Both fetal and tumor tissue microenvironments display immunosuppressive features characterized by the presence of specific immunomodulatory stromal and immune cell populations. Recently, we discovered shared microenvironments between hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and fetal tissues and described this phenomenon as an oncofetal ecosystem. This ecosystem includes fetal-like immune (macrophage) and stromal (endothelial) cells within the tumor microenvironment (TME). This discovery highlights reciprocal interactions between fetal-like macrophages and T cells which result in the orchestration of an immunosuppressive TME. Importantly, VEGF-A protein expression by tumor cells and fetal-like macrophages plays an important role in oncofetal reprogramming of the TME in HCCs. Interestingly, recent clinical data indicate that blocking VEGF-A or CTLA4 alongside PD-L1 is effective in treating advanced HCC. Consequently, some immunotherapies may target and rely on oncofetal cells for clinical responsiveness. This understanding provides exciting opportunities to utilize oncofetal niche characteristics as biomarkers of immunotherapy response in HCC and might also have validity for predicting responses to immunotherapy in other cancers. In this review, we explore the immunosuppressive mechanisms and interactions of oncofetal cells in the TME of HCC and their potential implications for immunotherapy response.

Immunosuppression is characterized by a reduction in the efficacy and activation of immune responses [1]. Two illustrations of immunosuppression are during pregnancy/fetal development and within the tumor microenvironment (TME) [2–7]. Many elements of the immune system are immunosuppressive by trait and can exert immunosuppressive effects on other components of the immune system [8]. These include regulatory T cells (Tregs) [9], mature DCs enriched in immunoregulatory molecules (mregDCs) [3,7], regulatory B cells (Breg) [10], and immunosuppressive macrophages [11] to name a few. These regulatory cells may be involved in both tumor progression [2,3] and fetal development [4–7]. Fetal development requires immunosuppression within both the mother and the fetus for healthy fetal development [12–15], whereas immunosuppression within the TME is a determinant for the survival of tumor cells [16].

Oncofetal reprogramming describes the appearance of characteristics reminiscent of fetal development in tumor cells and more recently, the TME [17]. Tumor development was linked to embryonic development in the early 1900s [18,19] where it was hypothesized that tumors were an abnormal extension of embryonic cells [18]. This theory underwent several permutations over the decades [18,20–24] and recently, oncofetal reprogramming has been extended beyond tumor cells to encompass cells of the TME in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), termed the oncofetal ecosystem [17]. The oncofetal ecosystem in HCC is characterized by a VEGF-A and PD-L1 mediated immunosuppressive microenvironment that exists in tumor and fetal tissues but is absent from normal adult liver tissue [17,25,26]. Consequently, oncofetal cells within the TME can impact immunosuppressive features and are likely targeted by immunotherapies due to overlapping targets.

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in cancer has been transformative in the treatment of several malignancies, including melanoma [27,28], renal-cell carcinoma [29], bladder cancer [30], non-small lung cell cancer [31], and others [32–34]. Furthermore, ICIs target immunosuppressive receptors and ligands (primarily PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA4, and LAG-3) with the aim to reduce immunosuppression within the TME [32,35–39]. While ICIs have been revelatory in the treatment of several malignancies, there are cancers where ICIs have had limited success, for example, HCC [40]. In this setting of HCC, the recently discovered role of VEGF-A and PD-L1 mediated immunosuppression by oncofetal cells within the TME [17] suggests that these cells may be implicated in ICI response [41]. Consequently, this review aims to delve into the mechanisms of immunosuppression in fetal development and tumorigenesis and explore the potential implications of such mechanisms in cancer therapy with a focus on HCC.

Immunosuppression during fetal development

Fetal growth and development represent the best and most successful examples of graft-tolerance in the body with any disruption in this tolerance leading to pre-term birth or altered fetal growth [42]. The fetus shares only half of its genes with the mother and an array of non-inherited maternal antigens and several rapidly evolving self-antigens always pose a risk for immune intolerance [14]. Yet although most of the immune cells and both innate and adaptive components of immunity are present in the fetus, maternal–fetal exchanges do not mount an immune response [7]. One reason could be the selective barrier between the two; however, this does not protect the fetal environment from antigenic and/or metabolic exposures [43]. Research has shown that the fetal environment is protected by regulatory immune cells that calibrate and balance the immune responses generated by the fetus [7,44,45]. This is a delicate balancing act where the immune system is not only protecting the fetus by virtue of tolerance, but also constantly learning and evolving to be primed for exposures after birth. For optimal development, this requires continuous communication between immune cells and the surrounding environment.

