Immunotherapy: New insights in breast cancer treatment

Abstract

Breast cancer being the most malignant and lethal disease persistent among women globally. Immunotherapy as a new treatment modality has emerged in understanding the loopholes in the treatment of breast cancer which is mainly attributed to the potential of tumor cells to evade and survive the immune response by developing various strategies. Therefore, improved understanding of the immune evasion by cancer cells and the monoclonal antibodies against PD- and PD-L1 can help us in the diagnosis of this malignancy. Here in this article, I have highlighted that in addition to focusing on other strategies for breast cancer treatment, the involvement of immune system in breast cancer is vital for the understanding of this malignancy. Further, the complete involvement of immune system in the relapse or recurrence of the breast tumor and have also highlighted the role of vaccines, PD-1 and CTLA-4 with the recent advances in the field. Moreover, in addition to the application of immunotherapy as a sole therapy, combinations of immunotherapy with various strategies like targeting it with MEK inhibitors, Vaccines, chemotherapy and PARP inhibitor has shown to have significant benefits is also discussed in this article.

Keywords

Breast cancer immunotherapy PARP inhibitor vaccines PD-1 PD-L1 CTLA-4

1. Introduction

Breast cancer persists as the most lethal cancer among women in the United States, accounting for 30% of all new cancer diagnosed and almost 41,000 annual deaths [1]. Due to the early advances in breast cancer detection and therapies, a 38% decrease in the breast cancer death rate have been observed, but almost all patients developing this metastatic disease has been shown to succumb to it. All these statistics evoke the need for the development of innovative therapeutic approaches for the treatment of breast cancer and further to reduce the recurrence and death due to this malignancy. Accumulated evidences have reported the role of immune system in breast cancer, paving the way to target the same for standard therapy and long-term survival in patients with breast cancer [2]. Various clinical studies and data have illustrated the success of targeting immune checkpoint inhibitors for the diagnosis of multiple solid tumors [3, 4]. All these sobering data have illustrated the role and significance of immune-based strategies for breast cancer treatment and prevention [5, 6].

Figure 1.

The diagram represents the escape of tumor cells from the immune system which further results in the growth and progression of cancer.

2. Immunobiology of breast cancer

Breast cancer has been classified into four subtypes namely: Luminal A (ER+/PR+/HER2 ${}^{-}$ , grade 1 or grade 2), Luminal B (ER+/PR+/HER2+, or ER+/PR+/HER2 ${}^{-}$ grade 3), HER2 overexpression (ER ${}^{-}$ /PR ${}^{-}$ /HER2+), and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC, ER ${}^{-}$ /PR ${}^{-}$ /HER2 ${}^{-}$ ). Luminal A subtype has been shown to have a good prognosis and is sensitive to endocrine therapy, thereby making it a generalized treatment for this subtype, whereas the treatment option available for Luminal B subtype remains the endocrine therapy + chemotherapy, with HER2-positive Luminal B subtype generally treated with endocrine therapy $+$ chemotherapy $+$ anti-HER2 treatment. However, the recommended treatment for another subtype of breast cancer that is HER2 overexpression is chemotherapy $+$ anti-HER2 treatment. Moreover, for TNBC, an aggressive subtype of breast cancer, which shows the negative expression of hormonal receptors like ER, PR and HER2 with unique biological characteristics and heterogeneity, with chemotherapy remaining the only available option for this subtype. Despite the effectiveness of all the available treatment options for the metastatic breast cancer which increases the overall survival of patients for upto 2–3 years, the recurrence and relapse due to the development of drug resistance imposes a great hurdle in the complete treatment of this malignancy [7, 8]. Interestingly, the immune system has been shown to play a critical role in the development, progression and control of this disease [5]. It has been seen that during the early mammary tumor generation, the activation of innate immunity results in both the tumor cell death and the maturation of dendritic cells (DC), which further primes the tumor-specific T-cell response. Furthermore, it is during this stage that either the immune mediated rejection of budding tumors occurs or the selection of variants of tumor cell that escapes the immune response by various mechanisms occurs, leading to a shift from acute to chronic inflammation, establishing a complex tumor microenvironment (TME) consisting of regulatory T cells (Treg), B cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC), stromal cells like fibroblasts and endothelial cells that allow explicit escape from immune response and tumor progression [9, 10] Fig. 1.

Once this shift happens, the immune checkpoint molecules on tumor cells and immune cells are upregulated in response to early immune activation [11], the CD4 T cell response is tilted from T helper (Th) type 1 to T helper (Th) type 2 [12] and the various immune suppressive pathways are activated in multiple immune cells [13, 14]. Therefore, all these factors generate a complex network which leads to immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment of breast tumor. Thus, signifying the role of immune system in tumorigenesis, further adding to the importance of the modulation of its cellular components as a suitable target for breast cancer diagnosis [15, 16, 17, 18, 19].

Several successes have been achieved in various cancers like melanoma, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, lung cancer by targeting certain parts of the patient’s immune system, thereby stimulating or boosting the immune system via immunotherapy. Similarly, after numerous efforts fruitful results have been achieved in breast cancer with an objective response rate of approximately 12%–19% range with PD-L1 or PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAb) representing the most promising strategy showing high efficacy in patients with advanced triple negative breast cancer [20, 21, 22]. In addition, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) blockades appears minimally active [23] and combinations of PD-1 and CTLA-4 are being actively studied. Furthermore, Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR)-engineered T cells for breast cancer diagnosis are at the earliest stages of development [24, 25] Fig. 2. Moreover, despite the soaring number of clinical trials testing immunotherapy in breast cancer, no FDA approved drugs for immunotherapies are available for breast cancer, as there are for other cancer types [26, 27, 28].

