Next Article in Journal
Metformin Attenuates UVA-Induced Skin Photoaging by Suppressing Mitophagy and the PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Allergen-Specific IgE Recognition Profiles and Cumulative Specific IgE Levels Associated with Phenotypes of Cat Allergy
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Systematic Review of Expression and Immunogenicity of Human Endogenous Retroviral Proteins in Cancer and Discussion of Therapeutic Approaches
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Immunological Responses to Cancer Therapy

by
Marieke F. Fransen
Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Infection and Immunity, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23(13), 6989; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23136989
Submission received: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 16 June 2022 / Published: 23 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Immunological Responses to Cancer Therapy)
The use of immunotherapy for cancer has taken flight in the last two decades, from experimental therapy envisioned mainly by laboratory scientists to everyday treatment used by physicians to treat many patients. Since the great success of FDA approval of ipilimumab for stage IV melanoma patients [1], the usage of checkpoint-blocking antibody and other forms of immunotherapy for cancer has grown exponentially. After the introduction of immunotherapy as a standard therapy modality in the repertoire of cancer treatment, it is time to take a step back and evaluate. In order to implement and exploit the potential of immunotherapy modalities to their fullest, we need to make intelligent choices about combinatorial treatments and fill the caveats of knowledge that currently exist.
Immunotherapy for cancer requires a different way of thinking compared to other types of cancer treatment. Whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy are aimed entirely at killing malignant cells and possibly any other healthy bystander cells, immunotherapy targets immune cells and activates them, upon which they can very specifically kill malignant cells without harming bystander cells. This revolutionary therapy requires a different approach to side-effects, combinatorial treatments, dosing, and timing schedules.
In this issue, several aspects of cancer therapy and immunotherapy are investigated that warrant further exploration. By investigating underappreciated areas of the immunology surrounding cancer and treatment, we aim to fill some of the knowledge gaps that presently exist.
The most used immunotherapy at present is checkpoint blockade. Although widely implemented in clinical practice, there is still room for improvement, both in clinical efficacy and in practical use and knowledge. Several manuscripts in this issue are therefore devoted to aspects regarding checkpoint therapy. Bareke et al. [2] describe, in their review, the current knowledge on autoimmunity and side-effects of immunotherapy, thereby highlighting an immunotherapy-specific problem that is a real threat to clinical implementation of checkpoint blockades. Kulikowska de Nalecz et al. [3] and An et al. [4] publish on biomarkers in blood, an easily accessible source. These publications are aimed at making stratification of patients possible in order to avoid treating patients with a low chance of treatment efficacy, or a high chance of dangerous side effects.
Both Lisini et al. [5] and Fransen et al. [6] describe the possibilities, advantages, and disadvantages of local administration of immunotherapy, the first in the context of mesothelioma, an aggressive form of lung cancer that might benefit from more localized treatment, and the latter in the context of targeting the tumor-draining lymph nodes, highlighting the pivotal role of this immune orchestrating organ. These novel approaches warrant more appreciation, since they target the main areas, tumor and tumor-draining lymph nodes, reduce possible side-effects, and, most importantly, lead to systemic immune responses. Investigating the tumor-draining lymph node is of vital importance in taking immunotherapy to the next level, since this organ has recently been proven to be crucially important for the efficacy of immunotherapy [7,8,9,10].
In three other manuscripts in this issue, under-evaluated aspects of checkpoint therapy are explored. Both Muller et al. [11] and Morais Melo et al. [12] describe novel targets in cancer that might lead to antigens and T cell activation, namely endogenous retroviruses and somatic mutations. Additionally, Gavali et al. [13] describe molecular aspects of T cell activation in cancer immunotherapy, focusing on the role of ubiquitination. Studying these aspects will lead to improved understanding and possibly increased implementation of checkpoint therapy, which is, so far, is regarded as a treatment for tumors with a high mutational burden.
Another form of successful immunotherapy of cancer that has been implemented in the clinic is Car-T cell therapy. Two manuscripts in this issue describe Car-T cell therapy; namely, Martinez-Rubio et al. [14] describe a mathematical model to evaluate dynamics of Car-T cells in bone marrow, and Pietrobon et al. [15] review current literature on the persistence of Car-T cells. Both manuscripts add to the current effort to further improve this already very successful therapy modality.