An immunosuppressive environment during fetal development is critical for maternal–fetal homeostasis [13]. Maternal–fetal tolerance during pregnancy is essential and is characterized in the mother by a shift in immune cell populations to mediate immune-endocrine interactions [46]: an increase in Tregs and a shift from Th1 to Th2 responses [13,47] or more simply, a pro-inflammatory to an anti-inflammatory phenotype. While this occurs in the mother to prevent maternal T cells attacking the fetus [48], the fetal adaptive immune system also generates Tregs to suppress the function of fetal T cells specific for maternal alloantigens [4]. Maternal cells also cross the placenta to engraft in utero into fetal tissues, a phenomenon known as maternal microchimerism [49]. Because of this, fetuses display elevated proportions of Tregs in lymphoid tissues compared with adults [50]. The crucial role of fetal Tregs in maintaining maternal–fetal tolerance is further highlighted by their decline at birth [51]. This is likely due to differing cytokine environments; increased expression of transforming growth factor (TGF) β family members has been observed in fetal lymph nodes compared with adults, with TGFβ signaling critical for Treg differentiation during T cell activation [4]. While the expression of TGFβ family members plays a large role in fetal development [52], it also promotes a favourable microenvironment for tumor growth [53].

Fetal dendritic cells (DCs) have been shown to migrate to lymph nodes to promote tolerogenic immunity through Arginase-2-induced Treg maintenance [7]. Similarly, CD71+ erythroid suppressor cells are present in the fetus and enhance regulatory T cell-mediated immunosuppression through Arginase-2 activity [54,55]. Conversely, dysfunctional Treg cells have been implicated in pre-term birth, miscarriages, pre-eclampsia, and inability for embryo-implantation [56–58]. Interestingly, the adoptive transfer of Tregs in mice with recurrent miscarriages helps establish successful pregnancy and fetal development [59]. These observations strongly indicate the importance of maintaining an immunosuppressive environment during development and illustrates the complicity of common signaling and metabolic pathways to achieve this goal. Just as the fetal environment constantly evolves, so has knowledge of early life development and immune-tolerance mechanisms that work toward a successful maternal–fetal association.

Immunosuppression in tumors

An immunosuppressive microenvironment is critical for tumor development, but tumor cells also drive the generation, expansion, and recruitment of immunosuppressive cell types in the TME [60,61]. In HCC, primary tumors commonly reside in inflamed liver tissue [62], with macrophages playing a role in the initiation of HCC in inflamed livers [63]. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) compose a significant proportion of the HCC TME [64] and secrete chemokines which attract Tregs to the TME, thereby enhancing immunosuppression [65]. Furthermore, TAMs and FoxP3+ Tregs were found to co-localize and promote HCC progression [66]. This recruitment of immunosuppressive cells acts in part to establish an immunosuppressive TME while the sequestration of cells results from the expression of immunosuppressive cytokines such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and TGF by tumor cells in several cancers [67], including HCC [17,68]. Consequently, immunosuppressive cells play a significant role in the development of primary HCC [62]. This has been similarly reported in colorectal cancer where modeling predicted that the recruitment of immunosuppressive cells was the most common driver of benign to malignant transformation [69].

The incidence of cancer increases with advancing age [70], as does the deterioration of the immune system (termed immunosenescence) [71], suggesting a potential association of the two. Immunosenescence is primarily described with respect to T cells in elderly individuals, largely due to the maintenance of antigen presentation by DCs (one of the major antigen-presenting cells) [72]. However, alongside immunosenescence is an increase in inflammation, termed inflammaging [73]. In some cases, immunosuppressive cells are induced by inflammatory mediators [74,75] including NFκB, the STAT family transcription factors [76,77], chemokines, and colony-stimulating factors [75] (such as inflammaging in the elderly and chronic inflammation in HCC). Therefore, the immunosuppressive TME orchestrated by cells in the TME of HCC is likely related to inflammation. Furthermore, the immune system of the aged somewhat resembles that of a newborn: compromised lymphocyte responses, reduced activity of macrophages and neutrophils, decreased natural killer (NK) cell killing, and reduced antigen presentation by DCs [78]. Consequently, immunosuppression is characteristic of both fetal development and tumorigenesis with overlapping immunosuppressive cells driving these microenvironments.