Table 1
Representing the trials of immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with various therapeutic drugs with their key effects

Immune checkpoint inhibitor	Trial name	Phase	Combined therapy	No. of evaluated patients	Key results
Atezolizumab	NCT01633970	1b	Nab-paclitaxel	33	Objective response from 13 (39%) patients overall and from 7(54%) of 13 who received atezolizumab as first-line treatment
Pembrolizumab	NCT02753595	1b/2	Eribulin	83	Objective response from 21 (26%) of 83 evaluable patients overall, 12 (25%) of 48 with no previous chemotherapy, and 9 (26%) of 35 with PD-L1-positive cancers
Durvalumab	NCT02649686	1	Trastuzumab	15	No objective response; best outcome was stable disease at week 6 in 4 (29%) of 14 patients with PD-L1-negative cancers
Pembrolizumab	NCT02129556	1b/2	Trastuzumab	58	Objective response from 15% of patients with PD-L1-positive cancers and 39% if their TIL counts were above 5%, disease control achieved in 25% of patients in the PD-L1-positive subgroup
Durvalumab	NCT02734004	1/2	Olaparib	288	Objective response was achieved by 67% of patients in the first-line setting group
Pembrolizumab	NCT02657889	1/2	Niraparib	45	Objective response was achieved by 13 (29%) of 45 evaluable patients overall, 8 (67%) of 12 patients with gBRCA mutations, 33% of patients with PD-L1-positive cancers, and 15% of patients with PD-L1-negative cancers
Pembrolizumab	NCT02779751	1b	Abemaciclib	28	Objective response was achieved in 14% of patients with HR-positive, HER-negative metastatic breast cancer

Figure 2.

Diagrammatic representation of the interaction between tumor and CAR T cell.

3. Tumor antigens and vaccines in breast cancer

As already discussed above breast cancer is immunogenic with multiple putative tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) for instance Mucin 1 (MUC 1) and HER-2 proven to be as clinically beneficial targets for tumor-specific immune responses and development of new drug targets for cancer vaccine and bispecific antibody (bsAbs) [5, 29]. Accumulated evidences have proved that the immune cells in the tumor microenvironment can be used as a prognostic indicator of breast cancer that efficiently promote or inhibit tumor growth [30, 31]. The immune cells in the breast tumors mainly consist of T-lymphocytes and the natural killer cells, macrophages and antigen presenting cells (APCs) that are derived from B-lymphocytes [32, 33, 34]. The tumor antigens are recognized by the activated T-cells through the presentation by APCs based on the frequency of receptor-ligand interactions [35]. The breast cancer vaccines are the biological response modifiers, which contains an agent resembling the putative tumor associated antigen or any specific marker protein of tumor-causing micro-organisms, which strengthens the body’s immune system against tumor cells [5]. The development of vaccines for cancer is an active field of research, which boost the immune system in immune compromised cancer patients that utilizes an adjuvant (which may be either an immunological or pharmacological agent). This type was initiated earlier in the 1910s by Wlliam Coley who successfully used the bacterial products from Streptococcus and Serrratia for the treatment of round-cell sarcoma [6]. Breast cancer vaccines are known to induce or augment a tumor-specific response by which the immune system eliminates tumors through recognition by MHC class I and MHC class II. Nevertheless, breast cancer vaccines are mostly incorporated with shared tumor antigens to avoid autoimmunity, which are typically recognized as self by the immune system, therefore are less effective as a population of T-cells with lower avidity are generated due to the thymic selection as compared to a population of T-cells with high-avidity against tumor-specific immune response. For instance, a number of breast cancer vaccines that deliver shared tumor antigens evaluated in multiple trials have shown that despite they have proven to be safe and has been known to induce an antigen-specific immune response yet they have been shown to be correlated with no clinical benefit due to the low magnitude of T-cell response and vaccine-induced immunity. This inadequacy of shared tumor antigens is attributed to the used vaccine platforms and the advanced disease setting in which the vaccines were tested. An alternate approach to overcome this limitation is to develop the vaccines that are tumor specific mutation-specific antigens, which are having the potential to generate a high avidity T-cell response that possess the ability to significantly lyse the tumor cells presenting the neo-antigens [36]. In concordance with this, it has been seen that tumors with high mutational load are more likely to respond to immune checkpoint blockade [37, 38]. Therefore, for a more personalized approach efforts for profiling the mutational landscape are undergoing but the extent to which mutational load influences the breast tumor immunity are yet to be determined [39]. However, a major loop hole in both the personalized and generalized tumor vaccines thus far is attributed to the doings of immunecheckpoint pathways and various immune suppression mechanisms that keep in check the vaccine-induced T cells [5]. Moreover, a combination breast cancer vaccines with low-dose chemotherapy [25, 40] or full-dose chemotherapy (to trim down tumor burden and immune suppressive mechanisms in TME) have been tested in clinical trials [41]. In addition, a trial has tested a combination of peptide and cell-based vaccines, which transport trastuzumab alone to HER2 (to enhance immune memory, immune priming and effector CD8 T-cell activity) [42, 43] or low dose cyclophosphamide in order to abrogate Treg. activity [44]. Until now, the combination strategy for improving the efficacy of breast cancer vaccines have shown promising results [45]. For instance, combination of CTLA-4 or PD-1/PD-L1 with breast cancer vaccines have shown to inhibit the signaling cascades involved in the immunosuppression in the TME.

Therefore, approaches should be developed in such a way that it must boost as well as direct it towards a viable tumor target critically involved in tumorigenesis.

3.1 Recent clinical advances in breast cancer immunotherapy

The immune system can recognize a number of immunogenic targets that result from the genetic changes in tumorigenesis, the deregulated pathways that hinder the functions of adaptive immune response and the immune checkpoint inhibitors that significantly prevent autoimmunity and modulate immune response [46, 47, 48, 49, 50]. The immune checkpoint inhibitors are cell surface receptor molecules that inhibit the immune response in the TME by suppression of the activation of infiltrating T-cells. Evidences have proven the significant impact of certain inhibitory antibodies for the treatment of several cancers. For instance, bladder, breast, melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [51, 52, 53, 54]. Furthermore, several clinical trials for immune checkpoint therapies targeting PD-1, CTLA-4 or LAG-3 (lymphocyte activation gene-3) in breast cancer are still undergoing and the immune checkpoint antagonists specific for CTLA-4, PD-L1 and PD-1 have shown promising results in multiple cancers with overall beneficial survival [3, 4].

Figure 3.

The diagram represents the interaction between cell receptors and the inhibitors in tumor progression.

3.1.1 CTLA-4 blockade in breast cancer

Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) the first immune checkpoint molecule, when inhibited shown to significantly induce anti-tumor immunity [55]. CTLA-4 acts as a homologue of CD28, which is known to bind to B7. The CTLA-4 outcompetes the binding of CD28 to B7 and prevents the T-cell activation. Therefore, after T-cell activation the upregulated CTLA-4 has been shown to interfere with the inhibition of T-cell activation and anti-tumor therapy [56].

Despite the adverse effects of CTLA-4 inhibitors related to immune system due to improved T-cell activation, it is associated with a significant objective response rate (OR). However, the mechanism may be attributed to the fact that CTLA-4 is expressed highly on regulatory T-cells, that helps in maintaining peripheral tolerance [35, 57, 58]. As for other cancers like melanoma several clinical trials for breast cancers are emerging. For instance, twenty-six hormone receptor positive patients were administered with exemestane $+$ tremelimumab in phase I. This combinational strategy resulted in significant maximum tolerated dose (MTD) with pruritus and diarrheas the least adverse effects that showed insignificant worse outcomes than the administration of exemestane alone. Notably, the results were shown to be associated with enhanced ICOS+T-cells that signals immune activation afterwards to the CTLA-4 [23]. Two other clinical trials about CTLA-4 inhibitor are ongoing: tremelimumab in combination with anti-B7H1 monoclonal antibody MEDI4736 in treatment of HER2 negative breast cancer (NCT02536794) and ipilimumab in combination with anti-B7H3 monoclonal antibody MGA271 in treatment of TNBC (NCT02381314). After all, further investigations are required to determine the CTLA-4 inhibitor safety profile and whether the outcome would be synergistic when used in combination with other agents or may accompanied by chemotherapy or radiation (Table 1).

4. PD-1/PDL-1 blockade in breast cancer

The PD-1 signal pathway is considered to be an interesting therapeutic target. During the initial T-cell activation the PD-1 (Programmed Cell Death-1) is expressed highly, with the ligand partners being PD-L1 and PD-L2, for instance CD274 or B7-H1 and CD273 or B7-DC [59]. PD-1 is known to inhibit the immunological action at the reaction sites very unlikely of CTLA-4 that at the earlier step of T-cell activation inhibits the immune response [35]. PD-1 is widely expressed on a number of immune cells. PD-L1 is a potential marker in case of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapy, as it is widely expressed on a number of immune cells such as T-cells (CD8+ and CD4+), NK cells, B-cells and Treg. cells [60]. Interestingly, 20–30% of PD-L1 protein expression has been detected in breast cancer patients including TNBC [61, 63] and furthermore with PD-L1 mRNA expression has been detected in almost all subsets of this malignancy [62, 63]. A study relating to the clinical outcomes of PD-L1 in negative tumors has further signified the clinically beneficial role of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in cancers associated with the PD-L1 expression [64]. As the PD-L1 expression is mostly limited to tumor and sites of active inflammation, it has been shown to lower the possibility of immune related disorders, which has been seen to occur in case of CTLA-4, mostly because of the down-modulation of an immune response in the effector phase [65] Fig. 3.

