Immunol. 2005;175:7372–7379. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.175.11.7372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nishimura H, Nose M, Hiai H, Minato N, Honjo T. Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying immunoreceptor. Immunity. 1999;11:141–151. doi: 10.1016/s1074-7613(00)80089-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Salama AD, Chitnis T, Imitola J, Ansari MJ, Akiba H, Tushima F, Azuma M, Yagita H, Sayegh MH, Khoury SJ. Critical role of the programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway in regulation of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. [Published erratum appears in 2003 J. Exp. Med. 198-677] J Exp Med. 2003;198:71–78. doi: 10.1084/jem.20022119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Keir ME, Liang SC, Guleria I, Latchman YE, Qipo A, Albacker LA, Koulmanda M, Freeman GJ, Sayegh MH, Sharpe AH. Tissue expression of PD-L1 mediates peripheral T cell tolerance. J Exp Med. 2006;203:883–895. doi: 10.1084/jem.20051776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Keir ME, Freeman GJ, Sharpe AH. PD-1 regulates self-reactive CD8+ T cell responses to antigen in lymph nodes and tissues. J Immunol. 2007;179:5064–5070. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.179.8.5064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Goldberg MV, Maris CH, Hipkiss EL, Flies AS, Zhen L, Tuder RM, Grosso JF, Harris TJ, Getnet D, Whartenby KA, et al. Role of PD-1 and its ligand, B7-H1, in early fate decisions of CD8 T cells. Blood. 2007;110:186–192. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-12-062422. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gianchecchi E, Delfino DV, Fierabracci A. Recent insights into the role of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway in immunological tolerance and autoimmunity. Autoimmun Rev. 2013;12:1091–1100. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2013.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kurktschiev PD, Raziorrouh B, Schraut W, Backmund M, Wächtler M, Wendtner CM, Bengsch B, Thimme R, Denk G, Zachoval R, et al. Dysfunctional CD8+ T cells in hepatitis B and C are characterized by a lack of antigen-specific T-bet induction. J Exp Med. 2014;211:2047–2059. doi: 10.1084/jem.20131333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wherry EJ, Blattman JN, Murali-Krishna K, van der Most R, Ahmed R. Viral persistence alters CD8 T-cell immunodominance and tissue distribution and results in distinct stages of functional impairment. J Virol. 2003;77:4911–4927. doi: 10.1128/JVI.77.8.4911-4927.2003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Odorizzi PM, Pauken KE, Paley MA, Sharpe A, Wherry EJ. Genetic absence of PD-1 promotes accumulation of terminally differentiated exhausted CD8+ T cells. J Exp Med. 2015;212:1125–1137. doi: 10.1084/jem.20142237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Blackburn SD, Shin H, Freeman GJ, Wherry EJ. Selective expansion of a subset of exhausted CD8 T cells by αPD-L1 blockade. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105:15016–15021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0801497105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Im SJ, Hashimoto M, Gerner MY, Lee J, Kissick HT, Burger MC, Shan Q, Hale JS, Lee J, Nasti TH, et al. Defining CD8+ T cells that provide the proliferative burst after PD-1 therapy. Nature. 2016;537:417–421. doi: 10.1038/nature19330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.He R, Hou S, Liu C, Zhang A, Bai Q, Han M, Yang Y, Wei G, Shen T, Yang X, et al. Follicular CXCR5- expressing CD8(+) T cells curtail chronic viral infection. Nature. 2016;537:412–428. doi: 10.1038/nature19317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Petrovas C, Casazza JP, Brenchley JM, Price DA, Gostick E, Adams WC, Precopio ML, Schacker T, Roederer M, Douek DC, Koup RA. PD-1 is a regulator of virus-specific CD8+ T cell survival in HIV infection. J Exp Med. 2006;203:2281–2292. doi: 10.1084/jem.20061496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Paley MA, Kroy DC, Odorizzi PM, Johnnidis JB, Dolfi DV, Barnett BE, Bikoff EK, Robertson EJ, Lauer GM, Reiner SL, Wherry EJ. Progenitor and terminal subsets of CD8+ T cells cooperate to contain chronic viral infection. Science. 2012;338:1220–1225. doi: 10.1126/science.1229620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sen DR, Kaminski J, Barnitz RA, Kurachi M, Gerdemann U, Yates KB, Tsao HW, Godec J, LaFleur MW, Brown FD, et al. The epigenetic landscape of T cell exhaustion. Science. 2016;354:1165–1169. doi: 10.1126/science.aae0491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pauken KE, Sammons MA, Odorizzi PM, Manne S, Godec J, Khan O, Drake AM, Chen Z, Sen DR, Kurachi M, et al. Epigenetic stability of exhausted T cells limits durability of reinvigoration by PD-1 blockade. Science. 2016;354:1160–1165. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf2807. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gubin MM, Zhang X, Schuster H, Caron E, Ward JP, Noguchi T, Ivanova Y, Hundal J, Arthur CD, Krebber WJ, et al. Checkpoint blockade cancer immunotherapy targets tumour-specific mutant antigens. Nature. 2014;515:577–581. doi: 10.1038/nature13988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Salmaninejad A, Khoramshahi V, Azani A, Soltaninejad E, Aslani S, Zamani MR, Zal M, Nesaei A, Hosseini SM. PD-1 and cancer molecular mechanisms and polymorphisms. Immunogenetics. 2017 doi: 10.1007/s00251-017-1015-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Juneja VR, McGuire KA, Manguso RT, LaFleur MW, Collins N, Haining WN, Freeman GJ, Sharpe AH. PD-L1 on tumor cells is sufficient for immune evasion in immunogenic tumors and inhibits CD8 T cell cytotoxicity. J Exp Med. 2017;214:895–904. doi: 10.1084/jem.20160801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Noguchi T, Ward JP, Gubin MM, Arthur CD, Lee SH, Hundal J, Selby MJ, Graziano RF, Mardis ER, Korman AJ, Schreiber RD. Temporally distinct PD-L1 expression by tumor and host cells contributes to immune escape. Cancer Immunol Res. 2017;5:106–117. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Alloatti A, Rookhuizen DC, Joannas L, Carpier JM, Iborra S, Magalhaes JG, Yatim N, Kozik P, Sancho D, Albert ML, Amigorena S. Critical role for Sec22b-dependent antigen cross-presentation in antitumor immunity. J Exp Med. 2017;214:2231–2241. doi: 10.1084/jem.20170229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Spranger S, Dai D, Horton B, Gajewski TF. Tumor-residing Batf3 dendritic cells ar required for effector T cell trafficking and adoptive T cell therapy. Cancer Cell. 2017;31:711–723.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2017.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Deng L, Liang H, Xu M, Yang X, Burnette B, Arina A, Li XD, Mauceri H, Beckett M, Darga T, et al. STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing promotes radiation-induced type I interferon-dependent antitumor immunity in immunogenic tumors. Immunity. 2014;41:843–852. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2014.10.019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Sivan A, Corrales L, Hubert N, Williams JB, Aquino-Michaels K, Earley ZM, Benyamin FW, Lei YM, Jabri B, Alegre ML, et al. Commensal Bifidobacterium promotes antitumor immunity and facilitates anti-PD-L1 efficacy. Science. 2015;350:1084–1089. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Dahan R, Sega E, Engelhardt J, Selby M, Korman AJ, Ravetch JV. FcγRs modulate the anti-tumor activity of antibodies targeting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. Cancer Cell. 2015;28:285–295. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2015.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ornstein MC, Rini BI. The safety and efficacy of nivolumab for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2016;16:577–584. doi: 10.1080/14737140.2016.1184980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Swart M, Verbrugge I, Beltman JB. Combination approaches with immune-checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. Front Oncol. 2016;6:233. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2016.00233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Anderson AC, Joller N, Kuchroo VK. Lag-3, Tim-3, and TIGIT co-inhibitory receptors with specialized functions in immune regulation. Immunity. 2016;44:989–1004. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2016.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD, Hodi FS, Hamid O, Kefford R, Weber JS, Joshua AM, Hwu WJ, Gangadhar TC, et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet. 2014;384:1109–1117. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60958-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Ribas A, Puzanov I, Dummer R, Schadendorf D, Hamid O, Robert C, Hodi FS, Schachter J, Pavlick AC, Lewis KD, et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002) a randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:908–918. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00083-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Weber JS, D’Angelo SP, Minor D, Hodi FS, Gutzmer R, Neyns B, Hoeller C, Khushalani NI, Miller WH, Jr, Lao CD, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:375–384. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70076-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Postow MA, Chesney J, Pavlick AC, Robert C, Grossmann K, McDermott D, Linette GP, Meyer N, Giguere JK, Agarwala SS, et al. Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2006–2017. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1414428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Robert C, Schachter J, Long GV, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, Daud A, Carlino MS, McNeil C, Lotem M, et al. KEYNOTE-006 investigators Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2521–2532. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Brahmer J, Reckamp KL, Baas P, Crinò L, Eberhardt WEE, Poddubskaya E, Antonia S, Pluzanski A, Vokes EE, Holgado E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced squamous-cell non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:123–135. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504627. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Herbst RS, Baas P, Kim DW, Felip E, Pérez-Gracia JL, Han JY, Molina J, Kim JH, Arvis CD, Ahn MJ, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1540–1550. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01281-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Borghaei H, Paz-Ares L, Horn L, Spigel DR, Steins M, Ready NE, Chow LQ, Vokes EE, Felip E, Holgado E, et al. Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1627–1639. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1507643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rittmeyer A, Barlesi F, Waterkamp D, Park K, Ciardiello F, Pawel Jvon, Gadgeel SM, Hida T, Kowalski DM, Dols MC, et al. OAK Study Group Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;389:255–265. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32517-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Fehrenbacher L, Spira A, Ballinger M, Kowanetz M, Vansteenkiste J, Mazieres J, Park K, Smith D, Artal-Cortes A, Lewanski C, et al. POPLAR Study Group Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1837–1846. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00587-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Reck M, Rodríguez-Abreu D, Robinson AG, Hui R, Csőszi T, Fülöp A, Gottfried M, Peled N, Tafreshi A, Cuffe S, et al. KEYNOTE-024 Investigators Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1823–1833. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1606774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Langer CJ, Gadgeel SM, Borghaei H, Papadimitrakopoulou VA, Patnaik A, Powell SF, Gentzler RD, Martins RG, Stevenson JP, Jalal SI, et al. KEYNOTE-021 Investigators Carboplatin and pemetrexed with or without pembrolizumab for advanced, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer: a randomised, phase 2 cohort of the open-label KEYNOTE-021 study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1497–1508. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30498-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Motzer RJ, Escudier B, McDermott DF, George S, Hammers HJ, Srinivas S, Tykodi SS, Sosman JA, Procopio G, Plimack ER, et al. CheckMate 025 Investigators Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:1803–1813. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510665. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Younes A, Santoro A, Shipp M, Zinzani PL, Timmerman JM, Ansell S, Armand P, Fanale M, Ratanatharathorn V, Kuruvilla J, et al. Nivolumab for classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma after failure of both autologous stem-cell transplantation and brentuximab vedotin: a multicentre, multicohort, single-arm phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1283–1294. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30167-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Ansell SM, Lesokhin AM, Borrello I, Halwani A, Scott EC, Gutierrez M, Schuster SJ, Millenson MM, Cattry D, Freeman GJ, et al. PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:311–319. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1411087. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Moskowitz CH, Zinzani PL, Fanale MA, Armand P, Johnson NA, Radford JA, Ribrag V, Molin D, Vassilakopoulos TP, Tomita A, et al. Pembrolizumab in relapsed/refractory classical hodgkin lymphoma: primary end point analysis of the phase 2 keynote-087 study. Blood. 2016;128:1107. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Balar AV, Galsky MD, Rosenberg JE, Powles T, Petrylak DP, Bellmunt J, Loriot Y, Necchi A, Hoffman-Censits J, Perez-Gracia JL, et al. IMvigor210 Study Group Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:67–76. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32455-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Sharma P, Retz M, Siefker-Radtke A, Baron A, Necchi A, Bedke J, Plimack ER, Vaena D, Grimm MO, Bracarda S, et al. Nivolumab in metastatic urothelial carcinoma after platinum therapy (CheckMate 275): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:312–322. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30065-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Massard C, Gordon MS, Sharma S, Rafii S, Wainberg ZA, Luke J, Curiel TJ, Colon-Otero G, Hamid O, Sanborn RE, et al. Safety and efficacy of durvalumab (MEDI4736), an anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in patients with advanced urothelial bladder cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3119–3125. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Apolo AB, Infante JR, Hamid O, Patel MR, Wang D, Kelly K, Mega AE, Britten CD, Mita AC, Ravaud A, et al. Safety, clinical activity, and PD-L1 expression of avelumab (MSB0010718C), an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor phase Ib trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(Suppl. 2):367. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Balar A, Bellmunt J, O’Donnell PH, Castellano D, Grivas P, Vuky J, Powles T, Plimack ER, Hahn NM, de Wit R, et al. Pembrolizumab (pembro) as first-line therapy for advanced/unresectable or metastatic urothelial cancer: preliminary results from the phase 2 KEYNOTE-052 study. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(suppl_6) Available athttps://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw435.25. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Bellmunt J, Wit Rde, Vaughn DJ, Fradet Y, Lee J-L, Fong L, Vogelzang NJ, Climent MA, Petrylak DP, Choueiri TK, et al. KEYNOTE-045 Investigators Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced urothelial carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1015–1026. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Muro K, Chung HC, Shankaran V, Geva R, Catenacci D, Gupta S, Eder JP, Golan T, Le DT, Burtness B, et al. Pembrolizumab for patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-012): a multicentre, open-label, phase 1b trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:717–726. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00175-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Ferris RL, Blumenschein G, Jr, Fayette J, Guigay J, Colevas AD, Licitra L, Harrington K, Kasper S, Vokes EE, Even C, et al. Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1856–1867. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Kaufman HL, Russell J, Hamid O, Bhatia S, Terheyden P, D’Angelo SP, Shih KC, Lebbé C, Linette GP, Milella M, et al. Avelumab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: a multicentre, single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1374–1385. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30364-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, Bartlett BR, Kemberling H, Eyring AD, Skora AD, Luber BS, Azad NS, Laheru D, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2509–2520. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1500596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Vilar E, Gruber SB. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer-the stable evidence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7:153–162. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Tumeh PC, Harview CL, Yearley JH, Shintaku IP, Taylor EJM, Robert L, Chmielowski B, Spasic M, Henry G, Ciobanu V, et al. PD-1 blockade induces responses by inhibiting adaptive immune resistance. Nature. 2014;515:568–571. doi: 10.1038/nature13954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Huang AC, Postow MA, Orlowski RJ, Mick R, Bengsch B, Manne S, Xu W, Harmon S, Giles JR, Wenz B, et al. T-cell invigoration to tumour burden ratio associated with anti-PD-1 response. Nature. 2017;545:60–65. doi: 10.1038/nature22079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Kamphorst AO, Wieland A, Nasti T, Yang S, Zhang R, Barber DL, Konieczny BT, Daugherty CZ, Koenig L, Yu K, et al. Rescue of exhausted CD8 T cells by PD-1-targeted therapies is CD28-dependent. Science. 2017;355:1423–1427. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf0683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Hui E, Cheung J, Zhu J, Su X, Taylor MJ, Wallweber HA, Sasmal DK, Huang J, Kim JM, Mellman I, Vale RD. T cell costimulatory receptor CD28 is a primary target for PD-1–mediated inhibition. Science. 2017;355:1428–1433. doi: 10.1126/science.aaf1292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Powles T, Eder JP, Fine GD, Braiteh FS, Loriot Y, Cruz C, Bellmunt J, Burris HA, Petrylak DP, Teng SL, et al. MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer. Nature. 2014;515:558–562. doi: 10.1038/nature13904. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Patel SP, Kurzrock R. PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker in cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cancer Ther. 2015;14:847–856. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-14-0983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Weber JS, Postow M, Lao CD, Schadendorf D. Management of adverse events following treatment with anti-programmed death-1 agents. Oncologist. 2016;21:1230–1240. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, Gettinger SN, Smith DC, McDermott DF, Powderly JD, Carvajal RD, Sosman JA, Atkins MB, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2443–2454. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1200690. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Naidoo J, Wang X, Woo KM, Iyriboz T, Halpenny D, Cunningham J, Chaft JE, Segal NH, Callahan MK, Lesokhin AM, et al. Pneumonitis in patients treated with anti-programmed death-1/programmed death ligand 1 therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:709–717. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Läubli H, Balmelli C, Bossard M, Pfister O, Glatz K, Zippelius A. Acute heart failure due to autoimmune myocarditis under pembrolizumab treatment for metastatic melanoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2015;3:11. doi: 10.1186/s40425-015-0057-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.McDermott DF, Drake CG, Sznol M, Choueiri TK, Powderly JD, Smith DC, Brahmer JR, Carvajal RD, Hammers HJ, Puzanov I, et al. Survival, durable response, and long-term safety in patients with previously treated advanced renal cell carcinoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2013–2020. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.1041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, Kluger HM, Carvajal RD, Sharfman WH, Brahmer JR, Lawrence DP, Atkins MB, Powderly JD, et al. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1020–1030. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.0105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Gettinger SN, Horn L, Gandhi L, Spigel DR, Antonia SJ, Rizvi NA, Powderly JD, Heist RS, Carvajal RD, Jackman DM, et al. Overall survival and long-term safety of nivolumab (anti-programmed death 1 antibody, BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in patients with previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2004–2012. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.3708. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Gibney GT, Weiner LM, Atkins MB. Predictive biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e542–e551. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30406-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Hirsch FR, McElhinny A, Stanforth D, Ranger-Moore J, Jansson M, Kulangara K, Richardson W, Towne P, Hanks D, Vennapusa B, et al. PD-L1 immunohistochemistry assays for lung cancer: results from phase 1 of the blueprint PD-L1 IHC assay comparison project. J Thorac Oncol. 2017;12:208–222. doi: 10.1016/j.jtho.2016.11.2228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Rimm DLG, Han G, Taube JM, Yi ES, Bridge JA, Flieder DB, Homer R, West WW, Wu H, Roden AC, et al. A prospective, multi-institutional, pathologist-based assessment of 4 immunohistochemistry assays for pd-l1 expression in non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1051–1058. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.0013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Snyder A, Makarov V, Merghoub T, Yuan J, Zaretsky JM, Desrichard A, Walsh LA, Postow MA, Wong P, Ho TS, et al. Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2189–2199. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1406498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Rizvi NA, Hellmann MD, Snyder A, Kvistborg P, Makarov V, Havel JJ, Lee W, Yuan J, Wong P, Ho TS, et al. Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science. 2015;348:124–128. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa1348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Carbone DP, Reck M, Paz-Ares L, Creelan B, Horn L, Steins M, Felip E, van den Heuvel MM, Ciuleanu T-E, Badin F, et al. CheckMate 026 Investigators First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2415–2426. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Rosenberg JE, Hoffman-Censits J, Powles T, van der Heijden MS, Balar AV, Necchi A, Dawson N, O’Donnell PH, Balmanoukian A, Loriot Y, 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;387:1909–1920. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00561-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Ascierto ML, McMiller TL, Berger AE, Danilova L, Anders RA, Netto GJ, Xu H, Pritchard TS, Fan J, Cheadle C, et al. The intra-tumoral balance between metabolic and immunologic gene expression is associated with anti-PD-1 response in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016;4:726–733. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Hugo W, Zaretsky JM, Sun L, Song C, Moreno BH, Hu-Lieskovan S, Berent-Maoz B, Pang J, Chmielowski B, Cherry G, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic features of response to anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma. [Published erratum appears in 2017 Cell 168: 542.] Cell. 2016;165:35–44. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.02.065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Ayers M, Lunceford J, Nebozhyn M, Murphy E, Loboda A, Kaufman DR, Albright A, Cheng JD, Kang SP, Shankaran V, et al. IFN-γ-related mRNA profile predicts clinical response to PD-1 blockade. J Clin Invest. 2017;127:2930–2940. doi: 10.1172/JCI91190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Dronca RS, Liu X, Harrington SM, Chen L, Cao S, Kottschade LA, McWilliams RR, Block MS, Nevala WK, Thompson MA, et al. T cell Bim levels reflect responses to anti-PD-1 cancer therapy. JCI Insight. 2016;1:e86014. doi: 10.1172/jci.insight.86014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Sharma P, Hu-Lieskovan S, Wargo JA, Ribas A. Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Cell. 2017;168:707–723. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Zaretsky JM, Garcia-Diaz A, Shin DS, Escuin-Ordinas H, Hugo W, Hu-Lieskovan S, Torrejon DY, Abril-Rodriguez G, Sandoval S, Barthly L, et al. Mutations associated with acquired resistance to PD-1 blockade in Melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:819–829. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1604958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Zhan T, Rindtorff N, Boutros M. Wnt signaling in cancer. Oncogene. 2017;36:1461–1473. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.304. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Spranger S, Bao R, Gajewski TF. Melanoma-intrinsic β-catenin signalling prevents anti-tumour immunity. Nature. 2015;523:231–235. doi: 10.1038/nature14404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Gao J, Shi LZ, Zhao H, Chen J, Xiong L, He Q, Chen T, Roszik J, Bernatchez C, Woodman SE, et al. Loss of IFN-γ pathway genes in tumor cells as a mechanism of resistance to anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Cell. 2016;167:397–404.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.069. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Hammers HJ, Plimack ER, Infante JR, Rini BI, McDermott DF, Lewis LD, Voss MH, Sharma P, Pal SK, Razak ARA, et al. Safety and efficacy of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: The CheckMate 016 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:3851–3858. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.72.1985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Ascierto PA, Melero I, Bhatia S, Bono P, Sanborn RE, Lipson EJ, Callahan MK, Gajewski T, Gomez-Roca CA, Stephen Hodi F, et al. Initial efficacy of anti-lymphocyte activation gene-3 (anti–LAG-3; BMS-986016) in combination with nivolumab (nivo) in pts with melanoma (MEL) previously treated with anti–PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(Suppl. 15):9520. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Zakharia Y, McWilliams R, Shaheen M, Grossman K, Drabick J, Milhem M, Rixie O, Khleif S, Lott R, Kennedy E, et al. Abstract CT117: interim analysis of the phase 2 clinical trial of the IDO pathway inhibitor indoximod in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with advanced melanoma. Cancer Res. 2017;2017(Suppl. 13):CT117. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Gangadhar TC, Schneider BJ, Bauer TM, Wasser JS, Spira AI, Patel SP, Balmanoukian AS, Bauml J, Schmidt EV, Zhao Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of epacadostat plus pembrolizumab treatment of NSCLC: preliminary phase I/II results of ECHO-202/KEYNOTE-037. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(Suppl. 15):9014. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Siu LL, Gelmon K, Chu Q, Pachynski R, Alese O, Basciano P, Walker J, Mitra P, Zhu L, Phillips P, et al. Abstract CT116: BMS-986205, an optimized indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) inhibitor, is well tolerated with potent pharmacodynamic (PD) activity, alone and in combination with nivolumab (nivo) in advanced cancers in a phase 1/2a trial. Cancer Res. 2017;77(Suppl. 13):CT116. [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Drake CG, Jaffee E, Pardoll DM. Mechanisms of immune evasion by tumors. Adv Immunol. 2006;90:51–81. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2776(06)90002-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Selby MJ, Engelhardt JJ, Johnston RJ, Lu LS, Han M, Thudium K, Yao D, Quigley M, Valle J, Wang C, et al. Preclinical development of ipilimumab and nivolumab combination immunotherapy: mouse tumor models, in vitro functional studies, and Cynomolgus macaque toxicology. [Published erratum appears in 2016 PLoS One 11: e0167251] PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Curran MA, Montalvo W, Yagita H, Allison JP. PD-1 and CTLA-4 combination blockade expands infiltrating T cells and reduces regulatory T and myeloid cells within B16 melanoma tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:4275–4280. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0915174107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Andrews LP, Marciscano AE, Drake CG, Vignali DAA. LAG3 (CD223) as a cancer immunotherapy target. Immunol Rev. 2017;276:80–96. doi: 10.1111/imr.12519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Manieri NA, Chiang EY, Grogan JL. TIGIT: a key inhibitor of the cancer immunity cycle. Trends Immunol. 2017;38:20–28. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2016.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Deng J, Le Mercier I, Kuta A, Noelle RJ. A new VISTA on combination therapy for negative checkpoint regulator blockade. J Immunother Cancer. 2016;4:86. doi: 10.1186/s40425-016-0190-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Munn DH, Mellor AL. IDO in the tumor microenvironment: inflammation, counter-regulation, and tolerance. Trends Immunol. 2016;37:193–207. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2016.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Antonioli L, Blandizzi C, Pacher P, Haskó G. Immunity, inflammation and cancer: a leading role for adenosine. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13:842–857. doi: 10.1038/nrc3613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Mantovani A, Marchesi F, Malesci A, Laghi L, Allavena P. Tumour-associated macrophages as treatment targets in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14:399–416. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Gubin MM, Artyomov MN, Mardis ER, Schreiber RD. Tumor neoantigens: building a framework for personalized cancer immunotherapy. J Clin Invest. 2015;125:3413–3421. doi: 10.1172/JCI80008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Ott PA, Hu Z, Keskin DB, Shukla SA, Sun J, Bozym DJ, Zhang W, Luoma A, Giobbie-Hurder A, Peter L, et al. An immunogenic personal neoantigen vaccine for patients with melanoma. Nature. 2017;547:217–221. doi: 10.1038/nature22991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Sahin U, Derhovanessian E, Miller M, Kloke BP, Simon P, Löwer M, Bukur V, Tadmor AD, Luxemburger U, Schrörs B, et al. Personalized RNA mutanome vaccines mobilize poly-specific therapeutic immunity against cancer. Nature. 2017;547:222–226. doi: 10.1038/nature23003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Galluzzi L, Buqué A, Kepp O, Zitvogel L, Kroemer G. Immunological effects of conventional chemotherapy and targeted anticancer agents. Cancer Cell. 2015;28:690–714. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2015.10.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

ACTIONS

RESOURCES

[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2026 Movatter.jp