An immunosuppressive microenvironment is characteristic of fetal development and tumorigenesis and is an important component of tumor progression and metastasis [17,67,68]. Several cells within the TME have been shown to display oncofetal reprogramming, the most well-described being macrophages [11,17] and endothelial cells [17,79]. Importantly, oncofetal reprogramming has been discovered in a subset of the TME population in HCC and further research in this direction will shed light on new oncofetal cell types in the tumor ecosystem. Therefore, in this review, we will discuss the potential role of an oncofetal ecosystem in immunotherapy response.

FOLR2+ oncofetal macrophages

Recently, we discovered the re-emergence of fetal-like macrophages in the microenvironment of HCC and highlighted their implication in the immunosuppressive microenvironment [17]. Folate receptor beta (FOLR2)-positive macrophages first emerge in the yolk sac and early fetal organs, with fate-mapping of adult samples indicating emergence from both yolk sac and fetal monocyte precursors, reflective of their embryonic origins [80]. During fetal development, fetal and maternal-derived macrophages are observed in the placenta, playing niche-specific roles vital for normal placental development and function [5]. Fetal-derived macrophages (Hofbauer cells; HBC) in the first-trimester express (and are defined by) the FOLR2 gene [45] and interestingly, are the only immune cells found within the stromal core at this point [5]. In contrast, placenta-associated maternal monocytes/macrophages do not express FOLR2 [5], indicating that FOLR2 expression is specific to fetal development in this context. Importantly, FOLR2+ HBCs/macrophages [45,81], as well as some tumor cells [17,82], are the main source of VEGF in tissue ecosystems, thus contributing toward angiogenesis in fetal and tumor development, such as in HCC [17]. VEGF secreted by both HBCs in the placenta and tumor cells target endothelial cells (ECs) [5]. Consequently, VEGF signaling plays a role in angiogenesis in both fetal [5] and tumor [83] development, and in HCC VEGF signaling results in the emergence of oncofetal ECs [17].

TAMs have recently been shown to express FOLR2 in HCC and breast cancer [11,17,84,85]. The TME contains ontogenically distinct TAM populations; one population arises from embryonic resident tissue macrophages pre-existing in the tissue prior to tumor development, and the second population arises from inflammatory monocytes recruited from the circulation [86,87]. Interestingly, in tumor tissues, FOLR2+ TAMs are derived from both embryonic and adult bone marrow precursors, demonstrating the ability for adult macrophages to be reprogrammed into a fetal-like state, regardless of ontogeny [11,17].

FOLR2+ TAMs play a role in creating an immunosuppressive TME. For example, FOLR2 is preferentially expressed by macrophages with anti-inflammatory properties [88] and FOLR2+ TAMs inhibit both cytokine secretion and the proliferation of tumor-specific T cells [89]. Furthermore, high expression levels of immunomodulatory chemokines and CD86 by FOLR2+ TAMs further support their likely role in facilitating an immunosuppressive TME [17]. In the case of HCC, cell–cell interaction analyses identified FOLR2+ TAMs as having more immunosuppressive interactions with Tregs in comparison with other TAM populations within the TME [17]. Similarly, NOTCH signaling between FOLR2+ TAMs and ECs worked in synergy with VEGF signaling in the TME of HCC, promoting the maintenance of an oncofetal ecosystem [17]. However, the co-localization of fetal-like FOLR2+ TAMs with Tregs and fetal-like ECs adjoining ALB+ tumor epithelial cells in HCC suggests that they do not orchestrate an immunosuppressive TME alone [17] (Figure 1).

Oncofetal cells within the TME promote immunosuppression.

Figure 1.
Oncofetal cells within the TME promote immunosuppression.

Tumorigenic hepatocytes and FOLR2+ TAMs secrete VEGF within the TME of HCC, inducing the oncofetal reprogramming and expansion of PLVAP+ ECs, with NOTCH signalling maintaining the oncofetal ecosystem. Furthermore, high expression levels of CD86 by FOLR2+ TAMs induces Treg expansion. To further enhance the immunosuppressive environment, cytokines and chemokines secreted by FOLR2+ TAMs inhibit the cytotoxic response of T cells. An immunosuppressive TME orchestrated by oncofetal cells provides the basis for EMT and metastasis. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 1.
Oncofetal cells within the TME promote immunosuppression.

