4.5 Review

The challenges of checkpoint inhibition in the treatment of multiple myeloma

Journal

CELLULAR IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 334, Issue -, Pages 87-98

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.cellimm.2018.10.003

Keywords

Multiple myeloma; Immunotherapy; Checkpoint inhibitors; CTLA4; PD-1/PD-L1

Funding

  1. Duke Cancer Institute Fund
  2. NIH [5T32HL007057-42, R44CA199767, R01CA197792]
  3. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R44CA199767, R01CA197792] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [T32HL007057, K08HL103780] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite significant improvements in the overall survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) over the past 15 years, the disease remains incurable. Treatment options are limited for patients who have relapsed or are refractory to immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors, and monoclonal antibodies. In these patients, immunotherapies such as checkpoint inhibitors, oncolytic vaccines, and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells provide a potentially effective alternative treatment. While checkpoint inhibitors are effective in prolonging overall survival in some patients with advanced solid cancers and Hodgkin lymphoma, they have not demonstrated significant activity as a single agent in MM. In fact the combination of checkpoint inhibitors with IMiDs was recently found to increase the risk of death in myeloma patients. These challenges highlight the need for a better understanding of immune dysregulation in myeloma patients, and the mechanisms of action of- and resistance to-checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we summarize immune dysfunction in patients with MM, and review the preclinical and clinical data regarding checkpoint inhibitors in myeloma. We conclude by proposing strategies to improve the efficacy and safety of checkpoint inhibitors in this population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available