No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.

Signaling pathways and targeted therapies in lung squamous cell carcinoma: mechanisms and clinical trials

Zhenyi Niu, Runsen Jin, Yan Zhang and 1 more

Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · 2022 · Review · CC BY

Abstract

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death across the world. Unlike lung adenocarcinoma, patients with lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) have not benefitted from targeted therapies. Although immunotherapy has significantly improved cancer patients’ outcomes, the relatively low response rate and severe adverse events hinder the clinical application of this promising treatment in LSCC. Therefore, it is of vital importance to have a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the pathogenesis of LSCC as well as the inner connection among different signaling pathways, which will surely provide opportunities for more effective therapeutic interventions for LSCC. In this review, new insights were given about classical signaling pathways which have been proved in other cancer types but not in LSCC, including PI3K signaling pathway, VEGF/VEGFR signaling, and CDK4/6 pathway. Other signaling pathways which may have therapeutic potentials in LSCC were also discussed, including the FGFR1 pathway, EGFR pathway, and KEAP1/NRF2 pathway. Next, chromosome 3q, which harbors two key squamous differentiation markers SOX2 and TP63 is discussed as well as its related potential therapeutic targets. We also provided some progress of LSCC in epigenetic therapies and immune checkpoints blockade (ICB) therapies. Subsequently, we outlined some combination strategies of ICB therapies and other targeted therapies. Finally, prospects and challenges were given related to the exploration and application of novel therapeutic strategies for LSCC.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction

1Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death across the world. In 2020, lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer deaths, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths. Lung cancer was traditionally classified into two primary groups, small versus non-small-cell type. Approximately 85% of lung cancers are non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) and lung squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) are the most common subtypes, with the latter accounting for approximately 30% of all NSCLC., The 5-year survival rate for NSCLC is 26%, and only 24% of lung cancers are diagnosed at a localized stage, for which the 5-year survival rate is 60%. The mortality rate of lung cancer has declined largely in the past few decades, with the pace accelerating in recent years due to major advances in treatment for NSCLC., Over the past 20 years, the treatment of NSCLC has evolved from the empirical use of cytotoxic therapy to effective and better-tolerated regimens by targeting specific molecular subtypes in both LUAD and LSCC. This improvement is largely attributed to the accumulation of molecular knowledge and the discovery of targeted molecular abnormalities. Previously, the treatment options for these two subtypes of NSCLC were historically similar. In 2004, two studies found out that a subgroup of NSCLC patients with specific mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene were correlated with clinical responses to the tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) gefitinib., These findings ushered in a widening divide in the management of these two diseases.

2While the steady identification of new oncogenic alterations and development of new targeted drugs continue to prolong the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) in LUAD patients, it was of note that the use of targeted therapy in LSCC patients has been associated with negative outcomes in early-phase studies.– In fact, both the mutated genes and the recurrent somatic copy numbers vary widely between these two diseases., The common driver mutations in LUAD, like EGFR and KRAS, are rarely mutated in LSCC., The biomarker-driven therapies for LSCC evaluated in the Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP; S1400) failed to show an improvement of therapeutic effect of currently available targeted therapy with an overall response rate of only 7%.,,, This has changed with the advent of immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy, which has the potential to transcend the histological boundaries and, most importantly, achieve sustained remission in patients. Immunotherapies, such as anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy, lead to durable responses and manageable adverse effects. Currently, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab were both approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the first-line monotherapy in patients with advanced LSCC with PD-L1 levels of 50% or more.– In addition, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy is also recommended as a first-line therapy in patients with metastatic LSCC. Other ICB therapies, including nivolumab,, ipilimumab,, cemiplimab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, camrelizumab, and sugemalimab, have also significantly improved the outcomes of patients with advanced LSCC. However, a large proportion of LSCC patients still do not respond to current immunotherapy. Identification of biomarkers for immunotherapy and exploration of more effective therapeutics remains to be an unmet need for LSCC patients.

3In this review, we will discuss the current knowledge of potentially targetable molecular alterations in LSCC as well as providing some updated information about ongoing or finished clinical trials which may change or have changed the therapeutic landscapes of LSCC.

Genomic landscapes of LSCC and therapeutic targets

4LSCC is strongly associated with smoking and is characterized by a high overall mutation rate of 8.1 mutations per megabase and marked genomic complexity. A number of significantly mutated genes have been identified in LSCC: TP53, CDKN2A, PTEN, PIK3CA, KEAP1, MLL2, HLA-A, NFE2L2, NOTCH1, and RB1, all of which demonstrated robust evidence of gene expression., Almost all LSCC displays somatic mutation of TP53. The amplification between chromosome 3q26 and 3q28 represents a hallmark for LSCC, which harbors key squamous differentiation markers SOX2 and TP63.,– In addition, other significantly amplified regions include 8p11 (FGFR1, WHSC1L1), 7p11 (EGFR), 11q13 (CCDN1) and 4q12 (KDR, KIT, PDGFRA)., Although EGFR mutations were found in 7% of the LSCC cases, there were no activating mutations of exon 19 deletions or Leu858Arg substitution. These mutated genes cause frequent alterations in the following signaling pathways: CDKN2A/RB1, NFE2L2/KEAP1/CUL3, PI3K/AKT, and SOX2/TP63/NOTCH1 pathways, some of which play an important role in cell-cycle control, response to oxidative stress, apoptotic signaling, and squamous cell differentiation., These signaling pathways are interconnected with each other. It has been shown that both mutated genes and recurrent somatic copy-number alterations are largely distinct in LSCC and LUAD. In fact, an analysis of 12 cancer types revealed the convergence of squamous-like subtype, suggesting similarities in genomic- and pathway-based determinants in four different tumor types: LSCC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), some bladder urothelial carcinoma and a very few LUAD., Besides frequent alterations in different signaling pathways caused by mutated genes and amplification in the chromosome 3q region, aberrant protein lysine methylation modification also influences other cellular pathways in LSCC. Recently, NSD3—a histone dimethyltransferase encoded by an FGFR1-neighboring gene—was identified as a major mutational driver in LSCC. Other histone modifiers, including SETD8, LSD1,, and EZH2,,, have also been identified to be involved in LSCC tumorigenesis and the inhibition of these targets could produce potent antitumoral effects. In the last 10 years, the great benefits that ICB therapy have demonstrated in several clinical trials heralded a new era in the management of LSCC. For resectable NSCLC, compared to traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy alone, the addition of ICB therapy both in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings has significantly improved the outcomes of patients., We briefly summarized some of the pivotal clinical studies and discoveries that might change or have changed the management of LSCC in the last thirty years (Fig. 1).

Targeting signaling pathways in LSCC

5In the past few decades, multiple mutated genes in LSCC have been discovered. As we mentioned in the last section, these mutated genes cause alterations in several signaling pathways. In this section, we would discuss pathways proved in other cancer types but not in LSCC, including PI3K signaling pathway, VEGF/VEGFR signaling, and CDK4/6 pathway. Other signaling pathways in LSCC which may be potentially targeted were also discussed, including FGFR1 pathway, EGFR pathway, and KEAP1/NRF2 pathway. It is of note that these signaling pathways are also closely connected with each other (Fig. 2).

The classical PI3K pathway

6The PI3K signaling pathway is one of the most frequently altered signaling pathways in human cancer,– which can be activated by various growth factors/ligands specific to different RTKs, including members of the EGFR family, and the insulin and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) receptor, FGF, etc. LSCC has high rates of alterations in the PI3K pathway, and alterations were found in 68% of LSCC samples. Activation of PI3K signaling pathway mediated through molecular aberrations is instrumental in promoting tumor development as well as resistance to antitumor therapies., PI3K belongs to a family of lipid kinases, which are classified into three different classes based on structural features and lipid substrate preferences. Class I PI3K is frequently implicated in cancer. Class IA consists of the PIK3CA, PIK3CB, and PIK3CD genes, and encode for the catalytic subunit of p110α, p110β, and p110δ, respectively. Class IB includes PIK3CG coding for p110γ. Whereas p110α and p110β show broad tissue distribution, p110δ and p110γ are highly enriched in all leukocyte subtypes.

7A common mechanism of PI3K activation in cancers is through the presence of mutations in the PIK3CA gene. The reported incidence of PIK3CA alterations in LSCC varies between 8 and 20% and the two main mutation types are canonical PIK3CA mutations and PIK3CA amplification.– The canonical PIK3CA mutations affect two different domains of p110α, the kinase domain and the helical domain. These two types of mutations can activate the downstream signaling through two distinctive mechanisms. The kinase domain mutations can change the dynamics of the membrane-binding surface and affect the PIP2 substrate. The helical domain mutations (e.g., E542K, E545K) abrogate the inhibitory interactions between p110α and the N-terminal SH2 domain of the p85 regulatory subunit, leading to constitutive activity that mimics pTyr stimulation.,

8Mutations in other genes may also lead to abnormal activation of the PI3K pathway. Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) is a 9-exon tumor-suppressor gene located on chromosome 10q23. This gene encodes for a 403-amino acid protein with dual lipid and protein phosphatase utility which contains four functional domains: an N-terminal PI(4,5)P2-binding/phosphatase, domain, a C2 domain, a carboxyl-terminal tail domain (C-tail), and a PDZ-binding domain (PDZ-BD). This protein classically dampens the PI3K/AKT/mTOR growth-promoting signaling cascade by directly dephosphorylating phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-trisphosphate (PIP3) and converting it back to the phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) inactive state., Accordingly, PTEN dysfunction causes dysregulation of this and other pathways, resulting in tumorigenesis and cancer progression.– PTEN is mutated in 7–10% of LSCC,, and these somatic mutations tend to be distributed across its 9 exons. Some tumor-associated missense mutations may lead to complete loss or severe impairment of the phosphatase activity of the encoded enzyme.– Many tumor-derived PTEN mutants retain partial or complete catalytic function, suggesting that alternative mechanisms can lead to the inactivation of PTEN. In addition to its own genetic alterations, PTEN gene expression is also regulated at epigenetic, transcriptional,– post-transcriptional–, and post-translational– levels as well as by protein–protein interactions.,

9Partial loss of PTEN function can have dramatic effects on tumorigenesis and cancer progression,, reflecting the fact that PTEN is a haploinsufficient tumor suppressor. PTEN function is not often completely lost in cancer, providing an opportunity to reactivate its function as a mode of cancer treatment. It has been reported that a tumor-suppressive metabolic state is induced in transgenic mouse lines with the systemic elevation of PTEN. In 2019, Lee et al. reported a way to reactivate PTEN by inhibiting the MYC-WWP1 inhibitory pathway. In the study, they identified the HECT-type E3 ubiquitin ligase WWP1 as a physical PTEN interactor, the amplification, and overexpression of which may lead to pleiotropic inactivation of PTEN. A natural and potent WWP1 inhibitor, indole-3-carbinol (I3C), was also found to effectively suppress tumorigenesis driven by the PI3K-AKT pathway. Therefore, both genetic and pharmacological targeting of the MYC-WWP1 axis may be a viable approach for cancer patients driven by impaired PTEN function.

10Although extensive research has been conducted on the PI3K pathway component genes as potential molecular therapeutic targets in human cancers in the past two decades, clinical success to date has been limited to the approval of the PI3K inhibitors for hematological malignancies and breast cancer.,– Even among the four current FDA-approved PI3K inhibitors for the treatment of hematological malignancies, some of the indications have been withdrawn from the marketing authorization application.– Although some of the decisions were made, according to the manufacturing companies, based on business needs, this will certainly have implications for the future of PI3K inhibitors. In NSCLC, the early-phase clinical trials of PI3K inhibitors and dual PI3K/mTOR inhibitors have yielded negative results.– The modest therapeutic efficacy of PI3K inhibitors may be attributed to various reasons, including insufficient target inhibition, intrinsic and acquired drug resistance, and tolerability. Unlike other oncogenes, such as EGFR in LUAD, the correlation between specific PI3K pathway mutations and drug sensitivity is not absolute. This makes patient selection more complicated based on PI3K pathway mutation status. Another issue that cannot be overlooked about PI3K inhibitors is their on-target, off-tumor toxicity, particularly hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia which are observed as major dose-limiting toxicities.,, Despite the benefits of PFS shown in several randomized clinical trials, the increased toxicities of PI3K inhibitors have raised concerns about the potential detriments of OS in the PI3K inhibitor arm.,,– In blood cancers, future approvals of PI3K inhibitors by FDA should be supported by randomized data.

11It has been suggested that alternative dosing regimens which offer intermittent pathway inhibition can increase the therapeutic window without compromising therapeutic efficacy.– Another solution is to develop selective compounds that are more selective for mutant PI3K than wild-type PI3K. In the future, more durable therapeutic responses could be achieved by a more tailored PI3K-based therapies with a better understanding of the role of PI3K in cancer and surrounding environments.

Cell cycle in LSCC: the CDK4/6 pathway

12The CDKN2A locus, located on human chromosome 9p21, is one of the most common genetic losses in human cancer., TCGA profiling of 178 LSCC samples revealed that CDKN2A is inactivated in 72% cases of LSCC. The CDKN2A locus encodes two alternatively spliced proteins, p16INK4a (p16) and p14ARF (p14), which function as cell-cycle inhibitors. These two tumor-suppressor proteins function in distinct anticancer pathways: p16 regulates retinoblastoma (RB), and p14 regulates p53. RB is a tumor-suppressor protein which controls cell cycle by preventing entry into the DNA synthesis (S) phase of the cell-division cycle. The p16 protein directly inhibits the activities of the cyclin D-dependent kinases, cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 and CDK6, thus maintaining RB in its dephosphorylated, anti-proliferative state, and leading to cell growth arrest. The tumor-suppressor protein p53 plays a pivotal role in regulating cell growth following exposure of cells to various stress stimuli. The p14 protein associates directly with murine double minute 2 (MDM2), a negative regulator of p53, preventing the export and degradation of p53.–

13At present, the therapeutic focus has been on leveraging CDK4/6 inhibition to activate RB and limit tumor cell proliferation to delay disease progression., Interesting to note, the pan-caner analysis of the CDK4/6 pathway showed that CDKN2A loss and RB1 loss were mutually exclusive in most cancers that lose these genes at a significant level (>5%). The proteogenomic portrait of LSCC revealed that loss of one of these two key CDK4/6 pathway inhibitors is a universal feature of LSCC. However, CDK4/6 inhibitors have shown minimal efficacy in LSCC clinical trials.,– Phospho-RB levels have been shown to be correlated with response to CDK4/6 inhibitors in various LSCC cell lines. The heterogeneity of RB expression and phosphorylation may provide a reasonable explanation for the diverse responses toward CDK4/6 inhibitors. The screening of tumors based on the downstream functional assessment (i.e., RB expression and phosphorylation) may identify tumors that are sensitive to CDK4/6 inhibitors.

VEGF-VEGFR signaling in LSCC

14Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF, here referred to as VEGF-A) is a member of a protein family that also includes VEGF-B, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, VEGF-E (a virally encoded protein), and placental growth factor (PIGF, also known as PGF). VEGF-B has multifaceted and context-dependent functions that safeguard the balance between blood vessel growth and degeneration to ensure normal blood vessel density and integrity. VEGF-C and VEGF-D are mainly implicated in lymphangiogenesis. As VEGF-A plays a dominant role in regulating angiogenesis and disease, it is referred to as VEGF in this review. Alternative exon splicing causes multiple isoforms of VEGF which are characterized by their differential ability to bind heparin. VEGF binds to both VEGF receptor 1 (R1) and VEGFR2 while VEGFR2 is the main receptor for VEGF., VEGF isoforms can also interact with the neuropilin co-receptors (NRP1 and NRP2)., During tumorigenesis, angiogenesis plays a key role in maintaining the expansion in tumor. Most human tumors overexpressed VEGF mRNA, and its expression correlates with invasiveness, increased vascular density, metastasis, tumor recurrence and poor prognosis. Accordingly, several strategies that target this VEGF-VEGFR signaling has been devised.,

15Neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against VEGF have shown great effect in preclinical studies and were the first type of antiangiogenic drugs that entered the market. In 2004, bevacizumab was approved by the FDA for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on the results of AVF2107 clinical trial. However, as the benefits of bevacizumab extended to other malignancies, including non-squamous NSCLC, renal cell carcinoma, ovarian cancer, and cervical cancer, LSCC is not one of them, as clinical trials have shown that bevacizumab increases the risk of life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhages in squamous cell carcinomas., Another antiangiogenic agent, ramucirumab, a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody targeting the extracellular domain of VEGFR2, is currently the only antiangiogenic agent that is approved by FDA for the treatment of LSCC. Based on the results of phase III REVEL clinical trial, ramucirumab plus docetaxel is recommended as a subsequent therapy option for metastatic NSCLC following disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy.

FGFR1 pathway

16Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) belongs to the FGFR family of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), which consists of four members: FGFR1 to FGFR4. All these four members share a canonical RTK architecture, consisting of a large ligand-binding extracellular domain that comprises three immunoglobulin-like domains (D1-3) followed by a single transmembrane helix and an intracellular domain containing the catalytically active “split” tyrosine-kinase domain., There is also a fifth related receptor, FGFR5 (also known as FGFRL1), which lacks the cytoplasmic tyrosine-kinase domain. The native ligand of FGFRs is fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), which can be divided into two categories: hormone-like FGFs (i.e., FGF19, 21, and 23) and canonical FGFs (i.e., FGF1-10, 16–18, and 20)., The intracellular signaling of the FGFR pathway is primarily mediated mainly through four key downstream pathways: RAS-RAF-MAPK pathway, PI3K-AKT, signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT), and phospholipase Cγ (PLCγ)– (Fig. 1). Dysregulation of FGFR signaling promotes the proliferation, survival and development of drug resistance in tumor cells, as well as the development of angiogenesis and immune evasion in the tumor microenvironment (TME). These findings make FGFR pursued as a potential therapeutic target and support the development of FGFR-targeting anticancer agents.

17FGFR1 amplifications are the predominant type of FGFR mutation, occurring in nearly 20% of LSCC patients., Although the studies in preclinical models have suggested that FGFR inhibitors may be a viable therapeutic option in this cohort of patients,, a number of FGFR-specific small molecular inhibitors tested in phase I and phase II trials have shown modest effects with overall response rates of 8–15%.– The results from these trials suggest that FGFR1 amplification is not a reliable predictor of response to FGFR1 inhibitors and that FGFR1 mutations have a more complex impact in NSCLC than EGFR-mutated or ALK-rearranged NSCLC. A previous study has found that elevated FGFR1 mRNA and/or protein expression was often independent of FGFR1 amplification. Future studies are needed to clarify the role of FGFR1 signaling in the pathogenesis of LSCC.

EGFR pathway

18EGFR belongs to the HER/erbB family of RTKs, which includes HER1 (EGFR/erbB1), HER2 (neu, erbB2), HER3 (erbB3), and HER4 (erbB4). All members display similar structures: an extracellular, cysteine-rich ligand-binding region, a single alpha-helix membrane-spanning region and a cytoplasmic tyrosine-kinase-containing domain. The intracellular signaling of EGFR pathway is mediated mainly through the RAS/MAPK pathway, the PI3K pathway, and the STAT pathway., Downstream EGFR signaling ultimately leads to increased proliferation, angiogenesis, metastasis, and decreased apoptosis. Alterations in EGFR signaling pathways result in constitutive activation of its kinase activity and the inhibition of tumor apoptosis, leading to a poor clinical outcome., All these findings make EGFR pursued as therapeutic targets and support the development of EGFR-targeting anticancer agents.

19The reported rate of EGFR mutation in LSCC patients is 4.2–7%,,, which is much lower compared with LUAD patients. In previous prospective phase III clinical trials assessing the efficacy of first-line EGFR-TKIs in the treatment of NSCLC, only 27 cases of LSCC patients with EGFR mutation were identified in six clinical trials, which were further randomized into two groups.– This limited number of LSCC cases makes it hard to assess the benefits of EGFR-TKIs for EGFR-mutated LSCC in prospective studies. Subgroup analysis in the BR.21 and SATURN clinical trials showed that erlotinib was effective in unselected LSCC patients., A meta-analysis also confirmed that EGFR-TKIs demonstrated an improved OS and PFS compared to placebo in unselected patients with advanced LSCC. Based on previous retrospective matched-pair studies,, EGFR-TKIs were less effective in EGFR-mutant LSCC than in LUAD but still had clinical benefits for LSCC patients. Another retrospective study found that in Chinese female EGFR-mutant LSCC, EGFR-TKIs conferred longer PFS and OS than chemotherapy, but the survival was similar with patients without EGFR mutations. In conclusion, for EGFR-mutant LSCC, EGFR-TKIs can improve the outcomes of these patients compared with chemotherapy, but its efficacy is not as robust as that of EGFR-TKIs for EGFR-mutant LUAD.

20Notably, EGFR protein was significantly upregulated in the squamous cancers but not in LUAD, although many activating EGFR mutations occurred in LUAD. This EGFR amplified LSCC cohort did not show elevated EGFR pathway activity, but displayed a high correlation with mRNA abundance of the five EGFR ligands. This is consistent with the results in HNSCC, which indicates a squamous cell carcinoma feature that EGFR ligand abundance drives the activity of EGFR pathways. It suggests that EGFR ligand abundance, rather than EGFR amplification, might be a better predictor for EGFR inhibitor response in this population of LSCC patients.

