Cargando…
Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer
BACKGROUND: The immune cell topography of solid tumors has been increasingly recognized as an important predictive factor for progression of disease and response to immunotherapy. The distribution pattern of immune cells in solid tumors is commonly classified into three categories - namely, “Immune...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37033994 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1084887 |
_version_ | 1785019618954313728 |
---|---|
author | Tiwari, Ankur Oravecz, Tamas Dillon, Laura A. Italiano, Antoine Audoly, Laurent Fridman, Wolf Hervé Clifton, Guy Travis |
author_facet | Tiwari, Ankur Oravecz, Tamas Dillon, Laura A. Italiano, Antoine Audoly, Laurent Fridman, Wolf Hervé Clifton, Guy Travis |
author_sort | Tiwari, Ankur |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The immune cell topography of solid tumors has been increasingly recognized as an important predictive factor for progression of disease and response to immunotherapy. The distribution pattern of immune cells in solid tumors is commonly classified into three categories - namely, “Immune inflamed”, “Immune desert” and “Immune excluded” - which, to some degree, connect immune cell presence and positioning within the tumor microenvironment to anti-tumor activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this review, we look at the ways immune exclusion has been defined in published literature and identify opportunities to develop consistent, quantifiable definitions, which in turn, will allow better determination of the underlying mechanisms that span cancer types and, ultimately, aid in the development of treatments to target these mechanisms. RESULTS: The definitions of tumor immune phenotypes, especially immune exclusion, have largely been conceptual. The existing literature lacks in consistency when it comes to practically defining immune exclusion, and there is no consensus on a definition. Majority of the definitions use somewhat arbitrary cut-offs in an attempt to place each tumor into a distinct phenotypic category. Tumor heterogeneity is often not accounted for, which limits the practical application of a definition. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified two key issues in existing definitions of immune exclusion, establishing clinically relevant cut-offs within the spectrum of immune cell infiltration as well as tumor heterogeneity. We propose an approach to overcome these limitations, by reporting the degree of immune cell infiltration, tying cut-offs to clinically meaningful outcome measures, maximizing the number of regions of a tumor that are analyzed and reporting the degree of heterogeneity. This will allow for a consensus practical definition for operationalizing this categorization into clinical trial and signal-seeking endpoints. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10073666 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100736662023-04-06 Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer Tiwari, Ankur Oravecz, Tamas Dillon, Laura A. Italiano, Antoine Audoly, Laurent Fridman, Wolf Hervé Clifton, Guy Travis Front Immunol Immunology BACKGROUND: The immune cell topography of solid tumors has been increasingly recognized as an important predictive factor for progression of disease and response to immunotherapy. The distribution pattern of immune cells in solid tumors is commonly classified into three categories - namely, “Immune inflamed”, “Immune desert” and “Immune excluded” - which, to some degree, connect immune cell presence and positioning within the tumor microenvironment to anti-tumor activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this review, we look at the ways immune exclusion has been defined in published literature and identify opportunities to develop consistent, quantifiable definitions, which in turn, will allow better determination of the underlying mechanisms that span cancer types and, ultimately, aid in the development of treatments to target these mechanisms. RESULTS: The definitions of tumor immune phenotypes, especially immune exclusion, have largely been conceptual. The existing literature lacks in consistency when it comes to practically defining immune exclusion, and there is no consensus on a definition. Majority of the definitions use somewhat arbitrary cut-offs in an attempt to place each tumor into a distinct phenotypic category. Tumor heterogeneity is often not accounted for, which limits the practical application of a definition. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified two key issues in existing definitions of immune exclusion, establishing clinically relevant cut-offs within the spectrum of immune cell infiltration as well as tumor heterogeneity. We propose an approach to overcome these limitations, by reporting the degree of immune cell infiltration, tying cut-offs to clinically meaningful outcome measures, maximizing the number of regions of a tumor that are analyzed and reporting the degree of heterogeneity. This will allow for a consensus practical definition for operationalizing this categorization into clinical trial and signal-seeking endpoints. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC10073666/ /pubmed/37033994 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1084887 Text en Copyright © 2023 Tiwari, Oravecz, Dillon, Italiano, Audoly, Fridman and Clifton https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Immunology Tiwari, Ankur Oravecz, Tamas Dillon, Laura A. Italiano, Antoine Audoly, Laurent Fridman, Wolf Hervé Clifton, Guy Travis Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer |
title | Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer |
title_full | Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer |
title_fullStr | Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer |
title_short | Towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer |
title_sort | towards a consensus definition of immune exclusion in cancer |
topic | Immunology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073666/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37033994 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1084887 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tiwariankur towardsaconsensusdefinitionofimmuneexclusionincancer AT oravecztamas towardsaconsensusdefinitionofimmuneexclusionincancer AT dillonlauraa towardsaconsensusdefinitionofimmuneexclusionincancer AT italianoantoine towardsaconsensusdefinitionofimmuneexclusionincancer AT audolylaurent towardsaconsensusdefinitionofimmuneexclusionincancer AT fridmanwolfherve towardsaconsensusdefinitionofimmuneexclusionincancer AT cliftonguytravis towardsaconsensusdefinitionofimmuneexclusionincancer |