The success of the immune checkpoint blockade has provided a proof of concept that immune cells are capable of attacking tumors in the clinic. However, clinical benefit is only observed in less than 20% of the patients due to the non-specific activation of immune cells by the immune checkpoint blockade. Developing tumor-specific immune responses is a challenging task that can be achieved by targeting tumor antigens to generate tumor-specific T-cell responses. The recent advancements in peptide-based immunotherapy have encouraged clinicians and patients who are struggling with cancer that is otherwise non-treatable with current therapeutics. By selecting appropriate epitopes from tumor antigens with suitable adjuvants, peptides can elicit robust antitumor responses in both mice and humans. Although recent experimental data and clinical trials suggest the potency of tumor reduction by peptide-based vaccines, earlier clinical trials based on the inadequate hypothesis have misled that peptide vaccines are not efficient in eliminating tumor cells. In this review, we highlighted the recent evidence that supports the rationale of peptide-based antitumor vaccines. We also discussed the strategies to select the optimal epitope for vaccines and the mechanism of how adjuvants increase the efficacy of this promising approach to treat cancer.

Purpose: Neoadjuvant anti-PD1 (aPD1) therapies are being explored in surgically resectable head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Encouraging responses have been observed, but further insights into the mechanisms underlying resistance and approaches to improve responses are needed. Experimental Design: We integrated data from syngeneic mouse oral carcinoma (MOC) models and neoadjuvant pembrolizumab HNSCC patient tumor RNA-sequencing data to explore the mechanism of aPD1 resistance. Tumors and tumor-draining lymph nodes (DLN) from MOC models were analyzed for antigen-specific priming. CCL5 expression was enforced in an aPD1-resistant model. Results: An aPD1-resistant mouse model showed poor priming in the tumor DLN due to type 1 conventional dendritic cell (cDC1) dysfunction, which correlated with exhausted and poorly responsive antigen-specific T cells. Tumor microenvironment analysis also showed decreased cDC1 in aPD1-resistant tumors compared with sensitive tumors. Following neoadjuvant aPD1 therapy, pathologic responses in patients also positively correlated with baseline transcriptomic cDC1 signatures. In an aPD1-resistant model, intratumoral cDC1 vaccine was sufficient to restore aPD1 response by enhancing T-cell infiltration and increasing antigen-specific responses with improved tumor control. Mechanistically, CCL5 expression significantly correlated with neoadjuvant aPD1 response and enforced expression of CCL5 in an aPD1-resistant model, enhanced cDC1 tumor infiltration, restored antigen-specific responses, and recovered sensitivity to aPD1 treatment. Conclusions: These data highlight the contribution of tumor-infiltrating cDC1 in HNSCC aPD1 response and approaches to enhance cDC1 infiltration and function that may circumvent aPD1 resistance in patients with HNSCC.