Nivolumab, the first anti-PD-1 antibody has shown an objective response rate of 31% and a median overall survival of 16.8 months in melanoma [66]. Therefore, has been approved for medicinal use in advanced melanoma and NSCLC. Moreover, various studies have now shown the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors for the diagnosis of breast cancer [67, 68, 69]. Another anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibody, pembrolizumab has demonstrated to be quite effective in various tumor types [3, 4]. In addition, a phase 1b study of pembrolizumab as a monotherapy in PD-L1+ TNBC has been evaluated [20, 70]. A study for evaluating the blockade of PD-1/PD-L1 in TNBC is under study. Moreover, a clinical trial for the combination of paclitaxel and pembrolizumab has estimated pCR rate of 46% versus 16% in HER-2 ${}^{-}$ patients, 60% versus 20% in TNBC patients, and 34% versus 13% in ER/PR/HER-2 ${}^{-}$ patients [70]. Another study in a phase III trial has revealed an improved efficacy of paclitaxel $+$ pembrolizumab in HER2 ${}^{-}$ patients with an improved cPR of $>$ 99%, with adverse events including higher rates of thyroid dysfunction and adrenal insufficiency. In addition, chemotherapy in combination with pembrolizumab for the TNBC treatment has suggested to prove to be a promising treatment option for PD-L1+ TNBC [71]. Furthermore, the evaluation of PD-1/PD-L1 agents in other breast cancer subtypes has been limited, but single-agent pembrolizumab was evaluated in a small cohort of advanced ER HER-2- breast cancer as part of the KEYNOTE-028 study [22]. Nevertheless, atezolizumab and avelumab, two new PD-L1 inhibitors have shown an enhanced clinical efficacy even more than shown by patients treated with chemotherapy and are under clinical trials. These new anti-PD-L1 inhibitors has been related with adverse reactions [72]. In a study for metastatic TNBC treatment, combination of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel has also shown promising results [73]. Therefore, on the bases of this study, a phase III study for the combined atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel is underway for mTNBC (NCT02425891). In addition, another phase I study of avelumab in patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer has been conducted that has revealed the effectiveness of avelumab with a safety profile with common infusion-related reactions and minimum percentage of fatigue and nausea in TNBC patients [74].

It is meaningful to find an effective treatment with significant therapeutic activity in the heavily recurrent/metastatic TNBC, as most of these patients had received and progressed on multiple lines of therapy for advanced disease.

4.1 Combining chemotherapy with immune-based therapy

A dual combinational strategy has the most promising therapeutic potential. The combined effect of chemotherapy and immunotherapy has proven to be influential for the diagnosis of TNBC. Based on the chemotherpy’s property to reduce the primary tumor mass plus the significant immune modulatory effects of immune based therapies on the body’s immune system. The combinatorial approach has proven to potentially promote the cytotoxic and immunological effects in a synergistic manner without any apparent additional toxicity [75]. However, depending on the drug, the timing and dose, the chemotherapy has shown to have a variable impact over the immune response in concomitance to immune-based therapy [76].

Moreover, in order to improve the overall clinical efficacy of chemo-immunotherapy, a strategy for sequential administration with different waves has proven to be beneficial in that the TME is remodeled by the first wave of immunomodulators such as kinase inhibitors for lower resistance and higher perfusion by targeting the factors associated with supportive stroma cells, reactive fibroblasts, angiogenesis and an altered ECM in the TME, followed by the second wave of chemotherapeutics shown to achieve improved tumor transmission [77]. Evidence from two small trials have revealed that two drugs namely- Nabpaclitaxel and eribulin modulate the immune system by enhancing the immune priming through antigen release and increasing the immunity through relieving immune-suppressive signals in the TME. In addition, a phase 1b study of mTNBC patients irrespective of the PD-L1 status has reported/tested the effect of atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel [73]. In addition, a phase III study for randomized double-blind placebo-controlled for evaluating the combination of atezolizumab to nab-paclitaxel is underway as a first-line therapy for breast cancer (NCT02425891). Moreover, pembrolizumab with eribulin are being tested in an ongoing trial in patients with mTNBC of any PD-L1 status that are treated with less than or equal to two lines of chemotherapy [78]. Another KEYNOTE-355 phase III trial evaluating the combination of pembrolizumab with chemotherapy is ongoing (NCT02819518).

4.1.1 MEK inhibitors in combination with immunotherapy

MEK inhibitors cause the degeneration of tumors with active mutations in the Ras signaling pathway. These inhibitors have been shown to enhance the number of effector CD8+ T-cells by blocking the T-cell activation in tumor-bearing mice [79]. A combination of MEK inhibitors and PD-L1 antibody has reported in synergistic anti-tumor activity. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy treated breast cancer TNBC patients have revealed that TILs are associated with better prognosis and further the alterations in TNBC are associated with lower levels of TILs [68]. In breast cancer mouse models MEK inhibitors combined with PD-1 pathway inhibitors has revealed improvement in tumor control and tumor-specific immune response mostly by upregulating the cell surface expression of PD-L1 and MHC class I and II. Interestingly, the clinical trials for the same are ongoing.

5. PARP inhibition in combination with immunotherapy

PARP inhibitors are known to enhance the efficacy of conventional treatments by impairing the repair of damage caused by the agents such as radiotherapy and platinum agents. PARPi as single agents are known to induce cell death hence improve cancer therapy. However, when used in combination PARPi have shown to improve the efficacy of conventional treatments in a positive manner [80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85]. In various animal models and breast cancer cell lines, PARP inhibitors have been reported to modulate the immune microenvironment through upregulation of PD-L1 expression [86]. In response to the antibodies that block the PD-L1 has revealed that in PARP inhibitors treated cells the sensitivity have been restored to the T-cell mediated killing. Moreover, the PARP and PD-L1 expression are shown to be inversely correlated with breast tumors. Specifically, in mouse models of breast cancers the combined treatment of PARP inhibitor and PD-L1 blockade has shown to enhance the delay of tumor outgrowth relative to their effects when applied alone. Nevertheless, studies in BRCA-deficient ovarian cancer models have shown a synergistic effect of PARP inhibitors in combination with CTLA-4 blockade [87]. In addition, the PARP inhibition or VEGF inhibition in combination with PD-L1 blockade in both ovarian and breast cancers have shown to be clinically beneficial [88].

These data support trials exploring the combination of PARP inhibitors and/or anti-angiogenic therapies on a backbone of PD-1/PD-L1 blockade in BRCA-mutated breast and ovarian cancer.

6. Vaccination strategies in combination with immune checkpoint blockade

Vaccines given to patients with advanced metastatic disease are known to show a modest clinical activity as a single agent or in combination with standard chemotherapy. This may be attributed to the dominant activity of immune checkpoint signaling specifically through the PD-1 pathway. Therefore, combining both the treatment options likely vaccines with immune checkpoint inhibitors may accelerate the T-cell priming and activation, while enhancing the tumor immunity response may have a greater chance of success than used alone in targeting tumors. As the basic problem associated with the vaccines is that the neo-antigens generated are recognized by the patient’s immune system as self. So, the correlation of clinical responses induced by the immune checkpoint blockade with the intrinsic immune responses specific for the neo-antigens has created in developing personalized vaccines on the basis of unique neo-antigens present in a patient’s tumor [36]. Platforms for neo-antigen based cancer vaccines include- nucleic acid based vaccines, genetically engineered viral or bacterial vaccines [5]. For the personalized vaccination strategy, a novel approach is to activate the innate immunity through the intratumoral delivery of agonists for instance through the stimulator of interferon genes (STING) pathway. The intra-tumoral delivery of STING agonist ADU-S100 induces IFN- $\beta$ production and DC maturation and establishes a gradient of T-cell recruiting chemokines that promotes effective T-cell priming and delivery to the tumor site [89]. Furthermore, a cryoablation strategy represents to be a unique one in that it has reported to induce immunity tailored to a patient’s tumor and has already been tested in combination with CTLA-4 blockade in breast cancer patient’s [90, 91].

7. Conclusion and discussion

Immunotherapy is established to be the fifth treatment modality for cancer and has been an addition to the available treatment options such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery and molecularly targeted therapies. Inspite of the major advances of immunotherapy in other cancer types, immunotherapy in breast cancer is in the initial phase of its development and is just beginning to advance. Until Feb 1, 2019 no immunotherapy was approved by the FDA for breast cancer, although pembrolizumab could be used for instability high tumors for breast cancers. Despite a number of treatment options available for targeting the breast cancer, the relapse and recurrence of tumorigenesis has been posing a great challenge in the treatment of breast cancer. This recurrence and relapse has been attributed to the evasion of some tumor cells from the immune response and proliferate when the environment is feasible. Therefore, efforts have been made and further need to be strengthen to efficiently target the tumor cells and remove the chances of relapse. In addition, targeting immunotherapy with various other specific strategies like PARP inhibitors, MEK inhibitors etc. Moreover, several studies for combined immunotherapy have proven to be beneficial in several clinical trials discussed above with some more studies ongoing. Therefore, highlighting the need for further exploration of this immensly potential field.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Deanship of Scientific Research at Majmaah University for supporting this work under project No. R-2021-123.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Funding

The study was financially supported by Deanship of Scientific Research at Majmaah University Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; vide Project Number: R-2021-123.

References

Siegel

R.L.

Miller

K.D.

and Jemal

, Cancer statistics, 2016, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 66 (2016), 7–30.

Savas

Salgado

et al., Clinical relevance of host immunity in breast cancer: from TILs to the clinic, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 13 (2016), 228.

Lipson

E.J.

Forde

P.M.

et al., Antagonists of PD-1 and PD-L1 in cancer treatment, in, Elsevier, pp. 587–600.

Emens

L.A.

Ascierto

P.A.

et al., Cancer immunotherapy: opportunities and challenges in the rapidly evolving clinical landscape, European Journal of Cancer 81 (2017), 116–129.

Emens

L.A.

, Breast cancer immunobiology driving immunotherapy: vaccines and immune checkpoint blockade, Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 12 (2012), 1597–1611.

Cimino-Mathews

Foote

J.B.

and Emens

L.A.

, Immune targeting in breast cancer, Oncology 29 (2015).

Coley

H.M.

, Mechanisms and strategies to overcome chemotherapy resistance in metastatic breast cancer, Cancer treatment reviews 34 (2008), 378–390.

Foukakis

Fornander

et al., Age-specific trends of survival in metastatic breast cancer: 26 years longitudinal data from a population-based cancer registry in Stockholm, Sweden, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 130 (2011), 553–560.

Coussens

L.M.

and Pollard

J.W.

, Leukocytes in mammary development and cancer, Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 3 (2011), a003285.

10.

Denardo

D.G.

and Coussens

L.M.

, Inflammation and breast cancer. Balancing immune response: crosstalk between adaptive and innate immune cells during breast cancer progression, Breast Cancer Research 9 (2007), 212.

11.

Ribas

, Adaptive immune resistance: how cancer protects from immune attack, Cancer Discovery 5 (2015), 915–919.

12.

Denardo

D.G.

Barreto

J.B.

et al., CD4+ T cells regulate pulmonary metastasis of mammary carcinomas by enhancing protumor properties of macrophages, Cancer Cell 16 (2009), 91–102.

13.

P.-C.

and Kaech

S.M.

, Reenergizing T cell anti-tumor immunity by harnessing immunometabolic checkpoints and machineries, Current Opinion in Immunology 46 (2017), 38–44.

14.

Allard

Beavis

P.A.

et al., Immunosuppressive activities of adenosine in cancer, Current Opinion in Pharmacology 29 (2016), 7–16.

15.

Emens

L.A.

, Breast cancer immunotherapy: facts and hopes, Clinical Cancer Research 24 (2018), 511–520.

16.

Mir

M.A.

and Agrewala

J.N.

, Influence of CD80 and CD86 co-stimulation in the modulation of the activation of antigen presenting cells, Current Immunology Reviews 3 (2007), 160–169.

17.

Mir

M.A.

Mehraj

et al., Nanobodies: The “magic bullets” in therapeutics, drug delivery and diagnostics, Human Antibodies 28 (2020), 29–51.

18.

Mir

M.A.

and Albaradie

R.S.

, Immunomodulation of inflammatory markers in activated macrophages by leaf extracts of Gingko biloba, Advances in Neuroimmune Biology 6 (2015), 9–17.

19.

Hafeez

Urooj

et al., BAD, a Proapoptotic protein, Escapes ERK/RSK phosphorylation in Deguelin and siRNA-treated Hela cells, PLoS One 11 (2016), e0145780.

20.

Nanda

Chow

L.Q.M.

et al., Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer: phase Ib KEYNOTE-012 study, Journal of Clinical Oncology 34 (2016), 2460.

21.

Emens

L.A.

Kok

and Ojalvo

L.S.

, Targeting the programmed cell death-1 pathway in breast and ovarian cancer, Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 28 (2016), 142–147.

22.

Rugo

Delord

J.P.

and Im

S.A.

, Preliminary efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in patients with PD-L1-positive, ER-positive (ER+)/HER-2 negative breast cancer enrolled in Keynote 0282015.

23.

Vonderheide

R.H.

Lorusso

P.M.

et al., Tremelimumab in combination with exemestane in patients with advanced breast cancer and treatment-associated modulation of inducible costimulator expression on patient T cells, Clinical Cancer Research 16 (2010), 3485–3494.

24.

Mittendorf

E.A.

Clifton

G.T.

et al., Final report of the phase I/II clinical trial of the E75 (nelipepimut-S) vaccine with booster inoculations to prevent disease recurrence in high-risk breast cancer patients, Annals of Oncology 25 (2014), 1735–1742.

25.

Miles

Roché

et al., Phase III multicenter clinical trial of the sialyl-TN (STn)-keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) vaccine for metastatic breast cancer, The Oncologist 16 (2011), 1092.

26.

Vonderheide

R.H.

Domchek

S.M.

and Clark

A.S.

, Immunotherapy for breast cancer: what are we missing? in, AACR, 2017.

27.

Mir

M.A.

Mehraj

and Sheikh

B.A.

, Recent Advances in Chemotherapeutic Implications of Deguelin: A Plant-Derived Retinoid.

28.

Mir

M.A.

Hamdani

S.S.

et al., Recent Advances in Metabolites from Medicinal Plants in Cancer Prevention and Treatment, Current Immunology Reviews 15 (2019), 185–201.

29.

Kiewe

Hasmüller

et al., Phase I trial of the trifunctional anti-HER2x anti-CD3 antibody ertumaxomab in metastatic breast cancer, Clinical Cancer Research 12 (2006), 3085–3091.

30.

Iwamoto

Bianchini

et al., Gene pathways associated with prognosis and chemotherapy sensitivity in molecular subtypes of breast cancer, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103 (2011), 264–272.

31.

Gingras

Azim

H.A.

Jr. et al., Immunology and breast cancer: toward a new way of understanding breast cancer and developing novel therapeutic strategies, Clin Adv Hematol Oncol 13 (2015), 372–382.

32.

Coventry

B.J.

Weightman

M.J.

et al., Immune profiling in human breast cancer using high-sensitivity detection and analysis techniques, JRSM Open 6 (2015), 2054270415603909.

33.

Ruffell

et al., Leukocyte composition of human breast cancer, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (2012), 2796–2801.

34.

Mir

M.A.

and Mehraj

, Double-crosser of the Immune System: Macrophages in Tumor Progression and Metastasis, Current Immunology Reviews 15 (2019), 172–184.

35.

Pardoll

D.M.

, The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy, Nature Reviews Cancer 12 (2012), 252–264.

36.

Yarchoan

Johnson

B.A.

Iii et al., Targeting neoantigens to augment antitumour immunity, Nature Reviews Cancer 17 (2017), 209.

37.

Snyder

Makarov

et al., Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma, New England Journal of Medicine 371 (2014), 2189–2199.

38.

Rizvi

N.A.

Hellmann

M.D.

et al., Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non–small cell lung cancer, Science 348 (2015), 124–128.

39.

Luen

Virassamy

et al., The genomic landscape of breast cancer and its interaction with host immunity, The Breast 29 (2016), 241–250.

40.

Emens

L.A.

Asquith

J.M.

et al., Timed sequential treatment with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and an allogeneic granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor – secreting breast tumor vaccine: a chemotherapy dose-ranging factorial study of safety and immune activation, Journal of Clinical Oncology 27 (2009), 5911.

41.

Heery

C.R.

Ibrahim

N.K.

et al., Docetaxel alone or in combination with a therapeutic cancer vaccine (PANVAC) in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a randomized clinical trial, JAMA Oncology 1 (2015), 1087–1095.

42.

Disis

M.L.

Wallace

D.R.

et al., Concurrent trastuzumab and HER2/neu-specific vaccination in patients with metastatic breast cancer, Journal of Clinical Oncology 27 (2009), 4685.

43.

Clifton

G.T.

Litton

J.K.

et al., Results of a phase Ib trial of combination immunotherapy with a CD8+ T cell eliciting vaccine and trastuzumab in breast cancer patients, Annals of Surgical Oncology 24 (2017), 2161–2167.

44.

Chen

Gupta

et al., A feasibility study of cyclophosphamide, trastuzumab, and an allogeneic GM-CSF – secreting breast tumor vaccine for HER2+ metastatic breast cancer, Cancer Immunology Research 2 (2014), 949–961.

45.

Mir

M.A.

Qayoom

et al., Targeting Different Pathways Using Novel Combination Therapy in Triple Negative Breast Cancer, Current Cancer Drug Targets 20 (2020), 586–602.

46.

Hacohen

Fritsch

E.F.

et al., Getting personal with neoantigen-based therapeutic cancer vaccines, Cancer Immunology Research 1 (2013), 11–15.

47.

Topalian

S.L.

Drake

C.G.

and Pardoll

D.M.

, Immune checkpoint blockade: a common denominator approach to cancer therapy, Cancer Cell 27 (2015), 450–461.

48.

Ghasemzadeh

Bivalacqua

T.J.

et al., New strategies in bladder cancer: a second coming for immunotherapy, Clinical Cancer Research 22 (2016), 793–801.

49.

Nishimura

Nose

et al., Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying immunoreceptor, Immunity 11 (1999), 141–151.

50.

Mir

M.A.

and Agrewala

J.N.

, Signaling through CD80: an approach for treating lymphomas, Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets 12 (2008), 969–979.

51.

Gibson

, Anti-PD-L1 for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, The Lancet Oncology 16 (2015), e264.

52.

Hodi

F.S.

O’day

S.J.

et al., Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma, New England Journal of Medicine 363 (2010), 711–723.

53.

Powles

Eder

J.P.

et al., MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer, Nature 515 (2014), 558–562.

54.

Sgambato

Casaluce

et al., Anti PD-1 and PDL-1 immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a review on toxicity profile and its management, Current Drug Safety 11 (2016), 62–68.

55.

Leach

D.R.

Krummel

M.F.

and Allison

J.P.

, Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade, Science 271 (1996), 1734–1736.

56.

Linsley

P.S.

Greene

J.L.

et al., Human B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86) bind with similar avidities but distinct kinetics to CD28 and CTLA-4 receptors, Immunity 1 (1994), 793–801.

57.

Maker

A.V.

Attia

and Rosenberg

S.A.

, Analysis of the cellular mechanism of antitumor responses and autoimmunity in patients treated with CTLA-4 blockade, The Journal of Immunology 175 (2005), 7746–7754.

58.

Simpson

T.R.

et al., Fc-dependent depletion of tumor-infiltrating regulatory T cells co-defines the efficacy of anti – CTLA-4 therapy against melanoma, Journal of Experimental Medicine 210 (2013), 1695–1710.

59.

Cao

Axup

J.Y.

et al., Multiformat T-Cell-Engaging Bispecific Antibodies Targeting Human Breast Cancers, Angewandte Chemie 127 (2015), 7128–7133.

60.

L.-Y.

Tang

et al., New immunotherapy strategies in breast cancer, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 14 (2017), 68.

61.

Wimberly

Brown

J.R.

et al., PD-L1 expression correlates with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer, Cancer Immunology Research 3 (2015), 326–332.

62.

Soliman

Khalil

and Antonia

, PD-L1 expression is increased in a subset of basal type breast cancer cells, PloS One 9 (2014), e88557.

63.

Sabatier

Finetti

et al., Prognostic and predictive value of PDL1 expression in breast cancer, Oncotarget 6 (2015), 5449.

64.

Herbst

R.S.

Soria

J.-C.

et al., Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients, Nature 515 (2014), 563–567.

65.

Josefowicz

S.Z.

L.-F.

and Rudensky

A.Y.

, Regulatory T cells: mechanisms of differentiation and function, Annual Review of Immunology 30 (2012), 531–564.

66.

Topalian

S.L.

Sznol

et al., Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab, Journal of Clinical Oncology 32 (2014), 1020.

67.

Josefsson

Nedrow

J.R.

et al., Imaging, biodistribution, and dosimetry of radionuclide-labeled PD-L1 antibody in an immunocompetent mouse model of breast cancer, Cancer Research 76 (2016), 472–479.

68.

Loi

Dushyanthen

et al., RAS/MAPK activation is associated with reduced tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic cooperation between MEK and PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint inhibitors, Clinical Cancer Research 22 (2016), 1499–1509.

69.

Black

Barsoum

I.B.

et al., Activation of the PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint confers tumor cell chemoresistance associated with increased metastasis, Oncotarget 7 (2016), 10557.

70.

Nanda

Liu

M.C.

et al., Pembrolizumab plus standard neoadjuvant therapy for high-risk breast cancer (BC): results from I-SPY 2, in, American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2017.

71.

Schmid

Park

Y.H.

et al., Pembrolizumab (pembro)+ chemotherapy (chemo) as neoadjuvant treatment for triple negative breast cancer (TNBC): Preliminary results from KEYNOTE-173, in, American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2017.

72.

Lum

L.G.

Thakur

et al., Targeted T-cell therapy in stage IV breast cancer: a phase I clinical trial, Clinical Cancer Research 21 (2015), 2305–2314.

73.

Adams

Diamond

et al., Abstract P2-11-06: Safety and clinical activity of atezolizumab (anti-PDL1) in combination with nab-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, in, AACR, 2016.

74.

Dirix

L.Y.

Takacs

et al., Abstract S1-04: Avelumab (MSB0010718C), an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer: A phase Ib JAVELIN solid tumor trial, in, AACR, 2016.

75.

Luo

Zhang

et al., Emerging strategies in cancer therapy combining chemotherapy with immunotherapy, Cancer Letters 454 (2019), 191–203.

76.

Emens

L.A.

and Middleton

, The interplay of immunotherapy and chemotherapy: harnessing potential synergies, Cancer Immunology Research 3 (2015), 436–443.

77.

Lebeau

A.M.

Brennen

W.N.

et al., Targeting the cancer stroma with a fibroblast activation protein-activated promelittin protoxin, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 8 (2009), 1378–1386.

78.

Tolaney

S.M.

Kalinsky

et al., Phase 1b/2 study to evaluate eribulin mesylate in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, Cancer Res 78 (2018), Abstract-nr.

79.

Ebert

P.J.R.

Cheung

et al., MAP kinase inhibition promotes T cell and anti-tumor activity in combination with PD-L1 checkpoint blockade, Immunity 44 (2016), 609–621.

80.

Rottenberg

Jaspers

J.E.

et al., High sensitivity of BRCA1-deficient mammary tumors to the PARP inhibitor AZD2281 alone and in combination with platinum drugs, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (2008), 17079–17084.

81.

Chen

et al., Combined olaparib and oxaliplatin inhibits tumor proliferation and induces G2/M arrest and γ-H2AX foci formation in colorectal cancer, OncoTargets and therapy 8 (2015), 3047.

82.

Nguewa

P.A.

Fuertes

M.A.

et al., Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibitor 3-aminobenzamide enhances apoptosis induction by platinum complexes in cisplatin-resistant tumor cells, Medicinal Chemistry 2 (2006), 47–53.

83.

Donawho

C.K.

Luo

et al., ABT-888, an orally active poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that potentiates DNA-damaging agents in preclinical tumor models, Clinical Cancer Research 13 (2007), 2728–2737.

84.

Evers

Drost

et al., Selective inhibition of BRCA2-deficient mammary tumor cell growth by AZD2281 and cisplatin, Clinical Cancer Research 14 (2008), 3916–3925.

85.

Hastak

Alli

and Ford

J.M.

, Synergistic chemosensitivity of triple-negative breast cancer cell lines to poly (ADP-Ribose) polymerase inhibition, gemcitabine, and cisplatin, Cancer Research 70 (2010), 7970–7980.

86.

Jiao

Xia

et al., PARP inhibitor upregulates PD-L1 expression and enhances cancer-associated immunosuppression, Clinical Cancer Research 23 (2017), 3711–3720.

87.

Higuchi

Flies

D.B.

et al., CTLA-4 blockade synergizes therapeutically with PARP inhibition in BRCA1-deficient ovarian cancer, Cancer Immunology Research 3 (2015), 1257–1268.

88.

Lee

J.-M.

Cimino-Mathews

et al., Safety and clinical activity of the programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor durvalumab in combination with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib or vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor cediranib in women’s cancers: a dose-escalation, phase I study, Journal of Clinical Oncology 35 (2017), 2193.

89.

Foote

J.B.

Kok

et al., A STING agonist given with OX40 receptor and PD-L1 modulators primes immunity and reduces tumor growth in tolerized mice, Cancer Immunology Research 5 (2017), 468–479.

90.

Mcarthur

H.L.

Diab

et al., A pilot study of preoperative single-dose ipilimumab and/or cryoablation in women with early-stage breast cancer with comprehensive immune profiling, Clinical Cancer Research 22 (2016), 5729–5737.

91.

Page

D.B.

Yuan

et al., Deep sequencing of T-cell receptor DNA as a biomarker of clonally expanded TILs in breast cancer after immunotherapy, Cancer Immunology Research 4 (2016), 835–844.

Immunotherapy: New insights in breast cancer treatment

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

Table 1 Representing the trials of immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with various therapeutic drugs with their key effects

3.1 Recent clinical advances in breast cancer immunotherapy

4. PD-1/PDL-1 blockade in breast cancer

4.1 Combining chemotherapy with immune-based therapy

4.1.1 MEK inhibitors in combination with immunotherapy

5. PARP inhibition in combination with immunotherapy

6. Vaccination strategies in combination with immune checkpoint blockade

7. Conclusion and discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Conflict of interest

Funding

References

Table 1
Representing the trials of immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with various therapeutic drugs with their key effects