Immunogenic apoptosis, or more appropriately called immunogenic cell death (ICD), is a recently described form of apoptosis induced by a specific set of chemotherapeutic drugs or by physical therapeutic modalities, such as ionizing irradiation and photodynamic therapy. The peculiar characteristic of ICD is the ability to favor recognition and elimination of dying tumor cells by phagocytes in association with the release of pro-inflammatory molecules (such as cytokines and high-mobility group box-1). While in vitro and animal models pointed to ICD as one of the molecular mechanisms mediating the clinical efficacy of some anticancer agents, it is hard to clearly demonstrate its contribution in cancer patients. Clinical evidence suggests that the induction of ICD alone is possibly not sufficient to fully subvert the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. However, interesting results from recent studies contemplate the exploitation of ICD for improving the immunogenicity of cancer cells to use them as an antigen cargo in the development of dendritic cell (DC) vaccines. Herein, we discuss the effects of danger signals expressed or released by cancer cells undergoing ICD on the maturation and activation of immature and mature DC, highlighting the potential added value of ICD in adoptive immunotherapy protocols.

The safety and feasibility of dendritic cell (DC)-based immunotherapies in cancer management have been well documented after more than twenty-five years of experimentation, and, by now, undeniably accepted. On the other hand, it is equally evident that DC-based vaccination as monotherapy did not achieve the clinical benefits that were predicted in a number of promising preclinical studies. The current availability of several immune modulatory and targeting approaches opens the way to many potential therapeutic combinations. In particular, the evidence that the immune-related effects that are elicited by immunogenic cell death (ICD)-inducing therapies are strictly associated with DC engagement and activation strongly support the combination of ICD-inducing and DC-based immunotherapies. In this review, we examine the data in recent studies employing tumor cells, killed through ICD induction, in the formulation of anticancer DC-based vaccines. In addition, we discuss the opportunity to combine pharmacologic or physical therapeutic approaches that can promote ICD in vivo with in situ DC vaccination.

No abstract

Immunogenic cell death (ICD) in cancer is a functionally unique regulated form of stress-mediated cell death that activates both the innate and adaptive immune response against tumor cells. ICD makes dying cancer cells immunogenic by improving both antigenicity and adjuvanticity. The latter relies on the spatiotemporally coordinated release or exposure of danger signals (DAMPs) that drive robust antigen-presenting cell activation. The expression of DAMPs is often constitutive in tumor cells, but it is the initiating stressor, called ICD-inducer, which finally triggers the intracellular response that determines the kinetics and intensity of their release. However, the contribution of cell-autonomous features, such as the epigenetic background, to the development of ICD has not been addressed in sufficient depth. In this context, it has been revealed that several microRNAs (miRNAs), besides acting as tumor promoters or suppressors, can control the ICD-associated exposure of some DAMPs and their basal expression in cancer. Here, we provide a general overview of the dysregulation of cancer-associated miRNAs whose targets are DAMPs, through which new molecular mediators that underlie the immunogenicity of ICD were identified. The current status of miRNA-targeted therapeutics combined with ICD inducers is discussed. A solid comprehension of these processes will provide a framework to evaluate miRNA targets for cancer immunotherapy.

Phospholipid scramblase 1 (PLSCR1) is the most studied protein of the scramblase family. Originally, it was identified as a membrane protein involved in maintaining plasma membrane asymmetry. However, studies conducted over the past few years have shown the involvement of PLSCR1 in several other cellular pathways. Indeed, PLSCR1 is not only embedded in the plasma membrane but is also expressed in several intracellular compartments where it interacts with a diverse repertoire of effectors, mediators, and regulators contributing to distinct cellular processes. Although most PLSCR1 interactors are thought to be cell-type specific, PLSCR1 often exerts its regulatory functions through shared mechanisms, including the trafficking of different molecules within intracellular vesicles such as endosomes, liposomes, and phagosomes. Intriguingly, besides endogenous proteins, PLSCR1 was also reported to interact with exogenous viral proteins, thereby regulating viral uptake and spread. This review aims to summarize the current knowledge about the multiple roles of PLSCR1 in distinct cellular pathways.

Advancement in sequencing technologies allows for the identification of molecular pathways involved in tumor progression and treatment resistance. Implementation of novel agents targeting these pathways, defined as targeted therapy, significantly improves the prognosis of cancer patients. Targeted therapy also includes the use of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). These drugs recognize specific oncogenic proteins expressed in cancer cells. However, as with many other types of targeting agents, mAb-based therapy usually fails in the long-term control of cancer progression due to the development of resistance. In many cases, resistance is caused by the activation of alternative pathways involved in cancer progression and the development of immune evasion mechanisms. To overcome this off-target resistance, bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) were developed to simultaneously target differential oncogenic pathway components, tumor-associated antigens (TAA) and immune regulatory molecules. As a result, in the last few years, several bsAbs have been tested or are being tested in cancer patients. A few of them are currently approved for the treatment of some hematologic malignancies but no bsAbs are approved in solid tumors. In this review, we will provide an overview of the state-of-the-art of bsAbs for the treatment of solid malignancies outlining their classification, design, main technologies utilized for production, mechanisms of action, updated clinical evidence and potential limitations.

No abstract

No abstract