+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Current Landscape of Antibody-based Therapies in Solid Malignancies


      Read this article at

          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.


          Over the past three decades, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have revolutionized the landscape of cancer therapy. Still, this benefit remains restricted to a small proportion of patients due to moderate response rates and resistance emergence. The field has started to embrace better mAb-based formats with advancements in molecular and protein engineering technologies. The development of a therapeutic mAb with long-lasting clinical impact demands a prodigious understanding of target antigen, effective mechanism of action, gene engineering technologies, complex interplay between tumor and host immune system, and biomarkers for prediction of clinical response. This review discusses the various approaches used by mAbs for tumor targeting and mechanisms of therapeutic resistance that is not only caused by the heterogeneity of tumor antigen, but also the resistance imposed by tumor microenvironment (TME), including inefficient delivery to the tumor, alteration of effector functions in the TME, and Fc-gamma receptor expression diversity and polymorphism. Further, this article provides a perspective on potential strategies to overcome these barriers and how diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are being used in predicting response to mAb-based therapies. Overall, understanding these interdependent parameters can improve the current mAb-based formulations and develop novel mAb-based therapeutics for achieving durable clinical outcomes in a large subset of patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references147

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

          The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy.

          Among the most promising approaches to activating therapeutic antitumour immunity is the blockade of immune checkpoints. Immune checkpoints refer to a plethora of inhibitory pathways hardwired into the immune system that are crucial for maintaining self-tolerance and modulating the duration and amplitude of physiological immune responses in peripheral tissues in order to minimize collateral tissue damage. It is now clear that tumours co-opt certain immune-checkpoint pathways as a major mechanism of immune resistance, particularly against T cells that are specific for tumour antigens. Because many of the immune checkpoints are initiated by ligand-receptor interactions, they can be readily blocked by antibodies or modulated by recombinant forms of ligands or receptors. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA4) antibodies were the first of this class of immunotherapeutics to achieve US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Preliminary clinical findings with blockers of additional immune-checkpoint proteins, such as programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1), indicate broad and diverse opportunities to enhance antitumour immunity with the potential to produce durable clinical responses.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma

            An improvement in overall survival among patients with metastatic melanoma has been an elusive goal. In this phase 3 study, ipilimumab--which blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 to potentiate an antitumor T-cell response--administered with or without a glycoprotein 100 (gp100) peptide vaccine was compared with gp100 alone in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. A total of 676 HLA-A*0201-positive patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma, whose disease had progressed while they were receiving therapy for metastatic disease, were randomly assigned, in a 3:1:1 ratio, to receive ipilimumab plus gp100 (403 patients), ipilimumab alone (137), or gp100 alone (136). Ipilimumab, at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight, was administered with or without gp100 every 3 weeks for up to four treatments (induction). Eligible patients could receive reinduction therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. The median overall survival was 10.0 months among patients receiving ipilimumab plus gp100, as compared with 6.4 months among patients receiving gp100 alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.68; P<0.001). The median overall survival with ipilimumab alone was 10.1 months (hazard ratio for death in the comparison with gp100 alone, 0.66; P=0.003). No difference in overall survival was detected between the ipilimumab groups (hazard ratio with ipilimumab plus gp100, 1.04; P=0.76). Grade 3 or 4 immune-related adverse events occurred in 10 to 15% of patients treated with ipilimumab and in 3% treated with gp100 alone. There were 14 deaths related to the study drugs (2.1%), and 7 were associated with immune-related adverse events. Ipilimumab, with or without a gp100 peptide vaccine, as compared with gp100 alone, improved overall survival in patients with previously treated metastatic melanoma. Adverse events can be severe, long-lasting, or both, but most are reversible with appropriate treatment. (Funded by Medarex and Bristol-Myers Squibb; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00094653.)
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

              Previously reported results from the phase 3 CheckMate 067 trial showed a significant improvement in objective responses, progression-free survival, and overall survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with advanced melanoma. The aim of this report is to provide 4-year updated efficacy and safety data from this study.

                Author and article information

                Ivyspring International Publisher (Sydney )
                1 January 2021
                : 11
                : 3
                : 1493-1512
                [1 ]Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE, 68198, USA.
                [2 ]Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer and Allied Diseases, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE, 68198, USA.
                [3 ]Fred and Pamela Buffett Cancer Center, University of Nebraska Medical Center, NE, 68198, USA.
                Author notes
                ✉ Corresponding authors: Surinder K. Batra, Ph.D., Maneesh Jain, Ph.D. Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, 68198-5870, USA. Phone: 402-559-5455, Fax: 402-559-6650, E-mail: sbatra@ 123456unmc.edu ; mjain@ 123456unmc.edu .

                Competing Interests: SKB is one of the co-founders of Sanguine Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Inc. The other authors disclosed no potential conflicts of interest.

                © The author(s)

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.

                : 30 August 2020
                : 21 October 2020

                Molecular medicine
                antibodies,cancer,therapy,mechanisms of action,challenges
                Molecular medicine
                antibodies, cancer, therapy, mechanisms of action, challenges


                Comment on this article