Immune checkpoints consist of inhibitory and stimulatory pathways that maintain self-tolerance and assist with immune response. In cancer, immune checkpoint pathways are often activated to inhibit the nascent anti-tumor immune response. Immune checkpoint therapies act by blocking or stimulating these pathways and enhance the body’s immunological activity against tumors. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated molecule-4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1), and programmed cell death ligand-1(PD-L1) are the most widely studied and recognized inhibitory checkpoint pathways. Drugs blocking these pathways are currently utilized for a wide variety of malignancies and have demonstrated durable clinical activities in a subset of cancer patients. This approach is rapidly extending beyond CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1. New inhibitory pathways are under investigation, and drugs blocking LAG-3, TIM-3, TIGIT, VISTA, or B7/H3 are being investigated. Furthermore, agonists of stimulatory checkpoint pathways such as OX40, ICOS, GITR, 4-1BB, CD40, or molecules targeting tumor microenvironment components like IDO or TLR are under investigation. In this article, we have provided a comprehensive review of immune checkpoint pathways involved in cancer immunotherapy, and discuss their mechanisms and the therapeutic interventions currently under investigation in phase I/II clinical trials. We also reviewed the limitations, toxicities, and challenges and outline the possible future research directions.

Malignant cells have the capacity to rapidly grow exponentially and spread in part by suppressing, evading, and exploiting the host immune system. Immunotherapy is a form of oncologic treatment directed towards enhancing the host immune system against cancer. In recent years, manipulation of immune checkpoints or pathways has emerged as an important and effective form of immunotherapy. Agents that target cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated molecule-4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death receptor-1 (PD-1), and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) are the most widely studied and recognized. Immunotherapy, however, extends beyond immune checkpoint therapy by using new molecules such as chimeric monoclonal antibodies and antibody drug conjugates that target malignant cells and promote their destruction. Genetically modified T cells expressing chimeric antigen receptors are able to recognize specific antigens on cancer cells and subsequently activate the immune system. Native or genetically modified viruses with oncolytic activity are of great interest as, besides destroying malignant cells, they can increase anti-tumor activity in response to the release of new antigens and danger signals as a result of infection and tumor cell lysis. Vaccines are also being explored, either in the form of autologous or allogenic tumor peptide antigens, genetically modified dendritic cells that express tumor peptides, or even in the use of RNA, DNA, bacteria, or virus as vectors of specific tumor markers. Most of these agents are yet under development, but they promise to be important options to boost the host immune system to control and eliminate malignancy. In this review, we have provided detailed discussion of different forms of immunotherapy agents other than checkpoint-modifying drugs. The specific focus of this manuscript is to include first-in-human phase I and phase I/II clinical trials intended to allow the identification of those drugs that most likely will continue to develop and possibly join the immunotherapeutic arsenal in a near future.

Background Anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibodies have demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in a subset of patients with metastatic or locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). To date, no blood biomarkers have been identified in NSCLC to predict clinical outcomes of treatment with anti-PD-1 antibodies. Patient and methods We performed an analysis of retrospectively registered data of 157 patients with advanced NSCLC treated with anti-PD-1 antibodies at Mayo Clinic in Florida and Rochester. White blood cell count, absolute neutrophil count (ANC), absolute lymphocyte count (ALC), ANC to ALC (ANC: ALC) ratio, absolute eosinophil count, absolute monocyte count (AMC), platelet counts, and myeloid to lymphoid (M:L) ratio at baseline and throughout treatment were assessed. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were performed. Results We treated 146 patients with nivolumab and 11 with pembrolizumab between January 1, 2015 and April 15, 2017. At median follow-up of 20 months, median OS and PFS were 6.0 and 2.6 months, respectively. Higher baseline ANC, AMC, ANC: ALC ratio and M: L ratio correlated with worse clinical outcomes in patients who underwent anti-PD-1 treatment. A baseline ANC: ALC ratio of 5.9 or higher had a significantly increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] =1.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–3.03; P = 0.004) and disease progression (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.17–2.34; P = 0.005) compared with patients with lower ratio. Similarly, a baseline M: L ratio of 11.3 or higher had significantly increased risk of death (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.54–4.05; P < 0.001), even after a multivariate analysis (HR, 2.31; P = 0.002), compared to those with lower ratio. Conclusions Increased baseline ANC: ALC ratio and M: L ratio before initiation of anti-PD1 antibodies were associated with poor PFS and OS in advanced NSCLC patients. The potential predictive value of these readily available biomarkers might help with risk stratification and treatment strategies. These findings warrant further investigation in a larger, prospective study.

Background: Treatment of non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been rapidly advancing over the last decade. Academic centers are considered equipped with better expertise. NSCLC outcome trends in novel therapeutic era and impact of initial treatment at academic centers have not been reported. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify NSCLC incident cases from 2004 to 2013. Overall survival (OS) was plotted by year of diagnosis and type of initial treatment center, accounting for several factors available in NCDB. Results: A total of 1 150 722 NSCLC patients were included and separated by initial treatment center type (academic: 31.5%; nonacademic: 68.5%). Median follow‐up and OS for all patients were 11.8 months (range: 0‐133.6 months) and 13.1 months (95% CI: 13.08‐13.17), respectively. Median OS improved significantly for those diagnosed in 2010‐2013 (14.8 months [95% CI: 14.7‐14.9]) as compared to 2004‐2009 (12.4 months [95% CI: 12.3‐12.5]) ( P  <   0.001). Treatment at academic centers was associated with improved OS (multivariate HR for OS = 0.929 [95% CI: 0.92‐0.94], P  <   0.0010). Four‐year OS for academic and nonacademic cohorts was 28.5%% and 22.1%, respectively ( P  <   0.001), and the difference was more pronounced in stage I to III NSCLC. Conclusion: In this largest analysis, thus far, NSCLC survival has improved over time, and type of initial treatment center significantly influences survival. Identifying and removing barriers to obtaining initial treatment of NSCLC at academic medical centers could improve OS.