In situ vaccination (ISV) has emerged as a promising strategy in cancer immunotherapy, offering a targeted approach that uses the tumor microenvironment (TME) to stimulate an immune response directly at the tumor site. This method minimizes systemic exposure while maintaining therapeutic efficacy and enhancing safety. Recent advances in nanotechnology have enabled new approaches to ISV by utilizing nanomaterials with unique properties, including enhanced permeability, retention, and controlled drug release. ISV employing nanomaterials can induce immunogenic cell death and reverse the immunosuppressive and hypoxic TME, thereby converting a “cold” tumor into a “hot” tumor and facilitating a more robust immune response. This review examines the mechanisms through which nanomaterials-based ISV enhances anti-tumor immunity, summarizes clinical applications of these strategies, and evaluates its capacity to serve as a neoadjuvant therapy for eliminating micrometastases in early-stage cancer patients. Challenges associated with the clinical translation of nanomaterials-based ISV, including nanomaterial metabolism, optimization of treatment protocols, and integration with other therapies such as radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and photothermal therapy, are also discussed. Advances in nanotechnology and immunotherapy continue to expand the possible applications of ISV, potentially leading to improved outcomes across a broad range of cancer types.

Background: Available evidence shows that the incidence of toxicities associated with cancer immunotherapy, such as programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-related toxicities, is estimated to be between 0.3 and 1.3%. Objective: This systematic review aimed to investigate cancer patients’ susceptibility to toxicities associated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and establish a clinically relevant landscape of side effects of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. Data sources: Relevant publications from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) between 2014 and 2019. Study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting treatment-related toxicities associated with PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors in the treatment of cancers. The primary endpoint was to assess the difference in the incidences of toxicities between cancer patients who did and did not receive PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. A total of 29 RCTs, incorporating 8576 patients, met the eligibility criteria. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: We calculated the pooled relative risks and corresponding 95% CIs using a random-effects model and assessed the heterogeneity between different groups. The subgroup analyses were conducted based on cancer type, toxicity grade (severity), system and organ, treatment regimens in the intervention arm and the control arm, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor drug type, and cancer type. Results: A total of 11 categories (e.g. endocrine toxicity), and 39 toxicity types (e.g. hyperthyroidism) were identified. For toxicities at any grade, those treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were at lower risks for gastrointestinal toxicity, hematologic toxicity, and treatment event leading to discontinuation; and were at higher risks for respiratory toxicity (all P<0.05). Those treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors were at lower risks for fatigue, asthenia, and peripheral edema and were at higher risks for pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, pneumonitis, and pruritus. Limitations: The present research is a meta-analysis at the study level rather than at the patient level; insights on risk factors associated with the development of toxicities cannot be found in our study. There was a possible overlap in Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) definitions which prevents understanding the true rates of specific toxicities. Conclusions and implications of key findings: For most toxicity types based on system and organ, the incidence proportions for patients in the intervention arm were lower than those in the control arm, which suggested the general safety of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors against conventional chemotherapy and cytotoxic t-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors. Future research should focus on taking effective targeted measures to decrease the risks of different toxicities for different patient populations. Systematic review registration number: We registered the research protocol with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019135113).

Background: Recent studies have shown that there exists a significant correlation between oral microbiome and the occurrence of malignancies. However, the prognostic significance of oral microbiome for cancer patients remains unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the impact of oral microbiome on the survival of patients with malignant neoplasms. Methods: We conducted a thorough literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until September 2022. The hazard ratio (HR) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 software for survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease-free survival (DFS). Results: A total of 15 studies, covering 5191 samples with various types of cancers, were selected based on specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, patients with low diversity of the oral microbiome, or those with Fusobacterium-high/positive, or P. gingivalis positive in cancer tissue displayed poorer OS (univariate HR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.15–2.62; P = 0.009; multivariate HR = 1.56; 95% CI 1.07–2.27; P = 0.02), DSS (univariate HR = 2.06; 95% CI 1.50–2.84; P < 0.00001; multivariate HR = 1.80; 95% CI 1.48–2.20; P < 0.00001), and PFS/DFS (univariate HR = 2.00; 95% CI 1.12–3.58; P = 0.002; multivariate HR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.05–3.02; P = 0.003). Subgroup analysis revealed that Fusobacterium positive or high abundance in cancer tissues was associated with poor OS in multivariate analysis but had no statistical differences in PFS or DFS in univariate and multivariate analysis. Additionally, P. gingivalis positive in cancer tissue was also associated with worse OS. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis suggests that the composition of the oral microbiome may play a significant role in predicting survival outcomes for cancer patients.

As the malignancy with the highest global incidence, breast cancer represents a significant threat to women’s health. Recent advances have shed light on the importance of mitochondrial function in cancer, particularly in metabolic reprogramming within tumors. Recognizing this, we developed a novel risk signature based on mitochondrial-related genes to improve prognosis prediction and risk stratification in breast cancer patients. In this study, transcriptome data and clinical features of breast cancer samples were extracted from two sources: the TCGA, serving as the training set, and the METABRIC, used as the independent validation set. We developed the signature using LASSO-Cox regression and assessed its prognostic efficacy via ROC curves. Furthermore, the signature was integrated with clinical features to create a Nomogram model, whose accuracy was validated through clinical calibration curves and decision curve analysis. To further elucidate prognostic variations between high and low-risk groups, we conducted functional enrichment and immune infiltration analyses. Additionally, the study encompassed a comparison of mutation landscapes and drug sensitivity, providing a comprehensive understanding of the differing characteristics in these groups. Conclusively, we established a risk signature comprising 8 mitochondrial-related genes—ACSL1, ALDH2, MTHFD2, MRPL13, TP53AIP1, SLC1A1, ME3, and BCL2A1. This signature was identified as an independent risk predictor for breast cancer patient survival, exhibiting a significant high hazard ratio (HR = 3.028, 95%CI 2.038–4.499, P < 0.001). Patients in the low-risk group showed a more favorable prognosis, with enhanced immune infiltration, distinct mutation landscapes, and greater sensitivity to anti-tumor drugs. In contrast, the high-risk group exhibited an adverse trend in these aspects. This risk signature represents a novel and effective prognostic indicator, suggesting valuable insights for patient stratification in breast cancer.

Cancer immunotherapy offers renewed hope for treating this disease. However, cancer cells possess inherent mechanisms that enable them to circumvent each stage of the immune cycle, thereby evading anti‐cancer immunity and leading to resistance. Various functionalized nanoparticles (NPs), modified with cationic lipids, pH‐sensitive compounds, or photosensitizers, exhibit unique physicochemical properties that facilitate the targeted delivery of therapeutic agents to cancer cells or the tumor microenvironment (TME). These NPs are engineered to modify immune activity. The crucial signal transduction pathways and mechanisms by which functionalized NPs counteract immunotherapy resistance are outlined, including enhancing antigen presentation, boosting the activation and infiltration of tumor‐specific immune cells, inducing immunogenic cell death, and counteracting immunosuppressive conditions in the TME. Additionally, this review summarizes current clinical trials involving NP‐based immunotherapy. Ultimately, it highlights the potential of nanotechnology to advance cancer immunotherapy.