In this issue of the International Journal of Molecular Science, several under-evaluated aspects regarding immunological responses to cancer are described. Knowledge gained from this will aid the implementation of new combinatorial strategies and more efficient treatment designs of immunotherapy.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hodi, F.S.; O’Day, S.J.; McDermott, D.F.; Weber, R.W.; Sosman, J.A.; Haanen, J.B.; Gonzalez, R.; Robert, C.; Schadendorf, D.; Hassel, J.C.; et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bareke, H.; Juanes-Velasco, P.; Landeira-Vinuela, A.; Hernandez, A.P.; Cruz, J.J.; Bellido, L.; Fonseca, E.; Niebla-Cardenas, A.; Montalvillo, E.; Gongora, R.; et al. Autoimmune Responses in Oncology: Causes and Significance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 8030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kulikowska de Nalecz, A.; Ciszak, L.; Usnarska-Zubkiewicz, L.; Frydecka, I.; Pawlak, E.; Szmyrka, M.; Kosmaczewska, A. Deregulated Expression of Immune Checkpoints on Circulating CD4 T Cells May Complicate Clinical Outcome and Response to Treatment with Checkpoint Inhibitors in Multiple Myeloma Patients. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. An, J.; Peng, C.; Tang, H.; Liu, X.; Peng, F. New Advances in the Research of Resistance to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lisini, D.; Lettieri, S.; Nava, S.; Accordino, G.; Frigerio, S.; Bortolotto, C.; Lancia, A.; Filippi, A.R.; Agustoni, F.; Pandolfi, L.; et al. Local Therapies and Modulation of Tumor Surrounding Stroma in Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: A Translational Approach. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Fransen, M.F.; van Hall, T.; Ossendorp, F. Immune Checkpoint Therapy: Tumor Draining Lymph Nodes in the Spotlights. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Fransen, M.F.; Schoonderwoerd, M.; Knopf, P.; Camps, M.G.; Hawinkels, L.J.; Kneilling, M.; van Hall, T.; Ossendorp, F. Tumor-draining lymph nodes are pivotal in PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint therapy. JCI Insight 2018, 3, e124507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Dammeijer, F.; van Gulijk, M.; Mulder, E.E.; Lukkes, M.; Klaase, L.; van den Bosch, T.; van Nimwegen, M.; Lau, S.P.; Latupeirissa, K.; Schetters, S.; et al. The PD-1/PD-L1-Checkpoint Restrains T cell Immunity in Tumor-Draining Lymph Nodes. Cancer Cell 2020, 38, 685–700.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Koster, B.D.; van den Hout, M.; Sluijter, B.J.R.; Molenkamp, B.G.; Vuylsteke, R.; Baars, A.; van Leeuwen, P.A.M.; Scheper, R.J.; Petrousjka van den Tol, M.; van den Eertwegh, A.J.M.; et al. Local Adjuvant Treatment with Low-Dose CpG-B Offers Durable Protection against Disease Recurrence in Clinical Stage I-II Melanoma: Data from Two Randomized Phase II Trials. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 5679–5686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Rotman, J.; Koster, B.D.; Jordanova, E.S.; Heeren, A.M.; de Gruijl, T.D. Unlocking the therapeutic potential of primary tumor-draining lymph nodes. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2019, 68, 1681–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Muller, M.D.; Holst, P.J.; Nielsen, K.N. A Systematic Review of Expression and Immunogenicity of Human Endogenous Retroviral Proteins in Cancer and Discussion of Therapeutic Approaches. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Melo, C.M.; Vidotto, T.; Chaves, L.P.; Lautert-Dutra, W.; Reis, R.B.D.; Squire, J.A. The Role of Somatic Mutations on the Immune Response of the Tumor Microenvironment in Prostate Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 9550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gavali, S.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Paolino, M. Ubiquitination in T-Cell Activation and Checkpoint Inhibition: New Avenues for Targeted Cancer Immunotherapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Martinez-Rubio, A.; Chulian, S.; Blazquez Goni, C.; Ramirez Orellana, M.; Perez Martinez, A.; Navarro-Zapata, A.; Ferreras, C.; Perez-Garcia, V.M.; Rosa, M. A Mathematical Description of the Bone Marrow Dynamics during CAR T-Cell Therapy in B-Cell Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Pietrobon, V.; Todd, L.A.; Goswami, A.; Stefanson, O.; Yang, Z.; Marincola, F. Improving CAR T-Cell Persistence. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 10828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fransen, M.F. Immunological Responses to Cancer Therapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 6989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23136989

AMA Style

Fransen MF. Immunological Responses to Cancer Therapy. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022; 23(13):6989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23136989

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fransen, Marieke F. 2022. "Immunological Responses to Cancer Therapy" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23, no. 13: 6989. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23136989

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop