Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05
  • 2024-06
  • 2024-07
  • 2024-08
  • 2024-09
  • 2024-10
  • 2024-11
  • 2024-12
  • T cell infiltration is an important predictive biomarker

    2020-03-26

    T cell infiltration is an important predictive biomarker for the PD-1 blockade, and it is closely associated with a good prognosis. In our study, we found that T cells were low and exhausted within the tumor microenvironment and were distributed in the tumor margin. Anti-PD-1 treatment reduced PD-1 expression on CD8+ T cells, thereby activating them. On the other hand, the treatment did not increase T cell infiltration in the tumor and reduced the number of Tregs. Therefore, it may be one of the possible explanations for the poor Miltefosine receptor effects of anti-PD-1 monotherapy in our results. OVs can induce extensive effects on tumor microenvironment, including direct tumor killing, recruitment of the T cells, activation of anti-tumor immunity, and disruption of the tumor neo-vasculature.18, 20, 43 Local OV injection could induce tumor regression in both injected tumor and distant tumors, suggesting a systemic immune response elicited by local injection. Thus, OVs would be an ideal approach to overcome the situation of low T cell infiltration and improve the effects of anti-PD-1. Our results also revealed that OVs lyse tumor Miltefosine receptor directly and induce tumor cell apoptosis in vivo. Furthermore, OVs were responsible for the increased T cell infiltration and activation as well as the change in the ratio of effector T cells to Tregs, because none of the remaining components could induce an increase in T cell population. OV treatment also decreased the percentage of TAMs and altered their phenotypes. As expected, triple treatment remarkably enhanced the therapeutic effects. Previous studies also showed that significant tumor inhibition could be achieved by combining OVs with other therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-redirected T cell or PD-1/PD-L1 blockade.21, 45, 46, 47 Despite so many advantages of oncolytic virotherapy, limited efficacy of OVs alone was observed in our study. We speculated that it might be attributed to other immunosuppressive factors operating within the tumor microenvironment, such as TAMs, as we observed that the therapeutic effects were improved in mice treated with PLX3397 and OVs, and the triple combination resulted in better effects than the dual combination. Moreover, the antiviral immunity induced by OVs themselves might be yet another limitation, because the tumor grew rapidly following the last OV injection, suggesting the short-term effects of OVs. We also detected the presence of virus-specific CD8+ T cells in the tumor, but it was unexpected that the antivirus immunity could actually potentiate the immunotherapeutic efficacy. Furthermore, increased CD8+ T cells after OV injection seemed to be more virus specific in our study. However, it was time dependent and variable. The immune responses were predominantly to the virus at an early stage after OV injection, but they shifted to anti-tumor immunity at the later stage when the viruses were eliminated. The choice of agent and timing would be important considerations for the combination therapy. For instance, local chemotherapy, but not systemic chemotherapy, greatly improved the efficacy of anti-PD-1 treatment to confer anti-tumor immunity, because systemic chemotherapy produced indiscriminate cytotoxicity on both the tumor cells and T cells, dampening the immunotherapy and diminishing the synergistic effect. In this combination strategy, each of the three components could overcome one or more immunosuppressive factors, and thus work synergistically to combat the tumor effectively. Continuous PLX3397 treatment restrained TAMs within the tumor microenvironment, sensitizing the tumor to the subsequent OVs and anti-PD-1 treatment. OV treatment was the key factor in this regimen, as it potentially kills the tumor cells directly and releases the tumor-associated antigens to activate T cells and boost T cell infiltration of the tumor microenvironment. Furthermore, OVs reversed the immune balance within the T cells and led to an increased ratio of effector T cells to Tregs. However, this increased immune response might be a double-edged sword, playing a role in both tumor killing and OV clearance to resume rapid tumor growth at a later stage, leading to unsatisfactory therapeutic outcomes. In addition, OV treatment could activate the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in tumor cells to attenuate the inflammatory responses, which is likely related to the natural stimulation of checkpoint molecules during chronic viral infections to reduce tissue damage.50, 51 Hence, to promote and expand anti-tumor immunity, it was extremely important to combine anti-PD-1 to further evoke the exhausted effector T cells and maintain proinflammatory conditions within the tumor microenvironment.