Immunogenicity depends on two key factors: antigenicity and adjuvanticity. The presence of exogenous or mutated antigens explains why infected cells and malignant cells can initiate an adaptive immune response provided that the cells also emit adjuvant signals as a consequence of cellular stress and death. Several infectious pathogens have devised strategies to control cell death and limit the emission of danger signals from dying cells, thereby avoiding immune recognition. Similarly, cancer cells often escape immunosurveillance owing to defects in the molecular machinery that underlies the release of endogenous adjuvants. Here, we review current knowledge on the mechanisms that underlie the activation of immune responses against dying cells and their pathophysiological relevance.

The tremendous clinical success of checkpoint blockers illustrates the potential of reestablishing latent immunosurveillance for cancer therapy. Although largely neglected in the clinical practice, accumulating evidence indicates that the efficacy of conventional and targeted anticancer agents does not only involve direct cytostatic/cytotoxic effects, but also relies on the (re)activation of tumor-targeting immune responses. Chemotherapy can promote such responses by increasing the immunogenicity of malignant cells, or by inhibiting immunosuppressive circuitries that are established by developing neoplasms. These immunological "side" effects of chemotherapy are desirable, and their in-depth comprehension will facilitate the design of novel combinatorial regimens with improved clinical efficacy.

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Caloric restriction mimetics (CRMs) mimic the biochemical effects of nutrient deprivation by reducing lysine acetylation of cellular proteins, thus triggering autophagy. Treatment with the CRM hydroxycitrate, an inhibitor of ATP citrate lyase, induced the depletion of regulatory T cells (which dampen anticancer immunity) from autophagy-competent, but not autophagy-deficient, mutant KRAS-induced lung cancers in mice, thereby improving anticancer immunosurveillance and reducing tumor mass. Short-term fasting or treatment with several chemically unrelated autophagy-inducing CRMs, including hydroxycitrate and spermidine, improved the inhibition of tumor growth by chemotherapy in vivo. This effect was only observed for autophagy-competent tumors, depended on the presence of T lymphocytes, and was accompanied by the depletion of regulatory T cells from the tumor bed.

During the past decades, anticancer immunotherapy has evolved from a promising therapeutic option to a robust clinical reality. Many immunotherapeutic regimens are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for use in cancer patients, and many others are being investigated as standalone therapeutic interventions or combined with conventional treatments in clinical studies. Immunotherapies may be subdivided into “passive” and “active” based on their ability to engage the host immune system against cancer. Since the anticancer activity of most passive immunotherapeutics (including tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies) also relies on the host immune system, this classification does not properly reflect the complexity of the drug-host-tumor interaction. Alternatively, anticancer immunotherapeutics can be classified according to their antigen specificity. While some immunotherapies specifically target one (or a few) defined tumor-associated antigen(s), others operate in a relatively non-specific manner and boost natural or therapy-elicited anticancer immune responses of unknown and often broad specificity. Here, we propose a critical, integrated classification of anticancer immunotherapies and discuss the clinical relevance of these approaches.

No abstract

Oncolytic virotherapy relies on the administration of non-pathogenic viral strains that selectively infect and kill malignant cells while favoring the elicitation of a therapeutically relevant tumor-targeting immune response. During the past few years, great efforts have been dedicated to the development of oncolytic viruses with improved specificity and potency. Such an intense wave of investigation has culminated this year in the regulatory approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of a genetically engineered oncolytic viral strain for use in melanoma patients. Here, we summarize recent preclinical and clinical advances in oncolytic virotherapy.