Next Article in Journal
Mitochondrial Metabolism in Carcinogenesis and Cancer Therapy
Next Article in Special Issue
Vaccines as Priming Tools for T Cell Therapy for Epithelial Cancers
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Integrated HPV DNA as Individualized Biomarkers for the Detection of Recurrent CIN2/3 during Post-Treatment Surveillance
Previous Article in Special Issue
IFN-γ Critically Enables the Intratumoural Infiltration of CXCR3+ CD8+ T Cells to Drive Squamous Cell Carcinoma Regression
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 13
Issue 13
10.3390/cancers13133310
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

PD-1 and beyond to Activate T Cells in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancers: The Case for 4-1BB and VISTA Antibodies in Combination Therapy

by
Quentin Wright
,
Jazmina L. Gonzalez Cruz
,
James W. Wells
and
Graham R. Leggatt
*
The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2021, 13(13), 3310; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13133310
Submission received: 20 May 2021 / Revised: 24 June 2021 / Accepted: 27 June 2021 / Published: 1 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Targeting Conventional T Cells in Epithelial Cancer: From Priming to Therapy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The use of checkpoint antibodies has revolutionized the treatment of cancer. Tumor-infiltrating T cells, key mediators of anti-tumor immune responses, are often actively silenced by the tumor microenvironment. Checkpoint antibodies block inhibitory signals or enhance positive signaling pathways in these T cells to overcome silencing, resulting in an improved anti-tumor T-cell response. To date, many clinical studies have focused on blocking inhibitory pathways (e.g., CTLA-4 and PD-1), with varying success. Increasingly, alternative checkpoint molecules are being identified and used as monotherapies, or in combination with existing PD-1/CTLA-4 treatments. This review dissects the potential role of checkpoint antibodies against PD-1, VISTA and 4-1BB in the future treatment of cutaneous skin cancers.

Abstract

Non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC) have a higher incidence than all other cancers combined with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), capable of metastasis, representing approximately 20% of NMSCs. Given the accessibility of the skin, surgery is frequently employed to treat localized disease, although certain localities, the delineation of clear margins, frequency and recurrence of tumors can make these cancers inoperable in a subset of patients. Other treatment modalities, including cryotherapy, are commonly used for individual lesions, with varying success. Immunotherapy, particularly with checkpoint antibodies, is increasingly a promising therapeutic approach in many cancers, offering the potential advantage of immune memory for protection against lesion recurrence. This review addresses a role for PD-1, 4-1BB and VISTA checkpoint antibodies as monotherapies, or in combination as a therapeutic treatment for both early and late-stage cSCC.

1. Introduction

Keratinocyte cancers, consisting of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC) are the most frequently diagnosed cancers in fair-skinned populations. Recent studies revealed that approximately 5.4 million keratinocyte cancers were diagnosed and treated in 3.3 million patients in the USA in 2012, with mortality rates increasing in recent years (2011–2017) [1,2]. In Australia, the person-based incidence rates of keratinocyte cancer excisions (BCC and SCC collectively) were 1531 per 100,000 person-years, of which Queensland had the highest recorded incidences [3]. These cancers are primarily driven by cumulative exposure to the ultraviolet component of sunlight, which generates a high mutational burden within keratinocyte DNA [4]. The most common mutations are in the p53, patched, and ras genes, all of which regulate the cell cycle. While basal cell carcinomas are more frequent than squamous cell carcinoma, it is SCC that is more likely to result in aggressive disease that metastasizes from the skin, and will therefore form the focus of this review.
Actinic keratosis (AK), a hyperproliferative epithelial lesion, is believed to be a precursor to the development of cutaneous SCC, with variable estimates from 0.025% to 16% for progression of an individual AK to SCC per year [5,6,7]. Multiple AKs can often occur simultaneously in the same patient, with higher progression rates often associated with patients with multiple lesions. Actinic keratosis typically presents as abnormally proliferative keratinocytes restricted to the epidermis, while progression to SCC involves disruption of the basement membrane and penetration of tumor cells into the underlying dermis and beyond. The current treatment of AK or cutaneous SCC (cSCC) can involve surgical excision or cryosurgery for individual lesions, or laser techniques and topical creams, such as imiquimod or 5-Fluorouracil, for the treatment of an entire field [8].
While surgical excision is frequently curative for localized SCC, patients can have multiple simultaneous lesions in regions such as the face, unresectable tumors, recurrent tumors, or invasive SCC that spreads to other body organs, leading to fatal disease [9]. Therapeutic alternatives to surgery that result in long-lasting protection across the entire skin surface would be ideal. In this regard, harnessing the innate and adaptive immune response to attack cSCC from the inside, through immunotherapeutic approaches, has the potential to establish not only effector, but also memory, responses, thus reinstating tumor-specific immunosurveillance.

2. Natural Immunity to cSCC

Evidence for a natural immune surveillance of cSCC comes from studying immunosuppressed individuals, who take medication on a daily basis to prevent organ rejection and have a greatly enhanced risk of skin SCC development [10]. Organ transplant patients have a 65–250-fold increased risk of cutaneous SCC incidence, with the variation likely due to the nature, intensity and duration of the immunosuppressive drug that is administered [11]. In immunocompetent individuals, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and other inflammatory cells are often observed within cSCC [12,13,14,15,16]. This includes CD8 T cells that are specific for UV-mutated proteins, such as p53 [13]. Using single-cell RNA-seq and spatial transcriptomics, one comprehensive study characterized inflammatory cell populations, including macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and exhausted T cells, at the leading edge of the tumor mass [15]. Even at the precancerous stage of AK, disruption to the keratinocyte cell cycle and UV-induced oxidative stress can induce the production of chemokines and cytokines, leading to leukocyte recruitment and a chronic inflammatory environment. For example, CCL27 and CCR10, a chemokine axis involved in lymphocyte migration to the skin, was found to be upregulated in actinic keratosis and cSCC [17]. One study found that the inflammatory cytokine IL-6 was upregulated in AK compared with uninvolved skin [18]. In addition, UV-induced damage is known to activate inflammasome activity, resulting in the release of active IL-1 family members to enhance inflammation [19,20]. In contrast, several studies have shown a downregulation of the inflammasome proteins ASC and NLRP1 within cSCC, suggesting that inflammasome activity might decrease during the progression from AK to SCC [21,22]. The presence of an immune cell infiltrate in AK and cSCC, without clearance of the tumor, suggests that the tumor microenvironment may be suppressive. Certainly, in sun-exposed regions of the skin, UV light has been shown to be generally immunosuppressive to new immune responses within the skin, making it more difficult to dissect the suppressive contribution of the developing tumor without direct comparison with neighboring, photodamaged skin [23]. The expression of proteins involved in the type 1 interferon signaling pathway have been shown to be downregulated in AK [24]. Increasing numbers of CD4+FoxP3+ T cells (Treg) have been demonstrated during SCC development, along with suppressive cytokines such as IL-10 and TGF-β [25,26,27]. However, another study examining photodamaged skin, intraepithelial carcinoma (IEC), and SCC by flow cytometry did not show an enrichment of Treg with tumor stage [28]. While the discrepancy in Treg enrichment might relate to different patient cohorts or methods used for analysis, the functional activity of Tregs at different stages of SCC will also be an important parameter for future studies. While there are clearly multiple cellular and soluble pathways to immune suppression in cSCC, consideration must also be given to ligand/receptor interactions on the surface of both tumor cells and effector T cells, which can alter the behavior of anti-tumor T cells. On T cells, these ligands can be subdivided into inhibitory and activating receptors, with PD-1 and CD28, respectively, being key examples of each [29]. The modulation of these receptors, through agonist or blocking antibodies, has become a cornerstone of modern cancer immunotherapy and is referred to as immune checkpoint therapy [30]. Within cutaneous SCC, the expression of inhibitory and activating receptors at different stages of disease progression has been understudied in humans, with perhaps the exception of PD-1 and its ligand PD-L1. Given that immune checkpoint antibodies often work best on cancers with high mutational load, and therefore plenty of potential neoantigens for T-cell receptor (TCR) recognition, understanding the expression of these antibody targets in cutaneous SCC might lead to new therapeutic avenues [4].