KEAP1/NRF2 pathway

21The Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (KEAP1, encoded by KEAP1)/nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (NRF2, encoded by NFE2L2) pathway plays a physiologic protective role against environmental insults. This KEAP1-NRF2 system operates as a typical two-component system: KEAP1 as a sensor for insults, NRF2 as an effector for the coordinated activation of cytoprotective genes (Fig. 3a). The NRF2 signaling is primarily regulated by KEAP1 in response to reactive oxygen species (ROS) and electrophiles,, but also by the PI3K signaling pathway, with glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) acting as a key mediator (Fig. 3a). In addition to crosstalk with the PI3K-AKT signaling pathway, the KEAP1-NRF2 system also interacts with the autophagy pathway through the adaptor p62. Hyperactivation of NRF2 plays a critical role in promoting both tumorigenesis and resistance to multiple therapies,– resulting from the mutually exclusive loss-of-function (LOF) mutations in KEAP1 or gain-of-function (GOF) mutations in NRF2. Furthermore, there is also evidence that NRF2 has its tumor-preventive role during initiation, suggesting that the dual stage-specific pro- and anti-tumorigenic effects of NRF2 are context-dependent.

22Alterations in the KEAP1/NRF2 pathway are significantly enriched in lung and upper airway cancers. In LSCC, mutations in NRF2 are more prevalent while KEAP1 mutations are more common in LUAD.,– KEAP1/NRF2 pathway mutations were found in approximately one third of patients with LSCC. As we mentioned earlier, NRF2 has a dual function during carcinogenesis: preventing cancer initiation and promoting tumor progression. This is supported by the fact that NRF2-null mice exhibit an increased level of lung metastasis compared with wild-type mice after cancer cell incubation, while activated NRF2 in tumor cells is associated with poor prognosis and more aggressive disease., This contribution of NRF2 to the malignant phenotype of tumor cells is independent of its antioxidant activities and is associated with its key role in metabolic reprogramming of cancer cells. LSCC cells displayed a dual reliance on glucose and glutamine metabolism. The metabolic enzymes that are involved in this pentose phosphate pathway and glutamine metabolism were found to be directly activated through the antioxidant response element (ARE). NRF2 also regulates the intracellular abundance of these amino acids. SLC7A11 is a NRF2 target gene encoding SLC7A11, which dimerizes with SLC3A2 to form the xc− antiporter system (xCT). xCT functions as a concentration-dependent antiporter, which exports glutamate while importing cystine, the dimerized form of cysteine. Three amino acids were required in the synthesis of glutathione: glutamate, cysteine, and glycine, and xCT can keep intracellular stores of cysteine for glutathione synthesis., This NRF2-mediated depletion of intracellular glutamate stores either through export (xCT) or consumption (glutathione synthesis) makes highly metabolic LSCC cells dependent on extracellular glutamine import, which is transformed to glutamate by GLS1 (Fig. 3b). This vulnerability of tumor cells can be targeted through the inhibition of the activity of GLS1. Another possible therapeutic target is targeting the PI3K-AKT pathway. PI3K-AKT signaling is a major proliferative signal that inactivates GSK3 by phosphorylation, which increases NRF2 in a KEAP1-independent way (Fig. 3a). The GSK3 pathway is also a key regulator of adaptive glutamine metabolism.

23Based on this preclinical evidence, therapeutic interventions targeting the KEAP/NRF2 signaling have been tested in clinical trials. Three treatment approaches were used to target this signaling, including glutaminase inhibition, glutamine antagonism, and PI3K-AKT signaling inhibition. However, the phase II KEAPSAKE study which evaluated telaglenastat, a glutaminase inhibitor, in advanced non-squamous NSCLC with KEAP1/NRF2 mutations was terminated due to lack of clinical benefits among patients treated with telaglenasta in the interim analysis. For PI3K-AKT signaling inhibition, an mTOR kinase inhibitor sapanisertib was evaluated in a phase II clinical trial for advanced or recurrent LSCC with KEAP1/NRF2 mutations (NCT02417701). The preliminary results showed an objective response rate (ORR) of 25% (3/12) in the NFEL2 mutant squamous cohort and 16.7% (1/6) in the KEAP1 mutant squamous cohort. The relatively low response rate in these two cohorts may be attributed to the circumvention of mTOR inhibition by upregulation of glutamine metabolism through GSK3 signaling axis in LSCC cells (Fig. 3b). Glutamine blockade seems to be a promising strategy, which has been shown to induce divergent metabolic programs between cancer cells and effector T cells, acting as a “metabolic checkpoint” for tumor immunotherapy. Currently, sirpiglenastat, a broad glutamine antagonist, is being evaluated in combination with atezolizumab for patients with advanced solid tumors in phase I/IIa clinical trial (NCT04471415).

Therapeutic targets on chromosome 3Q in LSCC

24SOX2 and TP63 are both regarded as key squamous differentiation markers located on chromosome 3q., The suppression of SOX2 gene in LSCC cell lines had the highest anti-proliferative effects among the immediate genes on chromosome 3q26.33, including PIK3CA, TP63, DCUND1. It was also found that LSCC cell lines amplified for SOX2 and TP63 were highly dependent on them, supporting oncogene addiction.

25SOX2 belongs to the sex-determining region Y (SRY)-related high-mobility-group (HMG) box family characterized by a DNA-binding HMG domain, which shares at least 46% of sequence homology across all sox proteins. As a transcription factor, SOX2 recognizes and binds to the promoter of various target genes with complex, important, and pleiotropic impacts in multiple tissues in development and maintaining homeostasis., Dysregulation of SOX2 expression is an important factor contributing to cancer pathogenesis,, associated with several tumor features, including cancer stemness,– cell proliferation and migration,– apoptosis,– and drug resistance.–

26TP63 encodes p63, a transcription factor that belongs to the tumor-suppressor p53 superfamily of transcription factors, including two additional paralogs, p53 and p73., The three members of the p53 family share very significant homology both at the genomic and at the protein level. Each contains a transactivation domain (TAD), a DNA-binding domain (DBD) and an oligomerization domain (OD). A common feature of all p53 family members is that they can be expressed in many different isoforms., For p63, three different splice variants are characterized by their differences in their C-termini: a full-length α form; a β form that is truncated after exon XII; and a γ form that lacks exons XII-XIV and uses an additional exon XV. Each of these isoforms can be further divided into TA forms and ∆N forms, based on the presence of the TAD or not, which is decided by whether transcription of the precursor mRNA starts from exon I (TA forms) or from exon III′ (∆N forms). Physiologically, p63 plays a critical role in sustaining epithelial development and morphogenesis in the regulation of epithelial proliferation., However, in the control of tumorigenesis, TA-isoforms and ∆N-isoforms shared antagonistic properties. TAp63 functions as tumor suppressors to halt tumorigenesis while ∆Np63 is more associated with promoting tumorigenesis.,

SOX2

27Given that SOX2 is amplified in various types of cancer and involved in tumorigenesis via complicated signaling pathways and protein–protein interactions, targeting SOX2 is a promising strategy for anticancer therapy. Previously, as a transcription factor, SOX2 was deemed undruggable because of its absence of active sites or allosteric regulatory pockets to be targeted by small molecule inhibitors (SMIs). Therefore, studies targeting SOX2 in anticancer therapy has been focusing on the upstream and downstream signaling of SOX2. Recently, Liu et al. reported the development of a platform using the technique of proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs), which is able to selectively degrade the transcription factors of interest. This generalizable platform may help target SOX2 as an effective anticancer therapy.

∆Np63

28The main isoform of p63 expressed in adult squamous tissues is ∆Np63. For squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs), ∆Np63 acts as a proto-oncogenic transcription factor and the master regulator of SCC formation.– The oncogenic potential of ∆Np63 is related to its direct competition with p53, TAp63, and TAp73 on the same p53 responsive elements and the consequent inhibition., High levels of endogenous ΔNp63 protein abundance are essential to induce and maintain SCC tumors., Acute gene ablation of ΔNp63 in an autochthonous SCC model could induce rapid tumor regression. Besides, ΔNp63 is also found to regulate chemoresistance in SCCs by controlling the expression of DNA repair genes., Collectively, these findings implicate that ΔNp63 is a promising therapeutic target in LSCC. As a transcription factor, ΔNp63 was considered undruggable, as with most transcription factors which lack suitable domains for the binding of SMIs. The development of a generalizable platform by Liu et al. based on the technique of PROTACs, which is able to selectively degrade the transcription factors of interest, may provide new strategies to target ∆Np63. However, it is of note that ∆Np63 is associated with the regulation of a massive subset of different genes and cellular processes, which makes complete blocking of ∆Np63 almost impossible.

USP28

29Ubiquitin-specific peptidase 28 (USP28) belongs to the largest deubiquitinating enzyme family, which removes ubiquitin from the ubiquitin conjugates. ΔNp63 is tightly regulated at the protein level by the ubiquitin-proteasome system, which can be targeted by multiple E3 ligases. USP28 is highly abundant in SCCs and correlates with poor prognosis. In SCCs, USP28 could stabilize ΔNp63 and maintain elevated ΔNp63 levels by counteracting its proteasome-mediated degradation. The researchers further confirmed that the pharmacologic inhibition of USP28 showed a selective anti-proliferative response of SCC cells. In addition to its tumor-suppressive function, inhibition of USP28 in ΔNp63 expressing SCC could sensitize SCC cells to cisplatin treatment by toning down the DNA damage response pathways. Taken together, these data show that USP28-ΔNp63 axis is required in the maintenance of SCC identity and control of SCC marker gene.

30USP28 stabilizes ΔNp63 independently of FBXW7, which is a component of SCF (complex of SKP1, CUL1, and F-box protein)-type ubiquitin ligases. FBXW7 is a tumor suppressor that binds to key regulators of cell division and growth, including cyclin E, MYC, JUN, and Notch, most of which are proto-oncogenes that are closely related to the pathogenesis of human cancers. Recurrent mutations in the FBXW7 tumor-suppressor gene have been reported in LSCC., FBXW7 and USP28 are closely related in that USP28 could lead to FBXW7 substrate accumulation (either via destabilization of FBXW7 or via stabilization of both FBXW7 and its substrates)., Therefore, targeting USP28 to destabilize the substrates of FBXW7 represents a promising strategy to inhibit the function of MYC and other oncogenic regulators.

31Inhibition of USP28 is particularly effective in mouse LSCC models, resulting in dramatic tumor regression., The USP28 inhibitor used by Prieto-Garcia et al. was AZ1, a dual USP25/USP28 inhibitor, while the USP28 inhibitor FT206 used by Ruiz et al., preferentially inhibits USP28 compared to USP25. Despite evidence that USP25 is an oncoprotein, its oncogenic function in LSCC is still enigmatic. There is currently no specific inhibitor of USP28 mainly due to the highly similar catalytic structure of USP25 and USP28. In the future, with the help of novel drug development technologies, USP28 inhibitors may become a promising therapeutic option for LSCC, but further clinical trials are still needed.

Survivin

32Survivin (also known as BIRC5) has been a well-known cancer therapeutic target since its discovery over 20 years ago. Because of its essential role in cell mitosis and inhibition of apoptosis,– as well as its variable expression levels in cancer and normal cells, survivin appears be a ideal candidate for anticancer therapy. However, no survivin-specifc drugs have yet reached the clinic. SMIs and inhibitory peptides targeting survivin for NSCLC have been explored in clinical trials but have shown modest or no improvement.–

33Recently, Satpathy et al. identified ΔNp63-low LSCC which showed no elevation at RNA or protein levels. Accordingly, they also discovered a substantial number of LSCC cell lines with low ΔNp63 expression which were significantly more vulnerable to the survivin inhibitor YM-155. These findings may provide new strategies for selecting LSCC patients based on the TP63 status, which may have better response to survivin inhibition.

TNIK

34TRAF2-/NCK-interacting kinase (TNIK) is a member of germinal center kinase (GCK) family, which was found previously involved in the promotion of colorectal cancer, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), prostate cancer, and chronic myelogenous leukemia.– Furthermore, this protein kinase was identified as a potential genetic dependency in tumors with distal amplification of the 3q chromosome. TNIK gene is amplified in ~50% of LSCC cases. In LSCC cell lines with high TNIK expression, depleting TNIK can significantly reduce their growth. In addition, TNIK inhibition also showed antitumor activity and increased apoptosis in established LSCC patient-derived xenografts. These findings suggest TNIK as a potential therapeutic target for LSCC patients with TNIK gene copy-number gains.

Epigenetic therapeutic targets in LSCC

35Epigenetics is defined as the DNA sequence-independent inheritance of phenotype or gene expression. There are four major mechanisms of epigenetic regulation: DNA methylation, histone post-translational modifications, chromatin structure regulation, and noncoding RNA regulation. In cancer cells, the epigenetic features are commonly dysregulated. High rate of alterations in many epigenetic regulator genes was observed in cancer genome-sequencing studies. This plethora of genetic lesions in epigenetic regulators has attracted much attention as possible targets for the development of epidrugs. Most epidrugs that has been approved by FDA are for the treatment of hematopoietic malignancies. Tazemetostat, a EZH2 inhibitor, was approved by FDA for advanced epithelioid sarcoma, making it the first epidrug to treat solid tumors. In this chapter, we will discuss some potential epigenetic therapeutic targets in LSCC.

NSD3: the neighboring gene of FGFR1

36A recent proteogenomic portrait of LSCC suggested that WHSC1L1 (NSD3), but not FGFR1, may be the critical driver oncogene within the recurrent focal amplicon (8p11.23). NSD1, NSD2, NSD3, and ASH1L are four related enzymes in mammals which can synthesize the euchromatin-associated H3K36me2 modification. NSD3 dimethylates (adds two methyl groups to) the 36th amino acid residue in histone H3 (a lysine residue dubbed H3K36). This process, in which various chemical groups are covalently added to, or removed from, the DNA bases and the tails of the histones is referred to as epigenetic modifications. Amplification of NSD3 and its immediate neighbors (e.g., FGFR1), located on the chromosomal region 8p11-12, is one of the frequent molecular alterations in LSCC and has been implicated in the etiology of LSCC., In contrast to FGFR1, gene amplification of NSD3 correlates strongly with increased mRNA expression. Accordingly, a recent study has also shown that depletion of NSD3 in the 8p11-12 amplified LSCC cell lines and mouse model significantly attenuated tumor growth. This study also confirmed the ability of NSD3 to cooperate with SOX2 to transform human tracheobronchial epithelial (AALE) cells which further verified that NSD3 could promote human LSCC tumorgenesis (Fig. 4a).

37Given that currently there is no catalytic inhibitors of NSD3 available in physiological settings, the researchers in that study also found that the four bromodomain inhibitors (BETi) exhibited the highest differential lethality over cells with mutated NSD3. This clinical actionable vulnerability, accompanied with findings of Li et al. who used cryo-electron microscopy to solve the structures of normal and oncogenic mutant forms of NSD3 bound to a nucleosome, will certainly provide valuable information for the design and development of drugs for treating LSCC as well as other NSD-driven diseases.

SETD8

38SETD8 (also known as PR-Set7, SET8, and KMT5A) is currently the only known H4K20me1 monomethyltransferase, which is implicated in the regulation of multiple biological activities, including DNA replication, DNA damage repair, cell-cycle progression, and transcription regulation., During mitosis, SETD8 is concentrated in the nucleus during G1 and G2 phases and is degraded through ubiquitination at G1/S transition. Besides H4K20, SETD8 can also regulate the tumor-suppressor protein p53 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA), which are closely related to carcinogenesis.– SETD8 is implicated in cancer proliferation, migration, invasiveness, and oncogenesis, associated with a poor outcome.,

39In the study by Lazarus et al., BCL11A, which encodes a transcriptional regulator, was identified and characterized as a LSCC oncogene. Along with SOX2, which was also regarded as an oncogene in LSCC, this BCL11A-SOX2 transcriptional program provides a potential therapeutic window for LSCC. To disrupt this BCL11A-SOX2 transcriptional program, a Gene Ontology (GO) was performed and the SETD8 gene is selected, which is regulated by both BCL11A and SOX2. Knockdown of SETD gene could selectively inhibit LSCC tumor growth, but not LUAD cell. Besides, SETD8 inhibition also sensitizes LSCC cell lines to chemotherapy. Collectively, this study highlights the BCL11A-SOX2 transcriptional program as a novel target for LSCC and suggests the monomethyltransferase SETD8 as a potential downstream target (Fig. 4b).

LSD1

40Lysine-specific demethylase 1 (LSD1, also known as KDM1A, KIAA0601, BHC110, and AOF2) is one of the SOX2-related targets that has been extensively studied. LSD1 is the first identified histone demethylase, which has the dual substrate specificity to catalyze the demethylation of histone 3 lysine 4 (H3K4me1/2) and H3K9me1/2 for transcriptional repression.– The expression of LSD1 histone demethylase was reported to be significantly elevated in SOX2-expressing LSCC. LSCC cell lines with amplified SOX2 gene are particularly sensitive to LSD1 inactivation, whereas SOX2-negative cells are not. The regulation of SOX2 gene by LSD1 is directly through the bivalent H3K4 and H3K9 methylations. As a key regulator of SOX2, which is a lineage-survival oncogene of LSCC, LSD1 can serve as a specific and selective target for the treatment of LSCC.

41In addition to its demethylase activity, the demethylase-independent activity of LSD1 has also been implicated in carcinogenesis.,, LSD1 can act as a pseudosubstrate of FBXW7. FBXW7 is a typical tumor suppressor that targets many oncoproteins for ubiquitylation and degradation. FBXW7 dimerization is disrupted by the binding of FBXW7 and LSD1 which promotes FBXW7 self-ubiquitylation and degradation through proteasome and lysosomal pathways, independent of the demethylase activity of LSD1, thus leading to accelerated growth (Fig. 4c). The discovery of this demethylase-independent activity of LSD1 implicates that the efforts to develop LSD1 inhibitors should be extended to directly target LSD1 rather than just inhibit its demethylase activity, which should harbor broader utility in anticancer therapy.

42Currently, many LSD1 inhibitors are tested in phase I/II clinical trials, although most inhibitors were based on blocking its demethylase activity. However, the ineffectiveness of catalytic inhibition of LSD1 has been noticed in certain cancers., Therefore, targeting LSD1-involved protein interactions with the emerging technologies of PROTACs, not confined to the inhibition of its demethylate activity, may be a novel anticancer therapy in cancers with LSD1 overexpression like LSCC.

EZH2

43Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) is a histone methyltransferase associated with transcriptional repression. As an enzymatic subunit of the polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2), EZH2 catalyzes the addition of methyl group to histone 3 lysine 27 (H3K27), which serves as an anchor point for the recruitment of additional polycomb group proteins, contributing to formation of a repressive chromatin state., Overexpression of EZH2 is observed in numerous tumor entities– and associated with cancer progression and poor outcomes in patients., In LSCC, EZH2 dependency was observed in SOX2 amplified LSCC cell lines. Accordingly, the inhibition of EZH2 in TNBC could lead to the downregulation of SOX2 expression, suggesting that the inhibition of EZH2 may be an alternative strategy to depress the expression of SOX2 in LSCC.

44EZH2 is usually found in actively proliferating tissues, whereas its homolog EZH1 is present in both dividing and differentiated cells. Compared to PRC2-EZH2, PRC2-EZH1 demonstrates a lower histone methyltransferase activity, and its knockdown alone does not lead to global reduction of H3K27 methylation. This suggests that EZH2 plays a predominant role in H3K27 methyltransferase in malignant cells and provides a rationale for the development of EZH2-specific inhibitors. On the other hand, the residual H3K27 after EZH2 inhibition also suggests the rationale for dual EZH1 and EZH2 inhibition. Apart from its catalytic function, EZH2 could also modulate gene expression during carcinogenesis in a PRC2-independent way. This PRC2-independent functions is associated with other non-PRC2 partners, the interactions with which are often methyltransferase-independent.– For example, EZH2 could exert its oncogenic function as a transcriptional coactivator of androgen receptor in cells of castration-resistant prostate cancer. In acute leukemia, the noncanonical functions of EZH2 were fulfilled by binding cMyc at non-PRC2 targets and using a hidden transactivation domain (TAD) for activator recruitment and gene activation (Fig. 4d). The discovery of the noncanonical function of EZH2 provides rationale for the development of EZH2 SMIs, without necessarily inhibiting its catalytic function.

45Currently, there is only one EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat approved by FDA for advanced epithelioid sarcoma and follicular lymphoma, while other EZH2 inhibitors are still being tested in phase I/II clinical trials. Most EZH2 inhibitors developed are catalytic inhibitors of EZH2 which targets its methyltransferase function. To suppress the multifaceted activities of EZH2, including both the canonical and noncanonical activities, a PROTACs technique-based degrader, MS177, has been shown to be fast-acting and more potent in suppressing tumor growth. This surely represents a promising therapeutic strategy for the development of EZH2 inhibitors.

Targeting the immune checkpoint in LSCC

46Cancer immunotherapy has emerged as a powerful tool in the armamentarium against cancer, especially for LSCC which is refractory to currently available chemotherapy and targeted therapies. The field of oncology has been revolutionized by the emergence of cancer immunotherapy with significantly prolonged survival of patients in several fatal cancer types. Immunotherapy is increasingly being used as first-line treatment for many cancer indications. The idea of cancer immunotherapy against cancer is to deploy the immune system as a tool to treat neoplastic diseases. The first well-documented attempt to tackle cancer via the immune system dates back to 1890s, when Dr. William Coley, known as the “Father of Cancer Immunotherapy”, injected streptococcal organisms into a patient with inoperable cancer. We now understand that this effect is achieved by nonspecific immune stimulation, an approach that, while working well, received a lot of criticism at that time. Compared with traditional chemotherapy and targeted therapy, immunotherapy has potential efficacy across the boundaries of histology and driver mutational status and can lead to sustained remissions for those patients who achieve a response with fewer side effects.,, In this part, we will mainly discuss ICB therapies in LSCC. The current application of cancer immunotherapy in LSCC was summarized in Table 1. We will also present new insights into current immunotherapeutic targets as well as new targets for ICB therapies.

ICB therapy

47Immune-checkpoint blockade is one of the most promising approaches to activating antitumor immunity. The immune-checkpoint pathways are involved in the major mechanisms underlying tumor immune evasion. Physiologically, these immunosuppressive signaling pathways play important roles in maintaining self-tolerance to prevent autoimmunity, limit immune-mediated tissue damage, and control the resolution of inflammation., Cancer cells may take advantage of these immune checkpoints to disguise themselves from body immune system., Among these immune checkpoints, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and PD-1/PD-L1 axis are the most potent examples of T-cell immune-checkpoint molecules. The ICB therapies which were approved by FDA or National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) for LSCC are summarized in Table 1.

CTLA-4: the first clinically targeted immune-checkpoint receptor

48CTLA-4 is a homolog of CD28 and binds both B7-1 (also known as CD80) and B7-2 (also known as CD86) with much higher affinity than CD28.– The CTLA-4 and CD28 genes are located in the same region of chromosome 2 (2q33.2) and are expressed by both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells with opposing functions in T-cell activation., Through interacting with a pair of ligands (B7-1 and B7-2) expressed on antigen-presenting cells (APCs), including macrophages, dendritic cells (DCs) and B cells, CD28 mediates T-cell activation by co-stimulating T-cell receptor (TCR) signaling while the interaction of the ligands with CTLA-4 serves to inhibit T-cell response. These regulatory effects of CTLA-4 mainly restrict the expansion of CD4+ helper T cells while boosting regulatory T cells (Tregs),, thus leading to a pro-tumor immunosuppressive phenotype.

49The recognition of CTLA-4 as a negative regulator of T-cell activation makes antagonizing CTLA-4 a reasonable method to enhance the antitumor immunity of T cells. Initial preclinical studies found that CTLA-4 blockade enhanced antitumor immunity and caused regression of immunogenic tumors without inducing substantial autoimmunity., Based on these preclinical findings, several clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of CTLA-4 antibodies in tumors,– which finally led to the FDA approval of ipilimumab by FDA for the treatment of advanced melanoma. However, the impressive effects of ipilimumab in melanoma patients did not proceed in renal cell carcinoma, NSCLC, small-cell lung cancer and prostate cancer. Another CTLA-4-blocking antibody, tremelimumab, has not received FDA approval since it did not improve survival compared to chemotherapy in metastatic melanoma. As the first immune-checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab is also currently the only CTLA-4-blocking antibody that has gained approval for anticancer treatment. No CTLA-4 inhibitors have been approved as monotherapy or in combination therapy with chemotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC (Table 1).

50The fact that anti-CTLA-4 antibodies are capable to induce long-term immunity in cancer patients demonstrates that CTLA-4 remains an important immunotherapy target., Nevertheless, CTLA-4-targeting inhibitors have not reached its full potential, as evidenced by high rates of immunotherapy-related adverse effects (irAEs) and relatively low response rates. The strong irAEs of ipilimumab limit the doses tolerated by cancer patients. Both anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies have irAEs, while the effects of anti-CTLA-4 therapy are generally more severe.– The dose-limiting toxicity of ipilimumab presented an opportunity of developing the next-generation molecules with wider therapeutic window.– Recently, additional mechanisms were raised to explain the immunotherapeutic effects of anti-CTLA-4 mAbs, including depletion of regulatory T cells (Tregs) in TME.,– According to Du et al., ipilimumab remains full activity without blocking B7-CTLA-4 interaction. In their studies, the humanized antibodies they developed without blockade of the B7-CTLA-4 interaction were as effective as ipilimumab at causing rejection of cancer. To further confirm that this tumor rejection was induced by Tregs depletion through antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), concurrent administration of anti-FcR antibodies treatment completely abolished the anticancer effect of ipilimumab. Collectively, these findings suggest that the selective Treg depletion in the tumors may be the primary mechanism of antitumor effect of anti-CTLA-4 antibody rather than the blockade of B7-CTLA-4 interactions (Fig. 5).

51Many new types of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies have been developed to increase antitumor effect, reduce side effects, or both. Increasing the ability of Fc to bind to FcR is one of the strategies to enhance the antitumor effect which can be achieved through a non-fucosylated derivative of ipilimumab (BMS986218) or an engineered Fc variant of an anti-CTLA-4 antibody (AGEN-1181or its mouse surrogate). The next-gen anti-CTLA-4 mAb, ONC-392, which effectively and selectively eliminates Tregs, has been granted Fast Track designation granted by FDA for monotherapy in PD-(L)1-resistant NSCLC. Different from other anti-CTLA-4 mAbs being tested, the pH-sensitivity nature of ONC-392 avoids antibody-triggered lysosomal degradation of CTLA-4, thereby reducing toxicity and exerting its anticancer potential. ONC-392 is currently being evaluated in Phase I clinical trial (PRESERVE-001; NCT04140526) for advanced solid tumors and NSCLC. An additional approach to moderate the adverse event profile of anti-CTLA-4 is to limit the CTLA-4 blockade within the tumor. For example, a “proform” of ipilimumab (BMS-986249) was synthesized, which was designed to remain inert in the periphery, but have activity restored when unmasked by tumor-associated proteases. Another approach is to generate a pH-selective form of ipilimumab, which could preferentially and reversibly target the acidic TME over the neutral periphery.

PD-1 axis

52PD-1 axis was the second immune-checkpoint pathway targeted for ICB therapy. In 2014, fully humanized anti-PD-1 mAbs pembrolizumab and nivolumab became the first PD-1 targeted therapeutics approved by FDA for refractory and advanced melanoma.,– Although anti-PD-(L)1 therapy entered the market later than anti-CTLA-4 therapy, PD (L)-1 blockade have shown broader clinical utility than anti-CTLA-4 treatment. For LSCC, a number of anti-PD-(L)1 therapeutics have been approved by FDA and NMPA as monotherapy or in combination therapy with chemotherapy (Table 1).

53PD-1 was first identified as a putative mediator of apoptosis in 1992, and its role in maintaining peripheral tolerance by serving as a negative regulator of immune responses was elucidated in 1999 when Nishimura et al. found that PD-1-deficient mice developed a late onset of lupus-like autoimmune disease. Nearly at the same time, Dong et al. revealed a new member of the B7 family which might be involved in the negative regulation of cell-mediated immune responses. In the next year, this new member of the B7 family was confirmed to be the ligand of PD-1 (PD-L1) and an inhibitor of T-cell activation. PD-L2, a second ligand with higher affinity for PD-1, was also identified., Subsequent work found out that PD-L2 could have both co-stimulatory and co-inhibitory functions depending on the receptor and context. After being implicated in the negative regulation of T cells, the PD-1 axis was regarded as an active target of developing anticancer therapies. Multiple preclinical studies have showed that the PD-1 axis in the tumor causes the resistance to immune-mediated cytolysis, while blocking PD-L1 or PD-1 with specific mAbs in tumors could reverse tumors’ inherent resistance to cytotoxicity by T cells.– However, solely blocking PD-L2 did not demonstrate any antitumor effect. Following the success of preclinical studies, mAbs targeting the PD-1 axis were designed and showed remarkable efficacy in clinical trials. In a head-to-head comparison for PD-L1 expressing advanced NSCLC, monotherapy with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab showed significantly better OS and lower incidence of adverse events than chemotherapy., The PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab also resulted in significantly longer OS than platinum-based chemotherapy in NSCLC patients with high PD-L1 expression.,

54As studies in immunotherapy increase, difference between the clinical effect of anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 has been reported. Such disparities have drawn the attention of clinicians and a better understanding of this discrepancy may guide us for a better administration of these drugs. Currently there are no head-to-head comparisons of anti-PD-1 mAbs and anti-PD-L1 mAbs in clinical trials. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Duan et al. adjusted indirect comparisons based on a well-designed mirror principle to minimize the potential bias and found out that anti-PD-1 mAbs appeared to exhibit significantly greater OS compared with anti-PD-L1 with a comparable safety profile in patients with solid tumors. The possible reason for the improved efficacy of anti-PD-1 mAbs compared with anti-PD-L1 mAbs may come from the mechanisms of PD-1 and PD-L1 blockade in anticancer therapy. Anti-PD-1 mAbs can bind to PD-1 and further block the interaction between PD-1 and its ligands (PD-L1 and PD-L2), while the PD-1/PD-L2 axis remains intact and exerts its immune suppressive functions when PD-L1 is blocked by anti-PD-L1 mAbs. Nevertheless, the blockade of PD-1 may shift the balance of the binding of PD-L2 with its other partner, repulsive guidance molecule b (RGMb), which can lead to pneumonitis. This is also confirmed by the fact that patients treated with PD-1 inhibitors have a higher incidence of pneumonitis than patients who received PD-L1 inhibitors.,

55Although great success has been achieved in the treatment of LSCC with the advent of PD-1 axis inhibitors, the ORR of PD-1 axis inhibitor in the treatment of advanced NSCLC is ~30%., Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the establishment of effective biomarkers for predicting the efficacy of anti-PD-1 axis agents. The assessment of PD-L1 expression on tumor cells is a logical biomarker for the prediction of treatment response to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapies. A real-world study in China has found out that LSCC patients were associated with higher incidence rate of positive PD-L1 expression, suggesting a benefit of using ICIs in LSCC patients. Although PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) plays an important role in patient stratification in clinical trials of anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapies, it has poor reliability as a biomarker for anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapies, as patients with negative PD-L1 expression can still benefit from anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapies.– Beyond PD-L1 expression, several other biomarkers have also successively predicted the efficacy of ICB therapy to certain extent. Among them, tumor mutational burden (TMB), gene expression profiling (GEP), and multiplex immunohistochemistry/immunofluorescence (mIHC/IF) are mostly used. Due to the lack of accurate assessment of response, future improvements in diagnostic accuracy may be achieved through a multiple incorporation of existing markers and newly discovered markers.–

LAG3

56Lymphocyte activating gene 3 (LAG3, also known as CD223), first discovered in 1990, is a transmembrane molecule that is expressed on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, natural killer T (NKT) cells, natural killer (NK) cells, plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) and Tregs., The LAG3 gene is located on human chromosome 12 (12p13.31), adjacent to the coding region of CD4. The LAG3 protein and CD4 protein share approximately 20% similarities in their amino acid sequences, which is mostly pronounced on their extracellular regions., Due to this similarity in extracellular structures, like CD4, LAG3 can also bind to major histocompatibility complex class II (MHC-II) proteins, but with higher affinity, which is also the canonical ligand for LAG3. Once LAG3 binds to MHC-II proteins, the inhibitory signals are transmitted through its cytoplasmic domain, thereby downregulating T-cell function. Several other ligands were also found to interact with LAG3, including Galectin-3 (Gal-3), liver sinusoidal endothelial cell lectin, (LSECtin), and fibrinogen-like protein 1 (FGL1).

57The fact that LAG3-deficient T cells show enhanced homeostatic expansion suggests the inhibitory role of LAG3 in immune responses., LAG3 is co-expressed with other inhibitory receptors, such as PD-1, on CD8+ tumor antigen-specific T cells under chronic tumor antigen stimulation, which leads to T-cell exhaustion., LAG3 expression was also confirmed to play an important role in supporting Tregs activity. In intratumoral Tregs, LAG3 is expressed at a higher level than in Tregs found in peripheral or normal tissue., Multiple LAG3-modulating candidates have been developed, including LAG3-inhibiting antibody and LAG3 fusion protein. However, LAG3 monotherapy in several mouse models has shown limited antitumor effect with slightly reduced tumor growth, whereas LAG3/PD-1 co-blockade has shown much stronger synergistic antitumor effects.– Several anti-LAG3 antibodies are currently being evaluated in clinical trials, in which relatlimab is the furthest along in clinical development among all the anti-LAG3 mAb. On March 18, 2022, the combination therapy of relatlimab and nivolumab was approved by FDA for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, making LAG3 the third FDA-approved immune checkpoint that was approved by FDA after CTLA-4 and PD-1 axis., This approval of LAG3 mAb marks an exciting beginning for this inhibitory receptor but many aspects of its biological functions still remain enigmatic. New ligands of LAG3 are still emerging and the effects of LAG3 on immune cells remain to be fully characterized. For LSCC, several anti-LAG3 antibodies and bispecific antibodies are being evaluated in phase I and phase II clinical trials (Table 2).

Other targets for ICB

58More negative regulators of T-cell activation have been discovered which are potential targets for ICB, including T-cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domain (TIGIT), T-cell immunoglobulin 3 (TIM3), V-domain immunoglobulin suppressor of T-cell activation (VISTA).

59TIGIT is a member of the immunoglobulin superfamily and was first identified in 2009. Highly expressed on human and murine tumor-infiltrating T cells, dual PD-1/PD-L1 and TIGIT blockade is a promising combination immunotherapy for cancer. Co-targeting of TIGIT with PD-1 axis is supported by preclinical studies, which demonstrated a synergistic effect in augmenting proliferation and function of antitumor CD8+ T cells than that shown in each single blockade.– Tiragolumab is the first anti-TIGIT mAb tested in a phase II study. In the phase II CITYSCAPE study, tiragolumab plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive NSCLC have shown significantly improved efficacy compared with atezolizumab alone. Despite the success in this phase II study, the phase III SKYSCRAPER-01 study, which evaluated tiragolumab plus atezolizumab for PD-L1-high metastatic NSCLC, did not meet its co-primary endpoint of PFS while the other co-primary endpoint of OS was immature. Despite this discouraging news, it is also possible that this combination of immunotherapy may have benefits in long-term efficacy indicators like OS, which has been confirmed in previous immunotherapy clinical trials. Before the results of OS came out, it might be too early to judge this combination therapy. Currently, three other combination therapies of anti-TIGIT agents and anti-PD-1 axis agents are being evaluated in phase III clinical trials (Table 2).

60TIM3 was originally found to be expressed on differentiated Th1 cells, which has also been defined as a marker for terminally differentiated effector Th1 cells., There is a firm connection between elevated TIM3 expression and exhausted CD8+ T cell.– This elevated expression level of TIM3 in exhausted T cells is also associated with PD-1 expression, suggesting a correlation between TIM3 and PD-1 in T-cells exhaustion.– Most clinical trials of TIM3 inhibitors are assessing the efficacy of the combination of TIM3 inhibitors and anti-PD-1 axis mAbs (e.g., NCT03680508, NCT03099109).

61Like TIM3, VISTA (also known as PD-1H, B7-H5) is also a promising target for combination immunotherapy. VISTA shares significant sequence homology with the B7 family ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2 and imposes quiescence on mammalian myeloid and naïve T cells., The interaction of VISTA and its ligand P-selectin glycoprotein ligand 1 (PSGL-1) is governed by pH, selectively at acidic pH such as that found in TME. Most antibodies that target VISTA are being evaluated in preclinical studies. Only a few anti-VISTA drugs are currently being assessed in phase I studies (e.g., NCT05082610, NCT04564417).

62Activating receptors on T cells have also been extensively studied as targets for immunotherapy, including inducible co-stimulator (ICOS, also known as CD278), tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 4 (TNFRSF4, also known as CD134, OX40), tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 9 (TNFRSF9, also known as 4-1BB). However, the distinct nature of agonist antibodies targeting immune co-stimulatory receptors rendered them unique among other antibody therapies in cancer. Some next-generation approaches, such as recombinant ligands and bispecific antibodies, may help unlock the full therapeutic potential of such targets.

CTLA-4 and PD-1 axis

63The distinct functions of CTLA-4 and PD-1 axis are reflected in the different toxicity seen in their respective knockout mouse models. Mice lacking the CTLA-4 gene developed lymphoproliferative diseases and died by 3–4 weeks of age,, whereas mice lacking PD-1 had more limited and variable, model-dependent autoimmunity, including glomerulonephritis, arthritis and cardiomyopathy.,– Spatially, CTLA-4 regulation occurs primarily within lymphoid organs, whereas PD-1 limits T-cell activation locally within peripheral tissues., Temporally, PD-1 acts later during T-cell activation for long-term tolerance. The distinct functions of CTLA-4 and PD-1 axis provide a rationale for the combination therapy of CTLA-4 and PD-1 axis blockade. Combinations of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1, or anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-L1, have shown improved efficacy than either agent alone in clinical trials or preclinical models.,– In NSCLC, based on the results of checkmate 227 clinical trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab has been approved by FDA for the first-line treatment of patients with tumors expressing PD-L1(≥1%), which was also the first chemotherapy-free regimen for NSCLC. Besides, nivolumab plus ipilimumab and two cycles of platinum-doublet chemotherapy is also FDA-approved for the first-line treatment of advanced NSCLC, regardless of tumor PD-L1 expression.

64Despite the success of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the treatment of NSCLC, there were also negative results from clinical trials evaluating the combination ICB therapy. In the phase III MYSTIC study, durvalumab plus tremelimumab did not significantly improve OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy in metastatic NSCLC. For advanced, pretreated, immune-checkpoint inhibitor-naive LSCC, the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab did not improve outcomes. These results demonstrate the need for a better mechanistic understanding of the crosstalk among anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-CTLA-4. The cis-PD-L1/CD80 interactions were found to have implications in the synergy of anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 combination therapy., Recognized as the ligands of PD-1 and CD28/CTLA-4 respectively, PD-L1 and CD80 were also found to interact with each other., Recent studies reported that PD-L1 and CD80 could heterodimerize in cis when these molecules are overexpressed on the same cell., This PD-L1:CD80 cis-heterodimerization could inhibit both PD-L1:PD-1 and CD80:CTLA-4 interactions through distinct mechanisms while preserving the ability of CD80 to activate the T-cell co-stimulatory receptor CD28. Therefore, by disrupting PD-L1:CD80 heterodimers, anti-PD-L1 mAbs licenses high-avidity CD80:CTLA-4 interactions which triggers Treg-mediated depletion of CD80 from APCs and inhibits CD28 co-stimulation. Since this CD80 depletion by anti-PD-L1 is CTLA-4 dependent and can be reversed by CTLA-4 blockade,, it provides a rationale for co-blocking PD-L1 and CTLA-4 in cancer immunotherapy. In another study, Tekguc et al. also found that the Treg-mediated depletion of CD80 from APCs via CTLA-4-dependent trogocytosis can also increase free PD-L1 available for the inhibition of PD-1 expressing effector T cells. Therefore, the combination of blocking CTLA-4 and PD-1 axis may synergistically hinder this Treg-mediated immunosuppression and enhance antitumor efficacy.

65Some bispecific antibodies, capable of simultaneously binding PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 with high affinity, are also being evaluated in ongoing clinical trials (Table 2)., KN046, a novel bispecific antibody that blocks PD-L1 interaction with PD-1 and CTLA-4 interaction with CD80/CD86, was well tolerated and effective in treating advanced NSCLC, with promising PFS and OS benefits in LSCC. Pivotal Phase III clinical trials in advanced unresectable or metastatic LSCC is currently ongoing for this bispecific antibody (NCT04474119).

ICB and PI3K pathway inhibition

66The hyperactive PI3K signaling, whether it is the consequence of PI3KCA mutations or PTEN deletions, can promote the establishment of tumor suppression by developing tumors, suggesting the potential use of PI3K inhibitor to enhance the efficacy of immunotherapy in the clinic (Fig. 6a). In preclinical models of melanoma, loss of PTEN in tumor cells inhibits T-cell-mediated tumor killing and restricts T-cell trafficking into tumors. A number of immunosuppressive cytokines, including CCL12 and VEGF are elevated in melanoma patients harboring PTEN loss. In this study, the lipidation of autophagosome protein LC3 and autophagy in tumor cells, which can decrease T-cell priming and modulate resistance to T-cell-mediated apoptosis, is also inhibited due to the loss of PTEN protein and activation of PI3K. Consistent with these findings, previous studies have also found that inactivation of PI3Kδ could break Tregs-mediated tumor immune tolerance, resulting in the activation of CD8+ T-cell responses and subsequent tumor regression.– The Tregs T-cell receptor (TCR) downstream signaling, proliferation, and survival are dominantly dependent on PI3Kδ, but not PI3Kα or PI3Kβ. This potential adjuvant role for PI3Kδ inhibition in cancer immunotherapy was confirmed in a neoadjuvant, phase II clinical trial treatment-naive patients with resectable HNSCC. The inhibition of PI3Kδ by AMG319 decreased the number of tumor-infiltrating Tregs and activated intratumoral CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. However, the unfavorable safety profile should also be noticed, with frequent and severe grade 3/4 irAEs, probably driven by the systemic effect on Tregs in non-malignant tissues. Besides, as PI3K signaling is also essential in maintaining effector T-cell function,– a systemic inhibition of PI3Kδ impairs the function of CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocytes, which antagonizes ICB therapy intending to boost the CD8+ T-cell response, counteracting any advantages brought by impairing intratumoral Tregs. The protocols of administrating PI3Kδ inhibitors were considered as an essential part. A modified treatment regimen with intermittent dosing of PI3Kδ inhibitors has shown a comparable antitumor efficacy while limiting toxicity.– In addition, given that PI3Kδ signaling might be required for signaling reactivation in exhausted T cells by ICB therapy,, sequential combination treatment might be more effective. The study of Isoyama et al. confirmed that the combination protocol with anti-PD-1 mAb administrated first, followed by anti-PD-1 mAb plus PI3Kδ inhibitor induced the most effective and durable antitumor activity.

ICB and CDK4/6 inhibition

67CDK4/6 is regarded as a promising target in treating LSCC when appropriate candidate patients are identified by the downstream functional assessment. Recent studies have found that inhibition of CDK4/6 not only induces tumor cell-cycle arrest, but also increases T-cell inflammatory signature in tumors, which may act synergistically with ICB therapies, (Fig. 6b). In mouse models, combining CDK4/6 inhibitors with PD-1 axis inhibitors resulted in significantly improved antitumor efficacy compared with either treatment alone.– The mechanisms of this synergistic effects have been under extensive studies recently. Goel et al. found that the inhibition of CDK4/6 could increase the functional capacity of tumor cells to present antigens. Besides, CDK4/6 inhibitors could markedly and selectively reduce the immunosuppressive Tregs population. This preference of CDK4/6 inhibitor may be attributed to the higher expression level of RB by Tregs (3.1-fold higher in Tregs than in CD8+ T cells,) a key modulator of CDK4/6 pathway. The inhibition of CDK4/6 in tumor cells also increases PD-L1 protein levels, which could be one of the mechanisms leading to the resistance of CDK4/6 inhibitor via evasion of immune checkpoints surveillance. This provides the rationale for the combination of PD-L1 blockade treatment and CDK4/6 inhibitors as a more potent antitumor treatment option. Properly timed and sequenced doses of CDK4/6 inhibitors could enhance T-cell activation and induce T-cell memory for maintaining long-term antitumor immunity., Despite the great efficacy shown in preclinical models, some clinical trials co-administering CDK4/6 inhibitors and ICB therapy were halted because of severe toxicity (e.g., NCT02779751,, NCT04118036, NCT04075604). A different administrating method of CDK4/6 inhibitors has been proposed which may mitigate the toxicity risk., The capacity of CDK4/6 inhibitors to promote T-cell memory gives rationales for using CDK4/6 inhibitors as a preconditioning tool, priming the T-cell pool before the application of ICB. In mouse models, preconditioning tumor-bearing mice with a CDK4/6 inhibitor significantly improved the efficacy of anti-PD-1 ICB therapy. Taken together, these results suggest CDK4/6 inhibition in combination with immunotherapy is a promising therapeutic strategy but still needs further investigation.

ICB and VEGF-VEGFR signaling blockade

68With over 30 years of extensive research on VEGF, the biological role of VEGF has extended beyond its impact on neovascularization and angiogenesis, which also functions as an immunomodulator (Fig. 6c). It has been shown that multiple immune cells could be influenced by VEGF, including DCs, T cells, Tregs, and MDSCs. Both in animal models and humans, the inhibition of VEGF could increase the number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes., VEGF is also important for the expansion of the immunosuppressive MDSCs via its binding to VEGFR1, which further promotes an immunosuppressive microenvironment by de novo development of Tregs. In renal cell carcinoma, the inhibition of VEGF-VEGFR signaling by either mAbs or VEGF-TKIs could reverse MDSC-mediated immunosuppression., This immunosuppressive profile of the VEGF/VEGFR axis is also confirmed by the fact that VEGF-A-VEGFR pathway blockade inhibits tumor-induced proliferation of Tregs., Aberrant angiogenesis within the TME can mediate immune escape and reduce the efficacy of immunotherapy by hampering the delivery of drugs, oxygen, and effector T cells., This tumor hypoxia promotes the recruitment of Tregs, which facilitates angiogenesis through excess production of VEGF. In hand with other tolerogenic leukocyte populations such as MDSCs and pDCs which also produce VEGF and support angiogenesis, this leads to further tumor tolerance and growth. During adaption to the hypoxic TME, tumor-infiltrating cytotoxic T cells are characterized by high glycolytic rates., A recent study has found that hypoxia-inducible transcription factor 1α (HIF1α) is essential for the effector state in CD8+ T cells. VEGF-deficient CD8+ T cells showed lower efficiency on infiltrating tumors. An HIF1α/VEGF axis has been proposed in cytotoxic T cells to regulate tumor progression. The above-mentioned findings provide further evidence for the ongoing clinical evaluation of combined immunotherapies and antiangiogenic approaches. Currently, the only approved combination therapy of immunotherapy and antiangiogenic approach for NSCLC is the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic non-squamous NSCLC with no EGFR or ALK genomic tumor aberrations. AK112, a tetrameric bispecific antibody targeting PD-1 and VEGF, has shown in a phase I dose-escalation study with a manageable safety profile. It is currently being evaluated in a phase II clinical trial for stage IIIB/C or IV NSCLC (NCT04736823).

ICB and epigenetic therapies

69Recent studies revealed the prominent role for modulating immune cells and regulating anticancer immune response by epigenetic therapy, which nominates these epidrugs a new category of immune modulators.– These preclinical findings have led to the evaluation of various epidrugs and immunotherapy combinations in clinical trials for treatment of LSCC (Table 2). Some combinations of epidrugs and ICB therapy in early-stage clinical trials have demonstrated significant clinical activity and acceptable safety. In this part, we will discuss the combination of ICB therapy with inhibition of potentially effective epigenetic targets in LSCC.

70An important epigenetic modulator in LSCC is the H3K27 methyltransferase EZH2, whose dependency was observed in SOX2 amplified LSCC cell lines. Like other epigenetic modulators, EZH2 also plays an important role in mediating the immune response to the tumor both in tumor cells and immune cells (Fig. 6d). Previous studies have found that EZH2 can repress the expression and subsequent production of Th1-type chemokines CXCL9 and CXCL10, thus preventing efficient T-cell trafficking to tumors, a process that can be reversed by EZH2 inhibition in combination with anti-PD-L1 checkpoint blockade., Through its epigenetic reprogramming of T-cell antigen-presenting gene, EZH2 has been shown to be a driver of resistance to cancer immunotherapy.– Besides, EZH2 plays an important role in maintaining the identity of immunosuppressive Tregs during cellular activation, where it is recruited by Foxp3 to repress key genes., Disruption of EZH2 activity in Tregs can reprogram the tumor-infiltrating Tregs for pro-inflammatory activities, thereby enhancing the recruitment and function of CD8+ and CD4+ effector T cells to eliminate tumors. The dual functions of EZH2 in repressing antigen presentation and altering Tregs functions makes the EZH2 inhibition a rational strategy in combination with CTLA-4 inhibitors or PD-1 axis inhibitors, respectively. Indeed, the additional efficacy of both combination strategies was confirmed in preclinical mouse models.– This synergistic effect of EZH2 blockade and ICB therapy is currently being validated in multiple clinical trials (e.g., NCT02220842, NCT03854474, NCT04407741).

71As a direct regulator of SOX2, which is a lineage-survival oncogene of LSCC, inhibition of LSD1 is regarded as a promising treatment strategy for LSCC. Recently, studies have also found that this epigenetic regulator is important in regulating tumor immunity (Fig. 6e). In 2018, Sheng et al. found that the inhibition of this histone demethylase in cancer cells resulted in double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) stress and activation of type 1 interferon, thereby stimulating potent antitumor T-cell immunity. Furthermore, the inhibition of LSD1 could elicit significant response to anti-PD-1 therapy in ICB-refractory mouse melanoma. Consistently, TCGA data analysis reveals an inverse correlation between LSD1 expression and CD8+ T-cell infiltration in various human cancers. In the same year, Qin et al. also found that combining LSD1 inhibitors with anti-PD-1 mAbs significantly suppressed tumor growth and pulmonary metastasis in mice bearing TNBC xenograft tumors, whereas anti-PD-1 mAbs alone failed to elicit an obvious anticancer effect. Over the next few years, the enhancement of immunotherapy efficacy through inhibiting LSD1 was also demonstrated in several other tumors.– The mechanisms of LSD1 ablation in tumor immunity have not been clearly elucidated. According to Liu et al., the inhibition of LSD1 in T cells increases the persistence of the progenitor-exhausted CD8+ T cells through augmenting the transcriptional network controlled by T-cell factor 1 (TCF1), which is essential for maintaining the progenitor phenotype. These progenitor-exhausted CD8+ T cells are characterized by high proliferation capacity, which gives rise to more differentiated cells with strong cytotoxicity. These properties make progenitor-exhausted CD8+ T cells a major determinant of responses to PD-1 axis blockade.– Based on this synergistic effect of LSD1 inhibitors and PD-1 axis inhibitors, there is already an ongoing clinical trial evaluating this combination therapy in SCLC and LSCC patients (NCT04350463). Another study has proposed the addition of blocking TGF-β in this combination therapy. The efficacy of this triple combination therapy has been validated in certain poorly immunogenic or “cold” tumors. However, the safety and efficacy of this combination strategy still need to be verified in future studies.

Conclusions and future perspectives

72Accounting for ~30% of all NSCLC, LSCC remains a leading cause of death with few therapeutic options., While targeted therapies demonstrated significant benefits in LUAD patients, patients with LSCC have not benefited from targeted therapy due to the distinct nature of LSCC., The advent of immunotherapies has significantly improved the prognosis of patients with LSCC, and this burgeoning field of cancer immunotherapy continues to grow as new druggable targets are discovered. With comprehensive proteogenomic data, the established LSCC biology can be more deeply elucidated, potentially uncovering new potential implicated therapeutics targets.

73In this review, we discussed some new insights in some signaling pathways which have been proved in other cancer types, like PI3K pathway, CDK4/6 pathway and VEGF/VEGFR signaling. The two key squamous differentiation markers SOX2 and TP63 offer the chance of therapeutic targets in LSCC. SOX2 was considered undruggable before, thus intensifying therapeutic interests in upstream or downstream targets, including LSD1 and EZH2. Newly identified epigenetic targets, like NSD3, were also emerging as potential targets in treating LSCC. Having shown great benefits in LSCC, ICB therapies still faced the problems of a relatively low response rate and high rate of irAEs in some cases. We discussed some newly discovered mechanisms of these immune checkpoints which may be useful in tackling these problems. Combinations of different ICB therapies or ICB therapy and other targeted therapies have emerged as an appealing treatment paradigm. Whether it is the combination of ICB therapies plus epigenetic therapies, or ICB therapies plus VEGF-VEGFR inhibitor, it represents an innate inner connection among these different signaling pathways. With the persistent exploration of these complex biological interactions among different signaling pathways, it will surely provide exciting opportunities for new, improved and personalized therapeutic interventions in LSCC patients. Multi-omics clustering has identified five LSCC molecular subtypes and this heterogeneity of LSCC reveals the fact that combination therapies targeting more than one target or signaling pathway may yield more therapeutic choices. In the last decade, ICB therapies have made a major breakthrough in improving the prognosis of LSCC patients both in the first- and second-line settings. We believe immunotherapy will remain the pillar of LSCC treatment. Meanwhile, the clinical translation of other novel therapeutic targets is still in a great demand which may improve the efficacy of current ICB therapy-based regimens.

References 538

1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2022;72:7-33.
Not in our library10.3322/caac.21708
2.
Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021;71:209-249.
Not in our library10.3322/caac.21660
3.
Herbst RS, Morgensztern D, Boshoff C. The biology and management of non-small cell lung cancer. Nature. 2018;553:446-454.
Not in our library10.1038/nature25183
4.
Heist RS, Sequist LV, Engelman JA. Genetic changes in squamous cell lung cancer: a review. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2012;7:924-933.
Not in our library10.1097/jto.0b013e31824cc334
5.
Society, A. C. Cancer facts & figures 2022. https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/research/cancer-facts-and-statistics/annual-cancer-facts-and-figures/2022/2022-cancer-facts-and-figures.pdf (2022).
Not in our library
6.
Therapeutic advances in non‐small cell lung cancer: Focus on clinical development of targeted therapy and immunotherapy · 2021
Not checked
7.
Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma. Nature511, 543–550 (2014).
Not in our library10.1038/nature13385
8.
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ311, 899–909 (1995).
Not in our library
9.
Paez JG, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004;304:1497-1500.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1099314
10.
Lynch TJ, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;350:2129-2139.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa040938
11.
Paik PK, et al. A phase Ib open-label multicenter study of AZD4547 in patients with advanced squamous cell lung cancers. Clin. Cancer Res. 2017;23:5366-5373.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-0645
12.
Lim SH, et al. Efficacy and safety of dovitinib in pretreated patients with advanced squamous non-small cell lung cancer with FGFR1 amplification: a single-arm, phase 2 study. Cancer. 2016;122:3024-3031.
Not in our library10.1002/cncr.30135
13.
Nogova L, et al. Evaluation of BGJ398, a fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-3 kinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring genetic alterations in fibroblast growth factor receptors: results of a global phase I, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2017;35:157-165.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2016.67.2048
14.
Tabernero J, et al. Phase I dose-escalation study of JNJ-42756493, an oral pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:3401-3408.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2014.60.7341
15.
Aggarwal C, et al. SWOG S1400D (NCT02965378), a phase II study of the fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitor AZD4547 in previously treated patients with fibroblast growth factor pathway-activated stage IV squamous cell lung cancer (Lung-MAP Substudy). J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019;14:1847-1852.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2019.05.041
16.
Vansteenkiste JF, et al. Safety and efficacy of buparlisib (BKM120) in patients with PI3K pathway-activated non-small cell lung cancer: results from the phase II BASALT-1 study. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015;10:1319-1327.
Not in our library10.1097/jto.0000000000000607
17.
Langer CJ, et al. SWOG S1400B (NCT02785913), a phase II study of GDC-0032 (taselisib) for previously treated PI3K-positive patients with stage IV squamous cell lung cancer (Lung-MAP Sub-Study). J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019;14:1839-1846.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2019.05.029
18.
Bendell JC, et al. A first-in-human phase 1 study of LY3023414, an oral PI3K/mTOR dual inhibitor, in patients with advanced cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2018;24:3253-3262.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-17-3421
19.
Edelman MJ, et al. SWOG S1400C (NCT02154490)—a phase II study of palbociclib for previously treated cell cycle gene alteration-positive patients with stage IV squamous cell lung cancer (Lung-MAP Substudy). J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019;14:1853-1859.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2019.06.027
20.
Campbell JD, et al. Distinct patterns of somatic genome alterations in lung adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas. Nat. Genet. 2016;48:607-616.
Not in our library10.1038/ng.3564
21.
Sun Y, et al. EGFR mutations subset in Chinese lung squamous cell carcinoma patients. Mol. Med. Rep. 2018;17:7575-7584.
Not in our library10.3892/mmr.2018.8859
22.
KRAS Mutations in Squamous Cell Carcinomas of the Lung · 2021
Not checked
23.
Redman MW, et al. Biomarker-driven therapies for previously treated squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (Lung-MAP SWOG S1400): a biomarker-driven master protocol. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1589-1601.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30475-7
24.
Forde PM, Kelly RJ, Brahmer JR. New strategies in lung cancer: translating immunotherapy into clinical practice. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014;20:1067-1073.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-0731
25.
Sharma P, Allison JP. Immune checkpoint targeting in cancer therapy: toward combination strategies with curative potential. Cell. 2015;161:205-214.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.030
26.
Reck M, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for PD-L1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016;375:1823-1833.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1606774
27.
Herbst RS, et al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of PD-L1-selected patients with NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;383:1328-1339.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1917346
28.
Herbst RS, et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1540-1550.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01281-7
29.
Paz-Ares L, et al. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;379:2040-2051.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1810865
30.
Hellmann MD, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019;381:2020-2031.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1910231
31.
Paz-Ares L, et al. First-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab combined with two cycles of chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (CheckMate 9LA): an international, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:198-211.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30641-0
32.
Sezer A, et al. Cemiplimab monotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 of at least 50%: a multicentre, open-label, global, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2021;397:592-604.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(21)00228-2
33.
Zhou C, et al. Sintilimab plus platinum and gemcitabine as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC: results from a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial (ORIENT-12). J. Thorac. Oncol. 2021;16:1501-1511.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2021.04.011
34.
Matasar MJ, et al. Copanlisib plus rituximab versus placebo plus rituximab in patients with relapsed indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (CHRONOS-3): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:678-689.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00145-5
35.
Ren S, et al. Camrelizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment for advanced squamous NSCLC (CameL-Sq): a phase 3 trial. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2022;17:544-557.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2021.11.018
36.
Zhou C, et al. Sugemalimab versus placebo, in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, as first-line treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (GEMSTONE-302): interim and final analyses of a double-blind, randomised, phase 3 clinical trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:220-233.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(21)00650-1
37.
Kim Y, et al. Integrative and comparative genomic analysis of lung squamous cell carcinomas in East Asian patients. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014;32:121-128.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2013.50.8556
38.
Satpathy S, et al. A proteogenomic portrait of lung squamous cell carcinoma. Cell. 2021;184:4348-4371.e4340.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2021.07.016
39.
Qian J, Massion PP. Role of chromosome 3q amplification in lung cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2008;3:212-215.
Not in our library10.1097/jto.0b013e3181663544
40.
Bass AJ, et al. SOX2 is an amplified lineage-survival oncogene in lung and esophageal squamous cell carcinomas. Nat. Genet. 2009;41:1238-1242.
Not in our library10.1038/ng.465
41.
Ramos AH, et al. Amplification of chromosomal segment 4q12 in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Biol. Ther. 2009;8:2042-2050.
Not in our library10.4161/cbt.8.21.9764
42.
Hoadley KA, et al. Multiplatform analysis of 12 cancer types reveals molecular classification within and across tissues of origin. Cell. 2014;158:929-944.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.06.049
43.
Dotto GP, Rustgi AK. Squamous cell cancers: a unified perspective on biology and genetics. Cancer Cell. 2016;29:622-637.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2016.04.004
44.
Yuan G, et al. Elevated NSD3 histone methylation activity drives squamous cell lung cancer. Nature. 2021;590:504-508.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-03170-y
45.
Lazarus KA, et al. BCL11A interacts with SOX2 to control the expression of epigenetic regulators in lung squamous carcinoma. Nat. Commun. 2018;9:3327.
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-018-05790-5
46.
Zhang X, et al. Pluripotent stem cell protein Sox2 confers sensitivity to LSD1 inhibition in cancer cells. Cell Rep. 2013;5:445-457.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2013.09.018
47.
Lan H, et al. LSD1 destabilizes FBXW7 and abrogates FBXW7 functions independent of its demethylase activity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2019;116:12311-12320.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1902012116
48.
Yomtoubian S, et al. Inhibition of EZH2 catalytic activity selectively targets a metastatic subpopulation in triple-negative breast cancer. Cell Rep. 2020;30:755-770.e756.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2019.12.056
49.
Wang J, et al. EZH2 noncanonically binds cMyc and p300 through a cryptic transactivation domain to mediate gene activation and promote oncogenesis. Nat. Cell Biol. 2022;24:384-399.
Not in our library10.1038/s41556-022-00850-x
50.
Felip E, et al. Adjuvant atezolizumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (IMpower010): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2021;398:1344-1357.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02098-5
51.
Forde PM, et al. Neoadjuvant nivolumab plus chemotherapy in resectable lung cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022;386:1973-1985.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa2202170
52.
Arafeh R, Samuels Y. PIK3CA in cancer: the past 30 years. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2019;59:36-49.
Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.02.002
53.
Murugan AK, Munirajan AK, Tsuchida N. Genetic deregulation of the PIK3CA oncogene in oral cancer. Cancer Lett. 2013;338:193-203.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2013.04.005
54.
Zhao L, Vogt PK. Class I PI3K in oncogenic cellular transformation. Oncogene. 2008;27:5486-5496.
Not in our library10.1038/onc.2008.244
55.
Fruman DA, Rommel C. PI3K and cancer: lessons, challenges and opportunities. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2014;13:140-156.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd4204
56.
Lemmon MA, Schlessinger J. Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell. 2010;141:1117-1134.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.011
57.
Sanchez-Vega F, et al. Oncogenic signaling pathways in The Cancer Genome Atlas. Cell. 2018;173:321-337.e310.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.035
58.
Burris HA. Overcoming acquired resistance to anticancer therapy: focus on the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 2013;71:829-842.
Not in our library10.1007/s00280-012-2043-3
59.
Vanhaesebroeck B, Guillermet-Guibert J, Graupera M, Bilanges B. The emerging mechanisms of isoform-specific PI3K signalling. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2010;11:329-341.
Not in our library10.1038/nrm2882
60.
Okkenhaug K, Vanhaesebroeck B. PI3K in lymphocyte development, differentiation and activation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2003;3:317-330.
Not in our library10.1038/nri1056
61.
Castel P, Toska E, Engelman JA, Scaltriti M. The present and future of PI3K inhibitors for cancer therapy. Nat. Cancer. 2021;2:587-597.
Not in our library10.1038/s43018-021-00218-4
62.
AACR Project Genie Consortium, et al. AACR Project GENIE: Powering Precision Medicine through an International Consortium. Cancer Discov. 7, 818–831 (2017).
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-17-0151
63.
Cerami E, et al. The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data. Cancer Disco. 2012;2:401-404.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-12-0095
64.
COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer).https://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic (2022).
Not in our library
65.
Samuels Y, et al. High frequency of mutations of the PIK3CA gene in human cancers. Science. 2004;304:554.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1096502
66.
Burke JE, et al. Oncogenic mutations mimic and enhance dynamic events in the natural activation of phosphoinositide 3-kinase p110α (PIK3CA). Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2012;109:15259-15264.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1205508109
67.
Miled N, et al. Mechanism of two classes of cancer mutations in the phosphoinositide 3-kinase catalytic subunit. Science. 2007;317:239-242.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1135394
68.
Li J, et al. PTEN, a putative protein tyrosine phosphatase gene mutated in human brain, breast, and prostate cancer. Science. 1997;275:1943-1947.
Not in our library10.1126/science.275.5308.1943
69.
Álvarez-Garcia V, Tawil Y, Wise HM, Leslie NR. Mechanisms of PTEN loss in cancer: It’s all about diversity. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2019;59:66-79.
Not in our library10.1016/j.semcancer.2019.02.001
70.
Worby CA, Dixon JE. PTEN. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2014;83:641-669.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-biochem-082411-113907
71.
Alimonti A, et al. Subtle variations in Pten dose determine cancer susceptibility. Nat. Genet. 2010;42:454-458.
Not in our library10.1038/ng.556
72.
Carracedo A, Alimonti A, Pandolfi PP. PTEN level in tumor suppression: how much is too little? Cancer Res. 2011;71:629-633.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-2488
73.
Trotman LC, et al. Pten dose dictates cancer progression in the prostate. PLoS Biol. 2003;1:E59.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pbio.0000059
74.
COSMIC (Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer).https://cancer.sanger.ac.uk/cosmic (2022).
Not in our library
75.
Mighell TL, Evans-Dutson S, O’Roak BJ. A saturation mutagenesis approach to understanding PTEN lipid phosphatase activity and genotype-phenotype relationships. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2018;102:943-955.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2018.03.018
76.
Han SY, et al. Functional evaluation of PTEN missense mutations using in vitro phosphoinositide phosphatase assay. Cancer Res. 2000;60:3147-3151.
Not in our library
77.
Rodríguez-Escudero I, et al. A comprehensive functional analysis of PTEN mutations: implications in tumor- and autism-related syndromes. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2011;20:4132-4142.
Not in our library10.1093/hmg/ddr337
78.
Song MS, Salmena L, Pandolfi PP. The functions and regulation of the PTEN tumour suppressor. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2012;13:283-296.
Not in our library10.1038/nrm3330
79.
Hollander MC, Blumenthal GM, Dennis PA. PTEN loss in the continuum of common cancers, rare syndromes and mouse models. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2011;11:289-301.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3037
80.
Stem Cell Factor SALL4 Represses the Transcriptions of PTEN and SALL1 through an Epigenetic Repressor Complex · 2009
Corrected
81.
Escrivà M, et al. Repression of PTEN phosphatase by Snail1 transcriptional factor during gamma radiation-induced apoptosis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2008;28:1528-1540.
Not in our library10.1128/mcb.02061-07
82.
Lee JY, et al. Id-1 activates Akt-mediated Wnt signaling and p27(Kip1) phosphorylation through PTEN inhibition. Oncogene. 2009;28:824-831.
Not in our library10.1038/onc.2008.451
83.
Cai J, et al. miR-205 targets PTEN and PHLPP2 to augment AKT signaling and drive malignant phenotypes in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2013;73:5402-5415.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-0297
84.
Guo H, Ingolia NT, Weissman JS, Bartel DP. Mammalian microRNAs predominantly act to decrease target mRNA levels. Nature. 2010;466:835-840.
Not in our library10.1038/nature09267
85.
Johnsson P, et al. A pseudogene long-noncoding-RNA network regulates PTEN transcription and translation in human cells. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2013;20:440-446.
Not in our library10.1038/nsmb.2516
86.
Poliseno L, et al. A coding-independent function of gene and pseudogene mRNAs regulates tumour biology. Nature. 2010;465:1033-1038.
Not in our library10.1038/nature09144
87.
Al-Khouri AM, et al. Cooperative phosphorylation of the tumor suppressor phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) by casein kinases and glycogen synthase kinase 3beta. J. Biol. Chem. 2005;280:35195-35202.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m503045200
88.
Kwon J, et al. Reversible oxidation and inactivation of the tumor suppressor PTEN in cells stimulated with peptide growth factors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2004;101:16419-16424.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0407396101
89.
Okumura K, et al. PCAF modulates PTEN activity. J. Biol. Chem. 2006;281:26562-26568.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m605391200
90.
Ding L, et al. CBP loss cooperates with PTEN haploinsufficiency to drive prostate cancer: implications for epigenetic therapy. Cancer Res. 2014;74:2050-2061.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-1659
91.
Wang X, et al. Crucial role of the C-terminus of PTEN in antagonizing NEDD4-1-mediated PTEN ubiquitination and degradation. Biochem. J. 2008;414:221-229.
Not in our library10.1042/bj20080674
92.
González-Santamaría J, et al. Regulation of the tumor suppressor PTEN by SUMO. Cell Death Dis. 2012;3:e393.
Not in our library10.1038/cddis.2012.135
93.
Chagpar RB, et al. Direct positive regulation of PTEN by the p85 subunit of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:5471-5476.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0908899107
94.
Taniguchi CM, et al. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase regulatory subunit p85alpha can exert tumor suppressor properties through negative regulation of growth factor signaling. Cancer Res. 2010;70:5305-5315.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-3399
95.
Garcia-Cao I, et al. Systemic elevation of PTEN induces a tumor-suppressive metabolic state. Cell. 2012;149:49-62.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.030
96.
Lee, Y. R. et al. Reactivation of PTEN tumor suppressor for cancer treatment through inhibition of a MYC-WWP1 inhibitory pathway. Science364, eaau0159 (2019).
Not in our library10.1126/science.aau0159
97.
André F, et al. Alpelisib plus fulvestrant for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative advanced breast cancer: final overall survival results from SOLAR-1. Ann. Oncol. 2021;32:208-217.
Not in our library10.1016/j.annonc.2020.11.011
98.
André F, et al. Alpelisib for PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019;380:1929-1940.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1813904
99.
Furman RR, et al. Idelalisib and rituximab in relapsed chronic lymphocytic leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014;370:997-1007.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1315226
100.
Fowler NH, et al. Umbralisib, a dual PI3Kδ/CK1ε inhibitor in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021;39:1609-1618.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.20.03433
101.
Flinn IW, et al. The phase 3 DUO trial: duvelisib vs ofatumumab in relapsed and refractory CLL/SLL. Blood. 2018;132:2446-2455.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2018-05-850461
102.
Aliqopa: Withdrawal of the marketing authorisation application.https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/medicines/human/withdrawn-applications/aliqopa (2021).
Not in our library
103.
Secura Bio Announces Copiktra® (duvelisib) Strategic Focus On T-cell Lymphoma And Voluntary U.S. Withdrawal Of The Relapsed Or Refractory Follicular Lymphoma Indication. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/secura-bio-announces-copiktra-duvelisib-strategic-focus-on-t-cell-lymphoma-and-voluntary-us-withdrawal-of-the-relapsed-or-refractory-follicular-lymphoma-indication-301436834.html (2021).
Not in our library
104.
Gilead Statement on Zydelig® U.S. Indication for Follicular Lymphoma and Small Lymphocytic Leukemia.https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/company-statements/gilead-statement-on-zydelig-us-indication-for-follicular-lymphoma-and-small-lymphocytic-leukemia (2022).
Not in our library
105.
FDA Drug Safety Communication: FDA investigating possible increased risk of death with lymphoma medicine Ukoniq (umbralisib). https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/fda-investigating-possible-increased-risk-death-lymphoma-medicine-ukoniq-umbralisib (2022).
Not in our library
106.
Okkenhaug K, Graupera M, Vanhaesebroeck B. Targeting PI3K in cancer: impact on tumor cells, their protective stroma, angiogenesis, and immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:1090-1105.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-16-0716
107.
Weigelt B, Downward J. Genomic determinants of PI3K pathway inhibitor response in cancer. Front. Oncol. 2012;2:109.
Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2012.00109
108.
Baselga J, et al. Buparlisib plus fulvestrant versus placebo plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer (BELLE-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:904-916.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30376-5
109.
Krop IE, et al. Pictilisib for oestrogen receptor-positive, aromatase inhibitor-resistant, advanced or metastatic breast cancer (FERGI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:811-821.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(16)00106-6
110.
Gribben, J. G. et al. Umbralisib plus ublituximab (U2) is superior to obinutuzumab plus chlorambucil (O plus Chl) in patients with treatment naive (TN) and relapsed/refractory (R/R) chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL): results from the Phase 3 Unity-CLL Study. Blood136, 37–39 (2020).
Not in our library
111.
Goel S, et al. CDK4/6 inhibition triggers anti-tumour immunity. Nature. 2017;548:471-475.
Not in our library10.1038/nature23465
112.
Important drug warning: decreased overall survival and increased risk of serious infections in patients receiving ZYDELIG (idelalisib). http://cllsociety.org/docs/Zydelig%20Safety%20Update.pdf (2016).
Not in our library
113.
FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting Briefing Document: PI3K Inhibitors in Hematologic Malignancies. https://www.fda.gov/media/157762/download (2022).
Not in our library
114.
FDA’s ODAC votes unanimously that future PI3K inhibitors should include randomized data for blood cancers.https://endpts.com/fdas-odac-votes-unanimously-that-future-pi3k-inhibitors-should-include-randomized-data-for-blood-cancers/ (2022).
Not in our library
115.
Yang W, et al. Strategically timing inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase to maximize therapeutic index in estrogen receptor alpha-positive, PIK3CA-mutant breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;22:2250-2260.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-15-2276
116.
Will M, et al. Rapid induction of apoptosis by PI3K inhibitors is dependent upon their transient inhibition of RAS-ERK signaling. Cancer Discov. 2014;4:334-347.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-13-0611
117.
Eschweiler, S. et al. Intermittent PI3Kδ inhibition sustains anti-tumour immunity and curbs irAEs. Nature605, 741–746 (2022).
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-022-04685-2
118.
Sharpless NE. INK4a/ARF: a multifunctional tumor suppressor locus. Mutat. Res. 2005;576:22-38.
Not in our library10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2004.08.021
119.
Zhao R, et al. Implications of genetic and epigenetic alterations of CDKN2A (p16(INK4a)) in cancer. EBioMedicine. 2016;8:30-39.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.04.017
120.
Weinberg RA. The retinoblastoma protein and cell cycle control. Cell. 1995;81:323-330.
Not in our library10.1016/0092-8674(95)90385-2
121.
Serrano M, Hannon GJ, Beach D. A new regulatory motif in cell-cycle control causing specific inhibition of cyclin D/CDK4. Nature. 1993;366:704-707.
Not in our library10.1038/366704a0
122.
Sionov RV, Haupt Y. The cellular response to p53: the decision between life and death. Oncogene. 1999;18:6145-6157.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1203130
123.
Juven-Gershon T, Oren M. Mdm2: the ups and downs. Mol. Med. 1999;5:71-83.
Not in our library10.1007/bf03402141
124.
Zhang Y, Xiong Y. Control of p53 ubiquitination and nuclear export by MDM2 and ARF. Cell Growth Differ. 2001;12:175-186.
Not in our library
125.
Weber JD, et al. Nucleolar Arf sequesters Mdm2 and activates p53. Nat. Cell Biol. 1999;1:20-26.
Not in our library10.1038/8991
126.
Honda R, Yasuda H. Association of p19(ARF) with Mdm2 inhibits ubiquitin ligase activity of Mdm2 for tumor suppressor p53. EMBO J. 1999;18:22-27.
Not in our library10.1093/emboj/18.1.22
127.
Sherr CJ, Beach D, Shapiro GI. Targeting CDK4 and CDK6: from discovery to therapy. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:353-367.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-15-0894
128.
Asghar U, Witkiewicz AK, Turner NC, Knudsen ES. The history and future of targeting cyclin-dependent kinases in cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2015;14:130-146.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd4504
129.
Knudsen ES, et al. Pan-cancer molecular analysis of the RB tumor suppressor pathway. Commun. Biol. 2020;3:158.
Not in our library10.1038/s42003-020-0873-9
130.
Patnaik A, et al. Efficacy and safety of abemaciclib, an inhibitor of CDK4 and CDK6, for patients with breast cancer, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:740-753.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-16-0095
131.
Ahn ER, et al. Palbociclib in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with CDKN2A alterations: results from the targeted agent and profiling utilization registry study. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2020;4:757-766.
Not in our library10.1200/po.20.00037
132.
Middleton G, et al. The national lung matrix trial of personalized therapy in lung cancer. Nature. 2020;583:807-812.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-2481-8
133.
Ferrara N. VEGF and the quest for tumour angiogenesis factors. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2002;2:795-803.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc909
134.
Li X, et al. Complicated life, complicated VEGF-B. Trends Mol. Med. 2012;18:119-127.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molmed.2011.11.006
135.
Alitalo K, Tammela T, Petrova TV. Lymphangiogenesis in development and human disease. Nature. 2005;438:946-953.
Not in our library10.1038/nature04480
136.
Houck KA, et al. Dual regulation of vascular endothelial growth factor bioavailability by genetic and proteolytic mechanisms. J. Biol. Chem. 1992;267:26031-26037.
Not in our library10.1016/s0021-9258(18)35712-0
137.
de Vries C, et al. The fms-like tyrosine kinase, a receptor for vascular endothelial growth factor. Science. 1992;255:989-991.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1312256
138.
Terman BI, et al. Identification of the KDR tyrosine kinase as a receptor for vascular endothelial cell growth factor. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1992;187:1579-1586.
Not in our library10.1016/0006-291x(92)90483-2
139.
Soker S, et al. Neuropilin-1 is expressed by endothelial and tumor cells as an isoform-specific receptor for vascular endothelial growth factor. Cell. 1998;92:735-745.
Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81402-6
140.
Olsson AK, Dimberg A, Kreuger J, Claesson-Welsh L. VEGF receptor signalling—in control of vascular function. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006;7:359-371.
Not in our library10.1038/nrm1911
141.
Kerbel RS. Tumor angiogenesis. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008;358:2039-2049.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmra0706596
142.
Ferrara N, Adamis AP. Ten years of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2016;15:385-403.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd.2015.17
143.
Jayson GC, Kerbel R, Ellis LM, Harris AL. Antiangiogenic therapy in oncology: current status and future directions. Lancet. 2016;388:518-529.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(15)01088-0
144.
Kim KJ, et al. Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor-induced angiogenesis suppresses tumour growth in vivo. Nature. 1993;362:841-844.
Not in our library10.1038/362841a0
145.
Hurwitz H, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004;350:2335-2342.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa032691
146.
Sandler AB, et al. Retrospective evaluation of the clinical and radiographic risk factors associated with severe pulmonary hemorrhage in first-line advanced, unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer treated with Carboplatin and Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:1405-1412.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2008.16.2412
147.
Johnson DH, et al. Randomized phase II trial comparing bevacizumab plus carboplatin and paclitaxel with carboplatin and paclitaxel alone in previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2004;22:2184-2191.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2004.11.022
148.
Larkins E, et al. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval summary: ramucirumab for the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer following disease progression on or after platinum-based chemotherapy. Oncologist. 2015;20:1320-1325.
Not in our library10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0221
149.
Farrell B, Breeze AL. Structure, activation and dysregulation of fibroblast growth factor receptor kinases: perspectives for clinical targeting. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2018;46:1753-1770.
Not in our library10.1042/bst20180004
150.
Fibroblast Growth Factor Receptors (FGFRs): Structures and Small Molecule Inhibitors · 2019
No notice
151.
Wiedemann M, Trueb B. Characterization of a novel protein (FGFRL1) from human cartilage related to FGF receptors. Genomics. 2000;69:275-279.
Not in our library10.1006/geno.2000.6332
152.
Dieci MV, Arnedos M, Andre F, Soria JC. Fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors as a cancer treatment: from a biologic rationale to medical perspectives. Cancer Discov. 2013;3:264-279.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-12-0362
153.
Turner N, Grose R. Fibroblast growth factor signalling: from development to cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2010;10:116-129.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc2780
154.
Ornitz DM, Itoh N. The fibroblast growth factor signaling pathway. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Dev. Biol. 2015;4:215-266.
Not in our library10.1002/wdev.176
155.
Chen, H. et al. Elucidation of a four-site allosteric network in fibroblast growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases. eLife6, e21137 (2017).
Not in our library10.7554/elife.21137
156.
Abate-Shen C, Shen MM. FGF signaling in prostate tumorigenesis-new insights into epithelial-stromal interactions. Cancer Cell. 2007;12:495-497.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2007.11.021
157.
Ruotsalainen T, Joensuu H, Mattson K, Salven P. High pretreatment serum concentration of basic fibroblast growth factor is a predictor of poor prognosis in small cell lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2002;11:1492-1495.
Not in our library
158.
Casanovas O, Hicklin DJ, Bergers G, Hanahan D. Drug resistance by evasion of antiangiogenic targeting of VEGF signaling in late-stage pancreatic islet tumors. Cancer Cell. 2005;8:299-309.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2005.09.005
159.
Czubayko F, et al. A secreted FGF-binding protein can serve as the angiogenic switch in human cancer. Nat. Med. 1997;3:1137-1140.
Not in our library10.1038/nm1097-1137
160.
Katoh M. Fibroblast growth factor receptors as treatment targets in clinical oncology. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2019;16:105-122.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-018-0115-y
161.
Weiss J, et al. Frequent and focal FGFR1 amplification associates with therapeutically tractable FGFR1 dependency in squamous cell lung cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 2010;2:62ra93.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.3001451
162.
Zhang J, et al. Translating the therapeutic potential of AZD4547 in FGFR1-amplified non-small cell lung cancer through the use of patient-derived tumor xenograft models. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012;18:6658-6667.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-12-2694
163.
Weeden CE, Solomon B, Asselin-Labat ML. FGFR1 inhibition in lung squamous cell carcinoma: questions and controversies. Cell Death Discov. 2015;1:15049.
Not in our library10.1038/cddiscovery.2015.49
164.
Wynes MW, et al. FGFR1 mRNA and protein expression, not gene copy number, predict FGFR TKI sensitivity across all lung cancer histologies. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014;20:3299-3309.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-3060
165.
Wells A. EGF receptor. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 1999;31:637-643.
Not in our library10.1016/s1357-2725(99)00015-1
166.
Jimeno A, Hidalgo M. Pharmacogenomics of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2006;1766:217-229.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbcan.2006.08.008
167.
Citri A, Yarden Y. EGF-ERBB signalling: towards the systems level. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2006;7:505-516.
Not in our library10.1038/nrm1962
168.
Sibilia M, et al. A strain-independent postnatal neurodegeneration in mice lacking the EGF receptor. EMBO J. 1998;17:719-731.
Not in our library10.1093/emboj/17.3.719
169.
de Jong JS, van Diest PJ, van der Valk P, Baak JP. Expression of growth factors, growth-inhibiting factors, and their receptors in invasive breast cancer. II: correlations with proliferation and angiogenesis. J. Pathol. 1998;184:53-57.
Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1096-9896(199801)184:1<53::aid-path6>3.0.co;2-7
170.
Wells A. Tumor invasion: role of growth factor-induced cell motility. Adv. Cancer Res. 2000;78:31-101.
Not in our library10.1016/s0065-230x(08)61023-4
171.
Gibson EM, et al. Epidermal growth factor protects epithelial-derived cells from tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand-induced apoptosis by inhibiting cytochrome c release. Cancer Res. 2002;62:488-496.
Not in our library
172.
Woodburn JR. The epidermal growth factor receptor and its inhibition in cancer therapy. Pharmacol. Ther. 1999;82:241-250.
Not in our library10.1016/s0163-7258(98)00045-x
173.
Kumar A, Petri ET, Halmos B, Boggon TJ. Structure and clinical relevance of the epidermal growth factor receptor in human cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008;26:1742-1751.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2007.12.1178
174.
Holbro T, Hynes NE. ErbB receptors: directing key signaling networks throughout life. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2004;44:195-217.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.44.101802.121440
175.
Imyanitov EN, et al. Distribution of EGFR mutations in 10,607 Russian patients with lung cancer. Mol. Diagn. Ther. 2016;20:401-406.
Not in our library10.1007/s40291-016-0213-4
176.
Fiala O, et al. Gene mutations in squamous cell NSCLC: insignificance of EGFR, KRAS and PIK3CA mutations in prediction of EGFR-TKI treatment efficacy. Anticancer Res. 2013;33:1705-1711.
Not in our library
177.
Rosell R, et al. Erlotinib versus standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment for European patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (EURTAC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:239-246.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70393-x
178.
Zhou C, et al. Erlotinib versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (OPTIMAL, CTONG-0802): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:735-742.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70184-x
179.
Zhong WZ, et al. Gefitinib versus vinorelbine plus cisplatin as adjuvant treatment for stage II-IIIA (N1-N2) EGFR-mutant NSCLC (ADJUVANT/CTONG1104): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:139-148.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30729-5
180.
Mitsudomi T, et al. Gefitinib versus cisplatin plus docetaxel in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor (WJTOG3405): an open label, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:121-128.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70364-x
181.
He J, et al. Icotinib versus chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for stage II-IIIA EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (EVIDENCE): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir. Med. 2021;9:1021-1029.
Not in our library10.1016/s2213-2600(21)00134-x
182.
Kelly K, et al. Adjuvant erlotinib versus placebo in patients with stage IB-IIIA non-small-cell lung cancer (RADIANT): a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:4007-4014.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2015.61.8918
183.
Clark GM, et al. Smoking history and epidermal growth factor receptor expression as predictors of survival benefit from erlotinib for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study BR.21. Clin. Lung Cancer. 2006;7:389-394.
Not in our library10.3816/clc.2006.n.022
184.
Cappuzzo F, et al. Erlotinib as maintenance treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:521-529.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(10)70112-1
185.
Ameratunga M, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the lung: a meta-analysis. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014;10:273-278.
Not in our library10.1111/ajco.12231
186.
Liu Y, et al. Efficacy of epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors for lung squamous carcinomas harboring EGFR mutation: a multicenter study and pooled analysis of published reports. Oncotarget. 2017;8:49680-49688.
Not in our library10.18632/oncotarget.17915
187.
Liang S, et al. Efficacy of icotinib in advanced lung squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2018;7:4456-4466.
Not in our library10.1002/cam4.1736
188.
Chang Q, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status and response to tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced Chinese female lung squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Front. Oncol. 2021;11:652560.
Not in our library10.3389/fonc.2021.652560
189.
Perturbation-response genes reveal signaling footprints in cancer gene expression · 2018
No notice
190.
Huang C, et al. Proteogenomic insights into the biology and treatment of HPV-negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2021;39:361-379.e316.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2020.12.007
191.
Yamamoto M, Kensler TW, Motohashi H. The KEAP1-NRF2 system: a thiol-based sensor-effector apparatus for maintaining redox homeostasis. Physiol. Rev. 2018;98:1169-1203.
Not in our library10.1152/physrev.00023.2017
192.
Itoh K, et al. Keap1 regulates both cytoplasmic-nuclear shuttling and degradation of Nrf2 in response to electrophiles. Genes Cells. 2003;8:379-391.
Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2443.2003.00640.x
193.
Suzuki T, et al. Molecular mechanism of cellular oxidative stress sensing by Keap1. Cell Rep. 2019;28:746-758.e744.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2019.06.047
194.
Martin D, et al. Regulation of heme oxygenase-1 expression through the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt pathway and the Nrf2 transcription factor in response to the antioxidant phytochemical carnosol. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:8919-8929.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m309660200
195.
Salazar M, et al. Glycogen synthase kinase-3beta inhibits the xenobiotic and antioxidant cell response by direct phosphorylation and nuclear exclusion of the transcription factor Nrf2. J. Biol. Chem. 2006;281:14841-14851.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m513737200
196.
Ichimura Y, et al. Phosphorylation of p62 activates the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway during selective autophagy. Mol. Cell. 2013;51:618-631.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2013.08.003
197.
DeNicola GM, et al. Oncogene-induced Nrf2 transcription promotes ROS detoxification and tumorigenesis. Nature. 2011;475:106-109.
Not in our library10.1038/nature10189
198.
Le Gal K, et al. Antioxidants can increase melanoma metastasis in mice. Sci. Transl. Med. 2015;7:308re308.
Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aad3740
199.
Binkley MS, et al. KEAP1/NFE2L2 mutations predict lung cancer radiation resistance that can be targeted by glutaminase inhibition. Cancer Discov. 2020;10:1826-1841.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-0282
200.
Homma S, et al. Nrf2 enhances cell proliferation and resistance to anticancer drugs in human lung cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009;15:3423-3432.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-2822
201.
Shibata T, et al. Genetic alteration of Keap1 confers constitutive Nrf2 activation and resistance to chemotherapy in gallbladder cancer. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:1358-1368.
Not in our library10.1053/j.gastro.2008.06.082
202.
Satoh H, et al. Nrf2 prevents initiation but accelerates progression through the Kras signaling pathway during lung carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 2013;73:4158-4168.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-4499
203.
Cloer EW, et al. NRF2 activation in cancer: from DNA to protein. Cancer Res. 2019;79:889-898.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-18-2723
204.
Pillai R, Hayashi M, Zavitsanou AM, Papagiannakopoulos T. NRF2: KEAPing tumors protected. Cancer Discov. 2022;12:625-643.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-21-0922
205.
Imielinski M, et al. Mapping the hallmarks of lung adenocarcinoma with massively parallel sequencing. Cell. 2012;150:1107-1120.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2012.08.029
206.
Satoh H, et al. Nrf2-deficiency creates a responsive microenvironment for metastasis to the lung. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:1833-1843.
Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgq105
207.
Solis LM, et al. Nrf2 and Keap1 abnormalities in non-small cell lung carcinoma and association with clinicopathologic features. Clin. Cancer Res. 2010;16:3743-3753.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-3352
208.
Momcilovic M, et al. The GSK3 signaling axis regulates adaptive glutamine metabolism in lung squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2018;33:905-921.e905.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2018.04.002
209.
Mitsuishi Y, et al. Nrf2 redirects glucose and glutamine into anabolic pathways in metabolic reprogramming. Cancer Cell. 2012;22:66-79.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2012.05.016
210.
Lewerenz J, et al. The cystine/glutamate antiporter system x(c)(-) in health and disease: from molecular mechanisms to novel therapeutic opportunities. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2013;18:522-555.
Not in our library10.1089/ars.2011.4391
211.
Activation of the NRF2 antioxidant program generates an imbalance in central carbon metabolism in cancer · 2017
No notice
212.
Calithera Biosciences Announces Decision to Discontinue KEAPSAKE Clinical Trial. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/11/05/2328406/32478/en/Calithera-Biosciences-Announces-Decision-to-Discontinue-KEAPSAKE-Clinical-Trial.html (2021).
Not in our library
213.
Sapanisertib in Treating Patients With Stage IV or Recurrent Lung Cancer.https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02417701?term=Sapanisertib&cond=NSCLC&draw=2&rank=6 (2022).
Not in our library
214.
Leone RD, et al. Glutamine blockade induces divergent metabolic programs to overcome tumor immune evasion. Science. 2019;366:1013-1021.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aav2588
215.
Johnson, M. L. et al. Phase 1 and phase 2a, first-in-human (FIH) study, of DRP-104, a broad glutamine antagonist, in adult patients with advanced solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 39, (2021).
Not in our library
216.
Bowles J, Schepers G, Koopman P. Phylogeny of the SOX family of developmental transcription factors based on sequence and structural indicators. Dev. Biol. 2000;227:239-255.
Not in our library10.1006/dbio.2000.9883
217.
Nowling TK, Johnson LR, Wiebe MS, Rizzino A. Identification of the transactivation domain of the transcription factor Sox-2 and an associated co-activator. J. Biol. Chem. 2000;275:3810-3818.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.275.6.3810
218.
SOX2 protein biochemistry in stemness, reprogramming, and cancer: the PI3K/AKT/SOX2 axis and beyond · 2019
No notice
219.
SOX2 and cancer: current research and its implications in the clinic · 2014
No notice
220.
Hüser L, et al. Targeting SOX2 in anticancer therapy. Expert Opin. Ther. Targets. 2018;22:983-991.
Not in our library10.1080/14728222.2018.1538359
221.
Nakatsugawa M, et al. SOX2 is overexpressed in stem-like cells of human lung adenocarcinoma and augments the tumorigenicity. Lab. Investig. 2011;91:1796-1804.
Not in our library10.1038/labinvest.2011.140
222.
Santini R, et al. SOX2 regulates self-renewal and tumorigenicity of human melanoma-initiating cells. Oncogene. 2014;33:4697-4708.
Not in our library10.1038/onc.2014.71
223.
Rybak AP, Tang D. SOX2 plays a critical role in EGFR-mediated self-renewal of human prostate cancer stem-like cells. Cell. Signal. 2013;25:2734-2742.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cellsig.2013.08.041
224.
Lundberg IV, et al. SOX2 expression is associated with a cancer stem cell state and down-regulation of CDX2 in colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:471.
Not in our library10.1186/s12885-016-2509-5
225.
Herreros-Villanueva M, et al. SOX2 promotes dedifferentiation and imparts stem cell-like features to pancreatic cancer cells. Oncogenesis. 2013;2:e61.
Not in our library10.1038/oncsis.2013.23
226.
Liu P, et al. SOX2 promotes cell proliferation and metastasis in triple negative breast cancer. Front. Pharmacol. 2018;9:942.
Not in our library10.3389/fphar.2018.00942
227.
Downregulation of transcription factor SOX2 in cancer stem cells suppresses growth and metastasis of lung cancer · 2011
Corrected
228.
Feng R, et al. Sox2 protects neural stem cells from apoptosis via up-regulating survivin expression. Biochem. J. 2013;450:459-468.
Not in our library10.1042/bj20120924
229.
Chen S, et al. SOX2 regulates apoptosis through MAP4K4-survivin signaling pathway in human lung cancer cells. Carcinogenesis. 2014;35:613-623.
Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgt371
230.
Ren C, et al. Inhibition of SOX2 induces cell apoptosis and G1/S arrest in Ewing’s sarcoma through the PI3K/Akt pathway. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2016;35:44.
Not in our library10.1186/s13046-016-0321-3
231.
Bora-Singhal N, et al. Novel HDAC11 inhibitors suppress lung adenocarcinoma stem cell self-renewal and overcome drug resistance by suppressing Sox2. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:4722.
Not in our library10.1038/s41598-020-61295-6
232.
Sox2 promotes tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer cells · 2013
No notice
233.
He J, et al. Sox2 inhibits Wnt-β-catenin signaling and metastatic potency of cisplatin-resistant lung adenocarcinoma cells. Mol. Med. Rep. 2017;15:1693-1701.
Not in our library10.3892/mmr.2017.6170
234.
Tripathi SC, et al. MCAM mediates chemoresistance in small-cell lung cancer via the PI3K/AKT/SOX2 signaling pathway. Cancer Res. 2017;77:4414-4425.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-2874
235.
Yang A, et al. p63, a p53 homolog at 3q27-29, encodes multiple products with transactivating, death-inducing, and dominant-negative activities. Mol. Cell. 1998;2:305-316.
Not in our library10.1016/s1097-2765(00)80275-0
236.
Murray-Zmijewski F, Lane DP. & Bourdon, J. C. p53/p63/p73 isoforms: an orchestra of isoforms to harmonise cell differentiation and response to stress. Cell Death Differ. 2006;13:962-972.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.cdd.4401914
237.
Costanzo A, et al. TP63 and TP73 in cancer, an unresolved “family” puzzle of complexity, redundancy and hierarchy. FEBS Lett. 2014;588:2590-2599.
Not in our library10.1016/j.febslet.2014.06.047
238.
Levrero M, et al. The p53/p63/p73 family of transcription factors: overlapping and distinct functions. J. Cell Sci. 2000;113(Pt 10):1661-1670.
Not in our library10.1242/jcs.113.10.1661
239.
Mills AA, et al. p63 is a p53 homologue required for limb and epidermal morphogenesis. Nature. 1999;398:708-713.
Not in our library10.1038/19531
240.
Yang A, et al. p63 is essential for regenerative proliferation in limb, craniofacial and epithelial development. Nature. 1999;398:714-718.
Not in our library10.1038/19539
241.
Guo X, et al. TAp63 induces senescence and suppresses tumorigenesis in vivo. Nat. Cell Biol. 2009;11:1451-1457.
Not in our library10.1038/ncb1988
242.
Wu G, et al. DeltaNp63alpha up-regulates the Hsp70 gene in human cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65:758-766.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.758.65.3
243.
Westfall MD, Pietenpol JA. p63: molecular complexity in development and cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2004;25:857-864.
Not in our library10.1093/carcin/bgh148
244.
Lambert SA, et al. The human transcription factors. Cell. 2018;172:650-665.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.01.029
245.
Liu J, et al. TF-PROTACs enable targeted degradation of transcription factors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2021;143:8902-8910.
Not in our library10.1021/jacs.1c03852
246.
Vanbokhoven H, Melino G, Candi E, Declercq W. p63, a story of mice and men. J. Invest. Dermatol. 2011;131:1196-1207.
Not in our library10.1038/jid.2011.84
247.
Rocco JW, et al. p63 mediates survival in squamous cell carcinoma by suppression of p73-dependent apoptosis. Cancer Cell. 2006;9:45-56.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2005.12.013
248.
Somerville TDD, et al. TP63-mediated enhancer reprogramming drives the squamous subtype of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Cell Rep. 2018;25:1741-1755.e1747.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.10.051
249.
Master regulatory role of p63 in epidermal development and disease · 2017
No notice
250.
ΔNp63 regulates a common landscape of enhancer associated genes in non-small cell lung cancer · 2022
Not checked
251.
Su X, Chakravarti D, Flores ER. p63 steps into the limelight: crucial roles in the suppression of tumorigenesis and metastasis. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2013;13:136-143.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc3446
252.
Papoutsaki M, et al. A p38-dependent pathway regulates DeltaNp63 DNA binding to p53-dependent promoters in UV-induced apoptosis of keratinocytes. Oncogene. 2005;24:6970-6975.
Not in our library10.1038/sj.onc.1208835
253.
Ramsey MR, et al. FGFR2 signaling underlies p63 oncogenic function in squamous cell carcinoma. J. Clin. Invest. 2013;123:3525-3538.
Not in our library10.1172/jci68899
254.
Bretz AC, et al. ΔNp63 activates the Fanconi anemia DNA repair pathway and limits the efficacy of cisplatin treatment in squamous cell carcinoma. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:3204-3218.
Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkw036
255.
Sen T, et al. DeltaNp63alpha confers tumor cell resistance to cisplatin through the AKT1 transcriptional regulation. Cancer Res. 2011;71:1167-1176.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-1481
256.
Amerik AY, Hochstrasser M. Mechanism and function of deubiquitinating enzymes. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 2004;1695:189-207.
Not in our library10.1016/j.bbamcr.2004.10.003
257.
Armstrong, S. R. et al. The regulation of tumor suppressor p63 by the ubiquitin-proteasome system. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, 2041 (2016).
Not in our library10.3390/ijms17122041
258.
Prieto-Garcia C, et al. Maintaining protein stability of ∆Np63 via USP28 is required by squamous cancer cells. EMBO Mol. Med. 2020;12:e11101.
Not in our library10.15252/emmm.201911101
259.
Prieto-Garcia C, et al. Inhibition of USP28 overcomes Cisplatin-resistance of squamous tumors by suppression of the Fanconi anemia pathway. Cell Death Differ. 2022;29:568-584.
Not in our library10.1038/s41418-021-00875-z
260.
Welcker M, Clurman BE. FBW7 ubiquitin ligase: a tumour suppressor at the crossroads of cell division, growth and differentiation. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2008;8:83-93.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc2290
261.
Davis RJ, Welcker M, Clurman BE. Tumor suppression by the Fbw7 ubiquitin ligase: mechanisms and opportunities. Cancer Cell. 2014;26:455-464.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2014.09.013
262.
Kan Z, et al. Diverse somatic mutation patterns and pathway alterations in human cancers. Nature. 2010;466:869-873.
Not in our library10.1038/nature09208
263.
Schülein-Völk C, et al. Dual regulation of Fbw7 function and oncogenic transformation by Usp28. Cell Rep. 2014;9:1099-1109.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.057
264.
Popov N, et al. The ubiquitin-specific protease USP28 is required for MYC stability. Nat. Cell Biol. 2007;9:765-774.
Not in our library10.1038/ncb1601
265.
USP28 deletion and small-molecule inhibition destabilizes c-MYC and elicits regression of squamous cell lung carcinoma · 2021
Not checked
266.
Wang XM, et al. The deubiquitinase USP25 supports colonic inflammation and bacterial infection and promotes colorectal cancer. Nat. Cancer. 2020;1:811-825.
Not in our library10.1038/s43018-020-0089-4
267.
Ambrosini G, Adida C, Altieri DC. A novel anti-apoptosis gene, survivin, expressed in cancer and lymphoma. Nat. Med. 1997;3:917-921.
Not in our library10.1038/nm0897-917
268.
Dohi T, Xia F, Altieri DC. Compartmentalized phosphorylation of IAP by protein kinase A regulates cytoprotection. Mol. Cell. 2007;27:17-28.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2007.06.004
269.
Rosa J, et al. Survivin modulates microtubule dynamics and nucleation throughout the cell cycle. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2006;17:1483-1493.
Not in our library10.1091/mbc.e05-08-0723
270.
Verhagen AM, Coulson EJ, Vaux DL. Inhibitor of apoptosis proteins and their relatives: IAPs and other BIRPs. Genome Biol. 2001;2:Reviews3009.
Not in our library10.1186/gb-2001-2-7-reviews3009
271.
Velculescu VE, et al. Analysis of human transcriptomes. Nat. Genet. 1999;23:387-388.
Not in our library10.1038/70487
272.
Giaccone G, et al. Multicenter phase II trial of YM155, a small-molecule suppressor of survivin, in patients with advanced, refractory, non-small-cell lung cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:4481-4486.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2008.21.1862
273.
Kelly RJ, et al. A phase I/II study of sepantronium bromide (YM155, survivin suppressor) with paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2013;24:2601-2606.
Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdt249
274.
Cancer therapeutics using survivin BIRC5 as a target: what can we do after over two decades of study? · 2019
No notice
275.
TNIK inhibition abrogates colorectal cancer stemness · 2016
No notice
276.
Fu CA, et al. TNIK, a novel member of the germinal center kinase family that activates the c-Jun N-terminal kinase pathway and regulates the cytoskeleton. J. Biol. Chem. 1999;274:30729-30737.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.274.43.30729
277.
Schürch C, et al. CD27 signaling on chronic myelogenous leukemia stem cells activates Wnt target genes and promotes disease progression. J. Clin. Invest. 2012;122:624-638.
Not in our library10.1172/jci45977
278.
Li Z, Lim SK, Liang X, Lim YP. The transcriptional coactivator WBP2 primes triple-negative breast cancer cells for responses to Wnt signaling via the JNK/Jun kinase pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 2018;293:20014-20028.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.ra118.005796
279.
Lee RS, et al. Characterization of the ERG-regulated kinome in prostate cancer identifies TNIK as a potential therapeutic target. Neoplasia. 2019;21:389-400.
Not in our library10.1016/j.neo.2019.02.005
280.
Hagerstrand D, et al. Systematic interrogation of 3q26 identifies TLOC1 and SKIL as cancer drivers. Cancer Discov. 2013;3:1044-1057.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-12-0592
281.
Torres-Ayuso P, et al. TNIK is a therapeutic target in lung squamous cell carcinoma and regulates FAK activation through Merlin. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:1411-1423.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-0797
282.
Cavalli G, Heard E. Advances in epigenetics link genetics to the environment and disease. Nature. 2019;571:489-499.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1411-0
283.
Lawrence MS, et al. Discovery and saturation analysis of cancer genes across 21 tumour types. Nature. 2014;505:495-501.
Not in our library10.1038/nature12912
284.
Bates SE. Epigenetic therapies for cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020;383:650-663.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmra1805035
285.
Hoy SM. Tazemetostat: first approval. Drugs. 2020;80:513-521.
Not in our library10.1007/s40265-020-01288-x
286.
Husmann D, Gozani O. Histone lysine methyltransferases in biology and disease. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2019;26:880-889.
Not in our library10.1038/s41594-019-0298-7
287.
Li Y, et al. The target of the NSD family of histone lysine methyltransferases depends on the nature of the substrate. J. Biol. Chem. 2009;284:34283-34295.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m109.034462
288.
Sroka MW, Vakoc CR. An epigenetic tipping point in cancer comes under the microscope. Nature. 2021;590:399-400.
Not in our library10.1038/d41586-021-00002-5
289.
Rooney C, et al. Characterization of FGFR1 locus in sqNSCLC reveals a broad and heterogeneous amplicon. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0149628.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0149628
290.
Balsara BR, et al. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis detects frequent, often high-level, overrepresentation of DNA sequences at 3q, 5p, 7p, and 8q in human non-small cell lung carcinomas. Cancer Res. 1997;57:2116-2120.
Not in our library
291.
Tonon G, et al. High-resolution genomic profiles of human lung cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:9625-9630.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0504126102
292.
Li W, et al. Molecular basis of nucleosomal H3K36 methylation by NSD methyltransferases. Nature. 2021;590:498-503.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-03069-8
293.
Beck DB, Oda H, Shen SS, Reinberg D. PR-Set7 and H4K20me1: at the crossroads of genome integrity, cell cycle, chromosome condensation, and transcription. Genes Dev. 2012;26:325-337.
Not in our library10.1101/gad.177444.111
294.
Milite C, et al. The emerging role of lysine methyltransferase SETD8 in human diseases. Clin. Epigenetics. 2016;8:102.
Not in our library10.1186/s13148-016-0268-4
295.
Yin Y, Yu VC, Zhu G, Chang DC. SET8 plays a role in controlling G1/S transition by blocking lysine acetylation in histone through binding to H4 N-terminal tail. Cell Cycle. 2008;7:1423-1432.
Not in our library10.4161/cc.7.10.5867
296.
Shi X, et al. Modulation of p53 function by SET8-mediated methylation at lysine 382. Mol. Cell. 2007;27:636-646.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2007.07.012
297.
Dhami GK, et al. Dynamic methylation of Numb by Set8 regulates its binding to p53 and apoptosis. Mol. Cell. 2013;50:565-576.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2013.04.028
298.
Takawa M, et al. Histone lysine methyltransferase SETD8 promotes carcinogenesis by deregulating PCNA expression. Cancer Res. 2012;72:3217-3227.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-3701
299.
Herviou L, et al. Targeting the methyltransferase SETD8 impairs tumor cell survival and overcomes drug resistance independently of p53 status in multiple myeloma. Clin. Epigenetics. 2021;13:174.
Not in our library10.1186/s13148-021-01160-z
300.
Liu B, et al. MiR-502/SET8 regulatory circuit in pathobiology of breast cancer. Cancer Lett. 2016;376:259-267.
Not in our library10.1016/j.canlet.2016.04.008
301.
Shi Y, et al. Histone demethylation mediated by the nuclear amine oxidase homolog LSD1. Cell. 2004;119:941-953.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2004.12.012
302.
Metzger E, et al. LSD1 demethylates repressive histone marks to promote androgen-receptor-dependent transcription. Nature. 2005;437:436-439.
Not in our library10.1038/nature04020
303.
Laurent B, et al. A specific LSD1/KDM1A isoform regulates neuronal differentiation through H3K9 demethylation. Mol. Cell. 2015;57:957-970.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2015.01.010
304.
Vinyard ME, et al. CRISPR-suppressor scanning reveals a nonenzymatic role of LSD1 in AML. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2019;15:529-539.
Not in our library10.1038/s41589-019-0263-0
305.
Sehrawat A, et al. LSD1 activates a lethal prostate cancer gene network independently of its demethylase function. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2018;115:E4179-e4188.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1719168115
306.
LSD1/KDM1A inhibitors in clinical trials: advances and prospects · 2019
No notice
307.
Romo-Morales A, et al. Catalytic inhibition of KDM1A in Ewing sarcoma is insufficient as a therapeutic strategy. Pediatr. Blood Cancer. 2019;66:e27888.
Not in our library10.1002/pbc.27888
308.
Sonnemann J, et al. LSD1 (KDM1A)-independent effects of the LSD1 inhibitor SP2509 in cancer cells. Br. J. Haematol. 2018;183:494-497.
Not in our library10.1111/bjh.14983
309.
Lai AC, Crews CM. Induced protein degradation: an emerging drug discovery paradigm. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2017;16:101-114.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd.2016.211
310.
Viré E, et al. The Polycomb group protein EZH2 directly controls DNA methylation. Nature. 2006;439:871-874.
Not in our library10.1038/nature04431
311.
Cao R, et al. Role of histone H3 lysine 27 methylation in Polycomb-group silencing. Science. 2002;298:1039-1043.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1076997
312.
Czermin B, et al. Drosophila enhancer of Zeste/ESC complexes have a histone H3 methyltransferase activity that marks chromosomal Polycomb sites. Cell. 2002;111:185-196.
Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00975-3
313.
Li H, Cai Q, Godwin AK, Zhang R. Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 promotes the proliferation and invasion of epithelial ovarian cancer cells. Mol. Cancer Res. 2010;8:1610-1618.
Not in our library10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-10-0398
314.
Kleer CG, et al. EZH2 is a marker of aggressive breast cancer and promotes neoplastic transformation of breast epithelial cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2003;100:11606-11611.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1933744100
315.
Zhang H, et al. Oncogenic deregulation of EZH2 as an opportunity for targeted therapy in lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:1006-1021.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-16-0164
316.
Kondo Y, et al. Alterations of DNA methylation and histone modifications contribute to gene silencing in hepatocellular carcinomas. Hepatol. Res. 2007;37:974-983.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1872-034x.2007.00141.x
317.
Enhancer of zeste homolog 2 (EZH2) expression is an independent prognostic factor in renal cell carcinoma · 2010
No notice
318.
Bachmann IM, et al. EZH2 expression is associated with high proliferation rate and aggressive tumor subgroups in cutaneous melanoma and cancers of the endometrium, prostate, and breast. J. Clin. Oncol. 2006;24:268-273.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2005.01.5180
319.
Kim KH, Roberts CW. Targeting EZH2 in cancer. Nat. Med. 2016;22:128-134.
Not in our library10.1038/nm.4036
320.
Xu B, Konze KD, Jin J, Wang GG. Targeting EZH2 and PRC2 dependence as novel anticancer therapy. Exp. Hematol. 2015;43:698-712.
Not in our library10.1016/j.exphem.2015.05.001
321.
Margueron R, Reinberg D. The Polycomb complex PRC2 and its mark in life. Nature. 2011;469:343-349.
Not in our library10.1038/nature09784
322.
Margueron R, et al. Ezh1 and Ezh2 maintain repressive chromatin through different mechanisms. Mol. Cell. 2008;32:503-518.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2008.11.004
323.
Wang, J. & Wang, G. G. No easy way out for EZH2: its pleiotropic, noncanonical effects on gene regulation and cellular function. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 9501 (2020).
Not in our library10.3390/ijms21249501
324.
Xu K, et al. EZH2 oncogenic activity in castration-resistant prostate cancer cells is Polycomb-independent. Science. 2012;338:1465-1469.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1227604
325.
Lawrence CL, Baldwin AS. Non-canonical EZH2 transcriptionally activates RelB in triple negative breast cancer. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0165005.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0165005
326.
Yan J, et al. EZH2 overexpression in natural killer/T-cell lymphoma confers growth advantage independently of histone methyltransferase activity. Blood. 2013;121:4512-4520.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2012-08-450494
327.
Kim J, et al. Polycomb- and methylation-independent roles of EZH2 as a transcription activator. Cell Rep. 2018;25:2808-2820.e2804.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.035
328.
FDA approves tazemetostat for advanced epithelioid sarcoma.https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-tazemetostat-advanced-epithelioid-sarcoma. (2020).
Not in our library
329.
FDA granted accelerated approval to tazemetostat for follicular lymphoma. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/fda-granted-accelerated-approval-tazemetostat-follicular-lymphoma. (2020).
Not in our library
330.
McCarthy EF. The toxins of William B. Coley and the treatment of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas. Iowa Orthop. J. 2006;26:154-158.
Not in our library
331.
Tan S, Li D, Zhu X. Cancer immunotherapy: pros, cons and beyond. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020;124:109821.
Not in our library10.1016/j.biopha.2020.109821
332.
Baumeister SH, Freeman GJ, Dranoff G, Sharpe AH. Coinhibitory pathways in immunotherapy for cancer. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2016;34:539-573.
Not in our library10.1146/annurev-immunol-032414-112049
333.
Wykes MN, Lewin SR. Immune checkpoint blockade in infectious diseases. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2018;18:91-104.
Not in our library10.1038/nri.2017.112
334.
Doyle AM, et al. Induction of cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) restricts clonal expansion of helper T cells. J. Exp. Med. 2001;194:893-902.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.194.7.893
335.
Freeman GJ, et al. Engagement of the PD-1 immunoinhibitory receptor by a novel B7 family member leads to negative regulation of lymphocyte activation. J. Exp. Med. 2000;192:1027-1034.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.192.7.1027
336.
Brunet JF, et al. A new member of the immunoglobulin superfamily-CTLA-4. Nature. 1987;328:267-270.
Not in our library10.1038/328267a0
337.
Harper K, et al. CTLA-4 and CD28 activated lymphocyte molecules are closely related in both mouse and human as to sequence, message expression, gene structure, and chromosomal location. J. Immunol. 1991;147:1037-1044.
Not in our library
338.
Linsley PS, et al. CTLA-4 is a second receptor for the B cell activation antigen B7. J. Exp. Med. 1991;174:561-569.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.174.3.561
339.
Linsley PS, et al. Human B7-1 (CD80) and B7-2 (CD86) bind with similar avidities but distinct kinetics to CD28 and CTLA-4 receptors. Immunity. 1994;1:793-801.
Not in our library10.1016/s1074-7613(94)80021-9
340.
Qureshi OS, et al. Trans-endocytosis of CD80 and CD86: a molecular basis for the cell-extrinsic function of CTLA-4. Science. 2011;332:600-603.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1202947
341.
Wing K, et al. CTLA-4 control over Foxp3+ regulatory T cell function. Science. 2008;322:271-275.
Not in our library10.1126/science.1160062
342.
Morad G, Helmink BA, Sharma P, Wargo JA. Hallmarks of response, resistance, and toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade. Cell. 2022;185:576.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2022.01.008
343.
Grosso JF, Jure-Kunkel MN. CTLA-4 blockade in tumor models: an overview of preclinical and translational research. Cancer Immun. 2013;13:5.
Not in our library
344.
van Elsas A, Hurwitz AA, Allison JP. Combination immunotherapy of B16 melanoma using anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-producing vaccines induces rejection of subcutaneous and metastatic tumors accompanied by autoimmune depigmentation. J. Exp. Med. 1999;190:355-366.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.190.3.355
345.
Leach DR, Krummel MF, Allison JP. Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade. Science. 1996;271:1734-1736.
Not in our library10.1126/science.271.5256.1734
346.
Camacho LH, et al. Phase I/II trial of tremelimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009;27:1075-1081.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2008.19.2435
347.
Kirkwood JM, et al. Phase II trial of tremelimumab (CP-675,206) in patients with advanced refractory or relapsed melanoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2010;16:1042-1048.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-2033
348.
O’Day SJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a multicenter single-arm phase II study. Ann. Oncol. 2010;21:1712-1717.
Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdq013
349.
Hodi FS, et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010;363:711-723.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1003466
350.
Yang JC, et al. Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4 antibody) causes regression of metastatic renal cell cancer associated with enteritis and hypophysitis. J. Immunother. 2007;30:825-830.
Not in our library10.1097/cji.0b013e318156e47e
351.
Lynch TJ, et al. Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line treatment in stage IIIB/IV non-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase II study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012;30:2046-2054.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2011.38.4032
352.
Reck M, et al. Ipilimumab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin as first-line therapy in extensive-disease-small-cell lung cancer: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase 2 trial. Ann. Oncol. 2013;24:75-83.
Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mds213
353.
Kwon ED, et al. Ipilimumab versus placebo after radiotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer that had progressed after docetaxel chemotherapy (CA184-043): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:700-712.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70189-5
354.
Ribas A, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013;31:616-622.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2012.44.6112
355.
Maio M, et al. Five-year survival rates for treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab plus dacarbazine in a phase III trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:1191-1196.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2014.56.6018
356.
Schadendorf D, et al. Pooled analysis of long-term survival data from phase II and phase III trials of ipilimumab in unresectable or metastatic melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015;33:1889-1894.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2014.56.2736
357.
Robert C, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015;372:2521-2532.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1503093
358.
Larkin J, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015;373:23-34.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1504030
359.
Khoja L, et al. Tumour- and class-specific patterns of immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review. Ann. Oncol. 2017;28:2377-2385.
Not in our library10.1093/annonc/mdx286
360.
Michot JM, et al. Immune-related adverse events with immune checkpoint blockade: a comprehensive review. Eur. J. Cancer. 2016;54:139-148.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejca.2015.11.016
361.
Du X, et al. Uncoupling therapeutic from immunotherapy-related adverse effects for safer and effective anti-CTLA-4 antibodies in CTLA4 humanized mice. Cell Res. 2018;28:433-447.
Not in our library10.1038/s41422-018-0012-z
362.
Improved therapeutic index of an acidic pH-selective antibody · 2022
Not checked
363.
Zhang Y, et al. Hijacking antibody-induced CTLA-4 lysosomal degradation for safer and more effective cancer immunotherapy. Cell Res. 2019;29:609-627.
Not in our library10.1038/s41422-019-0184-1
364.
Selby MJ, et al. Anti-CTLA-4 antibodies of IgG2a isotype enhance antitumor activity through reduction of intratumoral regulatory T cells. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2013;1:32-42.
Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-13-0013
365.
Simpson TR, et al. Fc-dependent depletion of tumor-infiltrating regulatory T cells co-defines the efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 therapy against melanoma. J. Exp. Med. 2013;210:1695-1710.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20130579
366.
Bulliard Y, et al. Activating Fc γ receptors contribute to the antitumor activities of immunoregulatory receptor-targeting antibodies. J. Exp. Med. 2013;210:1685-1693.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20130573
367.
Lo B, et al. AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE. Patients with LRBA deficiency show CTLA4 loss and immune dysregulation responsive to abatacept therapy. Science. 2015;349:436-440.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aaa1663
368.
A reappraisal of CTLA-4 checkpoint blockade in cancer immunotherapy · 2018
No notice
369.
Tang F, et al. Anti-CTLA-4 antibodies in cancer immunotherapy: selective depletion of intratumoral regulatory T cells or checkpoint blockade? Cell Biosci. 2018;8:30.
Not in our library10.1186/s13578-018-0229-z
370.
Korman AJ, Garrett-Thomson SC, Lonberg N. The foundations of immune checkpoint blockade and the ipilimumab approval decennial. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2021;21:509-528.
Not in our library10.1038/s41573-021-00345-8
371.
ONCOC4 ANNOUNCES FAST TRACK DESIGNATION GRANTED BY THE U.S. FDA FOR ONC-392 MONOTHERAPY IN PD(L)1-RESISTANT NSCLC.https://oncoc4.com/index.php/blog/news-releases/item/11-oncoc4-announces-fast-track-designation-granted-by-the-u-s-fda-for-onc-392-monotherapy-in-pd-l-1-resistant-nsclc. (2022).
Not in our library
372.
Weber JS, et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:375-384.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(15)70076-8
373.
Weber J, et al. Adjuvant nivolumab versus ipilimumab in resected stage III or IV melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;377:1824-1835.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1709030
374.
Schachter J, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab for advanced melanoma: final overall survival results of a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 3 study (KEYNOTE-006). Lancet. 2017;390:1853-1862.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(17)31601-x
375.
Ishida Y, Agata Y, Shibahara K, Honjo T. Induced expression of PD-1, a novel member of the immunoglobulin gene superfamily, upon programmed cell death. EMBO J. 1992;11:3887-3895.
Not in our library10.1002/j.1460-2075.1992.tb05481.x
376.
Nishimura H, et al. Development of lupus-like autoimmune diseases by disruption of the PD-1 gene encoding an ITIM motif-carrying immunoreceptor. Immunity. 1999;11:141-151.
Not in our library10.1016/s1074-7613(00)80089-8
377.
Dong H, Zhu G, Tamada K, Chen L. B7-H1, a third member of the B7 family, co-stimulates T-cell proliferation and interleukin-10 secretion. Nat. Med. 1999;5:1365-1369.
Not in our library10.1038/70932
378.
Latchman Y, et al. PD-L2 is a second ligand for PD-1 and inhibits T cell activation. Nat. Immunol. 2001;2:261-268.
Not in our library10.1038/85330
379.
Tseng SY, et al. B7-DC, a new dendritic cell molecule with potent costimulatory properties for T cells. J. Exp. Med. 2001;193:839-846.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.193.7.839
380.
Xiao Y, et al. RGMb is a novel binding partner for PD-L2 and its engagement with PD-L2 promotes respiratory tolerance. J. Exp. Med. 2014;211:943-959.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20130790
381.
Hirano F, et al. Blockade of B7-H1 and PD-1 by monoclonal antibodies potentiates cancer therapeutic immunity. Cancer Res. 2005;65:1089-1096.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.1089.65.3
382.
Iwai Y, et al. Involvement of PD-L1 on tumor cells in the escape from host immune system and tumor immunotherapy by PD-L1 blockade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:12293-12297.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.192461099
383.
Strome SE, et al. B7-H1 blockade augments adoptive T-cell immunotherapy for squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2003;63:6501-6505.
Not in our library
384.
He YF, et al. Blocking programmed death-1 ligand-PD-1 interactions by local gene therapy results in enhancement of antitumor effect of secondary lymphoid tissue chemokine. J. Immunol. 2004;173:4919-4928.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.173.8.4919
385.
Tanegashima T, et al. Immune suppression by PD-L2 against spontaneous and treatment-related antitumor immunity. Clin. Cancer Res. 2019;25:4808-4819.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-18-3991
386.
Reck M, et al. Updated analysis of KEYNOTE-024: pembrolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 tumor proportion score of 50% or greater. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019;37:537-546.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.18.00149
387.
Mok TSK, et al. Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for previously untreated, PD-L1-expressing, locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-042): a randomised, open-label, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2019;393:1819-1830.
Not in our library10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32409-7
388.
Jassem J, et al. Updated overall survival analysis from IMpower110: atezolizumab versus platinum-based chemotherapy in treatment-naive programmed death-ligand 1-selected NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2021;16:1872-1882.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2021.06.019
389.
Duan J, et al. Use of immunotherapy with programmed cell death 1 vs programmed cell death ligand 1 inhibitors in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:375-384.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5367
390.
Pillai RN, et al. Comparison of the toxicity profile of PD-1 versus PD-L1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic analysis of the literature. Cancer. 2018;124:271-277.
Not in our library10.1002/cncr.31043
391.
Khunger M, et al. Incidence of pneumonitis with use of programmed death 1 and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials. Chest. 2017;152:271-281.
Not in our library10.1016/j.chest.2017.04.177
392.
Zheng Q, et al. Clinicopathological and molecular characteristics associated with PD-L1 expression in non-small cell lung cancer: a large-scale, multi-center, real-world study in China. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2021;147:1547-1556.
Not in our library10.1007/s00432-020-03444-y
393.
Mahoney KM, Atkins MB. Prognostic and predictive markers for the new immunotherapies. Oncology. 2014;28(Suppl 3):39-48.
Not in our library
394.
Gibney GT, Weiner LM, Atkins MB. Predictive biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor-based immunotherapy. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e542-e551.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30406-5
395.
Doroshow DB, et al. PD-L1 as a biomarker of response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2021;18:345-362.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-021-00473-5
396.
Lu S, et al. Comparison of biomarker modalities for predicting response to PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1195-1204.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.1549
397.
Chen G, et al. Exosomal PD-L1 contributes to immunosuppression and is associated with anti-PD-1 response. Nature. 2018;560:382-386.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-018-0392-8
398.
Walk EE, et al. The cancer immunotherapy biomarker testing landscape. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2020;144:706-724.
Not in our library10.5858/arpa.2018-0584-cp
399.
Jardim DL, Goodman A, de Melo Gagliato D, Kurzrock R. The challenges of tumor mutational burden as an immunotherapy biomarker. Cancer Cell. 2021;39:154-173.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2020.10.001
400.
Gohil SH, et al. Applying high-dimensional single-cell technologies to the analysis of cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2021;18:244-256.
Not in our library10.1038/s41571-020-00449-x
401.
Triebel F, et al. LAG-3, a novel lymphocyte activation gene closely related to CD4. J. Exp. Med. 1990;171:1393-1405.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.171.5.1393
402.
Huang CT, et al. Role of LAG-3 in regulatory T cells. Immunity. 2004;21:503-513.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2004.08.010
403.
Blackburn SD, et al. Coregulation of CD8+ T cell exhaustion by multiple inhibitory receptors during chronic viral infection. Nat. Immunol. 2009;10:29-37.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.1679
404.
Huard B, et al. CD4/major histocompatibility complex class II interaction analyzed with CD4- and lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3)-Ig fusion proteins. Eur. J. Immunol. 1995;25:2718-2721.
Not in our library10.1002/eji.1830250949
405.
Dijkstra JM, et al. Identification and characterization of a second CD4-like gene in teleost fish. Mol. Immunol. 2006;43:410-419.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2005.03.005
406.
Huard B, et al. Characterization of the major histocompatibility complex class II binding site on LAG-3 protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 1997;94:5744-5749.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.94.11.5744
407.
Workman CJ, Dugger KJ, Vignali DA. Cutting edge: molecular analysis of the negative regulatory function of lymphocyte activation gene-3. J. Immunol. 2002;169:5392-5395.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.169.10.5392
408.
Kouo T, et al. Galectin-3 shapes antitumor immune responses by suppressing CD8+ T cells via LAG-3 and inhibiting expansion of plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2015;3:412-423.
Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-14-0150
409.
Liu W, et al. Characterization of a novel C-type lectin-like gene, LSECtin: demonstration of carbohydrate binding and expression in sinusoidal endothelial cells of liver and lymph node. J. Biol. Chem. 2004;279:18748-18758.
Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m311227200
410.
Xu F, et al. LSECtin expressed on melanoma cells promotes tumor progression by inhibiting antitumor T-cell responses. Cancer Res. 2014;74:3418-3428.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-13-2690
411.
Wang J, et al. Fibrinogen-like protein 1 is a major immune inhibitory ligand of LAG-3. Cell. 2019;176:334-347.e312.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.010
412.
Workman CJ, Vignali DA. The CD4-related molecule, LAG-3 (CD223), regulates the expansion of activated T cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 2003;33:970-979.
Not in our library10.1002/eji.200323382
413.
Workman CJ, Vignali DA. Negative regulation of T cell homeostasis by lymphocyte activation gene-3 (CD223). J. Immunol. 2005;174:688-695.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.174.2.688
414.
Andrews LP, Marciscano AE, Drake CG, Vignali DA. LAG3 (CD223) as a cancer immunotherapy target. Immunol. Rev. 2017;276:80-96.
Not in our library10.1111/imr.12519
415.
Camisaschi C, et al. LAG-3 expression defines a subset of CD4(+)CD25(high)Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells that are expanded at tumor sites. J. Immunol. 2010;184:6545-6551.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.0903879
416.
Wei T, et al. Increased expression of immunosuppressive molecules on intratumoral and circulating regulatory T cells in non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2015;5:2190-2201.
Not in our library
417.
Mullard A. LAG3 pushes immuno-oncology’s leading edge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2022;21:167-169.
Not in our library10.1038/d41573-022-00036-y
418.
Woo SR, et al. Immune inhibitory molecules LAG-3 and PD-1 synergistically regulate T-cell function to promote tumoral immune escape. Cancer Res. 2012;72:917-927.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-1620
419.
LAG3 and PD1 co-inhibitory molecules collaborate to limit CD8+ T cell signaling and dampen antitumor immunity in a murine ovarian cancer model · 2015
No notice
420.
Goding SR, et al. Restoring immune function of tumor-specific CD4+ T cells during recurrence of melanoma. J. Immunol. 2013;190:4899-4909.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.1300271
421.
Matsuzaki J, et al. Tumor-infiltrating NY-ESO-1-specific CD8+ T cells are negatively regulated by LAG-3 and PD-1 in human ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:7875-7880.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1003345107
422.
Jing W, et al. Combined immune checkpoint protein blockade and low dose whole body irradiation as immunotherapy for myeloma. J. Immunother. Cancer. 2015;3:2.
Not in our library10.1186/s40425-014-0043-z
423.
Tawbi HA, et al. Relatlimab and nivolumab versus nivolumab in untreated advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2022;386:24-34.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa2109970
424.
FDA approves Opdualag for unresectable or metastatic melanoma. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resources-information-approved-drugs/fda-approves-opdualag-unresectable-or-metastatic-melanoma (2022).
Not in our library
425.
Yu X, et al. The surface protein TIGIT suppresses T cell activation by promoting the generation of mature immunoregulatory dendritic cells. Nat. Immunol. 2009;10:48-57.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.1674
426.
Johnston RJ, et al. The immunoreceptor TIGIT regulates antitumor and antiviral CD8(+) T cell effector function. Cancer Cell. 2014;26:923-937.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2014.10.018
427.
He W, et al. CD155T/TIGIT Signaling Regulates CD8(+) T-cell Metabolism and Promotes Tumor Progression in Human Gastric Cancer. Cancer Res. 2017;77:6375-6388.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-17-0381
428.
Zhang Q, et al. Blockade of the checkpoint receptor TIGIT prevents NK cell exhaustion and elicits potent anti-tumor immunity. Nat. Immunol. 2018;19:723-732.
Not in our library10.1038/s41590-018-0132-0
429.
Cho BC, et al. Tiragolumab plus atezolizumab versus placebo plus atezolizumab as a first-line treatment for PD-L1-selected non-small-cell lung cancer (CITYSCAPE): primary and follow-up analyses of a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:781-792.
Not in our library10.1016/s1470-2045(22)00226-1
430.
Genentech Reports Interim Results for Phase III SKYSCRAPER-01 Study in PD-L1-High Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.https://www.gene.com/media/press-releases/14951/2022-05-10/genentech-reports-interim-results-for-ph (2022).
Not in our library
431.
Kaen DL, et al. Immunotherapy in lung cancer: are the promises of long-term benefit finally met? Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2021;1342:113-142.
Not in our library10.1007/978-3-030-79308-1_4
432.
Monney L, et al. Th1-specific cell surface protein Tim-3 regulates macrophage activation and severity of an autoimmune disease. Nature. 2002;415:536-541.
Not in our library10.1038/415536a
433.
Sánchez-Fueyo A, et al. Tim-3 inhibits T helper type 1-mediated auto- and alloimmune responses and promotes immunological tolerance. Nat. Immunol. 2003;4:1093-1101.
Not in our library10.1038/ni987
434.
Golden-Mason L, et al. Negative immune regulator Tim-3 is overexpressed on T cells in hepatitis C virus infection and its blockade rescues dysfunctional CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. J. Virol. 2009;83:9122-9130.
Not in our library10.1128/jvi.00639-09
435.
Jin HT, et al. Cooperation of Tim-3 and PD-1 in CD8 T-cell exhaustion during chronic viral infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:14733-14738.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1009731107
436.
Wu W, et al. Blockade of Tim-3 signaling restores the virus-specific CD8+ T-cell response in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Eur. J. Immunol. 2012;42:1180-1191.
Not in our library10.1002/eji.201141852
437.
Sakuishi K, et al. Targeting Tim-3 and PD-1 pathways to reverse T cell exhaustion and restore anti-tumor immunity. J. Exp. Med. 2010;207:2187-2194.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20100643
438.
Fourcade J, et al. Upregulation of Tim-3 and PD-1 expression is associated with tumor antigen-specific CD8+ T cell dysfunction in melanoma patients. J. Exp. Med. 2010;207:2175-2186.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20100637
439.
Zhou Q, et al. Coexpression of Tim-3 and PD-1 identifies a CD8+ T-cell exhaustion phenotype in mice with disseminated acute myelogenous leukemia. Blood. 2011;117:4501-4510.
Not in our library10.1182/blood-2010-10-310425
440.
Yuan L, Tatineni J, Mahoney KM, Freeman GJ. VISTA: a mediator of quiescence and a promising target in cancer immunotherapy. Trends Immunol. 2021;42:209-227.
Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2020.12.008
441.
Wang L, et al. VISTA, a novel mouse Ig superfamily ligand that negatively regulates T cell responses. J. Exp. Med. 2011;208:577-592.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20100619
442.
ElTanbouly, M. A. et al. VISTA is a checkpoint regulator for naïve T cell quiescence and peripheral tolerance. Science367, eaay0524 (2020).
Not in our library10.1126/science.aay0524
443.
Johnston RJ, et al. VISTA is an acidic pH-selective ligand for PSGL-1. Nature. 2019;574:565-570.
Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1674-5
444.
Waldman AD, Fritz JM, Lenardo MJ. A guide to cancer immunotherapy: from T cell basic science to clinical practice. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2020;20:651-668.
Not in our library10.1038/s41577-020-0306-5
445.
Mayes PA, Hance KW, Hoos A. The promise and challenges of immune agonist antibody development in cancer. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2018;17:509-527.
Not in our library10.1038/nrd.2018.75
446.
Tivol EA, et al. Loss of CTLA-4 leads to massive lymphoproliferation and fatal multiorgan tissue destruction, revealing a critical negative regulatory role of CTLA-4. Immunity. 1995;3:541-547.
Not in our library10.1016/1074-7613(95)90125-6
447.
Waterhouse P, et al. Lymphoproliferative disorders with early lethality in mice deficient in Ctla-4. Science. 1995;270:985-988.
Not in our library10.1126/science.270.5238.985
448.
Nishimura H, et al. Autoimmune dilated cardiomyopathy in PD-1 receptor-deficient mice. Science. 2001;291:319-322.
Not in our library10.1126/science.291.5502.319
449.
Wang J, et al. Establishment of NOD-Pdcd1−/− mice as an efficient animal model of type I diabetes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2005;102:11823-11828.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0505497102
450.
Wang J, et al. PD-1 deficiency results in the development of fatal myocarditis in MRL mice. Int. Immunol. 2010;22:443-452.
Not in our library10.1093/intimm/dxq026
451.
Fife BT, Bluestone JA. Control of peripheral T-cell tolerance and autoimmunity via the CTLA-4 and PD-1 pathways. Immunol. Rev. 2008;224:166-182.
Not in our library10.1111/j.1600-065x.2008.00662.x
452.
Topalian SL, Taube JM, Anders RA, Pardoll DM. Mechanism-driven biomarkers to guide immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2016;16:275-287.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2016.36
453.
CTLA-4 and PD-1 Pathway Blockade: Combinations in the Clinic · 2015
No notice
454.
Duraiswamy J, Kaluza KM, Freeman GJ, Coukos G. Dual blockade of PD-1 and CTLA-4 combined with tumor vaccine effectively restores T-cell rejection function in tumors. Cancer Res. 2013;73:3591-3603.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-4100
455.
Lim SO, et al. Deubiquitination and stabilization of PD-L1 by CSN5. Cancer Cell. 2016;30:925-939.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2016.10.010
456.
Rizvi NA, et al. Durvalumab with or without tremelimumab vs standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: the MYSTIC phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:661-674.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0237
457.
Gettinger SN, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs nivolumab for previously treated patients with stage IV squamous cell lung cancer: the lung-MAP S1400I phase 3 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7:1368-1377.
Not in our library10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.2209
458.
Zhao Y, et al. PD-L1:CD80 cis-heterodimer triggers the co-stimulatory receptor CD28 while repressing the inhibitory PD-1 and CTLA-4 pathways. Immunity. 2019;51:1059-1073.e1059.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2019.11.003
459.
Sugiura D, et al. Restriction of PD-1 function by cis-PD-L1/CD80 interactions is required for optimal T cell responses. Science. 2019;364:558-566.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aav7062
460.
Butte MJ, et al. Programmed death-1 ligand 1 interacts specifically with the B7-1 costimulatory molecule to inhibit T cell responses. Immunity. 2007;27:111-122.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2007.05.016
461.
Butte MJ, et al. Interaction of human PD-L1 and B7-1. Mol. Immunol. 2008;45:3567-3572.
Not in our library10.1016/j.molimm.2008.05.014
462.
Chaudhri A, et al. PD-L1 binds to B7-1 only in cis on the same cell surface. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2018;6:921-929.
Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-17-0316
463.
Onishi Y, Fehervari Z, Yamaguchi T, Sakaguchi S. Foxp3+ natural regulatory T cells preferentially form aggregates on dendritic cells in vitro and actively inhibit their maturation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2008;105:10113-10118.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0711106105
464.
Tekguc, M. et al. Treg-expressed CTLA-4 depletes CD80/CD86 by trogocytosis, releasing free PD-L1 on antigen-presenting cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA118, e2023739118 (2021).
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2023739118
465.
Zhou C, et al. A Phase II study of KN046 (bispecific anti-PD-L1/CTLA-4) in patients (pts) with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). J. Thorac. Oncol. 2021;16:S636-S636.
Not in our library10.1016/j.jtho.2021.01.1161
466.
Wu L, et al. A phase Ib/II trial of AK104 (PD-1/CTLA-4 bispecific antibody) in combination with anlotinib in advanced NSCLC. Ann. Oncol. 2021;32:S1006-S1006.
Not in our library10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.1902
467.
Spranger S, Gajewski TF. Impact of oncogenic pathways on evasion of antitumour immune responses. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 2018;18:139-147.
Not in our library10.1038/nrc.2017.117
468.
Peng W, et al. Loss of PTEN promotes resistance to T cell-mediated immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2016;6:202-216.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-15-0283
469.
Ali K, et al. Inactivation of PI(3)K p110δ breaks regulatory T-cell-mediated immune tolerance to cancer. Nature. 2014;510:407-411.
Not in our library10.1038/nature13444
470.
Ahmad S, et al. Differential PI3Kδ signaling in CD4(+) T-cell subsets enables selective targeting of T regulatory cells to enhance cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Res. 2017;77:1892-1904.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-16-1839
471.
Abu-Eid R, et al. Selective inhibition of regulatory T cells by targeting the PI3K-Akt pathway. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2014;2:1080-1089.
Not in our library10.1158/2326-6066.cir-14-0095
472.
Isoyama, S. et al. Cancer immunotherapy with PI3K and PD-1 dual-blockade via optimal modulation of T cell activation signal. J. Immunother. Cancer9, e002279 (2021).
Not in our library10.1136/jitc-2020-002279
473.
Kaech SM, Cui W. Transcriptional control of effector and memory CD8+ T cell differentiation. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2012;12:749-761.
Not in our library10.1038/nri3307
474.
Role of PI3K/Akt signaling in memory CD8 T cell differentiation · 2013
No notice
475.
Carnevalli LS, et al. PI3Kα/δ inhibition promotes anti-tumor immunity through direct enhancement of effector CD8(+) T-cell activity. J. Immunother. Cancer. 2018;6:158.
Not in our library10.1186/s40425-018-0457-0
476.
Lim, E. L. et al. Phosphoinositide 3-kinase δ inhibition promotes antitumor responses but antagonizes checkpoint inhibitors. JCI Insight3, e120626 (2018).
Not in our library10.1172/jci.insight.120626
477.
Parry RV, et al. CTLA-4 and PD-1 receptors inhibit T-cell activation by distinct mechanisms. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2005;25:9543-9553.
Not in our library10.1128/mcb.25.21.9543-9553.2005
478.
Hui E, et al. T cell costimulatory receptor CD28 is a primary target for PD-1-mediated inhibition. Science. 2017;355:1428-1433.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aaf1292
479.
Schaer DA, et al. The CDK4/6 inhibitor abemaciclib induces a T cell inflamed tumor microenvironment and enhances the efficacy of PD-L1 checkpoint blockade. Cell Rep. 2018;22:2978-2994.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.02.053
480.
CDK4/6 inhibition promotes immune infiltration in ovarian cancer and synergizes with PD-1 blockade in a B cell-dependent manner · 2020
No notice
481.
Zhang J, et al. Cyclin D-CDK4 kinase destabilizes PD-L1 via cullin 3-SPOP to control cancer immune surveillance. Nature. 2018;553:91-95.
Not in our library10.1038/nature25015
482.
Jerby-Arnon L, et al. A cancer cell program promotes T cell exclusion and resistance to checkpoint blockade. Cell. 2018;175:984-997.e924.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.09.006
483.
Deng J, et al. CDK4/6 inhibition augments antitumor immunity by enhancing T-cell activation. Cancer Discov. 2018;8:216-233.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-17-0915
484.
Heng TS, Painter MW. The Immunological Genome Project: networks of gene expression in immune cells. Nat. Immunol. 2008;9:1091-1094.
Not in our library10.1038/ni1008-1091
485.
PD 0332991, a selective cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitor, preferentially inhibits proliferation of luminal estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer cell lines in vitro · 2009
No notice
486.
Lelliott EJ, et al. CDK4/6 Inhibition Promotes Antitumor Immunity through the Induction of T-cell Memory. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:2582-2601.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-1554
487.
Heckler M, et al. Inhibition of CDK4/6 promotes CD8 T-cell memory formation. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:2564-2581.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-1540
488.
Rugo, H. S. et al. A phase lb study of abemaciclib in combination with pembrolizumab for patients with hormone receptor positive (HR plus), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (NCT02779751): interim results. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 1051 (2020).
Not in our library
489.
Pujol, J. L. et al. A phase Ib study of abemaciclib in combination with pembrolizumab for patients (pts) with stage IV Kirsten rat sarcoma mutant (KRAS-mut) or squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) (NCT02779751): interim results. J. Clin. Oncol. 38, 9562 (2020).
Not in our library
490.
Khan KA, Kerbel RS. Improving immunotherapy outcomes with anti-angiogenic treatments and vice versa. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018;15:310-324.
Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.9
491.
Shrimali RK, et al. Antiangiogenic agents can increase lymphocyte infiltration into tumor and enhance the effectiveness of adoptive immunotherapy of cancer. Cancer Res. 2010;70:6171-6180.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-10-0153
492.
Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab enhances antigen-specific T-cell migration in metastatic renal cell carcinoma · 2016
No notice
493.
Huang B, et al. Gr-1+CD115+ immature myeloid suppressor cells mediate the development of tumor-induced T regulatory cells and T-cell anergy in tumor-bearing host. Cancer Res. 2006;66:1123-1131.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-05-1299
494.
Kusmartsev S, et al. Oxidative stress regulates expression of VEGFR1 in myeloid cells: link to tumor-induced immune suppression in renal cell carcinoma. J. Immunol. 2008;181:346-353.
Not in our library10.4049/jimmunol.181.1.346
495.
Ko JS, et al. Sunitinib mediates reversal of myeloid-derived suppressor cell accumulation in renal cell carcinoma patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009;15:2148-2157.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-08-1332
496.
Terme M, et al. VEGFA-VEGFR pathway blockade inhibits tumor-induced regulatory T-cell proliferation in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 2013;73:539-549.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-2325
497.
Hansen W, et al. Neuropilin 1 deficiency on CD4+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells impairs mouse melanoma growth. J. Exp. Med. 2012;209:2001-2016.
Not in our library10.1084/jem.20111497
498.
Jain RK. Antiangiogenesis strategies revisited: from starving tumors to alleviating hypoxia. Cancer Cell. 2014;26:605-622.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccell.2014.10.006
499.
Fukumura D, et al. Enhancing cancer immunotherapy using antiangiogenics: opportunities and challenges. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2018;15:325-340.
Not in our library10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.29
500.
Facciabene A, et al. Tumour hypoxia promotes tolerance and angiogenesis via CCL28 and T(reg) cells. Nature. 2011;475:226-230.
Not in our library10.1038/nature10169
501.
Yang L, et al. Expansion of myeloid immune suppressor Gr+CD11b+ cells in tumor-bearing host directly promotes tumor angiogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2004;6:409-421.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ccr.2004.08.031
502.
Curiel TJ, et al. Dendritic cell subsets differentially regulate angiogenesis in human ovarian cancer. Cancer Res. 2004;64:5535-5538.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-04-1272
503.
Cham CM, Gajewski TF. Metabolic mechanisms of tumor resistance to T cell effector function. Immunol. Res. 2005;31:107-118.
Not in our library10.1385/ir:31:2:107
504.
Chang CH, et al. Posttranscriptional control of T cell effector function by aerobic glycolysis. Cell. 2013;153:1239-1251.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.016
505.
An HIF-1α/VEGF-A Axis in Cytotoxic T Cells Regulates Tumor Progression · 2017
No notice
506.
Socinski MA, et al. Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018;378:2288-2301.
Not in our library10.1056/nejmoa1716948
507.
Coward J, et al. Safety and efficacy of AK112, an anti-PD-1/VEGF-A bispecific antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumors in a phase I dose escalation study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2021;39:2515-2515.
Not in our library10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.2515
508.
Roulois D, et al. DNA-demethylating agents target colorectal cancer cells by inducing viral mimicry by endogenous transcripts. Cell. 2015;162:961-973.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.056
509.
Chiappinelli KB, et al. Inhibiting DNA methylation causes an interferon response in cancer via dsRNA including endogenous retroviruses. Cell. 2015;162:974-986.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.011
510.
Sheng W, et al. LSD1 ablation stimulates anti-tumor immunity and enables checkpoint blockade. Cell. 2018;174:549-563.e519.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.052
511.
KDM5 histone demethylases repress immune response via suppression of STING · 2018
No notice
512.
Dawson MA. The cancer epigenome: concepts, challenges, and therapeutic opportunities. Science. 2017;355:1147-1152.
Not in our library10.1126/science.aam7304
513.
Peng D, et al. Epigenetic silencing of TH1-type chemokines shapes tumour immunity and immunotherapy. Nature. 2015;527:249-253.
Not in our library10.1038/nature15520
514.
Sullivan, R. J. et al. Efficacy and safety of entinostat (ENT) and pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) in patients with melanoma previously treated with anti-PD1 therapy. Cancer Res. 79, 9530 (2019).
Not in our library
515.
Nagarsheth N, et al. PRC2 epigenetically silences Th1-type chemokines to suppress effector T-cell trafficking in colon cancer. Cancer Res. 2016;76:275-282.
Not in our library10.1158/0008-5472.can-15-1938
516.
Guo B, Tan X, Cen H. EZH2 is a negative prognostic biomarker associated with immunosuppression in hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0242191.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0242191
517.
Kim HJ, Cantor H, Cosmopoulos K. Overcoming immune checkpoint blockade resistance via EZH2 inhibition. Trends Immunol. 2020;41:948-963.
Not in our library10.1016/j.it.2020.08.010
518.
Guo, W. et al. LincRNA-immunity landscape analysis identifies EPIC1 as a regulator of tumor immune evasion and immunotherapy resistance. Sci. Adv. 7, eabb3555 (2021).
Not in our library10.1126/sciadv.abb3555
519.
Dersh D, et al. Genome-wide screens identify lineage- and tumor-specific genes modulating MHC-I- and MHC-II-restricted immunosurveillance of human lymphomas. Immunity. 2021;54:116-131.e110.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2020.11.002
520.
DuPage M, et al. The chromatin-modifying enzyme Ezh2 is critical for the maintenance of regulatory T cell identity after activation. Immunity. 2015;42:227-238.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2015.01.007
521.
Arvey A, et al. Inflammation-induced repression of chromatin bound by the transcription factor Foxp3 in regulatory T cells. Nat. Immunol. 2014;15:580-587.
Not in our library10.1038/ni.2868
522.
Wang D, et al. Targeting EZH2 reprograms intratumoral regulatory T cells to enhance cancer immunity. Cell Rep. 2018;23:3262-3274.
Not in our library10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.050
523.
Goswami S, et al. Modulation of EZH2 expression in T cells improves efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 therapy. J. Clin. Invest. 2018;128:3813-3818.
Not in our library10.1172/jci99760
524.
Hong YK, et al. Epigenetic modulation enhances immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell. Immunol. 2019;336:66-74.
Not in our library10.1016/j.cellimm.2018.12.010
525.
Zhou L, et al. Targeting EZH2 enhances antigen presentation, antitumor immunity, and circumvents Anti-PD-1 resistance in head and neck cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020;26:290-300.
Not in our library10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-19-1351
526.
Palomba, M. L. et al. Combination of atezolizumab and tazemetostat in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results from a phase Ib study. Clin. Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 22, 504–512 (2021).
Not in our library10.1016/j.clml.2021.12.014
527.
Meeks, J. J. et al. A pilot study of tazemetostat and MK-3475 (pembrolizumab) in advanced urothelial carcinoma (ETCTN 10183). J. Clin. Oncol. 38, TPS607 (2020).
Not in our library
528.
Qin Y, et al. Inhibition of histone lysine-specific demethylase 1 elicits breast tumor immunity and enhances antitumor efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade. Oncogene. 2019;38:390-405.
Not in our library10.1038/s41388-018-0451-5
529.
Xu S, et al. LSD1 silencing contributes to enhanced efficacy of anti-CD47/PD-L1 immunotherapy in cervical cancer. Cell Death Dis. 2021;12:282.
Not in our library10.1038/s41419-021-03556-4
530.
LSD1 deletion decreases exosomal PD-L1 and restores T-cell response in gastric cancer · 2022
No notice
531.
Cheng W, et al. Growth differentiation factor 1-induced tumour plasticity provides a therapeutic window for immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat. Commun. 2021;12:7142.
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-021-27525-9
532.
Liu Y, et al. LSD1 inhibition sustains T cell invigoration with a durable response to PD-1 blockade. Nat. Commun. 2021;12:6831.
Not in our library10.1038/s41467-021-27179-7
533.
Blackburn SD, Shin H, Freeman GJ, Wherry EJ. Selective expansion of a subset of exhausted CD8 T cells by alphaPD-L1 blockade. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2008;105:15016-15021.
Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0801497105
534.
Im SJ, et al. Defining CD8+ T cells that provide the proliferative burst after PD-1 therapy. Nature. 2016;537:417-421.
Not in our library10.1038/nature19330
535.
Miller BC, et al. Subsets of exhausted CD8(+) T cells differentially mediate tumor control and respond to checkpoint blockade. Nat. Immunol. 2019;20:326-336.
Not in our library10.1038/s41590-019-0312-6
536.
Siddiqui I, et al. Intratumoral Tcf1(+)PD-1(+)CD8(+) T cells with stem-like properties promote tumor control in response to vaccination and checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Immunity. 2019;50:195-211.e110.
Not in our library10.1016/j.immuni.2018.12.021
537.
Sheng W, et al. Simultaneous inhibition of LSD1 and TGFβ enables eradication of poorly immunogenic tumors with anti-PD-1 treatment. Cancer Discov. 2021;11:1970-1981.
Not in our library10.1158/2159-8290.cd-20-0017
538.
Paik PK, et al. New treatment options in advanced squamous cell lung cancer. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol. Educ. Book. 2019;39:e198-e206.
Not in our library10.1200/edbk_237829

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.