Abstract
Since the turn of the century, advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. Although these approaches have far outperformed traditional therapies in various clinical settings, both remain plagued by mechanisms of innate and acquired resistance that limit therapeutic efficacy in many patients. With a focus on tumor-intrinsic resistance to immunotherapy, this review highlights our current understanding of the immunologic and oncogenic pathways whose genetic dysregulation in cancer cells enables immune escape. Emphasis is placed on genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic aberrations that influence the activity of these pathways in the context of immune resistance. Specifically, the role of pathways that govern interferon signaling, antigen processing and presentation, and immunologic cell death as determinants of tumor immune susceptibility are discussed. Likewise, mechanisms of tumor immune resistance mediated by dysregulated RAS-MAPK, WNT, PI3K-AKT-mTOR, and cell cycle pathways are described. Finally, this review highlights the ways in which recent insight into genetic dysregulation of these immunologic and oncogenic signaling pathways is informing the design of combination targeted therapy-immunotherapy regimens that aim to restore immune susceptibility of cancer cells by overcoming resistance mechanisms that often limit the success of monotherapies.
Keywords: Cancer, Tumor immunity, Immune resistance, Genetic regulation, Immunotherapy, Targeted therapy
Introduction
Over the last 25 years, the field of oncology has been witness to the birth of targeted therapy and immunotherapy as two transformational approaches to cancer treatment. Although surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy remain widely used forms of traditional cancer therapy, targeted and immune-based interventions have been ushered to the forefront of an increasingly personalized approach to treating malignant disease. Whereas targeted therapy takes advantage of biologic insights into specific drivers of cancer growth and progression that yield unique vulnerabilities in cancer cells, immunotherapy harnesses the potential of the host’s own defense mechanisms to recognize and respond to altered-self cells. Together, advances in both of these areas have marked not only a transformation in the way we think about eradicating tumor cells from the host, but also a transformation in clinical outcomes for many cancer patients.
With the approval of Herceptin as a monoclonal antibody for the treatment of HER2+ breast cancers overexpressing the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in 1998, followed shortly thereafter by the approval of Gleevec for BCR-ABL-driven chronic myelogenous leukemia in 2001, significant efforts have been made to identify targetable drivers of other forms of cancer. These efforts have since led to FDA approval of a number of small molecule inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies specific for mutated/overexpressed proteins and hyperactive pathways in a broad range of cancer types [1, 2]. Such therapeutics have been directed against extracellular growth factors and growth factor receptors as well as kinases and other intracellular proteins that promote various oncogenic activities in cancer cells. Though many of these regimens have produced complete and durable remissions in select cases, many patients who initially respond to targeted therapy experience disease relapse as a result of tumor evolution and acquired resistance [3]. Strategies that overcome such resistance mechanisms and maximize the anti-tumor potential of targeted therapy are therefore sorely needed.
Just as insights into the basic biology of cancer have led to the development of selective approaches for targeting malignant cells, advances in our understanding of immunobiology have paved the way for cancer immunotherapy, whose arrival was officially declared in 2011 when the CTLA-4-specific monoclonal antibody ipilimumab became the first FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitor for cancer. Since that time, the discovery of several other checkpoint receptors and ligands that function to restrain immune hyperactivation has spawned a revolution in immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy, which aims to “release the brakes” that otherwise limit anti-tumor immune reactivity [4, 5]. Together with advances in cancer vaccines and adoptive cell transfer (ACT) therapies employing natural, TCR-engineered, or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T)-engineered lymphocytes [6, 7], these breakthroughs in tumor immunology have drastically shifted the landscape of cancer therapy, yielding clinical results that are unprecedented in the history of oncology. Still, despite its significant clinical benefits with regard to both durability and rate of response, immunotherapy is also plagued by innate and acquired mechanisms of resistance that result in disease relapse in a large number of patients.
Among the resistance mechanisms known to preclude robust anti-tumor immune reactivity, many are associated with the immunologically hostile nature of the tumor microenvironment (TME) [8, 9]. Over the course of tumor progression, the TME often becomes enriched with immunosuppressive cell populations that include regulatory T cells (Tregs), myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC), cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAF), and regulatory dendritic cells (DC). These populations, as well as tumor cells themselves, express immune inhibitory ligands and release immunosuppressive cytokines that dampen anti-tumor immune function. At the same time, limitations on nutrients, oxygen, and other resources within the TME of progressing tumors may also impair immune cell functionality, as can release of suppressive oncometabolites by aggressive tumors capable of adapting to these harsh microenvironmental conditions. In addition to these tumor-extrinsic resistance mechanisms, several tumor-intrinsic mechanisms of immune resistance have also been described. This review highlights our current understanding of such tumor-intrinsic immune resistance, with particular focus on genetic factors that influence the immunologic and oncogenic signaling pathways within cancer cells known to confer such resistance. Based on these insights and the increasing capacity to screen for and target abnormalities arising from genetic dysregulation in cancer cells, emphasis is also placed on the potential of combination targeted therapy-immunotherapy regimens to overcome tumor-intrinsic immune resistance and improve clinical outcomes in cancer patients.
Genetic dysregulation of immunologic signaling pathways in cancer cells
Recognition and killing of cancer cells by cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) involves a number of cell-cell interactions that trigger tumor-intrinsic signaling pathways. Many of these pathways are mediated by engagement of cell surface ligands and receptors when T lymphocytes encounter cognate antigen presented by cancer cells. Additionally, the action of soluble effector molecules released by activated CTL at the tumor cell-T cell interface is dependent on cell surface receptor binding or tumor cell entry. Signaling cascades initiated by either of these mechanisms in turn activate pathways that render tumor cells susceptible to immune-mediated destruction. Over the course of tumor evolution, however, genetic dysregulation of immune signaling pathways can ultimately drive tumor-intrinsic immune resistance (Fig. 1). Importantly, insight into these mechanisms of immune escape is now paving the way for combinatorial therapeutic strategies that employ targeted approaches to overcome tumor-intrinsic immune resistance by reactivating pathways critical to anti-tumor immune reactivity.
Fig. 1.
Immunologic signaling pathways that govern cancer cell resistance versus susceptibility to CTL-mediated anti-tumor immunity. Shown are pathways involving type I/II IFN signaling (top), antigen processing and presentation (bottom right), and immunologic cell death (FAS-mediated cell death pathway shown bottom left; perforin/granzyme and other TNF-family death receptor pathways not shown). Tumor-intrinsic dysregulation of these pathways may arise from genomic, epigenomic, transcriptomic, and post-translational aberrations in various pathway components, ultimately conferring resistance to natural and therapy-associated anti-tumor immune responses.
Tumor-intrinsic defects in type I and type II interferon signaling
The significance of tumor-intrinsic type II interferon (IFN) signaling to the control of cancer has been appreciated since the mid to late 1990s, when Robert Schreiber’s group published seminal studies documenting the direct action of IFNγ on cancer cells as a requirement for functional tumor immunosurveillance [10, 11]. Subsequent work by several groups has since highlighted various anti-tumor actions of both IFNγ and type I IFN (IFNα/β) on cancer cells, including suppression of cell cycle progression, induction of (or sensitization to) apoptosis, and potentiation of tumor antigen presentation to CTL [12, 13]. Perhaps not surprisingly, defects in type I and type II IFN signaling pathways have emerged in recent years as critical determinants of tumor resistance to immunotherapy [14]. James Allison’s group was the first to report this link, highlighting in independent melanoma patient cohorts that IFN pathway gene copy number alterations and single nucleotide variants were both enriched in patients who failed to respond to anti-CTLA-4 ICB therapy [15]. Others have since reported genome-level aberrations in IFN pathway genes as correlates of primary and acquired resistance to PD-1 blockade [16–19]. Collectively, these studies have documented in tumors of non-responding patients a variety of IFN pathway-associated genetic aberrations, from amplification of negative regulator genes (i.e., SOCS1 and PIAS4) to inactivating mutations or copy loss events among genes relevant to all aspects of the IFN pathway, including IFN receptors, kinases associated with IFN signaling (i.e., JAK and TYK kinase genes), transcription factors (i.e., STAT and IRF genes), and IFN-stimulated gene (ISG) targets. Consistent with their role as effectors of anti-tumor immunity, the collection of ISGs found to harbor genetic defects in these studies includes those encoding pro-apoptotic factors and antigen processing and presentation machinery (discussed in more depth below). In addition, recent data from experimental studies employing CAR-T cells have shown that ISGs with cell adhesion function are also critical to therapeutic efficacy against solid tumors. Using a genome-wide CRISPR-Cas9 screening approach to identify genes associated with CAR-T resistance, Larson et al. found that loss of IFNγ pathway genes, including IFNGR1, JAK1, or JAK2, was associated with CAR-T resistance in multiple solid tumor models and that impaired IFNγ responsiveness reduced the duration and avidity of CAR-T binding to tumor cells [20]. Although this mechanism did not impact CAR-T efficacy against liquid cancers, it likely accounts for some of the challenges that have plagued CAR-T therapy for non-hematologic malignancies to date.
In addition to genomic defects that compromise IFN pathway activity, tumor-intrinsic loss of sensitivity to IFN signaling can also be achieved by transcriptional repression of genomically intact IFN pathway genes. Indeed, several studies have documented the prognostic significance of IFN pathway gene expression signatures in tumor tissue as correlates of response to immunotherapy [21–25]. Although many of these studies report outcomes of whole transcriptome RNA-sequencing analyses that do not distinguish gene expression levels in cancer versus non-cancer cell populations in biopsied tissue, experimental work in murine models has provided compelling evidence that intrinsic suppression of IFN pathway genes in cancer cells limits the efficacy of anti-tumor immunity. In a comparative study of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor responsive CMT167 tumors versus the non-responsive Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC), Bullock et al. purified GFP-negative cancer cells growing in lungs of GFP-positive transgenic mice and found that IFNγ pathway gene expression was significantly repressed in LLC cells [26]. Using an alternate approach, Sehgal et al. employed single cell RNA-sequencing technology to evaluate gene expression signatures in residual MC38 colon adenocarcinoma cells that persist following anti-PD-1 treatment of murine-derived organotypic tumor spheroids (MDOTS). Following separation of MC38 cells from IgG or anti-PD-1-treated spheroids, transcriptionally distinct cell states in the anti-PD-1-treated group included two dominant clusters that were each marked by significant downregulation of type I and type II IFN gene expression signatures [27]. While expression of IFN pathway genes in non-cancer cell populations in the TME also plays an important role in the outcome of anti-tumor immunity (reviewed recently in [14]), these studies demonstrate the significance of tumor-intrinsic transcriptional regulation of these genes as a critical determinant of immune resistance versus susceptibility.
Among the ways in which tumor cells reduce expression of IFN pathway genes, epigenetic suppression is well-documented, with several mechanisms of silencing IFN pathway gene expression having been linked to tumor-intrinsic immune resistance and cancer progression. Owen et al. recently demonstrated in a murine model of castration-resistant prostate cancer that IFN pathway gene expression is retained in dormant cells, but lost in actively proliferating cells, from progressing bone metastatic lesions [28]. Consistent with the loss of IFN signaling and immunogenicity that has been observed in bone metastases of prostate cancer patients, this phenomenon was attributed to shifts in histone acetylation, as the reduced expression of IFN pathway genes in activated, proliferating cells isolated from tumor-bearing animals could be restored by histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibition. Importantly, this intervention also impeded outgrowth of bone metastases in vivo and enhanced the efficacy of systemic immunotherapy, suggesting that therapeutic reversal of HDAC-mediated IFN pathway gene silencing in cancer cells may increase their susceptibility to anti-tumor immune responses in patients as well.
Epigenetic imprinting in the form of aberrant methylation patterns has also been found to influence IFN pathway gene expression in the context of cancer. In this regard, histone dimethylation of IFN pathway gene bodies limits ISG expression specifically in cancer cells [29], and DNA hypermethylation and repression of IFN pathway genes has been reported in several cancer types, including Epstein Barr virus-associated Burkitt’s lymphoma and gastric carcinoma [30] as well as NSCLC [25]. Of note, this latter study also demonstrated that promoter hypermethylation of IFN pathway genes in pre-treatment tumor tissue correlated with failed response to ICB therapy. These reports underscore the significance of other studies demonstrating the utility of DNA methyltransferase inhibitors such as 5-Aza-2’-deoxycytidine in promoting ISG expression in tumor tissue. Indeed, this epigenetic modifier has been found to synergize with both type I IFN cytokine therapy as well as combination therapy involving type I IFN and a DC-targeting cancer vaccine in a murine melanoma model [31, 32].
Finally, the influence of chromatin dynamics on IFN pathway activity and immune sensitivity of cancer cells has further been highlighted by a recent study on clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In this study, loss-of-function mutations in the PBRM1 gene that encodes a subunit of the SWI/SNF complex correlated with IFN pathway gene expression and improved clinical response to ICB therapy [33]. Though genomic aberrations in SWI-SNF complex components are not consistently associated with ICB outcomes across diverse cancer types [34], these data highlight a role for chromatin dynamics as a determinant of cancer cell sensitivity to IFN and immune responsiveness in certain contexts.
Similar to the diverse mechanisms by which epigenetic modifiers regulate IFN pathway gene expression in the context of cancer, a number of post-translational regulators can also interfere with IFN pathway activity in cancer cells. Many of these regulators have been identified in murine tumor models with CRISPR-Cas9 screens designed to detect immune resistance genes. Using such an approach, the Apelin receptor (a positive regulator of IFNγ signaling) was found to support the efficacy of ICB and ACT therapeutic regimens for melanoma, a finding that supported clinical observations of multiple loss-of-function mutations in the APLNR gene in tumors refractory to immunotherapy [35]. Likewise, CRISPR screens as well as gene silencing studies have revealed direct immune evasion roles for genes that encode negative regulators of IFN pathway signaling. For instance, silencing or depletion of SOCS1, PTPN2, ADAR1, or FOXA1 can sensitize tumor cells to IFNγ signaling and immunotherapy in various murine models [26, 36–40]. Because many of these IFN pathway inhibitors are upregulated in human cancers, therapeutically targeting these post-translational mechanisms of IFN pathway suppression may be a useful strategy to overcome tumor-intrinsic resistance to immunotherapy.
Based on the diverse mechanisms by which cancer cells evade the anti-tumor actions of type I and type II IFN, several strategies that aim to restore IFN pathway activity and overcome tumor-intrinsic immune resistance have been explored as part of combinatorial regimens with immunotherapy [14]. As alluded to above, epigenetic modifiers including HDAC and DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) inhibitors can restore IFN pathway activity directly in cancer cells, not only by activating expression of silenced IFN pathway genes themselves but also by promoting expression of endogenous retroviral RNA elements which in turn stimulate innate sensors that promote IFN signaling. Indeed, epigenetic reactivation of previously dormant retroviral transposons is particularly well-documented as a driver of ISG expression in both cancer and non-cancer settings in which DNMT are genetically disrupted or targeted therapeutically, and the resulting IFN pathway activation has been shown to depend specifically on innate sensing by TLR3 and MDA5 in some cases [41–45]. Interestingly, it has also been documented that cancer cells often suppress IFN responsiveness by actively silencing retrotransposons [46]. Based on these studies and the prevalence of transposons in the human genome, these foreign genetic elements likely play an underappreciated role as regulators of cancer susceptibility to immunotherapy, particularly in the context of combination therapies involving epigenetic modifiers. As such agents continue to be investigated in the context of combinatorial regimens going forward, it is also important to recognize that because HDAC- and DNMT-associated chromatin modifications impact expression of an array of target genes, therapeutics targeting these enzymes are likely to influence expression of non-IFN pathway genes in cancer cells as well, and they may also act on other cell populations within the TME in both IFN-dependent and IFN-independent ways. Though the broad consequences of such epigenetic interventions will need to be studied in more depth in the years ahead, it is worth noting that such strategies have already been found to potentiate anti-tumor immune responses when combined with ICB therapy, and in some cases these synergistic effects were directly related to increased IFN pathway activity in cancer cells themselves [47–50].
In addition to approaches for activating expression of genomically intact IFN pathway genes, it is also possible to bypass canonical type I and type II IFN signaling pathway components that might be mutated in cancer cells by targeting innate RNA or DNA sensors that operate independently of IFNγ and IFNα/β receptors. Such approaches also have the potential to bypass negative regulators of upstream IFN pathway signaling molecules that may be hyperactive in cancer cells. Activation of these IFN salvage pathways has been successfully achieved in cancer cells treated with agonists for several RNA sensors, including RIG-I, PKR, and TLR3, and these maneuvers have been shown to overcome tumor-intrinsic resistance to both ICB and ACT therapies [51, 52]. Similarly, stimulation of the cytoplasmic DNA sensor STING can also support IFN pathway activation and anti-tumor immunity. In elegant studies in a murine model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, Vonderhaar et al. found that the immunostimulatory effects of STING agonism were not mediated by tumor-extrinsic type I IFN signaling, as the anti-tumor efficacy achieved by STING activation was the same in wild-type and IFNAR1–/– mice. Rather, STING-mediated type I IFN signaling in tumor cells promoted expression of CXCL9 and CXCL10 chemokines, which in turn enhanced tumor infiltration by CXCR3+ T lymphocytes that were necessary to achieve therapeutic benefit [53]. Interestingly, though STING agonism produced similar therapeutic benefit in the B16-F10 murine melanoma model, its efficacy was dependent on type I IFN signaling in host cells, rather than transplanted tumor cells [53, 54]. Similar tumor-extrinsic requirements for STING activation have been described in tumor challenge studies with a mouse oral squamous cell carcinoma cell line in STING-deficient mice [55]. Differences in tumor- versus host-targeted effects in these studies may be inherent to the specific tumor models themselves or, alternatively, to the use of different STING agonists. Nevertheless, data from these and related reports highlight both tumor-intrinsic and -extrinsic mechanisms by which STING agonism can enhance anti-tumor immune responses, particularly when coupled with ICB therapy [55–57]. Finally, it is worth noting that agonists of endosomal TLR7/8/9 DNA sensors have also been shown to mediate IFN-associated synergism with immunotherapy, though these effects have largely been attributed to tumor-extrinsic influences of the agonists on other cell populations in the TME, including stromal cells and tumor-infiltrating DC [58–62]. Regardless of the mechanism, early reports from clinical trials have highlighted the potential of such agonists to support anti-tumor immunity when used in combination with ICB, in many cases overcoming primary and acquired resistance to prior ICB monotherapy [63, 64]. As these strategies continue to be translated into clinical interventions, the challenge going forward will be to determine optimal ways of achieving the desirable anti-tumor functions of IFN activity without driving immune resistance mechanisms that also accompany chronic type I and type II IFN signaling in cancer cells. In this regard, it is worth noting that despite the many pro-immune functions of type I and II IFN as outlined above, in certain contexts IFN signaling in cancer cells has been shown to be detrimental to anti-tumor immune reactivity, driving expression of several immune checkpoint ligands, limiting tumor mutational burden through activation of the DNA damage response, and driving cancer stemness [65–68]. Interventions that aim to epigenetically rewire expression of particular IFN pathway genes, or specific genetic programs activated by IFN pathways, may indeed enable context-dependent manipulation of the broad downstream targets of IFN signaling in a way that ultimately favors the anti-tumor, rather than pro-tumor, functions of these cytokines.
Tumor-intrinsic defects in antigen processing and presentation
One of the major immunologic benefits of IFN signaling in cancer cells is the ability of both type I and type II IFN pathways to induce expression of genes encoding MHC molecules and related antigen processing and presentation machinery. Collectively, expression of these gene products enables tumor antigen recognition by effector CTL. However, even in tumor cells that maintain functional IFN pathway activity, tumor-intrinsic defects in antigen processing and presentation pathways themselves can confer resistance to CTL-mediated immunity [69]. Indeed, mutations and loss of heterozygosity in alleles encoding HLA molecules are well-described in studies of tumor immune escape [70–72]. Likewise, point mutations, deletions, and loss of heterozygosity in the gene encoding β2-microglobulin, which is needed for stable expression of cell surface HLA/antigen complexes, have been shown to emerge over the course of cancer progression and often correlate with resistance to immunotherapy [17, 73, 74]. Other genomic aberrations that compromise the function of transport proteins (TAP1/TAP2) and chaperones (tapasin, ERAP1, etc.) involved in antigen loading onto HLA molecules are also associated with tumor progression and recurrence following immunotherapy [75, 76].
As with IFN pathway signaling components, transcriptional repression can also inhibit the expression and function of antigen processing and presentation machinery, thereby interfering with tumor antigen presentation to T lymphocytes. Across diverse cancer types, several studies have shown that HLA expression is diminished or lost when genes encoding these molecules or antigen processing/presentation pathway components have hypermethylated promoters [69, 75, 77, 78]. Of note, transcriptional repression mediated by such promoter methylation has been reported in patient tumors exhibiting acquired resistance to ACT + ICB combination immunotherapy, highlighting the significance of this epigenetic regulation as a mechanism of tumor evolution and immune escape [79]. Others have shown that altered histone methylation/acetylation patterns at loci relevant to the antigen processing and presentation pathway also suppress HLA expression and tumor antigen presentation by cancer cells [80, 81]. Importantly, the identification of epigenetic regulators that control DNA/histone modifications and other determinants of gene activity has provided crucial molecular insights into the dysregulation of tumor antigen presentation in recent years. In this regard, a broad survey of 16 solid tumor types recently revealed a high frequency of promoter methylation, copy number loss, and missense mutations in the gene encoding NLRC5, a critical component of the CITA enhanceosome that transactivates expression of genes encoding class I MHC molecules and other antigen processing machinery [82]. Not surprisingly, loss of NLRC5 expression/function in tumor tissue correlates negatively with expression of effector CTL markers and is a poor prognostic factor for overall patient outcome as well as specific response to CTLA-4 or PD-1 checkpoint blockade [82, 83]. More recently, Ren et al. also identified a specific role for one of NLRC5’s binding partners, the WHSC1 histone dimethyltransferase, in the regulation of class I MHC-restricted anti-tumor immunity. In this study, it was found that reduced expression of WHSC1 in colorectal cancer specimens is associated with poor T cell infiltration and patient outcome, and mechanistic studies in a murine model demonstrated that loss of this protein led to transcriptionally repressed chromatin signatures at class I MHC-related genes [84]. The SAFB scaffold attachment factor was also recently found to drive transcriptional repression of MHC class I antigen processing machinery in cancer cells. In this study, MYC-induced SUMOylation of SAFB was found to stabilize this protein, which in turn was responsible for downregulation of several genes essential to tumor antigen presentation, including HLA-A, HLA-B, B2M, TAP1, LMP2, and LMP7 [85].
Post-transcriptional and translational mechanisms of regulating antigen processing and presentation in tumor cells have also come to light in recent years. At both levels of regulation, non-coding RNAs are emerging as important oncogenic factors that limit tumor antigen presentation. For example, miR-27a directly targets a sequence in the 3’ UTR of calreticulin mRNA, thereby diminishing translation of a key chaperone needed to ensure proper folding and peptide loading of class I MHC molecules. Of note, this miRNA is upregulated in advanced colon cancers and correlates negatively with HLA expression and CD8+ T cell infiltration of tumors [86]. Similar immunophenotypes have been reported in triple negative breast cancers overexpressing the lncRNA LINK-A, which is a poor prognostic factor for response to PD-1 checkpoint blockade. Mechanistically, LINK-A inhibits PKA-driven phosphorylation of the E3 ubiquitin ligase TRIM71, in turn promoting its ubiquitin-mediated degradation of several components of the peptide-loading complex [87]. While these post-translational mechanisms of disrupting tumor antigen presentation to CD8+ T cells act prior to delivery of HLA/antigen complexes to the cell surface, others function to limit recognition of these complexes following their transport to this destination. One such mechanism involves shielding of HLA/antigen complexes by aberrantly expressed glycosphingolipids on cancer cells. Cell surface glycosphingolipid expression is controlled by the SPPL3 protease, which typically cleaves and inactivates the glycosyltransferase enzyme B3GNT5. Downregulation of SPPL3 gene expression in low-grade gliomas was found to disrupt this axis, leading to an accumulation of cell surface neolacto-series glycosphingolipids, which sterically interfere with HLA molecule recognition by CD8+ T cells. Interestingly, in vitro studies with pharmacologic inhibitors of glycosphingolipid synthesis could restore T cell recognition of otherwise shielded tumor cells, highlighting the potential of these agents to overcome this mechanism of tumor immune escape [88]. Another study has described a role for MAL2 in the loss of cell surface HLA expression on breast cancer cells. This transmembrane protein is overexpressed in aggressive breast cancers and was found to promote endocytosis and degradation of HLA/antigen complexes, thereby limiting anti-tumor T cell reactivity [89].
In light of the diverse mechanisms by which cancer cells may disrupt tumor antigen processing and presentation, a number of strategies for restoring the integrity of this pathway have been investigated. In cases where pathway defects arise from loss-of-function mutations, immunotherapeutic options are indeed limited. Outside of gene therapy, whose long-term efficacy would require restoration of gene function in all tumor cells harboring a given mutation in order to prevent simply selecting for outgrowth of unrepaired cells (a challenge that continues to plague this approach), CAR-T-based therapy that bypasses self MHC restriction and targets non-restricted cell surface antigens is currently the only viable immunotherapeutic option for overcoming genome-level defects in antigen processing and presentation pathway components. Where defects in this pathway arise from transcriptional repression, however, there are indeed attractive options for targeted interventions to support traditional T cell-based immunotherapies. Pharmacologic inhibition of various components of the PRC2 polycomb repressive complex, such as EED and EZH2, blocks transcriptionally repressive histone methylation and enhances the expression of HLA molecules and several antigen processing proteins in cancer cells, making them susceptible to CD8+ T cell reactivity [81]. Likewise, DNA methyltransferase and histone deacetylase inhibition can each epigenetically reprogram chromatin to activate expression of antigen processing and presentation machinery, in many cases potentiating the efficacy of ICB therapy in preclinical models [90–93]. Targeting overexpressed non-coding RNAs and regulatory proteins that mediate post-transcriptional or post-translational suppression of antigen processing and presentation pathway components also offers opportunities to support T cell based immunotherapies. Even in the absence of active pathway suppression, pharmacologic agents that augment the activity of antigen processing components can also increase tumor antigen presentation to T cells. Such an outcome was recently achieved with the herbal medicine-derived small-molecule compound atractylenolide, which overcomes inherent limitations in the catalytic activity of the immunoproteasome, enhancing its antigen processing capacity in a way that synergized with ICB therapy to promote tumor control and survival [94]. Finally, though genomic aberrations in TAP transporters have been linked with tumor progression and resistance to immunotherapy due to their impact on the presentation of traditional T cell epitopes, there is accumulating evidence that TAP-independent self peptides (which are not presented to developing T cells during thymic selection) can be exploited as immunogenic neoantigens in tumors that lose TAP function as a mechanism of immune escape [95, 96]. Immunization against such neoantigens in patients harboring TAP-deficient tumors may therefore increase the breadth of the anti-tumor T cell repertoire and improve immune reactivity against tumors that have evolved to escape responses directed against TAP-dependent antigens. Actively targeting functional TAP in tumor-specific ways can also promote TAP-independent neoantigen presentation and enhance the efficacy of immune-based therapies. Such an approach has already been achieved preclinically with TAP-targeted siRNA conjugated to a nucleolin aptamer, and this intervention was found to improve the efficacy of PD-1 checkpoint blockade [97]. Because tumor neoantigens derived from mutated oncoproteins become biased toward peptides with low binding affinity for class I MHC molecules over the course of tumor progression [98], strategies that increase neoantigen load by eliciting T cell responses against non-mutated, TAP-independent neoantigens may be particularly promising adjuncts to immunotherapy.
Tumor-intrinsic resistance to immunologic cell death pathways
CTL-mediated killing of cancer cells depends not only on tumor antigen recognition but also on the functional operation of various immunologic cell death pathways. These pathways can be mediated by direct CTL engagement of death receptors on tumor cells, such as FAS and TRAIL-R, as well as by granzymes that enter CTL-engaged tumor cells via perforin pores. In both cases, cell death is typically triggered by activation of a caspase cascade that culminates in the induction of tumor cell apoptosis. In the case of the perforin pathway, granzymes that enter target cells function as serine proteases that cleave inactive procaspases to yield active caspases with apoptosis-inducing enzymatic activity. To overcome this mechanism of immune-mediated cell death, several cancer types have been found to upregulate expression of the serine protease inhibitor serpinB9 (also known as PI-9), which suppresses granzyme B activity and confers tumor resistance to CTL-mediated killing [99–102]. Of note, it has been demonstrated in a murine melanoma model of acquired resistance to anti-CTLA-4 ICB therapy that expression of the Serpinb9 gene is significantly upregulated in resistant versus parental tumors. Similarly, elevated expression of this gene is a poor prognostic factor for progression-free and overall survival of melanoma patients treated with CTLA-4 blockade [103]. In keeping with these findings, a recent study reported immune potentiating effects of a serpinB9 small molecule inhibitor. This drug, which reduced serpinB9/granzyme B complex formation and enhanced tumor-intrinsic caspase-3 activity in melanoma cells, also promoted remodeling of the TME, with a shift in the immune compartment from immunosuppressive populations to effector T cell populations [104]. Collectively, these data suggest that serpinB9 inhibition has the potential to enhance immunotherapeutic efficacy through a combination of tumor-intrinsic and tumor-extrinsic mechanisms of action.
Intrinsic defects in death receptor signaling also contribute significantly to tumor immune evasion [105]. Tumor cells may escape the action of these pathways by mutating or downregulating expression of death receptors themselves [106], adaptor proteins such as FADD that mediate signaling through functional death receptors [107], and caspases that act as the effectors of death receptor signaling [108, 109]. Increased expression of proteins that negatively regulate this pathway, such as c-FLIP, can also circumvent cell death signals in tumor cells and promote immune evasion [110, 111]. Likewise, dysregulation of alternative death receptor signaling pathways, including the mitochondrial apoptotic pathway and the necroptotic cell death pathway, can confer anti-tumor immune resistance.
Death receptor activation of the mitochondrial cell death pathway is controlled by a variety of tumor-intrinsic properties, including metabolic and genetic factors. In terms of tumor metabolism, glucose addiction is a vulnerability that can be targeted to promote mitochondrial death via death receptor signaling in many cancers. The glycolytic inhibitor 2-deoxy-d-glucose, as well as glucose deprivation, can sensitize cancer cells to apoptosis mediated by TNF-family death receptors [112–114], suggesting that strategies for targeted interference with glucose metabolism in cancer cells have the potential to support immunotherapies that rely on death receptor signaling to achieve anti-tumor efficacy [115]. In addition to metabolic regulation of the mitochondrial cell death pathway, anti-apoptotic factors such as BCL-2 also play a particularly important role in escape from mitochondria-associated cell death. Often expressed at elevated levels in cancer cells, BCL-2 and related anti-apoptotic family members confer resistance to T cell-mediated killing, the significance of which is underscored by studies documenting BCL-2 inhibitors as sensitizing agents that improve the efficacy of ICB regimens [116–118]. Apoptosis regulators and other death receptor pathway genes are also key determinants of CAR-T cytolotyic activity, as evidenced by recent in vitro studies assessing CD19-redirected CAR-T cell killing of acute lymphblastic leukemia (ALL) cells. Not only did these studies reveal roles for pro-apoptotic signaling molecules and anti-apoptotic molecules as determinants of tumor cell susceptibility to CAR-T-mediated killing via FasL or TRAIL, they also found that tumor resistance to death receptor pathway signaling led to progressive CAR-T dysfunction in the form of an exhausted phenotype, which developed as a result of persistent antigenic signaling from resistant tumor cells. These data offer an explanation for clinical observations that reduced expression of death receptor pathway genes in pre-treatment leukemia-infiltrated bone marrow correlates with CAR-T dysfunction and poor survival of ALL patients [119].
Resistance to immunotherapy has also been attributed to tumor-intrinsic dysregulation of the necroptotic cell death pathway. RIPK1 and RIPK3, key regulators of this pathway, have emerged as particularly interesting determinants of ICB resistance. Though RIPK1 mediates necroptosis by promoting TNF family receptor signaling through TRADD, cancer cells can divert TNF receptor signaling away from this cell death pathway and toward tumor-promoting, pro-inflammatory signaling. Collectively, these effects confer RIPK1-associated resistance to ICB therapy, whereas disrupting Ripk1 gene function enhances ICB efficacy in a T cell- and caspase 8-dependent manner [120]. At the same time, others have shown that intratumoral delivery of necroptotic cells induced to die by transduction with a constitutively active version of RIPK3, a binding partner of RIPK1 in the necrosome, synergizes with ICB therapy to promote control of established tumors [121]. Future insights into the factors that direct RIPK1/RIPK3-mediated signaling toward desirable necroptotic cell death outcomes and away from pro-inflammatory outcomes will be important for developing strategies to manipulate this pathway in ways that favor pro-immune and anti-tumor signaling. Collectively, these and related interventions that aim to restore the integrity of immunologic cell death pathways in immune-resistant tumors have the potential to significantly increase the impact of cancer immunotherapy.
Genetic dysregulation of oncogenic signaling pathways in cancer cells
The dissection of signaling networks that regulate cell growth and survival has led to the discovery of a number of oncogenic pathways that are hyperactive in cancer cells. Gain-of-function aberrations in oncogenes that drive these pathways and loss-of-function alterations to tumor suppressor genes that normally restrain their activity all contribute to cancer progression and ultimately define the molecular distinction between neoplastic versus normal cellular growth. Importantly, in addition to their pro-proliferative and pro-survival effects, many dysregulated oncogenic signaling pathways have also been found to promote tumor immune evasion (Fig. 2). Based on these findings, there is an emerging appreciation that therapeutically targeting oncogenic signaling pathways has the potential not only to interfere directly with cancer cell growth but also to support the efficacy of immune-based treatments for cancer.
Fig. 2.
Oncogenic pathways that confer tumor-intrinsic resistance to immune recognition and destruction. Dysregulation of RAS/MAPK (top left), PI3K/AKT/mTOR (top middle), and WNT (canonical pathway top right; non-canonical pathway not shown) signaling may arise from aberrations in pathway components at the genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic levels, leading to anti-tumor immune resistance. Likewise, defective cell cycle pathway regulation (bottom), either through increased activity of positive regulators or loss of function in negative regulators, has several immunologic consequences. In addition to favoring tumor cell growth, survival, and metastasis, hyperactivity of these pathways influences tumor immune infiltration, recognition, and responsiveness.
Tumor-intrinsic activation of the RAS/MAPK pathway and immune resistance
Comprehensive genomic analyses of all cancer types catalogued in The Cancer Genome Atlas have revealed the RAS/MAPK pathway as the most frequently altered cell signaling pathway in cancer cells [122]. Gain-of-function mutations as well as copy number and epigenetic alterations in genes encoding receptor tyrosine kinases, RAS GTPases, and MAP kinases such as BRAF and MEK can all promote RAS/MAPK pathway activity, leading to uncontrolled cell division, enhanced cell survival, and cellular dedifferentiation [123]. Additionally, activation of this pathway has also been shown to mediate immune evasion by a number of mechanisms, including those associated with T lymphocyte recruitment to the TME, suppression of T lymphocyte effector function within the TME, and cancer cell susceptibility to CTL-mediated killing.
In terms of T lymphocyte recruitment, genomic/transcriptomic activation of RAS/MAPK signaling has been correlated with reduced numbers of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) in murine models as well as cancer patients [124–126]. These effects have been reported in the context of both endogenous anti-tumor responses as well as in adoptive transfer settings. One study found that MAPK pathway activation in BRAF-mutant melanomas reduced T cell infiltration of tumors by activating VEGF secretion [124], likely contributing to vascular abnormalities that preclude efficient T cell influx into tumors. Another study using KRAS-driven models of lung cancer found that this pathway limits cancer cell secretion of the T cell chemoattractant CXCL10 [126].
Multiple mechanisms by which RAS/MAPK pathway activation suppresses the activity of T lymphocytes that do infiltrate tumor tissue have also been described. Several studies have reported that this pathway promotes expression of the PD-L1 checkpoint ligand on cancer cells [125, 127, 128]. In tumor models engineered to enable inducible expression of constitutively active KRASG12V expression, oncogene activation triggers mitochondrial dysfunction and an increase in reactive oxygen species, which in turn promote PD-L1 expression by enhancing EGFR and FGFR1 growth factor receptor activity [127]. Work in a KRASG12D mutant tumor model has also shown that constitutive KRAS activation drives eIF4-mediated translation of ARF6 and AMAP1, which cooperate to recycle intracellular PD-L1 for re-expression on the cell surface [128]. Another cell surface inhibitory molecule whose expression has been linked with activating NRAS or BRAF mutations is the ectoenzyme CD73, which catabolizes extracellular ATP into the immunosuppressive oncometabolite adenosine [129]. In addition to these cell surface immunoregulators, tumor cell secretion of immunosuppressive molecules, including IL-6 and IL-10, is enhanced by MAPK pathway signaling as well, further contributing to the immunologically hostile nature of TMEs in which this pathway is hyperactive [130].
Finally, pathways associated with the recognition and response of anti-tumor T lymphocytes are also dysregulated by oncogenic RAS/MAPK signaling in cancer cells. Oncogenic signaling through BRAFV600E has been shown to limit tumor cell expression of class I and class II MHC molecules via multiple mechanisms. In the case of class I MHC, BRAFV600E signaling triggers rapid internalization and intracellular sequestration of class I MHC molecules within endolysosomal compartments [131]. At the same time, signaling mediated by this oncoprotein also blocks transcription of genes encoding class I and class II MHC [132, 133]. This latter mechanism is at least in part attributable to the fact that RAS/MAPK pathway activity also limits tumor cell responsiveness to both type I and type II IFN, blocking expression of several IFN pathway target genes with important anti-tumor functions [125, 132, 134–136].
Although small molecule inhibitors targeting the RAS/MAPK pathway have shown efficacy against a range of cancer types, tumor-acquired resistance and disease relapse occur in a majority of patients [123]. Importantly, following discontinuation of targeted therapy, these patients also respond poorly to subsequent immunotherapy [137–140]. The development of such cross-resistance results from several factors associated with tumor evolution in response to prior MAPK pathway inhibition. In vitro studies with human melanoma cell lines harboring BRAFV600 mutations have demonstrated that prolonged treatment with BRAF inhibitors leads to loss of both shared melanocyte differentiation antigens as well as a unique neoantigen, compromising tumor recognition by autologous TIL and antigen-specific CTL clones [141]. Recent work in preclinical murine models has also shown that acquired resistance to BRAF inhibition, mediated by constitutive reactivation of MEK, triggers a change in the chromatin landscape and transcriptional output of tumor cells that confers resistance to both ICB and ACT therapies. This unique genetic program, not present in targeted therapy-naïve tumors with hyperactive MAPK signaling, involves a downregulation of type I IFN pathway genes and upregulation of immune evasion genes and could be reversed by subsequent inhibition of MEK, which in turn synergized with concomitant immunotherapy to promote durable tumor control [136]. An alternate mechanism for targeted therapy-induced cross-resistance to immunotherapy has also recently been reported by Terp et al., who found that sustained activation of p38 MAPK signaling compensated for MEK inhibition, leading to upregulation of CD73 in several murine tumor models. Targeting CD73 in conjunction with MEK also improved tumor control in this setting [142]. These findings likely explain the synergistic anti-tumor effects that have previously been observed when BRAF/MEK inhibition is combined with targeted inhibition of the A2A adenosine receptor in a murine melanoma model [143]. Finally, others have shown that prolonged exposure and resistance to BRAF or MEK1/2 inhibitors are associated with tumor-extrinsic shifts in infiltrating immune cell populations, marked by a notable accumulation of MDSC in the TME [144, 145]. This shift in the TME after prolonged exposure to targeted therapy coincides with a lack of response to anti-PD-1 treatment, which is otherwise efficacious when administered shortly after targeted therapy, at a time when tumor-infiltrating MDSC are reduced by MAPK pathway inhibition [145].
Based on the collective ways in which hyperactive RAS/MAPK signaling in cancer cells confers immune resistance, there is indeed strong rationale for coupling pathway-targeting interventions with immune-based treatment regimens. In considering these types of coupled approaches, insights into the immune cross-resistance that accompanies resistance to MAPK pathway inhibitors underscores the significance of therapeutic scheduling in the design of such strategies, arguing for combinatorial, rather than sequential, treatment regimens. Indeed, several preclinical studies have shown that MAPK pathway inhibitors support a range of immunotherapies, including ICB, ACT, and CAR-T regimens, when administered in conjunction with the particular immune-based therapy under investigation [125, 133, 136, 146, 147]. Early results from some of the clinical trials investigating combination front-line therapy with MAPK pathway inhibitors and ICB for BRAFV600 mutant melanoma have shown similar promise, though treatment-related adverse events have led to discontinuation of therapy in some patients [148, 149]. To maximize the safety and efficacy of such combinatorial regimens going forward, it will therefore be important to: (1) define the optimal duration of combination therapy administration and (2) identify prognostic biomarkers that predict those patients most likely to benefit from such regimens. Finally, in light of the suppressive effects that constitutive MAPK pathway signaling has on IFN responsiveness in cancer cells, it is also interesting to consider how oncolytic viruses might be leveraged as an alternative to targeted therapy for use as an immune-supporting agent against RAS/MAPK pathway hyperactive tumors. In this regard, loss of IFN responsiveness in such tumors increases their susceptibility to oncolytic viruses [134], which can ultimately trigger immunogenic cell death to support both natural and therapy-associated anti-tumor immune responses. Collectively, these approaches to target the tumor-intrinsic vulnerabilities manifested by hyperactive RAS/MAPK signaling have the potential to improve the reach of immunotherapy in the large percentage of cancer patients whose tumors are driven by this pathway.
Immunologic consequences of tumor-intrinsic WNT signaling
Another oncogenic pathway that has frequently been linked with tumor immune resistance is the WNT/β-catenin pathway. Hyperactivation of this pathway in cancer cells may be achieved in a variety of ways, including overexpression of autocrine-acting WNT family growth factors, silencing of genes encoding WNT antagonists, gain-of-function mutations in β-catenin, and loss-of-function mutations in the APC tumor suppressor or other components of the β-catenin destruction complex that otherwise limit pathway activity by targeting β-catenin for proteasomal degradation in the absence of WNT signaling [150, 151]. In addition to these and other genetic aberrations that activate mediators of canonical WNT signaling, genetic dysregulation of non-canonical, β-catenin-independent WNT pathways also contribute to tumor progression and immune evasion [152]. Importantly, these effects are mediated not only by tumor-intrinsic consequences of WNT pathway activation in cancer cells themselves but also by extrinsic changes to the TME that are triggered by cancer cells in which WNT pathways are dysregulated.
As with dysregulated RAS/MAPK signaling, tumor-intrinsic WNT signaling can promote immune evasion in several ways. Non-canonical signaling mediated by WNT5A has been shown to reduce CTL recognition of cancer cells by activating PKC- and STAT3-dependent downregulation of tumor-associated antigen gene expression [153]. At the same time, activation of the canonical WNT/β-catenin pathway induces expression of immune checkpoint ligands, including PD-L1 and CD47, the latter of which negatively regulates innate immunity by transmitting a so-called “don’t eat me” signal through SIRPα expressed on phagocytes [154–156]. While these negative regulators are easily targeted with checkpoint inhibitors, several studies have shown that WNT signaling also confers resistance to ICB therapy [157–163], highlighting checkpoint-independent immune evasion functions for this pathway as well. Indeed, the majority of work on WNT pathway activity in the context of cancer immune evasion has revealed that WNT signaling promotes tumor immune exclusion [164], a phenomenon that of course precludes responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors whose efficacy relies on tumor-infiltration by T lymphocytes. This mechanism of WNT-associated immune evasion was first reported by Spranger et al., who found that WNT/β-catenin signaling blocked tumor cell secretion of CCL4 and CXCL1, impeding tumor-infiltration by CD103+ DC needed to prime anti-tumor CD8+ T cell responses [157]. Others have since shown that tumor-intrinsic β-catenin also dampens expression of CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11, directly interfering with recruitment of CXCR3+ T lymphocytes into the TME [165]. Not only does this effect have consequences for endogenous anti-tumor T cells that might be supported by ICB therapy, but it likely also contributes to the exclusion of adoptively transferred T cells that has been observed in ACT therapy-resistant tumors [166].
In addition to driving immune exclusion, WNT signaling can act in both autocrine and paracrine manners to promote immunosuppressive TME dynamics. For example, WNT/β-catenin pathway activity compromises the immunogenicity of DC that do infiltrate the TME. Xenograft studies with human melanoma cell lines expressing a hyperactive β-catenin mutant have shown that the β-catenin/TCF complex directly drives expression of IL-10, which suppresses the immunostimulatory capacity of both tumor-infiltrating and splenic DC [167]. Tumor-derived WNT5A can also promote β-catenin-dependent metabolic reprogramming in DC to support other immunoregulatory, tolerogenic functions. Specifically, this pathway increases lipid uptake and fatty acid oxidation by DC, leading to IDO production and tryptophan metabolism within the TME. Elevated levels of the kynurenine byproduct of tryptophan catabolism in turn supports intratumoral Treg accumulation and activity [168, 169]. Tumor-intrinsic WNT signaling can also activate CXCL5-dependent MDSC recruitment to the TME, driving tumor-acquired resistance to ICB therapy. This phenomenon was recently reported by Theivanthiran et al., who demonstrated that CD8+ T cell activation following PD-1 blockade drives IFNγ- and PD-L1-dependent activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome, leading to HSP70 release and autocrine signaling through TLR4. This axis promoted expression of WTN5A, which in turn activated non-canonical, YAP-dependent CXCL5 expression, MDSC recruitment to the TME, and tumor progression [170].
Several strategies for targeting WNT signaling pathways have been explored in the context of combinatorial regimens with cancer immunotherapy. In an autochthonous melanoma model, WNT ligand antagonism synergized with PD-1 blockade to suppress both primary tumor growth and metastatic progression. In this same study, preliminary data from a Phase I study of the PORCN inhibitor ETC-159 also demonstrated that this WNT antagonist could remodel the tumor immune microenvironment of distinct solid tumors, suggesting that this intervention is likely to support a more favorable response to ICB therapy in patients as well [159]. Likewise, a pharmacologic inhibitor of β-catenin (iCRT14) that interferes with TCF complex formation and transcriptional activity augmented the efficacy of a tumor vaccine in a murine model of colorectal cancer [165]. Another β-catenin inhibitor, RX-5902, was similarly shown to potentiate ICB therapies directed against either CTLA4 or PD-1 in a mouse model of triple negative breast cancer [162]. Biomimetic nanoclusters that target β-catenin for degradation have been used as an alternative approach to enhance PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in experimental models as well [171]. Finally, in addition to these direct methods of WNT pathway inhibition, interventions to disrupt immunosuppressive networks that arise in WNT pathway-hyperactive tumors also have the potential to reshape the TME, creating T cell-inflamed conditions that are more conducive to immunotherapy [169].
Dysregulated PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling and tumor immune resistance
First recognized as a pro-survival pathway in cancer cells, the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway is now appreciated as a driver of several hallmarks of cancer progression, including immune evasion. This pathway may become hyperactive in cancer cells as a result of excessive hormone and growth factor receptor signaling or by various genetic aberrations in its various pathway components, which have been found to occur at a high frequency across a wide range of cancer types. Indeed, one study of nearly 20,000 solid tumors reported that 30% exhibited loss of the PTEN tumor suppressor gene that negatively regulates this pathway, and another 6% were found to harbor PTEN mutations, including those known to confer loss of function. Activating mutations in the gene encoding the PIK3CA catalytic subunit of PI3K were also reported at a high frequency, as were mutations in AKT1, though these were less common [172]. Altogether, these aberrations mark the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway as one of the most significant oncogenic drivers of cancer progression.
Loss of the PTEN tumor suppressor gene was first linked with immune evasion when it was shown to enable PI3K/AKT-mediated induction of PD-L1 on glioma cells, conferring resistance to T cell-mediated lysis [173]. Shortly thereafter, experimental work in models of immune susceptible versus immune resistant tumor cell lines found that AKT activation could also confer resistance to T cell killing [174]. More recently, AKT and its upstream activator, PIK3CA, were shown to reduce tumor immunogenicity by downregulating expression of class I MHC and costimulatory molecules on cancer cells [175]. Much like tumor-intrinsic WNT/β-catenin pathway activation, in addition to these mechanisms of immune escape and suppression, PI3K/AKT hyperactivity in cancer cells also correlates with: (1) T cell exclusion from the TME [176, 177] and (2) an increase in the tumor-infiltrating immunosuppressive myeloid compartment [178].
As a result of these diverse immunologic consequences, genetic aberrations in PI3K/AKT pathway components, particularly PTEN, have emerged as significant correlates of immune therapy resistance, underscoring the relevance of this pathway to tumor immune evasion [158, 174, 176, 178–181]. Specifically, clinical analyses of triple negative breast cancer patients have shown that PTEN alterations correlate negatively with response to PD-1 or PD-L1 checkpoint inhibitors [181], and PTEN loss similarly correlates with poor response of melanoma patients to ICB therapy [180]. The lack of response to PD-1-targeting checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab or pembrolizumab) observed in this latter study is likely explained by reduced CD8+ T cell infiltration into tumors exhibiting PTEN loss. Of note, although CD8+ TIL could still be recovered at low levels from PTEN-deficient tumors, TIL expansion from these tumors was also compromised, a finding that has important implications for ACT-based therapies as well. Biallelic PTEN loss has also been observed in longitudinal analyses of tumor biopsy specimens from patients whose cancers developed acquired resistance to either anti-PD-1 monotherapy [179] or anti-CTLA-4/anti-PD-1 combination therapy [158], further highlighting the role of this pathway in tumor immune escape.
Several strategies for manipulating PI3K/AKT pathway activity have been investigated for their potential to enhance the outcome of cancer immunotherapy. In murine models of Pten-mutant or Pten-null tumors, immune resistance can be overcome by administering PTEN-encoding mRNA-encased polymeric nanoparticles to restore PTEN activity in tumors [182]. In addition to promoting immunogenic tumor cell death, restoration of PTEN function in this way enhanced tumor infiltration by both TH1 helper T cells and CD8+ T cells while decreasing Treg and MDSC infiltration. Importantly, this maneuver also synergized with PD-1 blockade to enhance tumor immune control. Alternatively, the availability of small molecule inhibitors targeting PI3K/AKT pathway components has also spearheaded efforts to pharmacologically disrupt this pathway in cancer cells. While several pathway inhibitors have been developed, the role of PI3K/AKT signaling in the activation and function of T lymphocytes and other immune cell populations is a complicating factor that must be considered when implementing such strategies as anti-cancer regimens. One way to limit deleterious effects of PI3K/AKT pathway inhibition in T lymphocytes while still achieving anti-tumor activity is to administer drugs targeting this pathway on an intermittent, rather than a daily, dosing schedule [183]. In this regard, ongoing use of the PI3Kα/β/δ inhibitor BAY1082439 was recently found to reduce the number of both CD4+ and CD8+ TIL in Pten-null prostate tumors, whereas intermittent drug cycling had no effect on the number of intratumoral CD4+ T cells and actually increased the number of CD8+ TIL. This drug also exhibited tumor cell-intrinsic effects associated with improved immunogenicity, including activation of type I and type II IFN pathway genes that promote antigen presentation (B2M) and T cell recruitment (CCL5 and CXCL10), and its intermittent use drove intratumoral expansion of CD8+ T cells as well. By creating a T cell-inflamed TME, this intervention also overcame primary resistance to PD-1 blockade [183]. Another attractive approach to avoid potential negative immunologic consequences of PI3K pathway inhibition is to selectively target specific PI3K isoforms that drive cancer progression, rather than administering pan-PI3K inhibitors. A dual-targeting PI3Kα/δ inhibitor targeting isoforms known to activate tumor-intrinsic signaling (PI3Kα) as well as tumor-extrinsic signaling in Tregs (PI3Kδ) has been shown to enhance the anti-tumor activity of CD8+ T cells [184]. Interestingly, a selective PI3Kδ inhibitor has also been shown to restrain CD8+ T cell differentiation ex vivo, improving engraftment and anti-tumor efficacy of adoptively transferred T cells [185]. These data suggest that inhibitors targeting this particular PI3K isoform might also prevent terminal differentiation and exhaustion of endogenous CD8+ T cells, further contributing to the anti-tumor and pro-immune effects of such regimens. Specific targeting of PI3K isoforms has indeed led to synergism with various forms of ICB therapy in murine models [180, 186], and promising results have been reported from an early phase clinical trial testing a PI3Kδ inhibitor in combination with pembrolizumab [187]. Finally, targeting downstream mediators of the PI3K pathway such as AKT and mTOR has also been shown to enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy in murine systems [174, 188, 189], highlighting the potential for these combinatorial strategies to improve therapeutic outcomes in clinical settings as well.
Cell cycle pathway dysregulation and tumor-intrinsic immune resistance
While loss of cell cycle regulation has long been recognized as a core tenet of the uncontrolled proliferation that is a hallmark of cancer progression, data have emerged in recent years demonstrating that cell cycle regulators can also confer tumor immune resistance. In particular, aberrations in several genes encoding cyclin and cyclin-dependent kinase family members have been linked with tumor resistance to immunotherapy. In lung adenocarcinoma, elevated expression of CDC25C is associated with reduced CD8+ T cell infiltration, increased Treg infiltration, and poor response to PD-1 checkpoint blockade [190]. Likewise, CDK4 gene amplification, CCND1 gene amplification, and copy number loss of the CDKN2A gene encoding a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor all correlate with primary resistance to PD-1 inhibition in patients with various melanoma subtypes [191]. Similar observations have been made for other solid tumor types harboring CDKN2A deletions or loss of function mutations as well [192, 193]. In this regard, it is worth noting that a recent gene set enrichment analysis of urothelial carcinomas harboring loss-of-function alterations in CDKN2A revealed that expression signatures for antigen processing, IFNγ signaling, and T cell receptor signaling pathways were all reduced in CDKN2A-altered tumors as compared with CDKN2A wild type tumors [192], effects that may at least be partially explained by concomitant loss of the chromosomally proximal JAK2 gene in cases of genomic deletions [194]. At the same time, however, experimental gene rescue of CDKN2A-null melanoma cells enhances tumor cell secretion of T cell-attracting chemokines [195], suggesting that direct influences of CDKN2A on the tumor immune microenvironment are also likely. Moreover, IFNγ pathway response genes are downregulated in tumors with CDK4 copy gain, an anomaly that is completely independent of a situation in which JAK deletion might potentially be coupled to loss of a nearby cell cycle-regulating gene [191]. Together with studies demonstrating that CDK inhibitors can: (1) convert immunologically “cold” tumors to T cell-inflamed tumors [196, 197] and (2) enhance CD8+ T cell effector function [198], these data provide convincing evidence that cell cycle regulators play active roles in immune evasion.
In light of these observations, several studies have investigated therapeutic strategies for targeting cell cycle regulators in the context of cancer immunotherapy. Importantly, the pleiotropic effects of CDK4/6 inhibition have been found to support anti-tumor immunity in a number of ways. First, by activating tumor-intrinsic expression of endogenous retroviral elements, CDK4/6 inhibitors promote dsRNA sensing, which in turn stimulates type III IFN production and tumor antigen presentation [196]. Second, by inducing metabolic stress in cancer cells, CDK4/6 inhibitors trigger expression of chemokines such as CCL5 and CXCL9/10/11 that recruit T lymphocytes to the TME [199]. These inhibitors also suppress Treg proliferation, an effect that correlates with reduced circulating and intratumoral Tregs in inhibitor-treated animals [196]. While CDK4/6 inhibitors also impact CD8+ T cell proliferation, this tumor-extrinsic action is offset by improved T cell activation, memory formation, and infiltration into tumor-bearing lung tissue [197, 199, 200]. Importantly, in these and related studies, the immune-potentiating effects of CDK4/6 inhibition have been shown to augment anti-tumor responses achieved by ACT/CAR-T therapy, OX-40/4-1BB agonist therapy, and ICB therapy [191, 196, 197, 199–202]. Similar results have also recently been reported in studies of ICB therapy in combination with CDK7 inhibitors [198, 203], a CDK12/13 inhibitor [204], and a broad-spectrum CDK1/2/5/9/12 inhibitor [205]. Collectively, these studies highlight the potential of targeting cell cycle regulators in the context of immunotherapy, providing strong rationale for the pursuit of such combination regimens in clinical settings.
Conclusions
Over the last several years, significant research efforts focused on understanding the basic biology of cancer have yielded genetic and molecular insights into an array of factors that regulate tumor cell growth and immune evasion. These insights have paved the way for advances in targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer, revolutionizing the treatment of this disease. Though resistance to even these groundbreaking approaches to cancer treatment have presented their own challenges, a better understanding of the mechanisms by which tumors resist targeted and immune-based approaches to treatment is now ushering in a new era of precision oncology, one that offers opportunities for combination targeted and immunotherapeutic interventions as a means of overcoming the limitations of monotherapies (Fig. 3). Maneuvers to activate immunologic signaling pathways that promote IFN responsiveness, antigen processing and presentation, and immune-mediated death of cancer cells are attractive approaches for supporting immunotherapies that elicit or rely on anti-tumor T cell responses. Likewise, approaches to interfere with oncogenic signaling pathways that confer tumor immune resistance can promote or restore susceptibility of cancer cells to T lymphocytes stimulated by immunotherapeutic interventions. The RAS/MAPK, WNT, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, and cell cycle regulation pathways are each already targetable by FDA-approved small molecule inhibitors, several of which are currently in trials as repurposed components of combination regimens with immunotherapy. Other oncogenic pathways for which roles in immune evasion are just beginning to emerge, such as the Hippo and Notch signaling pathways [206–208], may also prove to be useful targets in conjunction with immune-based interventions. Going forward, it will be important to monitor the biologic and clinical outcomes of experimental studies and trials testing these various combination regimens, as new insights into the cellular/molecular characteristics of immune and cancer cells isolated from tumor-bearing animals and trial participants treated in these ways will be critical for identifying optimal therapeutic combinations ideally suited to particular histologic and molecular subtypes of disease. With this information in hand, combination targeted therapy-immunotherapy has the potential to maximize tumor immune susceptibility and further improve clinical outcomes for many cancer patients in the years ahead.
Fig. 3.
The landscape of immunologic and oncogenic signaling pathways in cancer cells that influence anti-tumor T lymphocyte susceptibility. The outer doughnut wheel includes those pathways for which tumor-intrinsic genetic aberrations are known to confer anti-tumor immune resistance. Identification of specific pathway aberrations in patient biopsies will improve precision immuno-oncology, informing the design of combinatorial regimens that align particular targeted therapies directed against aberrant pathway components with appropriate immunotherapeutic interventions (indicated in the inner doughnut wheel).
Acknowledgements
Research in the Hargadon lab is currently supported by a Mary Louise Andrews Award for Cancer Research from the Virginia Academy of Science. Portions of the figures in this review were generated using BioRender software.
Author contributions
KMH: Conceptualization, literature search, supervision, writing and manuscript/figure preparation
Funding
Research in the Hargadon lab is currently supported by a Mary Louise Andrews Award for Cancer Research from the Virginia Academy of Science.
Data availability
Not applicable, no new data was generated in the preparation of this review article.
Declarations
Conflict of interest
The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
Not applicable, no approvals were necessary for the preparation of this review article.
Consent to participate
Not applicable, no research on human subjects was performed.
Consent to publish
Not applicable for this review article.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Zhong L, Li Y, Xiong L, et al. Small molecules in targeted cancer therapy: advances, challenges, and future perspectives. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2021;6:201. doi: 10.1038/s41392-021-00572-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lee YT, Tan YJ, Oon CE. Molecular targeted therapy: treating cancer with specificity. Eur J Pharmacol. 2018;834:188–196. doi: 10.1016/J.EJPHAR.2018.07.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Boumahdi S, de Sauvage FJ. The great escape: tumour cell plasticity in resistance to targeted therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;19:39–56. doi: 10.1038/s41573-019-0044-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hargadon KM, Johnson CE, Williams CJ. Immune checkpoint blockade therapy for cancer: an overview of FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors. Int Immunopharmacol. 2018;62:29–39. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2018.06.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hargadon KM. Tumor microenvironmental influences on dendritic cell and T cell function: a focus on clinically relevant immunologic and metabolic checkpoints. Clin Transl Med. 2020;10:374–411. doi: 10.1002/ctm2.37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Saxena M, van der Burg SH, Melief CJM, Bhardwaj N. Therapeutic cancer vaccines. Nat Rev Cancer. 2021;21:360–378. doi: 10.1038/s41568-021-00346-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. 2015;348:62–68. doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.AAA4967/ASSET/25CD0751-5C0D-4AE1-AB3E-242082A70CE0/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/348_62_F4.JPEG. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.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]
- 9.Bader JE, Voss K, Rathmell JC. Targeting metabolism to improve the tumor microenvironment for cancer immunotherapy. Mol Cell. 2020;78:1019–1033. doi: 10.1016/J.MOLCEL.2020.05.034. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Dighe AS, Richards E, Old LJ, Schreiber RD. Enhanced in vivo growth and resistance to rejection of tumor cells expressing dominant negative IFN gamma receptors. Immunity. 1994;1:447–56. doi: 10.1016/1074-7613(94)90087-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kaplan DH, Shankaran V, Dighe AS, et al. Demonstration of an interferon gamma-dependent tumor surveillance system in immunocompetent mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1998;95:7556–61. doi: 10.1073/pnas.95.13.7556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jorgovanovic D, Song M, Wang L, Zhang Y. Roles of IFN-γ in tumor progression and regression: a review. Biomark Res. 2020;8:49. doi: 10.1186/s40364-020-00228-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Zitvogel L, Galluzzi L, Kepp O, et al. Type I interferons in anticancer immunity. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15:405–414. doi: 10.1038/nri3845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hargadon KM. The role of interferons in melanoma resistance to immune checkpoint blockade: mechanisms of escape and therapeutic implications. Br J Dermatol. 2021;185:1095–1104. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gao J, Shi LZ, Zhao H, 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]
- 16.Shin DS, Zaretsky JM, Escuin-Ordinas H, et al. Primary resistance to PD-1 blockade mediated by JAK1/2 mutations. Cancer Discov. 2017;7:188–201. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Zaretsky JM, Garcia-Diaz A, Shin DS, 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]
- 18.Sucker A, Zhao F, Pieper N, et al. Acquired IFNγ resistance impairs anti-tumor immunity and gives rise to T-cell-resistant melanoma lesions. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15440. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Miao D, Margolis CA, Vokes NI, et al. Genomic correlates of response to immune checkpoint blockade in microsatellite-stable solid tumors. Nat Genet. 2018;50:1271–1281. doi: 10.1038/S41588-018-0200-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Larson RC, Kann MC, Bailey SR, et al. CAR T cell killing requires the IFNγR pathway in solid but not liquid tumours. Nature. 2022;604:563–570. doi: 10.1038/S41586-022-04585-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Mo X, Zhang H, Preston S, et al. Interferon-γ signaling in melanocytes and melanoma cells regulates expression of CTLA-4. Cancer Res. 2018;78:436–450. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-1615. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Rodig SJ, Gusenleitner D, Jackson DG, et al. MHC proteins confer differential sensitivity to CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade in untreated metastatic melanoma. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10:eaar3342. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aar3342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Ayers M, Lunceford J, Nebozhyn M, 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]
- 24.Garcia-Diaz A, Shin DS, Moreno BH, et al. Interferon receptor signaling pathways regulating PD-L1 and PD-L2 Expression. Cell Rep. 2017;19:1189–1201. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2017.04.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kim JY, Choi JK, Jung H. Genome-wide methylation patterns predict clinical benefit of immunotherapy in lung cancer. Clin Epigenetics. 2020;12:119. doi: 10.1186/s13148-020-00907-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Bullock BL, Kimball AK, Poczobutt JM, et al. Tumor-intrinsic response to IFNγ shapes the tumor microenvironment and anti–PD-1 response in NSCLC. Life Sci Alliance. 2019;2:201900328. doi: 10.26508/lsa.201900328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Sehgal K, Portell A, Ivanova EV, et al. Dynamic single-cell RNA sequencing identifies immunotherapy persister cells following PD-1 blockade. J Clin Invest. 2021;131:e135038. doi: 10.1172/JCI135038. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Owen KL, Gearing LJ, Zanker DJ, et al. Prostate cancer cell-intrinsic interferon signaling regulates dormancy and metastatic outgrowth in bone. EMBO Rep. 2020;21:50162. doi: 10.15252/EMBR.202050162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hansen AM, Ge Y, Schuster MB, et al. H3K9 dimethylation safeguards cancer cells against activation of the interferon pathway. Sci Adv. 2022;8:eab8627. doi: 10.1126/SCIADV.ABF8627/SUPPL_FILE/SCIADV.ABF8627_DATA_FILES_S1_TO_S6.ZIP. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Dong SM, Lee HG, Cho SG, et al. Hypermethylation of the interferon regulatory factor 5 promoter in Epstein-Barr virus-associated gastric carcinoma. J Microbiol. 2015;53:70–76. doi: 10.1007/S12275-014-4654-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Lucarini V, Buccione C, Ziccheddu G, et al. Combining type I tnterferons and 5-Aza-2’-deoxycitidine to improve anti-tumor response against melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137:159–169. doi: 10.1016/J.JID.2016.08.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gordy JT, Luo K, Kapoor A, et al. Treatment with an immature dendritic cell-targeting vaccine supplemented with IFN-α and an inhibitor of DNA methylation markedly enhances survival in a murine melanoma model. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2020;69:569–580. doi: 10.1007/S00262-019-02471-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Miao D, Margolis CA, Gao W, et al. Genomic correlates of response to immune checkpoint therapies in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Science. 2018;359:801–806. doi: 10.1126/SCIENCE.AAN5951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Alaiwi SA, Nassar AH, Xie W, et al. Mammalian SWI/SNF complex genomic alterations and immune checkpoint blockade in solid tumors. Cancer Immunol Res. 2020;8:1075–1084. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19-0866. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Patel SJ, Sanjana NE, Kishton RJ, et al. Identification of essential genes for cancer immunotherapy. Nature. 2017;548:537–542. doi: 10.1038/nature23477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Manguso RT, Pope HW, Zimmer MD, et al. In vivo CRISPR screening identifies Ptpn2 as a cancer immunotherapy target. Nature. 2017;547:413–418. doi: 10.1038/nature23270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Goh PK, Wiede F, Zeissig MN, et al. PTPN2 elicits cell autonomous and non–cell autonomous effects on antitumor immunity in triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Adv. 2022;8:eabk3338. doi: 10.1126/SCIADV.ABK3338/SUPPL_FILE/SCIADV.ABK3338_SM.PDF. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Lawson KA, Sousa CM, Zhang X, et al. Functional genomic landscape of cancer-intrinsic evasion of killing by T cells. Nature. 2020;586:120–126. doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2746-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Ishizuka JJ, Manguso RT, Cheruiyot CK, et al. Loss of ADAR1 in tumours overcomes resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Nature. 2019;565:43–48. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0768-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.He Y, Wang L, Wei T, et al. FOXA1 overexpression suppresses interferon signaling and immune response in cancer. J Clin Invest. 2021;131:e147025. doi: 10.1172/JCI147025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Magnani E, Macchi F, Madakashira BP, et al. uhrf1 and dnmt1 loss induces an immune response in zebrafish livers due to viral mimicry by transposable elements. Front Immunol. 2021;12:712. doi: 10.3389/FIMMU.2021.627926/BIBTEX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Gázquez-Gutiérrez A, Witteveldt J, Heras SR, Macias S. Sensing of transposable elements by the antiviral innate immune system. RNA. 2021;27:735–752. doi: 10.1261/RNA.078721.121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Chiappinelli KB, Strissel PL, Desrichard A, et al. Inhibiting DNA methylation causes an interferon response in cancer via dsRNA including endogenous retroviruses. Cell. 2015;162:974–986. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Roulois D, Loo Yau H, Singhania R, et al. DNA-demethylating agents target colorectal cancer cells by inducing viral mimicry by endogenous transcripts. Cell. 2015;162:961–973. doi: 10.1016/J.CELL.2015.07.056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Daskalakis M, Brocks D, Sheng YH, et al. Reactivation of endogenous retroviral elements via treatment with DNMT- and HDAC-inhibitors. Cell Cycle. 2018;17:811–822. doi: 10.1080/15384101.2018.1442623. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Cuellar L, Herzner AM, Zhang X, et al. Silencing of retrotransposons by SETDB1 inhibits the interferon response in acute myeloid leukemia. J Cell Biol. 2017;216:3535–3549. doi: 10.1083/JCB.201612160. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Stone ML, Chiappinelli KB, Li H, et al. Epigenetic therapy activates type I interferon signaling in murine ovarian cancer to reduce immunosuppression and tumor burden. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:E10981–E10990. doi: 10.1073/PNAS.1712514114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Poeck H, Wintges A, Dahl S, et al. Tumor cell-intrinsic RIG-I signaling governs synergistic effects of immunogenic cancer therapies and checkpoint inhibitors in mice. Eur J Immunol. 2021;51:1531–1534. doi: 10.1002/eji.202049158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Moufarrij S, Srivastava A, Gomez S, et al. (2020) Combining DNMT and HDAC6 inhibitors increases anti-tumor immune signaling and decreases tumor burden in ovarian cancer. Sci Rep. 2020;10:3470. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60409-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Srour N, Villarreal OD, Hardikar S, et al. PRMT7 ablation stimulates anti-tumor immunity and sensitizes melanoma to immune checkpoint blockade. Cell Rep. 2022;38:110582. doi: 10.1016/J.CELREP.2022.110582/ATTACHMENT/7AB02F06-1AE1-474B-8228-A4CA6C712E77/MMC5.XLSX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Such L, Zhao F, Liu D, et al. Targeting the innate immunoreceptor RIG-I overcomes melanoma-intrinsic resistance to T cell immunotherapy. J Clin Invest. 2020;140:4266–4281. doi: 10.1172/JCI131572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Kalbasi A, Tariveranmoshabad M, Hakimi K, et al. Uncoupling interferon signaling and antigen presentation to overcome immunotherapy resistance due to JAK1 loss in melanoma. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12:0152. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abb0152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Vonderhaar EP, Barnekow NS, McAllister D, et al. STING activated tumor-intrinsic type I interferon signaling promotes CXCR3 dependent antitumor immunity in pancreatic cancer. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;12:41–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2021.01.018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Corrales L, Glickman LH, McWhirter SM, et al. Direct activation of STING in the tumor microenvironment leads to potent and systemic tumor regression and immunity. Cell Rep. 2015;11:1018–1030. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2015.04.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Moore E, Clavijo PE, Davis R, et al. Established T cell-inflamed tumors rejected after adaptive resistance was reversed by combination STING activation and PD-1 pathway blockade. Cancer Immunol Res. 2016;4:1061–1071. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Ager CR, Reilley MJ, Nicholas C, et al. Intratumoral STING activation with T-cell checkpoint modulation generates systemic antitumor immunity. Cancer Immunol Res. 2017;5:676–684. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-17-0049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Lee SJ, Yang H, Kim WR, et al. STING activation normalizes the intraperitoneal vascular-immune microenvironment and suppresses peritoneal carcinomatosis of colon cancer. J Immunother cancer. 2021;9:e002195. doi: 10.1136/JITC-2020-002195. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Mullins SR, Vasilakos JP, Deschler K, et al. Intratumoral immunotherapy with TLR7/8 agonist MEDI9197 modulates the tumor microenvironment leading to enhanced activity when combined with other immunotherapies. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7:1–18. doi: 10.1186/S40425-019-0724-8/FIGURES/7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Reilley MJ, Morrow B, Ager CR, et al. TLR9 activation cooperates with T cell checkpoint blockade to regress poorly immunogenic melanoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7:323. doi: 10.1186/S40425-019-0811-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Huang C, Mendez N, Echeagaray OH, et al. Immunostimulatory TLR7 agonist-nanoparticles together with checkpoint blockade for effective cancer immunotherapy. Adv Ther. 2020;3:1900200. doi: 10.1002/ADTP.201900200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Michaelis KA, Norgard MA, Zhu X, et al. The TLR7/8 agonist R848 remodels tumor and host responses to promote survival in pancreatic cancer. Nat Commun. 2019;10:4682. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-12657-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Lemke-Miltner CD, Blackwell SE, Yin C, et al. Antibody opsonization of a TLR9 agonist-containing virus-like particle enhances in situ immunization. J Immunol. 2020;204:1386–1394. doi: 10.4049/JIMMUNOL.1900742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Márquez-Rodas I, Longo F, Rodriguez-Ruiz ME, et al. Intratumoral nanoplexed poly I: C BO-112 in combination with systemic anti-PD-1 for patients with anti-PD-1-refractory tumors. Sci Transl Med. 2020;12:eabb0391. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abb0391. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Ribas A, Medina T, Kirkwood JM, et al. Overcoming PD-1 blockade resistance with CpG-A Toll-like receptor 9 agonist vidutolimod in patients with metastatic melanoma. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:2998–3007. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-21-0425. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Benci JL, Xu B, Qiu Y, et al. Tumor interferon signaling regulates a multigenic resistance program to immune checkpoint blockade. Cell. 2016;167:1540–1554.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Jacquelot N, Yamazaki T, Roberti MP, et al. Sustained type I interferon signaling as a mechanism of resistance to PD-1 blockade. Cell Res. 2019;29:846–861. doi: 10.1038/s41422-019-0224-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Cheon HJ, Holvey-Bates EG, McGrail DJ, Stark GR. PD-L1 sustains chronic, cancer cell-intrinsic responses to type I interferon, enhancing resistance to DNA damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2021 doi: 10.1073/PNAS.2112258118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Musella M, Guarracino A, Manduca N, et al. Type I IFNs promote cancer cell stemness by triggering the epigenetic regulator KDM1B. Nat Immunol. 2022;23:1379–1392. doi: 10.1038/s41590-022-01290-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Dhatchinamoorthy K, Colbert JD, Rock KL. Cancer immune evasion through loss of MHC class I antigen presentation. Front Immunol. 2021;12:636568. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.636568. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Shukla SA, Rooney MS, Rajasagi M, et al. Comprehensive analysis of cancer-associated somatic mutations in class I HLA genes. Nat Biotechnol. 2015;33:1152–1158. doi: 10.1038/NBT.3344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.McGranahan N, Rosenthal R, Hiley CT, et al. Allele-specific HLA loss and immune escape in lung cancer evolution. Cell. 2017;171:1259–1271.e11. doi: 10.1016/J.CELL.2017.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Montesion M, Murugesan K, Jin DX, et al. Somatic HLA class I loss is a widespread mechanism of immune evasion which refines the use of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker of checkpoint inhibitor response. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:282–292. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0672/333536/AM/SOMATIC-HLA-CLASS-I-LOSS-IS-A-WIDESPREAD-MECHANISM. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Sade-Feldman M, Jiao YJ, Chen JH, et al. Resistance to checkpoint blockade therapy through inactivation of antigen presentation. Nat Commun. 2017;8:1136. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01062-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Restifo NP, Marincola FM, Kawakami Y, et al. Loss of functional beta 2-microglobulin in metastatic melanomas from five patients receiving immunotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:100–108. doi: 10.1093/JNCI/88.2.100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Leone P, Shin EC, Perosa F, et al. MHC class I antigen processing and presenting machinery: organization, function, and defects in tumor cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1172–1187. doi: 10.1093/JNCI/DJT184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Chang CC, Pirozzi G, Wen SH, et al. Multiple structural and epigenetic defects in the human leukocyte antigen class I antigen presentation pathway in a recurrent metastatic melanoma following immunotherapy. J Biol Chem. 2015;290:26562–26575. doi: 10.1074/JBC.M115.676130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Hasim A, Abudula M, Aimiduo R, et al. Post-transcriptional and epigenetic regulation of antigen processing machinery (APM) components and HLA-I in cervical cancers from Uighur women. PLoS One. 2012;7:e44952. doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0044952. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Kawazu M, Ueno T, Saeki K, et al. HLA class I analysis provides insight into the genetic and epigenetic background of immune evasion in colorectal cancer with high microsatellite instability. Gastroenterology. 2022;162:799–812. doi: 10.1053/J.GASTRO.2021.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Paulson KG, Voillet V, McAfee MS, et al. Acquired cancer resistance to combination immunotherapy from transcriptional loss of class I HLA. Nat Commun. 2018;9:3868. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06300-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Khan ANH, Tomasi TB. Histone deacetylase regulation of immune gene expression in tumor cells. Immunol Res. 2008;40:164–178. doi: 10.1007/S12026-007-0085-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Burr ML, Sparbier CE, Chan KL, et al. An evolutionarily conserved function of polycomb silences the MHC class I antigen presentation pathway and enables immune evasion in cancer. Cancer Cell. 2019;36:385–401.e8. doi: 10.1016/J.CCELL.2019.08.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Yoshihama S, Roszik J, Downs I, et al. NLRC5/MHC class I transactivator is a target for immune evasion in cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:5999–6004. doi: 10.1073/PNAS.1602069113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Yoshihama S, Cho SX, Yeung J, et al. NLRC5/CITA expression correlates with efficient response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Sci Rep. 2021;11:3258. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-82729-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.Ren J, Li N, Pei S, et al. Histone methyltransferase WHSC1 loss dampens MHC-I antigen presentation pathway to impair IFN-γ-stimulated antitumor immunity. J Clin Invest. 2022;132:e153167. doi: 10.1172/JCI153167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Demel UM, Böger M, Yousefian S, et al. Activated SUMOylation restricts MHC class I antigen presentation to confer immune evasion in cancer. J Clin Invest. 2022;132:e152383. doi: 10.1172/JCI152383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Colangelo T, Polcaro G, Ziccardi P, et al. Proteomic screening identifies calreticulin as a MIR-27a direct target repressing MHC class I cell surface exposure in colorectal cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2016;7:e2120. doi: 10.1038/cddis.2016.28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Hu Q, Ye Y, Chan LC, et al. Oncogenic lncRNA downregulates cancer cell antigen presentation and intrinsic tumor suppression. Nat Immunol. 2019;20:835–851. doi: 10.1038/s41590-019-0400-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Jongsma MLM, de Waard AA, Raaben M, et al. The SPPL3-defined glycosphingolipid repertoire orchestrates HLA class I-mediated immune responses. Immunity. 2021;54:132–150.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2020.11.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Fang Y, Wang L, Wan C, et al. MAL2 drives immune evasion in breast cancer by suppressing tumor antigen presentation. J Clin Invest. 2021;131:e140837. doi: 10.1172/JCI140837. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Luo N, Nixon MJ, Gonzalez-Ericsson PI, et al. DNA methyltransferase inhibition upregulates MHC-I to potentiate cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses in breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2018;9:248. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-02630-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Ritter C, Fan K, Paschen A, et al. Epigenetic priming restores the HLA class-I antigen processing machinery expression in Merkel cell carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2017;7:2290. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02608-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.Briere D, Sudhakar N, Woods DM, et al. The class I/IV HDAC inhibitor mocetinostat increases tumor antigen presentation, decreases immune suppressive cell types and augments checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2018;67:381–392. doi: 10.1007/s00262-017-2091-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93.Wang X, Waschke BC, Woolaver RA, et al. Histone deacetylase inhibition sensitizes PD1 blockade-resistant b-cell lymphomas. Cancer Immunol Res. 2019;7:1318–1331. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0875. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Xu H, Van Der Jeught K, Zhou Z, et al. Atractylenolide I enhances responsiveness to immune checkpoint blockade therapy by activating tumor antigen presentation. J Clin Invest. 2021;131:e146832. doi: 10.1172/JCI146832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 95.Seidel UJE, Oliveira CC, Lampen MH, Van Hall T. A novel category of antigens enabling CTL immunity to tumor escape variants: Cinderella antigens. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2012;61:119–125. doi: 10.1007/S00262-011-1160-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Doorduijn EM, Sluijter M, Querido BJ, et al. TAP-independent self-peptides enhance T cell recognition of immune-escaped tumors. J Clin Invest. 2016;126:784–794. doi: 10.1172/JCI83671. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Garrido G, Schrand B, Rabasa A, et al. Tumor-targeted silencing of the peptide transporter TAP induces potent antitumor immunity. Nat Commun. 2019;10:3773. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-11728-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Marty R, Kaabinejadian S, Rossell D, et al. MHC-I genotype restricts the oncogenic mutational landscape. Cell. 2017;171:1272–1283.e15. doi: 10.1016/J.CELL.2017.09.050/ATTACHMENT/DD3B2DF1-9291-47E5-8D98-EB4669DE06EB/MMC6.XLSX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Medema JP, De Jong J, Peltenburg LTC, et al. Blockade of the granzyme B/perforin pathway through overexpression of the serine protease inhibitor PI-9/SPI-6 constitutes a mechanism for immune escape by tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:11515–11520. doi: 10.1073/PNAS.201398198/ASSET/F0A8709C-8D73-45BD-B646-934D321A7D61/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/PQ2013981004.JPEG. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Zhou B, Chen E, Chen J, et al. Overexpression of proteinase inhibitor 9 is associated with poor prognosis in human hepatocellular carcinoma and with proliferation and apoptosis in HepG2 cells in vitro. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2019;12:3719. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 101.Rousalova I, Krepela E, Prochazka J, et al. Expression of proteinase inhibitor-9/serpinB9 in non-small cell lung carcinoma cells and tissues. Int J Oncol. 2010;36:275–283. doi: 10.3892/IJO_00000498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 102.Soriano C, Mukaro V, Hodge G, et al. Increased proteinase inhibitor-9 (PI-9) and reduced granzyme B in lung cancer: mechanism for immune evasion? Lung Cancer. 2012;77:38–45. doi: 10.1016/J.LUNGCAN.2012.01.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 103.Jiang P, Gu S, Pan D, et al. Signatures of T cell dysfunction and exclusion predict cancer immunotherapy response. Nat Med. 2018;24:1550–1558. doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0136-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 104.Jiang L, Wang YJ, Zhao J, et al. Direct tumor killing and immunotherapy through anti-serpinB9 therapy. Cell. 2020;183:1219–1233.e18. doi: 10.1016/J.CELL.2020.10.045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 105.Reilly EO, Tirincsi A, Logue SE, Szegezdi E. The Janus face of death receptor signaling during tumor immunoediting. Front Immunol. 2016;7:446. doi: 10.3389/FIMMU.2016.00446/BIBTEX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 106.French LE, Tschopp J. Defective death receptor signaling as a cause of tumor immune escape. Semin Cancer Biol. 2002;12:51–55. doi: 10.1006/SCBI.2001.0405. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 107.Tourneur L, Buzyn A, Chiocchia G. FADD adaptor in cancer. Med Immunol. 2005;4:1–9. doi: 10.1186/1476-9433-4-1/FIGURES/3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 108.Olsson M, Zhivotovsky B. Caspases and cancer. Cell Death Differ. 2011;18:1441–1449. doi: 10.1038/cdd.2011.30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 109.Häcker S, Dittrich A, Mohr A, et al. Histone deacetylase inhibitors cooperate with IFN-γ to restore caspase-8 expression and overcome TRAIL resistance in cancers with silencing of caspase-8. Oncogene. 2009;28:3097–3110. doi: 10.1038/onc.2009.161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 110.Medema JP, De Jong J, Van Hall T, et al. Immune escape of tumors in vivo by expression of cellular FLICE-inhibitory protein. J Exp Med. 1999;190:1033–1038. doi: 10.1084/JEM.190.7.1033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 111.Wang Y, Li JJ, Ba HJ, et al. Down regulation of c-FLIPL enhance PD-1 blockade efficacy in B16 melanoma. Front Oncol. 2019;9:857. doi: 10.3389/FONC.2019.00857/BIBTEX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 112.Muñoz-Pinedo C, Ruiz-Ruiz C, De Almodóvar CR, et al. Inhibition of glucose metabolism sensitizes tumor cells to death receptor-triggered apoptosis through enhancement of death-inducing signaling complex formation and apical procaspase-8 processing. J Biol Chem. 2003;278:12759–12768. doi: 10.1074/JBC.M212392200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 113.Carr RM, Qiao G, Qin J, et al. Targeting the metabolic pathway of human colon cancer overcomes resistance to TRAIL-induced apoptosis. Cell Death Discov. 2016;2:16067. doi: 10.1038/CDDISCOVERY.2016.67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 114.Iurlaro R, Püschel F, León-Annicchiarico CL, et al. Glucose deprivation induces ATF4-mediated apoptosis through TRAIL death receptors. Mol Cell Biol. 2017;37:e00479–16. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00479-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 115.Ma G, Li C, Zhang Z, et al. Targeted glucose or glutamine metabolic therapy combined With PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade immunotherapy for the treatment of tumors - mechanisms and strategies. Front Oncol. 2021;11:2627. doi: 10.3389/FONC.2021.697894/BIBTEX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 116.Joung J, Kirchgatterer PC, Singh A, et al. CRISPR activation screen identifies BCL-2 proteins and B3GNT2 as drivers of cancer resistance to T cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Nat Commun. 2022;13:1–14. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-29205-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 117.Li J, Xu J, Li Z. Obatoclax, the pan-Bcl-2 inhibitor sensitizes hepatocellular carcinoma cells to promote the anti-tumor efficacy in combination with immune checkpoint blockade. Transl Oncol. 2021;14:101116. doi: 10.1016/J.TRANON.2021.101116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 118.Kohlhapp FJ, Haribhai D, Mathew R, et al. Venetoclax increases intratumoral effector t cells and antitumor efficacy in combination with immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:68–79. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0759/333448/AM/VENETOCLAX-INCREASES-INTRA-TUMORAL-EFFECTOR-T. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 119.Singh N, Lee YG, Shestova O, et al. Impaired death receptor signaling in leukemia causes antigen-independent resistance by inducing CAR T-cell dysfunction. Cancer Discov. 2020;10:552–567. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0813. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 120.Cucolo L, Chen Q, Qiu J, et al. The interferon-stimulated gene RIPK1 regulates cancer cell intrinsic and extrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Immunity. 2022;55:671–685.e10. doi: 10.1016/J.IMMUNI.2022.03.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 121.Snyder AG, Hubbard NW, Messmer MN, et al. Intratumoral activation of the necroptotic pathway components RIPK1 and RIPK3 potentiates antitumor immunity. Sci Immunol. 2019;4:2004. doi: 10.1126/SCIIMMUNOL.AAW2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 122.Sanchez-Vega F, Mina M, Armenia J, et al. Oncogenic signaling pathways in the cancer genome atlas. Cell. 2018;173:321–337.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 123.Yaeger R, Corcoran RB. Targeting alterations in the RAF–MEK pathway. Cancer Discov. 2019;9:329–341. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-1321/333765/P/TARGETING-ALTERATIONS-IN-THE-RAF-MEK. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 124.Liu C, Peng W, Xu C, et al. BRAF inhibition increases tumor infiltration by T cells and enhances the antitumor activity of adoptive immunotherapy in mice. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:393–403. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1626. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 125.Loi S, Dushyanthen S, Beavis PA, et al. RAS/MAPK activation is associated with reduced tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic cooperation between MEK and PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22:1499–1509. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 126.Limagne E, Nuttin L, Thibaudin M, et al. MEK inhibition overcomes chemoimmunotherapy resistance by inducing CXCL10 in cancer cells. Cancer Cell. 2022;40:136–152.e12. doi: 10.1016/J.CCELL.2021.12.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 127.Glorieux C, Xia X, He YQ, et al. Regulation of PD-L1 expression in K-ras-driven cancers through ROS-mediated FGFR1 signaling. Redox Biol. 2021;38:101780. doi: 10.1016/J.REDOX.2020.101780. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 128.Hashimoto S, Furukawa S, Hashimoto A, et al. ARF6 and AMAP1 are major targets of KRAS and TP53 mutations to promote invasion, PD-L1 dynamics, and immune evasion of pancreatic cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:17450–17459. doi: 10.1073/PNAS.1901765116/-/DCSUPPLEMENTAL. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 129.Reinhardt J, Landsberg J, Schmid-Burgk JL, et al. MAPK signaling and inflammation link melanoma phenotype switching to induction of CD73 during immunotherapy. Cancer Res. 2017;77:4697–4709. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 130.Sumimoto H, Imabayashi F, Iwata T, Kawakami Y. The BRAF-MAPK signaling pathway is essential for cancer-immune evasion in human melanoma cells. J Exp Med. 2006;203:1651–1656. doi: 10.1084/jem.20051848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 131.Bradley SD, Chen Z, Melendez B, et al. BRAFV600E Co-opts a conserved MHC class I internalization pathway to diminish antigen presentation and CD8+ T-cell recognition of melanoma. Cancer Immunol Res. 2015;3:602–609. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-15-0030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 132.Sapkota B, Hill CE, Pollack BP. Vemurafenib enhances MHC induction in BRAFV600E homozygous melanoma cells. Oncoimmunology. 2013;2:e22890. doi: 10.4161/ONCI.22890/SUPPL_FILE/KONI_A_10922890_SM0001.ZIP. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 133.Zhi J, Zhang P, Zhang W, et al. Inhibition of BRAF sensitizes thyroid carcinoma to immunotherapy by enhancing tsMHCII-mediated immune recognition. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2021;106:91–107. doi: 10.1210/CLINEM/DGAA656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 134.Komatsu Y, Christian SL, Ho N, et al. Oncogenic Ras inhibits IRF1 to promote viral oncolysis. Oncogene. 2015;34:3985–3993. doi: 10.1038/ONC.2014.331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 135.Brägelmann J, Lorenz C, Borchmann S, et al. MAPK-pathway inhibition mediates inflammatory reprogramming and sensitizes tumors to targeted activation of innate immunity sensor RIG-I. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1–15. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-25728-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 136.Haas L, Elewaut A, Gerard CL, et al. Acquired resistance to anti-MAPK targeted therapy confers an immune-evasive tumor microenvironment and cross-resistance to immunotherapy in melanoma. Nat Cancer. 2021;2:693–708. doi: 10.1038/s43018-021-00221-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 137.Ackerman A, Klein O, McDermott DF, et al. Outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapy prior to or after BRAF inhibitors. Cancer. 2014;120:1695–1701. doi: 10.1002/CNCR.28620. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 138.Johnson DB, Pectasides E, Feld E, et al. Sequencing treatment in BRAFV600 mutant melanoma: anti-PD-1 before and after BRAF inhibition. J Immunother. 2017;40:31–35. doi: 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000148. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 139.Amini-Adle M, Khanafer N, Le-Bouar M, et al. Ineffective anti PD-1 therapy after BRAF inhibitor failure in advanced melanoma. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:705. doi: 10.1186/S12885-018-4618-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 140.Mason R, Dearden HC, Nguyen B, et al. Combined ipilimumab and nivolumab first-line and after BRAF-targeted therapy in advanced melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2020;33:358–365. doi: 10.1111/PCMR.12831. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 141.Pieper N, Zaremba A, Leonardelli S, et al. Evolution of melanoma cross-resistance to CD8 + T cells and MAPK inhibition in the course of BRAFi treatment. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7:e1450127. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1450127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 142.Terp MG, Gammelgaard OL, Vever H, et al. Sustained compensatory p38 MAPK signaling following treatment with MAPK inhibitors induces the immunosuppressive protein CD73 in cancer: combined targeting could improve outcomes. Mol Oncol. 2021;15:3299–3316. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.13046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 143.Young A, Ngiow SF, Madore J, et al. Targeting adenosine in BRAF-mutant melanoma reduces tumor growth and metastasis. Cancer Res. 2017;77:4684–4696. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 144.Steinberg SM, Shabaneh TB, Zhang P, et al. Myeloid cells that impair immunotherapy are restored in melanomas with acquired resistance to BRAF inhibitors. Cancer Res. 2017;77:1599–1610. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-1755. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 145.Prasad M, Zorea J, Jagadeeshan S, et al. MEK1/2 inhibition transiently alters the tumor immune microenvironment to enhance immunotherapy efficacy against head and neck cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 2022;10:e003917. doi: 10.1136/JITC-2021-003917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 146.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. doi: 10.1126/SCITRANSLMED.AAA4691. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 147.Tomida A, Yagyu S, Nakamura K, et al. Inhibition of MEK pathway enhances the antitumor efficacy of chimeric antigen receptor T cells against neuroblastoma. Cancer Sci. 2021;112:4026–4036. doi: 10.1111/CAS.15074. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 148.Gutzmer R, Stroyakovskiy D, Gogas H, et al. Atezolizumab, vemurafenib, and cobimetinib as first-line treatment for unresectable advanced BRAFV600 mutation-positive melanoma (IMspire150): primary analysis of the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2020;395:1835–1844. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30934-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 149.Rozeman EA, Versluis JM, Sikorska K, et al. The IMPemBra trial, a phase II study comparing pembrolizumab with intermittent/short-term dual MAPK pathway inhibition plus pembrolizumab in melanoma patients harboring the BRAFV600 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15_suppl):10021. doi: 10.1200/JCO20203815_suppl10021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 150.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]
- 151.Wang Z, Zhao T, Zhang S, et al. The Wnt signaling pathway in tumorigenesis, pharmacological targets, and drug development for cancer therapy. Biomark Res. 2021;9:68. doi: 10.1186/S40364-021-00323-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 152.Webster MR, Kugel CH, Weeraratna AT. The Wnts of change: how Wnts regulate phenotype switching in melanoma. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2015;1856:244–251. doi: 10.1016/J.BBCAN.2015.10.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 153.Dissanayake SK, Olkhanud PB, O’Connell MP, et al. Wnt5A regulates expression of tumor-associated antigens in melanoma via changes in signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 phosphorylation. Cancer Res. 2008;68:10205–10214. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-2149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 154.Castagnoli L, Cancila V, Cordoba-Romero SL, et al. WNT signaling modulates PD-L1 expression in the stem cell compartment of triple-negative breast cancer. Oncogene. 2019;38:4047–4060. doi: 10.1038/S41388-019-0700-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 155.Du L, Lee JH, Jiang H, et al. β-Catenin induces transcriptional expression of PD-L1 to promote glioblastoma immune evasion. J Exp Med. 2020;217:e20191115. doi: 10.1084/JEM.20191115/152055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 156.Gowda P, Patrick S, Singh A, et al. Mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 disrupts PKM2-β-catenin-BRG1 transcriptional network-driven CD47 expression. Mol Cell Biol. 2018;38:e00001–18. doi: 10.1128/MCB.00001-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 157.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]
- 158.Trujillo JA, Luke JJ, Zha Y, et al. Secondary resistance to immunotherapy associated with β-catenin pathway activation or PTEN loss in metastatic melanoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7:295. doi: 10.1186/s40425-019-0780-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 159.DeVito NC, Sturdivant M, Thievanthiran B, et al. Pharmacological Wnt ligand inhibition overcomes key tumor-mediated resistance pathways to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy. Cell Rep. 2021;35:109071. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 160.Li J, Zhang H, Bei S, et al. Disruption of Wnt/β-catenin pathway elevates the sensitivity of gastric cancer cells to PD-1 antibody. Curr Mol Pharmacol. 2021;14:557–569. doi: 10.2174/1874467214666210617163821. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 161.Zhang H, Bi Y, Wei Y, et al. Blocking Wnt/β-catenin signal amplifies anti-PD-1 therapeutic efficacy by inhibiting tumor growth, migration, and promoting immune infiltration in glioblastomas. Mol Cancer Ther. 2021;20:1305–1315. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-20-0825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 162.Tentler JJ, Lang J, Capasso A, et al. RX-5902, a novel β-catenin modulator, potentiates the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in preclinical models of triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:1063. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07500-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 163.de Galarreta MR, Bresnahan E, Molina-Sánchez P, et al. β-Catenin activation promotes immune escape and resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2019;9:1124–1141. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 164.Luke JJ, Bao R, Sweis RF, et al. WNT/β-catenin pathway activation correlates with immune exclusion across human cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:3074–3083. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1942/74038/AM/WNT-CATENIN-PATHWAY-ACTIVATION-CORRELATES-WITH. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 165.Wang C, Yan J, Yin P, et al. β-Catenin inhibition shapes tumor immunity and synergizes with immunotherapy in colorectal cancer. Oncoimmunology. 2020;9:1809947. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2020.1809947/SUPPL_FILE/KONI_A_1809947_SM5216.PDF. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 166.Campbell KM, Thaker M, Medina E, et al. Spatial profiling reveals association between WNT pathway activation and T-cell exclusion in acquired resistance of synovial sarcoma to NY-ESO-1 transgenic T-cell therapy. J Immunother Cancer. 2022;10:e004190. doi: 10.1136/JITC-2021-004190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 167.Yaguchi T, Goto Y, Kido K, et al. Immune suppression and resistance mediated by constitutive activation of Wnt/B-catenin signaling in human melanoma cells. J Immunol. 2012;189:2110–2117. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1102282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 168.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;3:1082–1095. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 169.Zhao F, Xiao C, Evans KS, et al. Paracrine Wnt5a-β-catenin signaling triggers a metabolic program that drives dendritic cell tolerization. Immunity. 2018;48:147–160.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2017.12.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 170.Theivanthiran B, Evans KS, de Vito NC, et al. A tumor-intrinsic PD-L1/NLRP3 inflammasome signaling pathway drives resistance to anti–PD-1 immunotherapy. J Clin Invest. 2020;130:2570–2586. doi: 10.1172/JCI133055. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 171.Liu J, Yan J, Yan S, et al. Biomimetic and self-assembled nanoclusters targeting β-catenin for potent anticancer therapy and enhanced immunotherapy. Nano Lett. 2019;19:8708–8715. doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.9b03414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 172.Millis SZ, Ikeda S, Reddy S, et al. Landscape of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase pathway alterations across 19784 diverse solid tumors. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:1565–1573. doi: 10.1001/JAMAONCOL.2016.0891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 173.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;13:84–88. doi: 10.1038/NM1517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 174.Noh KH, Kang TH, Kim JH, et al. Activation of Akt as a mechanism for tumor immune evasion. Mol Ther. 2009;17:439–447. doi: 10.1038/MT.2008.255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 175.Sivaram N, McLaughlin PA, Han HV, et al. Tumor-intrinsic PIK3CA represses tumor immunogenicity in a model of pancreatic cancer. J Clin Invest. 2019;129:3264–3276. doi: 10.1172/JCI123540. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 176.Lin Z, Huang L, Li SL, et al. PTEN loss correlates with T cell exclusion across human cancers. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:429. doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08114-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 177.Borcoman E, De La Rochere P, Richer W, et al. Inhibition of PI3K pathway increases immune infiltrate in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Oncoimmunology. 2019;8:e1581556. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2019.1581556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 178.Collins NB, Al Abosy R, Miller BC, et al. PI3K activation allows immune evasion by promoting an inhibitory myeloid tumor microenvironment. J Immunother cancer. 2022;10:e003402. doi: 10.1136/JITC-2021-003402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 179.George S, Miao D, Demetri GD, et al. Loss of PTEN is associated with resistance to anti-PD-1 checkpoint blockade therapy in metastatic uterine leiomyosarcoma. Immunity. 2017;46:197–204. doi: 10.1016/J.IMMUNI.2017.02.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 180.Peng W, Chen JQ, Liu C, et al. Loss of PTEN promotes resistance to T cell–mediated immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:202–216. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-15-0283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 181.Barroso-Sousa R, Keenan TE, Pernas S, et al. Tumor mutational burden and PTEN alterations as molecular correlates of response to PD-1/L1 blockade in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26:2565–2572. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 182.Lin YX, Wang Y, Ding J, et al. Reactivation of the tumor suppressor PTEN by mRNA nanoparticles enhances antitumor immunity in preclinical models. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13:eaba9772. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aba9772. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 183.Qi Z, Xu Z, Zhang L, et al. Overcoming resistance to immune checkpoint therapy in PTEN-null prostate cancer by intermittent anti-PI3Kα/β/δ treatment. Nat Commun. 2022;13:182. doi: 10.1038/S41467-021-27833-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 184.Carnevalli LS, Sinclair C, Taylor MA, et al. PI3Kα/δ inhibition promotes anti-tumor immunity through direct enhancement of effector CD8 + T-cell activity. J Immunother cancer. 2018;6:158. doi: 10.1186/S40425-018-0457-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 185.Bowers JS, Majchrzak K, Nelson MH, et al. PI3Kδ inhibition enhances the antitumor fitness of adoptively transferred CD8 + T cells. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1221. doi: 10.3389/FIMMU.2017.01221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 186.Lauder SN, Smart K, Kersemans V, et al. Enhanced antitumor immunity through sequential targeting of PI3Kδ and LAG3. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8:e000693. doi: 10.1136/JITC-2020-000693. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 187.Kirkwood JM, Iannotti N, Cho D, et al. Abstract CT176: Effect of JAK/STAT or PI3Kδ plus PD-1 inhibition on the tumor microenvironment: biomarker results from a phase Ib study in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Res. 2018;78:CT176–CT176. doi: 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2018-CT176. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 188.Bai X, Wang X, Ma G, et al. Improvement of PD-1 blockade efficacy and elimination of immune-related gastrointestinal adverse effect by mTOR inhibitor. Front Immunol. 2021;12:793831. doi: 10.3389/FIMMU.2021.793831. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 189.Langdon S, Hughes A, Taylor MA, et al. Combination of dual mTORC1/2 inhibition and immune-checkpoint blockade potentiates anti-tumour immunity. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7:e1458810. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2018.1458810. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 190.Zhang W, Shang X, Yang F, et al. CDC25C as a predictive biomarker for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Front Oncol. 2022;12:867788. doi: 10.3389/FONC.2022.867788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 191.Yu J, Yan J, Guo Q, et al. Genetic aberrations in the CDK4 pathway are associated with innate resistance to PD-1 blockade in chinese patients with non-cutaneous melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:6511–6523. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-0475. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 192.Adib E, Nassar AH, Akl EW, et al. CDKN2A alterations and response to immunotherapy in solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27:4025–4035. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0575. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 193.Gutiontov SI, Turchan WT, Spurr LF, et al. CDKN2A loss-of-function predicts immunotherapy resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. Sci Rep. 2021;11:20059. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-99524-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 194.Horn S, Leonardelli S, Sucker A, et al. Tumor CDKN2A-associated JAK2 loss and susceptibility to immunotherapy resistance. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:677–681. doi: 10.1093/JNCI/DJX271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 195.Zhu Z, Song H, Xu J. CDKN2A deletion in melanoma excludes T cell infiltration by repressing chemokine expression in a cell cycle-dependent manner. Front Oncol. 2021;11:416. doi: 10.3389/FONC.2021.641077/BIBTEX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 196.Goel S, Decristo MJ, Watt AC, et al. CDK4/6 inhibition triggers anti-tumour immunity. Nature. 2017;548:471–475. doi: 10.1038/NATURE23465. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 197.Deng J, Wang ES, Jenkins RW, et al. CDK4/6 inhibition augments antitumor immunity by enhancing T-cell activation. Cancer Discov. 2018;8:216–233. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-0915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 198.Zhang H, Christensen CL, Dries R, et al. CDK7 inhibition potentiates genome instability triggering anti-tumor immunity in small cell lung cancer. Cancer Cell. 2020;37:37–54.e9. doi: 10.1016/J.CCELL.2019.11.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 199.Uzhachenko RV, Bharti V, Ouyang Z, et al. Metabolic modulation by CDK4/6 inhibitor promotes chemokine-mediated recruitment of T cells into mammary tumors. Cell Rep. 2021;35:108944. doi: 10.1016/J.CELREP.2021.108944/ATTACHMENT/C20C1AFF-F6CB-499F-B84C-0182DB2DA1CC/MMC2.XLSX. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 200.Lelliott EJ, Kong IY, Zethoven M, et al. CDK4/6 inhibition promotes antitumor immunity through the induction of T-cell memory. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:2582–2601. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-1554/674151/AM/CDK4-6-INHIBITION-PROMOTES-ANTI-TUMOR-IMMUNITY. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 201.Schaer DA, Beckmann RP, Dempsey JA, et al. The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib induces a T cell inflamed tumor microenvironment and enhances the efficacy of PD-L1 checkpoint blockade. Cell Rep. 2018;22:2978–2994. doi: 10.1016/J.CELREP.2018.02.053/ATTACHMENT/AFEAC161-4F7F-4835-A2A1-3283762CE7C1/MMC1.PDF. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 202.Zhang J, Bu X, Wang H, et al. Cyclin D-CDK4 kinase destabilizes PD-L1 via cullin 3-SPOP to control cancer immune surveillance. Nature. 2018;553:91–95. doi: 10.1038/NATURE25015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 203.Wang J, Zhang R, Lin Z, et al. CDK7 inhibitor THZ1 enhances antiPD-1 therapy efficacy via the p38α/MYC/PD-L1 signaling in non-small cell lung cancer. J Hematol Oncol. 2020;13:1–16. doi: 10.1186/S13045-020-00926-X/FIGURES/6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 204.Li Y, Zhang H, Li Q, et al. CDK12/13 inhibition induces immunogenic cell death and enhances anti-PD-1 anticancer activity in breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 2020;495:12–21. doi: 10.1016/J.CANLET.2020.09.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 205.Md Sakib Hossain D, Javaid S, Cai M, et al. Dinaciclib induces immunogenic cell death and enhances anti-PD1-mediated tumor suppression. J Clin Invest. 2018;128:644–654. doi: 10.1172/JCI94586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 206.Helena JJvR, Azad T, Ling M, et al. The Hippo pathway component TAZ promotes immune evasion in human cancer through PD-L1. Cancer Res. 2018;78:1457–1470. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-3139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 207.Meng J, Jiang YZ, Zhao S, et al. Tumor-derived Jagged1 promotes cancer progression through immune evasion. Cell Rep. 2022;38:110492. doi: 10.1016/J.CELREP.2022.110492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 208.Dai H, Hong X, Huang D, et al. Notch signaling inhibitor and anti-PD-L1 antibody combination therapies decelerate tumor progression in pancreatic cancer. J Pancreatol. 2021;4:106–114. doi: 10.1097/JP9.0000000000000073. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable, no new data was generated in the preparation of this review article.