3. Immunotherapy in cSCC

Immunotherapy is an emergent field of medicine, based on boosting the strength of the immune system to effectively treat cancer. In keratinocyte cancers, the most prominent immunotherapy has been topical imiquimod, which engages TLR7 within the skin to invoke a strong, local inflammatory response [31]. This inflammatory response alone has variable success in clearing primary SCC, and the induction of T-cell responses has rarely been analyzed. With regard to T-cell responses, there are several promising treatment modalities, including adoptive cell therapies (CAR T cells) [32], vaccines [33] and checkpoint therapies [34]. Strategies involving adoptive cell therapy or vaccines generally require the identification of target tumor antigens. Mutations within human cSCC are frequent, but the identification of tumor-specific peptides that bind to MHC or surface-exposed tumor antigens in cSCC needs further study. In contrast to cellular therapies or vaccines, the administration of checkpoint antibodies does not require prior knowledge of the tumor antigen. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes are primed to available tumor antigens, and the blocking of inhibitory co-receptors or the stimulation of activating co-receptors enhances their response. Proof of principle for this approach in cSCC has come from human clinical trials of anti-PD-1 antibody therapy in metastatic or locally advanced cSCC, where around 40% of patients showed regression of tumors [35]. Widespread use of checkpoint antibodies in cSCC, particularly early cSCC, has been limited by the effectiveness of surgery in primary tumors as a cure, the high costs associated with checkpoint antibodies, and the unwanted systemic toxicities associated with some antibodies. However, not all AK or primary cSCC are readily removed by surgery and tumor recurrence can be problematic, suggesting that alternatives are needed as primary or supportive therapies. The high costs and systemic toxicities of these treatments may be circumvented by approaches that localize the antibodies to the tumor [36]. Consequently, the remainder of the review will look at promising checkpoint candidates to be considered in cSCC, and speculate on the effective delivery of checkpoint antibodies to epithelial tumors.

4. Programmed Death- 1 (PD-1)

Programmed death protein 1 (PD-1) signaling is a negative regulator of T-cell function, most commonly associated with T cells exposed to chronic/repetitive antigen [37,38,39]. A role for PD-1 signaling was identified in chronic LCMV infection, where the function of exhausted T cells could be recovered by blocking PD-1 interaction with PD-L1 [40,41]. Similar observations were also evident in dysregulated T cells during anti-tumor immune responses [42]. This checkpoint mechanism likely evolved to limit autoimmunity and autoreactive T cells, as PD-1 knockout mice can develop spontaneous autoimmunity and PD-1 deficiency accelerates disease in autoimmune-prone mice [39,43]. PD-1 is expressed on CD4 and CD8 T cells, along with several other cell types, including NK cells, B cells and macrophages, and typically is upregulated on T cells upon activation [44,45]. After the binding of PD-1 to its ligand PD-L1/L2, expressed on hematopoietic cells and cancer cells, the suppression of T-cell responses is facilitated by the recruitment of the SHP-1/SHP-2 phosphatases, leading to reduced TCR and CD28 intracellular signaling, in addition to the downregulation of down-stream transcription factors and T-cell-secreted cytokines [37,39]. The reduction in effector T-cell response, mediated by PD-L1/L2, can be moderated by the presence of alternative, competing ligands, such as B7(CD80) and RGMB for PD-L1 and PD-L2, respectively [46]. In addition, a recent study has suggested that the engagement of PD-1 on regulatory T cells, by blocking antibodies, can lead to enhanced activation and expansion of immune-suppressive Treg within the tumor microenvironment [47]. Consequently, the ratio of PD-1+ Treg versus PD-1+ effector T cells within tumors might dictate the outcome of checkpoint antibody therapy directed at PD-1. A blockade of PD-1 may also enhance NK cell activity within tumors and modulate the activity of innate lymphoid cells (ILC), with some studies suggesting that NK cells help mediate the effects of anti-PD-1 blockade in metastatic melanoma and non-small-cell lung carcinoma [48,49,50]. The role of PD-1 on NK cells and ILCs in cSCC is largely unknown. Other preclinical studies using myeloid-specific deletion of PD-1 have shown a role for PD-1 on myeloid cells, in inhibiting anti-tumor immunity [51]. While PD-1 on tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes represents a clear therapeutic target, recent studies show that the blockade of PD-1 in tumor-draining lymph nodes contributes to the effectiveness of this checkpoint therapy [52]. A physiological role for PD-1 in the skin is suggested by the cutaneous adverse events associated with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy for metastatic cancers unrelated to the skin [53,54,55]. Immunotherapeutic targeting of PD-1 in advanced-stage melanoma or Merkel cell carcinoma has advanced to clinical trials, with promising response rates between 30 and 60% for monotherapy [56,57,58,59]. The response rates were higher in melanoma patients receiving both anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) and anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) [59].
In contrast to melanoma, the number of clinical trials of anti-PD-1 therapy in cutaneous SCC have lagged behind, but are increasing rapidly (Table 1). The use of systemically administered anti-PD-1 (cemiplimab) therapy in a phase 2 clinical trial of primarily elderly patients with local advanced or metastatic cutaneous SCC has been reported [35,60]. It was observed that 47% of metastatic, cSCC patients and 44% of locally advanced, cSCC patients had an objective response to Cemiplimab treatment. Complete responses in both groups was relatively low (7–13%) and the rate of adverse events were consistent with other anti-PD-1 studies [61]. A long-term follow-up in this trial will be required, to accurately determine the duration of the response. These studies highlight the potential for targeting PD-1 in advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, while also suggesting room for therapeutic improvement and the need to characterize the PD-1 response in early SCC. One avenue to improved therapy would be the use of alternative checkpoint molecules as monotherapies, or in combination with anti-PD-1 therapy. The vast array of costimulatory (e.g., OX-40, ICOS) and coinhibitory checkpoints (e.g., TIM-3, TIGIT and LAG-3) being considered as targets for tumor immunotherapy have been reviewed elsewhere [29,45,62,63]. Next, we will consider a non-redundant co-inhibitory molecule, V-domain Ig suppressor of T-cell activation or VISTA, and a costimulatory protein, 4-1BB, both of which contribute to skin immunity.

5. V-Domain Ig Suppressor of T Cell Activation (VISTA or PD-1H)

VISTA is a novel immune checkpoint inhibitor of T cells and a member of the Ig superfamily [68]. VISTA sequencing data indicate that it shares sequence homology with PD-L1/2, and possesses a high level of structural homology between mouse and human, highlighting the possibility of a conserved signaling pathway and function [68,69]. VISTA is expressed across multiple immune cell types, including neutrophils, dendritic cells, macrophages, monocytes, NK cells, and T-cell subsets (both CD4 and, to a lesser extent, CD8 T cells), suggesting that its impact on T-cell function may involve both direct and indirect mechanisms [69,70]. T cells in VISTA-deficient mice are more prone to activation and show enhanced likelihood of induction of autoimmunity, suggesting that VISTA acts as a negative regulator of T-cell function. However, this may be an oversimplification, as VISTA has also been reported to co-stimulate immune responses in certain tissue contexts, suggesting that we need to understand more about the receptor–ligand interactions of VISTA [71]. Several ligands have been proposed for VISTA, including VISTA itself, VSIG3, Galectin-9 and PSGL-1, but further study will be required to determine the contribution of each molecule and the identity of other potential ligands [72,73,74,75]. Interestingly, VISTA-deficient mice also show a psoriasis-like inflammatory disease within the skin, which is consistent with a role for VISTA in skin immune responses. VISTA knockout mice have been reported to have increased antigen experienced T cells (CD44hi) in aged mice with skin inflammation (characterized by increased, localized, immune cell populations over time) [76,77]. Antagonist antibodies against VISTA also result in enhanced T-cell activation. While VISTA can be expressed on T cells, it is highly expressed on myeloid-derived cells, and can influence T cell function indirectly through assisting suppressive myeloid cell recruitment and limiting CD80 and IL-12/TNF-α production on antigen-presenting cells [78,79,80].
VISTA has been reported to have a role in regulating tumor progression [80]. Studies correlating increased VISTA expression with tumor progression have been noted in models of oral squamous cell carcinoma [81], cutaneous melanoma [82], and metastatic melanoma [83]. Wu et al. noted that poor prognosis in human oral squamous cell carcinoma was correlated with VISTAhi CD8low expression, in addition to elevated levels of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (CD11b and CD33+ cells) [81]. In melanoma, VISTA expression correlated with CD33 expression (a marker of myeloid-derived suppressor cells), and was associated with worse survival outcomes [84]. In this same study, co-expression of PD-1 and VISTA was associated with even worse survival rates. Yoon et al. demonstrated that death domain 1 alpha (later known as VISTA) is upregulated after p53 damage, to increase cell engulfment by tolerogenic phagocytes and suppress T-cell activity [85]. VISTA was also shown to be broadly expressed in cutaneous SCC tissue. This is most likely a means to clear the cellular environment of damaged cells in an effort to prevent autoimmune reactions. One could extrapolate a functional role for VISTA blockade in cancer from this study. By blocking VISTA, apoptotic tumor cells could persist in the environment, allowing for a source of antigens to be processed and presented by inflammatory phagocytes to T cells, enhancing the adaptive immune response.
Knowledge of VISTA function in cancer has been aided by the use of anti-VISTA antibodies (clones MIH63 and 13F3). Kondo et al. demonstrated that the MIH63 antibody in combination with the CTLA-4, but not PD-1, antibody marginally slowed tumor growth in a SCCVII transplantable tumor model (SCCVII: a poorly immunogenic and immunotherapy-resistant SCC model), relative to CTLA-4 or PD-1 monotherapy alone [86]. While MIH63 induced functional CD8+ T cells (CD8+/Eomes+/Ki67+), the presence of high numbers of Tregs may have dampened their ability to clear the tumor. A previous study by the same group, using the same tumor model, demonstrated that the depletion of Tregs using the anti-CD25 antibody completely cleared the tumor, indicating the importance of Tregs in modulating the tumor-killing response [87]. In a comprehensive study by Le Mercier et al., three melanoma models (transplantable B16OVA, B16-BL6 and the inducible PTEN/BRAF melanoma models) were treated with the anti-VISTA antibody 13F3 [80]. Monotherapy with 13F3 resulted in a significant delay in tumor growth across all three models, which is of interest, as the B16-BL6 model is known to be poorly immunogenic [80]. Other observations noted in the three models were as follows: increased tumor-infiltrating CD4 and CD8 cells, lower MDSC populations in TILs, and increased CD8+ IFN-γ+ cells compared to the Ig control [80]. A parallel series of experiments in the same study, using OTII+ CD4 T cells adoptively transferred into B16OVA tumor-bearing mice, indicated that the VISTA blockade decreased the percentage of induced, CD4+ FoxP3+ Treg cells amongst TILs, and in the draining lymph node. Finally, a study by Liu et al. determined that blocking antibodies against PD-L1 and VISTA can synergistically inhibit the growth of CT26 colon carcinoma cells injected subcutaneously in the flank [88]. This study also demonstrated that both PD-1 and VISTA single knockout mice exhibited chronic inflammation and spontaneous T-cell activation, suggesting a non-redundant role of these molecules in immune suppression.
Taken together, these observations suggest that VISTA has roles in modulating inflammatory responses, in addition to having a role in regulating anti-tumor immunity. Given that VISTA expression is associated with worse prognosis in skin cancers, and triggers non-redundant signaling pathways relative to PD-1, VISTA blockade represents a promising target for combination with PD-1 in cutaneous SCC. Both preclinical and clinical trials with this combination would be required to confirm any synergy and establish a safety profile.

6. 4-1BB (CD137)

In contrast to the inhibitory signal of both PD-1 and VISTA, CD137 is acknowledged as a stimulatory signal for effector T cells. While CD137 is a cell surface molecule found on activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, a variety of immune cell subsets, including dendritic cells and macrophages, NK cells, NKT cells, eosinophils and mast cells, all express CD137 [89,90,91,92,93,94]. In dendritic cells, 4-1BB ligation induces DC maturation, improved antigen presentation and upregulation of T-cell signal 2 activation molecules (B7-1/2), in addition to the upregulation of several cytokines, including IL-6, IL-12 and IL-27 [89,95,96]. The role of 4-1BB on the other immune cell subsets is only beginning to be explored. The ligand for 4-1BB (4-1BBL or CD137L) is mostly expressed on B cells, macrophages and dendritic cells, consistent with a role in providing co-stimulation for T cells [90]. The binding of 4-1BB to 4-1BBL induces the NF-kB and MAPK signaling pathways, resulting in a variety of effects in T cells, including the upregulation of anti-apoptotic genes, production of pro-inflammatory cytokines (IFN-γ and IL-2), enhancement of CD8+ cytotoxicity (specifically perforin and granzyme), and enhancement of TCR signaling and memory cell formation [89,95]. In contrast, the engagement of 4-1BB on CD4+CD25+ Treg may lead to expansion of this suppressive subset [97].
In contrast to 4-1BB eliciting potent effector T-cell function, 4-1BB signaling has also been shown to reduce T-cell-mediated autoimmune responses in a variety of mouse models, including EAE, and Lupus, through activation induced death or anergy induction in autoreactive CD4 T cells. Specifically, in the EAE study, autoreactive CD4+ T cells were initially activated by antibody treatment, but then became more susceptible to activated-induced cell death as effector cells [98]. In the Lupus study, it was determined that anti-4-1BB treatment induced CD4+ T-cell anergy, and thus blocked T-cell-dependent humoral responses [99]. These studies, in addition to previous observations, indicate that agonist 4-1BB antibodies might elicit different responses from CD4 and CD8 T cells, and that the promotion of robust anti-tumor immunity might be a consequence of enhanced CD8 T-cell effector function.
While several studies have demonstrated the exciting potential of 4-1BB therapies across a variety of tumor models (breast, colon, ovarian, lung, liver, and melanoma models, reviewed in detail by Bartkowiak et al. [89]), there is concern for adverse health risks after intravenous administration. Increased levels of the liver enzymes aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT), indicative of liver stress, were described in an anti-4-1BB antibody monotherapy study [100]. In a separate study evaluating combination immunotherapies in a B16F10 melanoma model, it was noted that anti-PD-1/4-1BB combination efficiently induced a synergistic anti-tumor response, evidenced by robust CD8+/Treg ratios and the upregulation of anti-tumor response genes (CD3ε, CD8α, IFN-γ, Eomes), but with toxicity related to the anti-4-1BB antibody alone [101]. A study by Kocak et al., using anti-CTLA-4/4-1BB combination therapies, also induced CD8+ T-cell-mediated tumor regression in a subcutaneous MC38 colon cancer model [102]. This study also indicated that 4-1BB monotherapy resulted in liver inflammation, which was surprisingly reduced by using a combination of antibodies directed at both 4-1BB and CTLA-4. The antibody combination increased Treg function, which may have decreased the liver inflammation, while still allowing for tumor regression at a different site. The degree of toxicity with various anti-4-1BB antibodies is associated with the strength of the agonist activity and the isotype of the antibody [103]. Engineering anti-4-1BB antibodies to minimize liver toxicity, by targeting the tumor microenvironment, is currently being investigated [104].
Within skin cancers, the exploration of anti-4-1BB antibody therapy has mostly been directed against melanoma [105]. MART-1-specific CD8 T cells were shown to have upregulated 4-1BB on the cell surface, and in vitro effector function was associated with 4-1BB-expressing cells [106]. Clonally expanded, tumor-specific T cells were also found amongst CD137+ CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in a B16F10 melanoma model [107]. Clinical trial progress in advanced melanoma has been hindered by adverse events, although low doses of urelumab (<1 mg/kg) seem to be tolerated [108]. A second antibody targeting CD137, utomilumab, was also found to be safe, and induced an objective response (2/15) in a limited number of Merkel cell carcinoma patients [109]. In contrast, the use of anti-CD137 antibodies, either alone or in combination, in cSCC is limited.
Cumulatively, antibodies against 4-1BB, either alone or in combination, show great preclinical promise in activating anti-tumour T cells in a variety of cancers. However, given that the systemic administration of 4-1BB carries a risk of liver toxicity, delivery strategies need to be optimized. The skin is an easily accessible site, allowing for localized treatment of skin cancer in the future, with reduced risk of systemic adverse events.

