Open Research Newcastle
Browse

Immune checkpoint blockade in solid organ tumours: choice, dose and predictors of response

Download (1.51 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2025-05-11, 18:03 authored by Vishal Navani, Moira GravesMoira Graves, Nikola BowdenNikola Bowden, Andre Van Der WesthuizenAndre Van Der Westhuizen
Immune checkpoint blockade has transformed outcomes across solid organ tumours. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the negative inhibitory cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed-death 1/programmed death-ligand 1 axis can lead to deep and durable responses across several tumour streams in the advanced setting. This immunotherapy approach is increasingly used earlier in the treatment paradigm. A rapidly evolving regulatory, reimbursement and drug development landscape has accompanied this novel class of immunotherapy. Unfortunately, only a small proportion of patients respond meaningfully to these agents. Here we review how the underlying tumoural genomic, histological and immunological characteristics interact within various patient phenotypes, leading to variations in response to checkpoint blockade. Concurrently, we outline the clinical trial and real-world evidence that allows for appropriate selection of agent, dose and schedule in solid organ malignancies. An exploration of current trends in basic and translational research in immune checkpoint blockade accompanies a commentary on future clinical directions for checkpoint blockade in oncology.

History

Journal title

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Volume

86

Issue

9

Pagination

1736-1752

Publisher

Wiley-Blackwell

Language

  • en, English

College/Research Centre

Faculty of Health and Medicine

School

School of Medicine and Public Health

Rights statement

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Navani, Vishal; Graves, Moira C.; Bowden, Nikola A.; Van Der Westhuizen, Andre. Immune checkpoint blockade in solid organ tumours: choice, dose and predictors of response. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Vol. 86, Issue 9, p. 1736-1752, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14352. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions. This article may not be enhanced, enriched or otherwise transformed into a derivative work, without express permission from Wiley or by statutory rights under applicable legislation. Copyright notices must not be removed, obscured or modified. The article must be linked to Wiley’s version of record on Wiley Online Library and any embedding, framing or otherwise making available the article or pages thereof by third parties from platforms, services and websites other than Wiley Online Library must be prohibited.