Tumorigenic hepatocytes and FOLR2+ TAMs secrete VEGF within the TME of HCC, inducing the oncofetal reprogramming and expansion of PLVAP+ ECs, with NOTCH signalling maintaining the oncofetal ecosystem. Furthermore, high expression levels of CD86 by FOLR2+ TAMs induces Treg expansion. To further enhance the immunosuppressive environment, cytokines and chemokines secreted by FOLR2+ TAMs inhibit the cytotoxic response of T cells. An immunosuppressive TME orchestrated by oncofetal cells provides the basis for EMT and metastasis. Created with BioRender.com.

Close modal

PLVAP+ oncofetal endothelial cells

Alongside FOLR2+ TAMs, we identified fetal-like ECs and their implications for maintaining the oncofetal ecosystem in the TME of HCC [17]. Plasmalemma vesicle-associated protein (PLVAP)-positive endothelial cells have been identified in fetal [90,91], cirrhotic liver [92], and HCC [17,93], and are enriched in the tumor periphery [17]. PLVAP is an EC-specific gene involved in angiogenesis, leukocyte migration, and basal permeability [90,91]. Furthermore, PLVAP+ cells control the accumulation of tissue-resident fetal liver macrophages in a selective manner but do not impact yolk sack- or bone marrow-derived macrophages or other leukocytes [91]. In a murine model, adult Plvap−/− mice displayed significantly decreased levels of tissue-resident embryonic liver-derived macrophages in the spleen, peritoneal cavity, and lungs [91]. Consequently, it is thought that PLVAP+ ECs in the TME may facilitate reprogramming to fetal-like macrophages [17], subsequently, promoting an immunosuppressive microenvironment. Alongside FOLR2+ macrophages, PLVAP+ ECs have been identified in a gastric TME [94].

In a murine model of HCC, VEGF expression from malignant hepatocytes induced PLVAP expression in liver sinusoidal ECs (LSECs), in turn promoting FOLR2+ TAMs and interactions with Tregs [17]. In this murine model, PLVAP+ LSECs regulated the entry of lymphocytes and antigens into lymph nodes [90]. Furthermore, LSECs can impact liver disease outcomes such as portal hypertension, fibrosis and autoimmune hepatitis, and may induce immune tolerance in the liver [95]. Combined, PLVAP+ LSECs have the capacity to impact immunosuppression in fetal and tumor tissue. VEGF/NOTCH signaling is also an important aspect of oncofetal reprogramming [17], with VEGF expression shown to induce PLVAP+ ECs [17] and in turn, FOLR2+ TAMs (Figure 1). These interactions are suggestive of an immunosuppressive communication hub inclusive of LSECs in the liver TME that can facilitate tumor growth [95].

Several immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer are aimed at reversing and/or combatting immunosuppression in the TME. Tumor-infiltrating immunosuppressive cells exploit inhibitory molecules to impair T cell-mediated responses [35]. Consequently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) target these checkpoints (such as PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA4, and LAG-3) to block checkpoint receptor–ligand interactions, permitting a robust cytotoxic lymphocyte response [96]. The context of immune cells in the tumor ecosystem impacts the efficacy of ICIs and as immunotherapies only work in a fraction of cancer patients, there is a critical need to identify biomarkers and new targets/combinations to treat non-responding tumors.

Therapies combining an anti-angiogenic and an ICI have resulted in breakthroughs for the treatment of unresectable HCC [97,98], advanced renal-cell carcinoma [99,100], metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer [101], and endometrial carcinoma [102]. In 2020, a new combination of an anti-VEGF-A inhibitor (bevacizumab) and an anti-PD-L1 (atezolizumab) demonstrated significant efficacy and became the standard-of-care for HCC based on the results of IMbrave150 [97,103]. This combinatorial therapy of an ICI with an anti-angiogenic antibody drives the infiltration of immune cells into ‘cold’ tumors, thus converting them to ‘hot’ tumors with the goal of increasing therapy response [104]. Simply, the synergy of the combinatorial treatment modulates blood supply to the tumor and enhances the anti-tumor immune response [97], reducing immunosuppression and harnessing the TME of HCC to eliminate tumor cells. More recently, the combination of anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) and anti-CTLA4 (tremelimumab) has been approved by the US FDA for use in unresectable HCC based on the results of HIMALAYA [105]. However, these combinatorial therapies only have an objective response rate of 30% [40] and 20.1% [105] for IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA, respectively. Consequently, there is still a need to identify therapies for the remaining HCC patients who do not respond or who become resistant to therapy. As such, there are several ongoing and upcoming clinical trials for immunotherapies in HCC (reviewed in [106]), many of which have the potential to target oncofetal cells in the TME (Table 1).