7. Conclusions

There is no doubt that checkpoint inhibitor therapy has revolutionized our treatment options for a variety of tumors. While some patients undergoing these treatments can show regression of large tumors, others fail to fully respond. This has led to a rapid expansion of combination treatments where checkpoint inhibitors are combined with more conventional therapies, such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. These combinations ensure that the tumor is attacked from multiple angles, thus increasing the chance of curative therapy. Similarly, when considering combinations of checkpoint therapy, multiple targets in the tumor microenvironment should be considered. Combinations of antibodies against PD-1, 4-1BB and VISTA fulfil this brief by not only targeting positive and negative signaling pathways on CD8 cytotoxic T cells, but also impacting on CD4 effector T cells, NK cells, regulatory T cells and myeloid-derived suppressor cells within skin cancers (Figure 1). While this approach is useful in tumors such as skin cancer, where inflammatory infiltrate and high mutational burden is frequently observed (“hot” tumours), combination checkpoint therapy will likely be more challenging in tumor microenvironments that are devoid of immune cells. In these tumors, the additional use of immune chemoattractants or the induction of immunogenic tumor cell death will be important.
The successful application of combination checkpoint therapy to skin cancers requires careful consideration of systemic toxicities often seen as autoimmune responses. This has been an issue with some anti-4-1BB antibodies as a single intravenous agent, but may be exacerbated by the use of multiple checkpoint antibodies in combination. Skin cancer patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease may be particularly susceptible. Conversely, solid organ transplant patients on high-dose, immunosuppressive drugs with cutaneous SCC may not benefit from checkpoint antibodies designed to reactivate tumor-specific T cells. In localized, primary cSCC the accessibility of the tumor requires a re-evaluation of the need for intravenously delivered therapy at high doses. While this traditional approach is clearly useful in the setting of metastatic skin cancer (antibody is distributed widely throughout the body), it may not be required for primary skin tumors where reactivation of infiltrated T cells is required. Given that some checkpoints mainly act at the level of T-cell priming in the lymph node (e.g., CTLA-4), while others alter the behavior of activated T cells in the tissue (e.g., PD-1), it will be important to match the checkpoint antibody with the required location. However, focusing on checkpoint antibodies that alter the behavior of activated T cells (such as antibodies directed against PD-1/4-1BB/VISTA), there is the potential for local treatment of the tumor, with much lower doses of antibody to minimize the systemic toxicities while preserving the anti-tumor efficacy (Figure 2). This does not exclude the possibility of small amounts of intradermal antibody draining to the lymph nodes and promoting a broader systemic T-cell response. Currently, there are a limited number of clinical trials examining this approach for skin cancer (clinicaltrials.gov (accessed on 19 April 2021), trial #NCT03889912). Future research should examine antibody dosing, toxicity and potential abscopal effects generated by the local treatment of individual cSCCs. Local injection of combination antibody could also be used as a neo-adjuvant therapy with surgery, to help reduce tumor size or improve accessibility prior to surgical removal [110]. Adjuvant effects may also be seen if the checkpoint antibody enhances local dendritic cell maturation en route to the local lymph nodes. Given that injected antibodies have a set half-life, these adjuvant effects might be important in promoting the continued generation of new anti-tumor T-cell responses in the absence of an antibody. Alternatively, if antibodies against PD-1, 4-1BB and VISTA promoted long-term, T-cell memory, then the need for reapplication of therapy would be diminished. The development of memory T cells after checkpoint therapy in cSSC warrants further investigation.
In conclusion, PD-1, 4-1BB and VISTA provide useful immunotherapeutic targets in skin cancer, and their combined use, applied locally or systemically, could provide improved treatment options for cutaneous SCC into the future.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, Q.W.; writing—review and editing, J.L.G.C., J.W.W., G.R.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Tour de Cure (grant number RSP-206-2020) (G.R.L.), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (grant number 2000135) (J.W.W.), Garnett Passe and Rodney Williams Memorial co-joint grant (J.L.G.C.) and the Merchant Charitable Trust (J.W.W.).

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out at the Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba, QLD 4102, Australia. The Translational Research Institute is supported by a grant from the Australian Government.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the writing of the manuscript.

References

  1. Rogers, H.W.; Weinstock, M.A.; Feldman, S.R.; Coldiron, B.M. Incidence Estimate of Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer (Keratinocyte Carcinomas) in the U.S. Population, 2012. JAMA Dermatol. 2015, 151, 1081–1086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Misitzis, A.; Beatson, M.; Weinstock, M.A. Keratinocyte Carcinoma Mortality in the United States as Reported in Death Certificates, 2011–2017. Dermatol. Surg. 2020, 46, 1135–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pandeya, N.; Olsen, C.M.; Whiteman, D.C. The incidence and multiplicity rates of keratinocyte cancers in Australia. Med. J. Aust. 2017, 207, 339–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yarchoan, M.; Hopkins, A.; Jaffee, E.M. Tumor Mutational Burden and Response Rate to PD-1 Inhibition. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 377, 2500–2501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ratushny, V.; Gober, M.D.; Hick, R.; Ridky, T.W.; Seykora, J.T. From keratinocyte to cancer: The pathogenesis and modeling of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Investig. 2012, 122, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Werner, R.N.; Sammain, A.; Erdmann, R.; Hartmann, V.; Stockfleth, E.; Nast, A. The natural history of actinic keratosis: A systematic review. Br. J. Dermatol. 2013, 169, 502–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Glogau, R.G. The risk of progression to invasive disease. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2000, 42, 23–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gutzmer, R.; Wiegand, S.; Kolbl, O.; Wermker, K.; Heppt, M.; Berking, C. Actinic Keratosis and Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Dtsch. Ärzteblatt Int. 2019, 116, 616–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Maubec, E. Update of the Management of Cutaneous Squamous-cell Carcinoma. Acta Derm. Venereol. 2020, 100, adv00143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garrett, G.L.; Blanc, P.D.; Boscardin, J.; Lloyd, A.A.; Ahmed, R.L.; Anthony, T.; Bibee, K.; Breithaupt, A.; Cannon, J.; Chen, A.; et al. Incidence of and Risk Factors for Skin Cancer in Organ Transplant Recipients in the United States. JAMA Dermatol. 2017, 153, 296–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Kim, C.; Cheng, J.; Colegio, O.R. Cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas in solid organ transplant recipients: Emerging strategies for surveillance, staging, and treatment. Semin. Oncol. 2016, 43, 390–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Haeffner, A.C.; Zepter, K.; Elmets, C.A.; Wood, G.S. Analysis of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Arch. Dermatol. 1997, 133, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Black, A.P.; Bailey, A.; Jones, L.; Turner, R.J.; Hollowood, K.; Ogg, G.S. p53-specific CD8+ T-cell responses in individuals with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Br. J. Dermatol. 2005, 153, 987–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Hartmann, D.; Krammer, S.; Bachmann, M.R.; Mathemeier, L.; Ruzicka, T.; Bagci, I.S.; von Braunmuhl, T. Ex vivo confocal microscopy features of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. J. Biophotonics 2018, 11, e201700318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ji, A.L.; Rubin, A.J.; Thrane, K.; Jiang, S.; Reynolds, D.L.; Meyers, R.M.; Guo, M.G.; George, B.M.; Mollbrink, A.; Bergenstrahle, J.; et al. Multimodal Analysis of Composition and Spatial Architecture in Human Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Cell 2020, 182, 497–514.e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Avramoiu, I.; Petrescu, I.O.; Ciurea, M.E.; Bold, A.; Silosi, I.; tanTu, M.M.; Niculescu, M.; Anghel Savciu, R.E.; Mogoanta, S.S. Peritumoral inflammatory reaction in non-melanoma skin cancers—Histological and immunohistochemical study. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2016, 57, 943–950. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Kai, H.; Kadono, T.; Kakinuma, T.; Tomita, M.; Ohmatsu, H.; Asano, Y.; Tada, Y.; Sugaya, M.; Sato, S. CCR10 and CCL27 are overexpressed in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Pathol. Res. Pract. 2011, 207, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lysa, B.; Tartler, U.; Wolf, R.; Arenberger, P.; Benninghoff, B.; Ruzicka, T.; Hengge, U.R.; Walz, M. Gene expression in actinic keratoses: Pharmacological modulation by imiquimod. Br. J. Dermatol. 2004, 151, 1150–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nasti, T.H.; Timares, L. Inflammasome activation of IL-1 family mediators in response to cutaneous photodamage. Photochem. Photobiol. 2012, 88, 1111–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Awad, F.; Assrawi, E.; Louvrier, C.; Jumeau, C.; Giurgea, I.; Amselem, S.; Karabina, S.A. Photoaging and skin cancer: Is the inflammasome the missing link? Mech. Ageing Dev. 2018, 172, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Meier, K.; Drexler, S.K.; Eberle, F.C.; Lefort, K.; Yazdi, A.S. Silencing of ASC in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0164742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Sand, J.; Fenini, G.; Grossi, S.; Hennig, P.; Di Filippo, M.; Levesque, M.; Werner, S.; French, L.E.; Beer, H.D. The NLRP1 Inflammasome Pathway Is Silenced in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2019, 139, 1788–1797.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Hart, P.H.; Norval, M. Ultraviolet radiation-induced immunosuppression and its relevance for skin carcinogenesis. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2018, 17, 1872–1884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Clifford, J.L.; Walch, E.; Yang, X.; Xu, X.; Alberts, D.S.; Clayman, G.L.; El-Naggar, A.K.; Lotan, R.; Lippman, S.M. Suppression of type I interferon signaling proteins is an early event in squamous skin carcinogenesis. Clin. Cancer Res. 2002, 8, 2067–2072. [Google Scholar]
  25. Azzimonti, B.; Zavattaro, E.; Provasi, M.; Vidali, M.; Conca, A.; Catalano, E.; Rimondini, L.; Colombo, E.; Valente, G. Intense Foxp3+ CD25+ regulatory T-cell infiltration is associated with high-grade cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and counterbalanced by CD8+/Foxp3+ CD25+ ratio. Br. J. Dermatol. 2015, 172, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lai, C.; August, S.; Behar, R.; Polak, M.; Ardern-Jones, M.; Theaker, J.; Al-Shamkhani, A.; Healy, E. Characteristics of immunosuppressive regulatory T cells in cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas and role in metastasis. Lancet 2015, 385, S59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lai, C.; August, S.; Albibas, A.; Behar, R.; Cho, S.Y.; Polak, M.E.; Theaker, J.; MacLeod, A.S.; French, R.R.; Glennie, M.J.; et al. OX40+ Regulatory T Cells in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Suppress Effector T-Cell Responses and Associate with Metastatic Potential. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016, 22, 4236–4248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Freeman, A.; Bridge, J.A.; Maruthayanar, P.; Overgaard, N.H.; Jung, J.W.; Simpson, F.; Prow, T.W.; Soyer, H.P.; Frazer, I.H.; Freeman, M.; et al. Comparative immune phenotypic analysis of cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Intraepidermal Carcinoma in immune-competent individuals: Proportional representation of CD8+ T-cells but not FoxP3+ Regulatory T-cells is associated with disease stage. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e110928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pardoll, D.M. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12, 252–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Sharma, P.; Siddiqui, B.A.; Anandhan, S.; Yadav, S.S.; Subudhi, S.K.; Gao, J.; Goswami, S.; Allison, J.P. The Next Decade of Immune Checkpoint Therapy. Cancer Discov. 2021, 11, 838–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Vidal, D. Topical imiquimod: Mechanism of action and clinical applications. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 2006, 6, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Guedan, S.; Ruella, M.; June, C.H. Emerging Cellular Therapies for Cancer. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2019, 37, 145–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Curran, M.A.; Glisson, B.S. New Hope for Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Modulation. Annu. Rev. Med. 2019, 70, 409–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Sharma, P.; Allison, J.P. Dissecting the mechanisms of immune checkpoint therapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 20, 75–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Migden, M.R.; Rischin, D.; Schmults, C.D.; Guminski, A.; Hauschild, A.; Lewis, K.D.; Chung, C.H.; Hernandez-Aya, L.; Lim, A.M.; Chang, A.L.S.; et al. PD-1 Blockade with Cemiplimab in Advanced Cutaneous Squamous-Cell Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Ellmark, P.; Mangsbo, S.M.; Furebring, C.; Norlen, P.; Totterman, T.H. Tumor-directed immunotherapy can generate tumor-specific T cell responses through localized co-stimulation. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2017, 66, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Chen, L.; Flies, D.B. Molecular mechanisms of T cell co-stimulation and co-inhibition. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2013, 13, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ishida, Y.; Agata, Y.; Shibahara, K.; Honjo, T. Induced expression of PD-1, a novel member of the immunoglobulin gene superfamily, upon programmed cell death. EMBO J. 1992, 11, 3887–3895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sharpe, A.H.; Pauken, K.E. The diverse functions of the PD1 inhibitory pathway. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2018, 18, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Barber, D.L.; Wherry, E.J.; Masopust, D.; Zhu, B.; Allison, J.P.; Sharpe, A.H.; Freeman, G.J.; Ahmed, R. Restoring function in exhausted CD8 T cells during chronic viral infection. Nature 2006, 439, 682–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. McLane, L.M.; Abdel-Hakeem, M.S.; Wherry, E.J. CD8 T Cell Exhaustion During Chronic Viral Infection and Cancer. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2019, 37, 457–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Hirano, F.; Kaneko, K.; Tamura, H.; Dong, H.; Wang, S.; Ichikawa, M.; Rietz, C.; Flies, D.B.; Lau, J.S.; Zhu, G.; et al. Blockade of B7-H1 and PD-1 by monoclonal antibodies potentiates cancer therapeutic immunity. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 1089–1096. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Nishimura, H.; Nose, M.; Hiai, H.; Minato, N.; Honjo, T. Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying immunoreceptor. Immunity 1999, 11, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Mallett, G.; Laurence, A.; Amarnath, S. Programmed Cell Death-1 Receptor (PD-1)-Mediated Regulation of Innate Lymphoid Cells. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Baumeister, S.H.; Freeman, G.J.; Dranoff, G.; Sharpe, A.H. Coinhibitory Pathways in Immunotherapy for Cancer. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2016, 34, 539–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Patsoukis, N.; Wang, Q.; Strauss, L.; Boussiotis, V.A. Revisiting the PD-1 pathway. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kumagai, S.; Togashi, Y.; Kamada, T.; Sugiyama, E.; Nishinakamura, H.; Takeuchi, Y.; Vitaly, K.; Itahashi, K.; Maeda, Y.; Matsui, S.; et al. The PD-1 expression balance between effector and regulatory T cells predicts the clinical efficacy of PD-1 blockade therapies. Nat. Immunol. 2020, 21, 1346–1358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Trefny, M.P.; Kaiser, M.; Stanczak, M.A.; Herzig, P.; Savic, S.; Wiese, M.; Lardinois, D.; Laubli, H.; Uhlenbrock, F.; Zippelius, A. PD-1(+) natural killer cells in human non-small cell lung cancer can be activated by PD-1/PD-L1 blockade. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2020, 69, 1505–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pesce, S.; Trabanelli, S.; Di Vito, C.; Greppi, M.; Obino, V.; Guolo, F.; Minetto, P.; Bozzo, M.; Calvi, M.; Zaghi, E.; et al. Cancer Immunotherapy by Blocking Immune Checkpoints on Innate Lymphocytes. Cancers 2020, 12, 3504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, H.; Quek, C.; Silva, I.; Tasker, A.; Batten, M.; Rizos, H.; Lim, S.Y.; Nur Gide, T.; Shang, P.; Attrill, G.H.; et al. Integrated molecular and immunophenotypic analysis of NK cells in anti-PD-1 treated metastatic melanoma patients. Oncoimmunology 2019, 8, e1537581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Strauss, L.; Mahmoud, M.A.A.; Weaver, J.D.; Tijaro-Ovalle, N.M.; Christofides, A.; Wang, Q.; Pal, R.; Yuan, M.; Asara, J.; Patsoukis, N.; et al. Targeted deletion of PD-1 in myeloid cells induces antitumor immunity. Sci. Immunol. 2020, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dammeijer, F.; van Gulijk, M.; Mulder, E.E.; Lukkes, M.; Klaase, L.; van den Bosch, T.; van Nimwegen, M.; Lau, S.P.; Latupeirissa, K.; Schetters, S.; et al. The PD-1/PD-L1-Checkpoint Restrains T cell Immunity in Tumor-Draining Lymph Nodes. Cancer Cell 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Muntyanu, A.; Netchiporouk, E.; Gerstein, W.; Gniadecki, R.; Litvinov, I.V. Cutaneous Immune-Related Adverse Events (irAEs) to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Dermatology Perspective on Management. J. Cutan. Med. Surg. 2020, 1203475420943260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rovers, J.F.J.; Bovenschen, H.J. Dermatological side effects rarely interfere with the continuation of checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy for cancer. Int. J. Dermatol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Simonsen, A.B.; Kaae, J.; Ellebaek, E.; Svane, I.M.; Zachariae, C. Cutaneous adverse reactions to anti-PD-1 treatment-A systematic review. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mandala, M.; Tondini, C.; Merelli, B.; Massi, D. Rationale for New Checkpoint Inhibitor Combinations in Melanoma Therapy. Am. J. Clin. Dermatol. 2017, 18, 597–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Patrinely, J.R., Jr.; Dewan, A.K.; Johnson, D.B. The Role of Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 in the Treatment of Skin Cancer. BioDrugs 2020, 34, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Schachter, J.; Ribas, A.; Long, G.V.; Arance, A.; Grob, J.J.; Mortier, L.; Daud, A.; Carlino, M.S.; McNeil, C.; Lotem, M.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: Final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). Lancet 2017, 390, 1853–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hodi, F.S.; Chiarion-Sileni, V.; Gonzalez, R.; Grob, J.J.; Rutkowski, P.; Cowey, C.L.; Lao, C.D.; Schadendorf, D.; Wagstaff, J.; Dummer, R.; et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone in advanced melanoma (CheckMate 067): 4-year outcomes of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018, 19, 1480–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Migden, M.R.; Khushalani, N.I.; Chang, A.L.S.; Lewis, K.D.; Schmults, C.D.; Hernandez-Aya, L.; Meier, F.; Schadendorf, D.; Guminski, A.; Hauschild, A.; et al. Cemiplimab in locally advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: Results from an open-label, phase 2, single-arm trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020, 21, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dougan, M.; Luoma, A.M.; Dougan, S.K.; Wucherpfennig, K.W. Understanding and treating the inflammatory adverse events of cancer immunotherapy. Cell 2021, 184, 1575–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Safarzadeh, A.; Alizadeh, M.; Beyranvand, F.; Falavand Jozaaee, R.; Hajiasgharzadeh, K.; Baghbanzadeh, A.; Derakhshani, A.; Argentiero, A.; Baradaran, B.; Silvestris, N. Varied functions of immune checkpoints during cancer metastasis. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Anonymous. LAG3-PD-1 Inhibitor Combo Impresses in Melanoma. Cancer Discov. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Naing, A.; Meric-Bernstam, F.; Stephen, B.; Karp, D.D.; Hajjar, J.; Rodon Ahnert, J.; Piha-Paul, S.A.; Colen, R.R.; Jimenez, C.; Raghav, K.P.; et al. Phase 2 study of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced rare cancers. J. Immunother. Cancer 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Grob, J.J.; Gonzalez, R.; Basset-Seguin, N.; Vornicova, O.; Schachter, J.; Joshi, A.; Meyer, N.; Grange, F.; Piulats, J.M.; Bauman, J.R.; et al. Pembrolizumab Monotherapy for Recurrent or Metastatic Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Single-Arm Phase II Trial (KEYNOTE-629). J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 38, 2916–2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kudchadkar, R.R.; Yushak, M.L.; Lawson, D.H.; Delman, K.A.; Lowe, M.C.; Goings, M.; McBrien, S.; Mckellar, M.; Sieja, K.; Maynard, N.; et al. Phase II trial of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2018, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Maubec, E.; Helfen, S.; Scheer-Senyarich, I.; Boubaya, M.; Schischmanoff, O.; Alloux, C.; Deschamps, L.; Petrow, P.; Lopez, I.; Tibi, A.; et al. CARSKIN: Pembrolizumab as first line therapy in patients with unresectable cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). J. Clin. Oncol. 2017, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Wang, L.; Rubinstein, R.; Lines, J.L.; Wasiuk, A.; Ahonen, C.; Guo, Y.; Lu, L.F.; Gondek, D.; Wang, Y.; Fava, R.A.; et al. VISTA, a novel mouse Ig superfamily ligand that negatively regulates T cell responses. J. Exp. Med. 2011, 208, 577–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Flies, D.B.; Wang, S.; Xu, H.; Chen, L. Cutting edge: A monoclonal antibody specific for the programmed death-1 homolog prevents graft-versus-host disease in mouse models. J. Immunol. 2011, 187, 1537–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Wang, L.; Jia, B.; Claxton, D.F.; Ehmann, W.C.; Rybka, W.B.; Mineishi, S.; Naik, S.; Khawaja, M.R.; Sivik, J.; Han, J.; et al. VISTA is highly expressed on MDSCs and mediates an inhibition of T cell response in patients with AML. Oncoimmunology 2018, 7, e1469594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Huang, X.; Zhang, X.; Li, E.; Zhang, G.; Wang, X.; Tang, T.; Bai, X.; Liang, T. VISTA: An immune regulatory protein checking tumor and immune cells in cancer immunotherapy. J. Hematol. Oncol. 2020, 13, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Johnston, R.J.; Su, L.J.; Pinckney, J.; Critton, D.; Boyer, E.; Krishnakumar, A.; Corbett, M.; Rankin, A.L.; Dibella, R.; Campbell, L.; et al. VISTA is an acidic pH-selective ligand for PSGL-1. Nature 2019, 574, 565–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wang, J.; Wu, G.; Manick, B.; Hernandez, V.; Renelt, M.; Erickson, C.; Guan, J.; Singh, R.; Rollins, S.; Solorz, A.; et al. VSIG-3 as a ligand of VISTA inhibits human T-cell function. Immunology 2019, 156, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. ElTanbouly, M.A.; Croteau, W.; Noelle, R.J.; Lines, J.L. VISTA: A novel immunotherapy target for normalizing innate and adaptive immunity. Semin. Immunol. 2019, 42, 101308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yasinska, I.M.; Meyer, N.H.; Schlichtner, S.; Hussain, R.; Siligardi, G.; Casely-Hayford, M.; Fiedler, W.; Wellbrock, J.; Desmet, C.; Calzolai, L.; et al. Ligand-Receptor Interactions of Galectin-9 and VISTA Suppress Human T Lymphocyte Cytotoxic Activity. Front. Immunol. 2020, 11, 580557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Flies, D.B.; Han, X.; Higuchi, T.; Zheng, L.; Sun, J.; Ye, J.J.; Chen, L. Coinhibitory receptor PD-1H preferentially suppresses CD4(+) T cell-mediated immunity. J. Clin. Investig. 2014, 124, 1966–1975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Wang, L.; Le Mercier, I.; Putra, J.; Chen, W.; Liu, J.; Schenk, A.D.; Nowak, E.C.; Suriawinata, A.A.; Li, J.; Noelle, R.J. Disruption of the immune-checkpoint VISTA gene imparts a proinflammatory phenotype with predisposition to the development of autoimmunity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 14846–14851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. ElTanbouly, M.A.; Schaafsma, E.; Noelle, R.J.; Lines, J.L. VISTA: Coming of age as a multi-lineage immune checkpoint. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2020, 200, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Broughton, T.W.K.; ElTanbouly, M.A.; Schaafsma, E.; Deng, J.; Sarde, A.; Croteau, W.; Li, J.; Nowak, E.C.; Mabaera, R.; Smits, N.C.; et al. Defining the Signature of VISTA on Myeloid Cell Chemokine Responsiveness. Front. Immunol. 2019, 10, 2641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Le Mercier, I.; Chen, W.; Lines, J.L.; Day, M.; Li, J.; Sergent, P.; Noelle, R.J.; Wang, L. VISTA Regulates the Development of Protective Antitumor Immunity. Cancer Res. 2014, 74, 1933–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Wu, L.; Deng, W.W.; Huang, C.F.; Bu, L.L.; Yu, G.T.; Mao, L.; Zhang, W.F.; Liu, B.; Sun, Z.J. Expression of VISTA correlated with immunosuppression and synergized with CD8 to predict survival in human oral squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2017, 66, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kuklinski, L.F.; Yan, S.; Li, Z.; Fisher, J.L.; Cheng, C.; Noelle, R.J.; Angeles, C.V.; Turk, M.J.; Ernstoff, M.S. VISTA expression on tumor-infiltrating inflammatory cells in primary cutaneous melanoma correlates with poor disease-specific survival. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2018, 67, 1113–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kakavand, H.; Jackett, L.A.; Menzies, A.M.; Gide, T.N.; Carlino, M.S.; Saw, R.P.M.; Thompson, J.F.; Wilmott, J.S.; Long, G.V.; Scolyer, R.A. Negative immune checkpoint regulation by VISTA: A mechanism of acquired resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Mod. Pathol. 2017, 30, 1666–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Choi, J.W.; Kim, Y.J.; Yun, K.A.; Won, C.H.; Lee, M.W.; Choi, J.H.; Chang, S.E.; Lee, W.J. The prognostic significance of VISTA and CD33-positive myeloid cells in cutaneous melanoma and their relationship with PD-1 expression. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 14372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Yoon, K.W.; Byun, S.; Kwon, E.; Hwang, S.Y.; Chu, K.; Hiraki, M.; Jo, S.H.; Weins, A.; Hakroush, S.; Cebulla, A.; et al. Control of signaling-mediated clearance of apoptotic cells by the tumor suppressor p53. Science 2015, 349, 1261669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Kondo, Y.; Ohno, T.; Nishii, N.; Harada, K.; Yagita, H.; Azuma, M. Differential contribution of three immune checkpoint (VISTA, CTLA-4, PD-1) pathways to antitumor responses against squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2016, 57, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Piao, J.; Kamimura, Y.; Iwai, H.; Cao, Y.; Kikuchi, K.; Hashiguchi, M.; Masunaga, T.; Jiang, H.; Tamura, K.; Sakaguchi, S.; et al. Enhancement of T-cell-mediated anti-tumour immunity via the ectopically expressed glucocorticoid-induced tumour necrosis factor receptor-related receptor ligand (GITRL) on tumours. Immunology 2009, 127, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Liu, J.; Yuan, Y.; Chen, W.; Putra, J.; Suriawinata, A.A.; Schenk, A.D.; Miller, H.E.; Guleria, I.; Barth, R.J.; Huang, Y.H.; et al. Immune-checkpoint proteins VISTA and PD-1 nonredundantly regulate murine T-cell responses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 6682–6687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Bartkowiak, T.; Curran, M.A. 4-1BB Agonists: Multi-Potent Potentiators of Tumor Immunity. Front. Oncol. 2015, 5, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Chester, C.; Sanmamed, M.F.; Wang, J.; Melero, I. Immunotherapy targeting 4-1BB: Mechanistic rationale, clinical results, and future strategies. Blood 2018, 131, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Heinisch, I.V.; Bizer, C.; Volgger, W.; Simon, H.U. Functional CD137 receptors are expressed by eosinophils from patients with IgE-mediated allergic responses but not by eosinophils from patients with non-IgE-mediated eosinophilic disorders. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2001, 108, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Shuford, W.W.; Klussman, K.; Tritchler, D.D.; Loo, D.T.; Chalupny, J.; Siadak, A.W.; Brown, T.J.; Emswiler, J.; Raecho, H.; Larsen, C.P.; et al. 4-1BB costimulatory signals preferentially induce CD8+ T cell proliferation and lead to the amplification in vivo of cytotoxic T cell responses. J. Exp. Med. 1997, 186, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Stelekati, E.; Bahri, R.; D’Orlando, O.; Orinska, Z.; Mittrucker, H.W.; Langenhaun, R.; Glatzel, M.; Bollinger, A.; Paus, R.; Bulfone-Paus, S. Mast cell-mediated antigen presentation regulates CD8+ T cell effector functions. Immunity 2009, 31, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Vinay, D.S.; Choi, B.K.; Bae, J.S.; Kim, W.Y.; Gebhardt, B.M.; Kwon, B.S. CD137-deficient mice have reduced NK/NKT cell numbers and function, are resistant to lipopolysaccharide-induced shock syndromes, and have lower IL-4 responses. J. Immunol. 2004, 173, 4218–4229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Chester, C.; Ambulkar, S.; Kohrt, H.E. 4-1BB agonism: Adding the accelerator to cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2016, 65, 1243–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Kuang, Y.; Weng, X.; Liu, X.; Zhu, H.; Chen, Z.; Chen, H. Effects of 4-1BB signaling on the biological function of murine dendritic cells. Oncol. Lett. 2012, 3, 477–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Zhang, P.; Gao, F.; Wang, Q.; Wang, X.; Zhu, F.; Ma, C.; Sun, W.; Zhang, L. Agonistic anti-4-1BB antibody promotes the expansion of natural regulatory T cells while maintaining Foxp3 expression. Scand. J. Immunol. 2007, 66, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Sun, Y.; Lin, X.; Chen, H.M.; Wu, Q.; Subudhi, S.K.; Chen, L.; Fu, Y.X. Administration of agonistic anti-4-1BB monoclonal antibody leads to the amelioration of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. J. Immunol. 2002, 168, 1457–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Foell, J.; McCausland, M.; Burch, J.; Corriazzi, N.; Yan, X.J.; Suwyn, C.; O’Neil, S.P.; Hoffmann, M.K.; Mittler, R.S. CD137-mediated T cell co-stimulation terminates existing autoimmune disease in SLE-prone NZB/NZW F1 mice. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2003, 987, 230–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Ascierto, P.A.; Simeone, E.; Sznol, M.; Fu, Y.X.; Melero, I. Clinical experiences with anti-CD137 and anti-PD1 therapeutic antibodies. Semin. Oncol. 2010, 37, 508–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Chen, S.; Lee, L.F.; Fisher, T.S.; Jessen, B.; Elliott, M.; Evering, W.; Logronio, K.; Tu, G.H.; Tsaparikos, K.; Li, X.; et al. Combination of 4-1BB agonist and PD-1 antagonist promotes antitumor effector/memory CD8 T cells in a poorly immunogenic tumor model. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2015, 3, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Kocak, E.; Lute, K.; Chang, X.; May, K.F., Jr.; Exten, K.R.; Zhang, H.; Abdessalam, S.F.; Lehman, A.M.; Jarjoura, D.; Zheng, P.; et al. Combination therapy with anti-CTL antigen-4 and anti-4-1BB antibodies enhances cancer immunity and reduces autoimmunity. Cancer Res. 2006, 66, 7276–7284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Qi, X.; Li, F.; Wu, Y.; Cheng, C.; Han, P.; Wang, J.; Yang, X. Optimization of 4-1BB antibody for cancer immunotherapy by balancing agonistic strength with FcgammaR affinity. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Claus, C.; Ferrara, C.; Xu, W.; Sam, J.; Lang, S.; Uhlenbrock, F.; Albrecht, R.; Herter, S.; Schlenker, R.; Husser, T.; et al. Tumor-targeted 4-1BB agonists for combination with T cell bispecific antibodies as off-the-shelf therapy. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. He, S.; Xu, J.; Wu, J. The emerging role of co-stimulatory molecules and their agonistic mAb-based combination therapies in melanoma. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2020, 89, 107097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Ye, Q.; Song, D.G.; Poussin, M.; Yamamoto, T.; Best, A.; Li, C.; Coukos, G.; Powell, D.J., Jr. CD137 accurately identifies and enriches for naturally occurring tumor-reactive T cells in tumor. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014, 20, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  107. Shitaoka, K.; Hamana, H.; Kishi, H.; Hayakawa, Y.; Kobayashi, E.; Sukegawa, K.; Piao, X.; Lyu, F.; Nagata, T.; Sugiyama, D.; et al. Identification of Tumoricidal TCRs from Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes by Single-Cell Analysis. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2018, 6, 378–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Segal, N.H.; Logan, T.F.; Hodi, F.S.; McDermott, D.; Melero, I.; Hamid, O.; Schmidt, H.; Robert, C.; Chiarion-Sileni, V.; Ascierto, P.A.; et al. Results from an Integrated Safety Analysis of Urelumab, an Agonist Anti-CD137 Monoclonal Antibody. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017, 23, 1929–1936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Segal, N.H.; He, A.R.; Doi, T.; Levy, R.; Bhatia, S.; Pishvaian, M.J.; Cesari, R.; Chen, Y.; Davis, C.B.; Huang, B.; et al. Phase I Study of Single-Agent Utomilumab (PF-05082566), a 4-1BB/CD137 Agonist, in Patients with Advanced Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018, 24, 1816–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Zelin, E.; Zalaudek, I.; Agozzino, M.; Dianzani, C.; Dri, A.; Di Meo, N.; Giuffrida, R.; Marangi, G.F.; Neagu, N.; Persichetti, P.; et al. Neoadjuvant Therapy for Non-melanoma Skin Cancer: Updated Therapeutic Approaches for Basal, Squamous, and Merkel Cell Carcinoma. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2021, 22, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 13 03310 g001 550
Figure 1. A model of the key interactions that are proposed to enhance the activity of T cells/NK cells within the tumor microenvironment after treatment with antibodies targeting PD-1, VISTA and 4-1BB. Prior to antibody treatment (left side), CD4/CD8 T cells and NK cells receive negative signals from interactions with ligands on the cancer and myeloid cells. In addition, there is a proposed lack of positive signals through 4-1BB and the presence of Treg cells that inhibit T cell/NK cell activity. Following antibody treatment (right side), T cells/NK cells are activated due to the antibody blocking of PD-1 and VISTA and the agonistic activity of 4-1BB. In addition, anti-4-1BB antibody is known to delete Treg cells (no longer shown in the diagram) and induce costimulation (such as B7 family members) on dendritic cells allowing activating signals through CD28. The end result is destruction of the tumor by T/NK cells. Note that not all T/NK cells will express all three receptors simultaneously leading to different levels of functional restoration within individual T/NK cells in the tumor microenvironment (image created with BioRender.com (accessed on 12 May 2021)).
Figure 1. A model of the key interactions that are proposed to enhance the activity of T cells/NK cells within the tumor microenvironment after treatment with antibodies targeting PD-1, VISTA and 4-1BB. Prior to antibody treatment (left side), CD4/CD8 T cells and NK cells receive negative signals from interactions with ligands on the cancer and myeloid cells. In addition, there is a proposed lack of positive signals through 4-1BB and the presence of Treg cells that inhibit T cell/NK cell activity. Following antibody treatment (right side), T cells/NK cells are activated due to the antibody blocking of PD-1 and VISTA and the agonistic activity of 4-1BB. In addition, anti-4-1BB antibody is known to delete Treg cells (no longer shown in the diagram) and induce costimulation (such as B7 family members) on dendritic cells allowing activating signals through CD28. The end result is destruction of the tumor by T/NK cells. Note that not all T/NK cells will express all three receptors simultaneously leading to different levels of functional restoration within individual T/NK cells in the tumor microenvironment (image created with BioRender.com (accessed on 12 May 2021)).
Cancers 13 03310 g001
Cancers 13 03310 g002 550
Figure 2. Local injection of checkpoint antibodies in skin cancer could enhance efficacy and safety of these treatment protocols. The diagram summarizes the key features of local vs. systemic application of checkpoint antibodies (image created with BioRender.com (accessed on 12 May 2021)).
Figure 2. Local injection of checkpoint antibodies in skin cancer could enhance efficacy and safety of these treatment protocols. The diagram summarizes the key features of local vs. systemic application of checkpoint antibodies (image created with BioRender.com (accessed on 12 May 2021)).
Cancers 13 03310 g002
Table
Table 1. Clinical trials 1 for antibodies directed against PD-1/PD-L1, CD137, VISTA in cutaneous SCC.
Table 1. Clinical trials 1 for antibodies directed against PD-1/PD-L1, CD137, VISTA in cutaneous SCC.
Therapy TargetTherapyIndicationClinical Trial #Clinical Trial StatusReference
PD-1PembrolizumabMultiple, including SCC patients with poor prognosis and progression on standardized therapiesNCT02721732Phase II[64]
PD-1PembrolizumabRecurrent and/or metastatic cSCCNCT03284424Phase II[65]
PD-1PembrolizumabRecurrent cSCC in patients not curable by surgery or radiationNCT02964559Phase II[66]
PD-1Pembrolizumab
Radiation		Postoperative radiotherapy for cSCC of head and neckNCT03057613Phase II/completed
PD-1PembrolizumabUnresectable/metastatic squamous cell carcinomaNCT02883556Phase II[67]
PD-1
EGFR		Pembrolizumab in combination with
Cetuximab		cSCC of head and neckNCT03082534Phase II/recruiting
PD-1
C5a		Pembrolizumab in combination with
IFX-1(anti-C5a Ab)		Locally advanced or metastatic cSCCNCT04812535Phase II/not yet recruiting
PD-1PembrolizumabHigh-risk, locally advanced cSCC following surgery and radiationNCT03833167Phase III/recruiting
PD-1PembrolizumabPD-1 naïve cSCCNCT04808999Phase II/recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabLocally advanced or metastatic cSCCNCT02383212Phase I/
metastatic or locally advanced SCC
phase II
metastatic cSCC		[35]
PD-1CemiplimabLocally advanced or metastatic cSCCNCT02760498Phase II/recruiting[60]
PD-1CemiplimabRecurrent cSCCNCT03889912Phase I/active/not recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabcSCC stage II to IVNCT04154943Phase II/recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabImmunocompromised patients with unresectable locally recurrent and/or metastatic cSCCNCT04242173Phase II recruiting
PD-1Cemiplimab in conjunction with RP-1 (modified HSV-1)Locally advanced/metastatic cSCC. Combination with RP-1 intratumourallyNCT04050436Phase II/recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabRecurrent stage III-IV cSCC of head and NeckNCT03565783Phase II/recruiting
PD-1
SAR444245		Cemiplimab
in conjunction with SAR444245 (rhIL-2)		Locally advanced or metastatic cSSCNCT04913220Phase I/II/not yet recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabHigh-risk, stage III cSCCNCT04632433Phase II/recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabHigh-risk cSCC before and after surgeryNCT04428671Phase I/recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabHigh-risk cSCC after radiation and surgeryNCT03969004Phase III/recruiting
PD-1
TLR-9 agonist		Cemiplimab or Pembrolizumab with Cavrotolimod (TLR-9 agonist)Advanced or metastatic cSCC. Combination with cavrotolimod intratumourallyNCT03684785Phase I/II/recruiting
PD-1Cemiplimab
In conjunction with Everolimus/Sirolimus/Prednisone		Advanced cSCC in participants who have previously received an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant or kidney transplantNCT04339062Recruiting
PD-1CemiplimabHigh-risk localized/locally recurrent/resectable cutaneous cSCCNCT04315701Recruiting
PD-1
EGFR		Cemiplimab
Pembrolizumab
ASP-1929 (Anti-EGFR Photoimmunotherap)		Recurrent or metastatic head and neck SCC or advanced or metastatic cSCC
in EGFR-expressing tumours		NCT04305795Recruiting
PD-1NivolumabAdvanced cSCCNCT03834233Active/not recruiting
PD-1
CTLA-4		Nivolumab+/−
Ipilimumab		Resectable stage III-IVa cSCCNCT04620200Phase II/recruiting
PD-1NivolumabLocally advanced/metatstatic cSCCNCT04204837Phase II/not recruiting
PD-L1
EGFR		Avelumab+/− CetuximabAdvanced cSCCNCT03944941Phase II/recruiting
PD-L1Avelumab in combination with radiationUnresectable cSCCNCT03737721Phase II/recruiting
PD-L1Atezolimumab
Cobimetnib (MEK Inhibitor)		cSCCNCT03108131Active, not Recruiting
PD-L1Atezolimumab
NT-I7(rhIL-7-Fc)		cSCCNCT03108131Recruiting
PD-L1AtezolimumabcSCCNCT04710498Not yet recruiting
VISTACI-8993Advanced solid tumour malignanciesNCT04475523Recruiting
1. As reported at clinicaltrials.gov (accessed on 19 April 2021). Some studies where evaluation of cSCC was not a primary outcome were omitted.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wright, Q.; Gonzalez Cruz, J.L.; Wells, J.W.; Leggatt, G.R. PD-1 and beyond to Activate T Cells in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancers: The Case for 4-1BB and VISTA Antibodies in Combination Therapy. Cancers 2021, 13, 3310. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13133310

AMA Style

Wright Q, Gonzalez Cruz JL, Wells JW, Leggatt GR. PD-1 and beyond to Activate T Cells in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancers: The Case for 4-1BB and VISTA Antibodies in Combination Therapy. Cancers. 2021; 13(13):3310. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13133310

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wright, Quentin, Jazmina L. Gonzalez Cruz, James W. Wells, and Graham R. Leggatt. 2021. "PD-1 and beyond to Activate T Cells in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancers: The Case for 4-1BB and VISTA Antibodies in Combination Therapy" Cancers 13, no. 13: 3310. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13133310

APA Style

Wright, Q., Gonzalez Cruz, J. L., Wells, J. W., & Leggatt, G. R. (2021). PD-1 and beyond to Activate T Cells in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Cancers: The Case for 4-1BB and VISTA Antibodies in Combination Therapy. Cancers, 13(13), 3310. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13133310

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop