5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Charged Particle and Conventional Radiotherapy: Current Implications as Partner for Immunotherapy

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          Immunotherapy provides the unprecedented opportunity to prolong the survival of cancer patients and even cure patients with previously untreatable malignancies. Preclinical and clinical studies show that standard photon-based radiotherapy and immunotherapy can synergize in order to promote both local and systemic anti-tumor immunity and that there is still ample room for improvement. Charged particle radiation is thought to have greater immunogenic potential compared to photon radiotherapy due to more lethal unrepaired damage, higher ionization density and thus more complex clustered DNA lesions. In this review, several factors determining the success of radiotherapy combined with immunotherapies, such as composition of the tumor, radiotherapy scheme and schedule, radiation dose, the type of radiation, are addressed. Furthermore, the theoretical basis, first pieces of evidences and new insights supporting a favorable immunogenicity profile of charged particle radiation are examined, including a depiction of best of knowledge for the immune-related responses triggered by charged particles and prospective clinical trials.

          Abstract

          Radiotherapy (RT) has been shown to interfere with inflammatory signals and to enhance tumor immunogenicity via, e.g., immunogenic cell death, thereby potentially augmenting the therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy. Conventional RT consists predominantly of high energy photon beams. Hypofractionated RT regimens administered, e.g., by stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), are increasingly investigated in combination with cancer immunotherapy within clinical trials. Despite intensive preclinical studies, the optimal dose per fraction and dose schemes for elaboration of RT induced immunogenic potential remain inconclusive. Compared to the scenario of combined immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) and RT, multimodal therapies utilizing other immunotherapy principles such as adoptive transfer of immune cells, vaccination strategies, targeted immune-cytokines and agonists are underrepresented in both preclinical and clinical settings. Despite the clinical success of ICI and RT combination, e.g., prolonging overall survival in locally advanced lung cancer, curative outcomes are still not achieved for most cancer entities studied. Charged particle RT (PRT) has gained interest as it may enhance tumor immunogenicity compared to conventional RT due to its unique biological and physical properties. However, whether PRT in combination with immune therapy will elicit superior antitumor effects both locally and systemically needs to be further investigated. In this review, the immunological effects of RT in the tumor microenvironment are summarized to understand their implications for immunotherapy combinations. Attention will be given to the various immunotherapeutic interventions that have been co-administered with RT so far. Furthermore, the theoretical basis and first evidences supporting a favorable immunogenicity profile of PRT will be examined.

          Related collections

          Most cited references253

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PD-1 Blockade in Tumors with Mismatch-Repair Deficiency.

          Somatic mutations have the potential to encode "non-self" immunogenic antigens. We hypothesized that tumors with a large number of somatic mutations due to mismatch-repair defects may be susceptible to immune checkpoint blockade.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018

            Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Durvalumab after Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

              Background Most patients with locally advanced, unresectable, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have disease progression despite definitive chemoradiotherapy (chemotherapy plus concurrent radiation therapy). This phase 3 study compared the anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibody durvalumab as consolidation therapy with placebo in patients with stage III NSCLC who did not have disease progression after two or more cycles of platinum-based chemoradiotherapy. Methods We randomly assigned patients, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive durvalumab (at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight intravenously) or placebo every 2 weeks for up to 12 months. The study drug was administered 1 to 42 days after the patients had received chemoradiotherapy. The coprimary end points were progression-free survival (as assessed by means of blinded independent central review) and overall survival (unplanned for the interim analysis). Secondary end points included 12-month and 18-month progression-free survival rates, the objective response rate, the duration of response, the time to death or distant metastasis, and safety. Results Of 713 patients who underwent randomization, 709 received consolidation therapy (473 received durvalumab and 236 received placebo). The median progression-free survival from randomization was 16.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0 to 18.1) with durvalumab versus 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 7.8) with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; P<0.001); the 12-month progression-free survival rate was 55.9% versus 35.3%, and the 18-month progression-free survival rate was 44.2% versus 27.0%. The response rate was higher with durvalumab than with placebo (28.4% vs. 16.0%; P<0.001), and the median duration of response was longer (72.8% vs. 46.8% of the patients had an ongoing response at 18 months). The median time to death or distant metastasis was longer with durvalumab than with placebo (23.2 months vs. 14.6 months; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 29.9% of the patients who received durvalumab and 26.1% of those who received placebo; the most common adverse event of grade 3 or 4 was pneumonia (4.4% and 3.8%, respectively). A total of 15.4% of patients in the durvalumab group and 9.8% of those in the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events. Conclusions Progression-free survival was significantly longer with durvalumab than with placebo. The secondary end points also favored durvalumab, and safety was similar between the groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PACIFIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02125461 .).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Cancers (Basel)
                Cancers (Basel)
                cancers
                Cancers
                MDPI
                2072-6694
                23 March 2021
                March 2021
                : 13
                : 6
                : 1468
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The M-Lab, Department of Precision Medicine, GROW–School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 40, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands; d.marcus@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (D.M.); relinde.lieverse@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (R.I.Y.L.); philippe.lambin@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (P.L.); ludwig.dubois@ 123456maastrichtuniversity.nl (L.J.D.)
                [2 ]German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Core-Center Heidelberg, National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Clinical Cooperation Unit Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany; carmen.klein@ 123456dkfz-heidelberg.de (C.K.); a.amir@ 123456dkfz-heidelberg.de (A.A.)
                [3 ]Heidelberg Ion-Beam Therapy Center (HIT), Division of Molecular and Translational Radiation Oncology, Heidelberg Faculty of Medicine (MFHD) and Heidelberg University Hospital (UKHD), Im Neuenheimer Feld 450, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
                [4 ]National Center for Radiation Oncology (NCRO), Heidelberg Institute of Radiation Oncology (HIRO), Heidelberg University and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 222, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8016-5897
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7961-0191
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8887-4137
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3900-5314
                Article
                cancers-13-01468
                10.3390/cancers13061468
                8005048
                33806808
                0b312b4b-67cd-48a1-bd9d-4265c554e7b3
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 24 February 2021
                : 18 March 2021
                Categories
                Review

                radiotherapy,charged particle radiation,immunotherapy,immunogenicity,carbon ion,proton,clinical trials

                Comments

                Comment on this article