Table 1.
Approved, current, and upcoming ICI therapies for HCC that may target oncofetalcells in the TME
Trial nameIdentifierPhaseBCLC stage*Treatment armsSetting
CheckMate 040 NCT01658878 Approved  Nivolumab (anti-PD-1) single arm Second 
CheckMate 040 NCT01658878 Approved  Nivolumab (anti-PD-1) + ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4) single arm Second 
IMbrave150 NCT03434379 Approved  Atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) + bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) vs. sorafenib First 
CheckMate 9DW NCT04039607 Phase 3 Nivolumab (anti-PD-1) + ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4First 
Sorafenib or lenvatinib 
HIMALAYA NCT03298451 Phase 3 B or C Durvalumab (anti-PD-L1First 
Durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) + tremelimumab (anti-CTLA4) 2 regimens 
Sorafenib 
N/A NCT03764293 Phase 3 B or C Camrelizumab (SHR-1210; anti-PD-1) + apatinib (anti-VEGFR2First 
Sorafenib 
Bayer 19497 NCT03347292 Phase 1b/2 B or C Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1First 
GOING NCT04170556 Phase 1/2 BCLC C Regorafenib (monotherapy for the first 8 weeks; anti-VEGFR) + nivolumab (anti-PD-1Second 
ORIENT-32 NCT03794440 Phase 2/3 B or C Sintilimab (anti-PD-1) + IBI305 (anti-VEGFFirst 
Sorafenib 
RENOBATE NCT04310709 Phase 2 B or C Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + nivolumab (anti-PD-1First 
N/A NCT04183088 Phase 2 B or C Part 1: First 
Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + tislelizumab (anti-PD-1
Part 2: 
Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + tislelizumab (anti-PD-1
Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR
N/A NCT04442581 Phase 2 B or C Cabozantinib (anti-VEGFR) + pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1First 
Trial nameIdentifierPhaseBCLC stage*Treatment armsSetting
CheckMate 040 NCT01658878 Approved  Nivolumab (anti-PD-1) single arm Second 
CheckMate 040 NCT01658878 Approved  Nivolumab (anti-PD-1) + ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4) single arm Second 
IMbrave150 NCT03434379 Approved  Atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) + bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) vs. sorafenib First 
CheckMate 9DW NCT04039607 Phase 3 Nivolumab (anti-PD-1) + ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4First 
Sorafenib or lenvatinib 
HIMALAYA NCT03298451 Phase 3 B or C Durvalumab (anti-PD-L1First 
Durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) + tremelimumab (anti-CTLA4) 2 regimens 
Sorafenib 
N/A NCT03764293 Phase 3 B or C Camrelizumab (SHR-1210; anti-PD-1) + apatinib (anti-VEGFR2First 
Sorafenib 
Bayer 19497 NCT03347292 Phase 1b/2 B or C Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1First 
GOING NCT04170556 Phase 1/2 BCLC C Regorafenib (monotherapy for the first 8 weeks; anti-VEGFR) + nivolumab (anti-PD-1Second 
ORIENT-32 NCT03794440 Phase 2/3 B or C Sintilimab (anti-PD-1) + IBI305 (anti-VEGFFirst 
Sorafenib 
RENOBATE NCT04310709 Phase 2 B or C Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + nivolumab (anti-PD-1First 
N/A NCT04183088 Phase 2 B or C Part 1: First 
Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + tislelizumab (anti-PD-1
Part 2: 
Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR) + tislelizumab (anti-PD-1
Regorafenib (anti-VEGFR
N/A NCT04442581 Phase 2 B or C Cabozantinib (anti-VEGFR) + pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1First 

*BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) staging system is used to determine treatment [131]. It considers the number and size of liver tumors, liver function, and general health and fitness. Stage B is intermediate with several tumors in the liver, but liver function remains. Stage C is advanced where the metastases are present, but the liver is still functioning. ICI targets have been indicated in brackets with those implicated in the oncofetal ecosystem in bold.

Macrophages are abundant in the TME of HCC and exhibit a heterogeneous nature [107], with FOLR2+ TAMs playing an important role in orchestrating an immunosuppressive TME [17]. FOLR2+ TAMs are ontogenically either embryonic macrophages or could be reprogramed monocyte-derived macrophages [17]. Cell–cell interaction analyses have suggested that FOLR2+ TAMs may be drivers of immunosuppression in HCC due to their increased expression of immunomodulatory chemokines alongside a greater number of immunosuppressive interactions with Tregs in comparison with other TAM populations [17]. Furthermore, an enrichment of FOLR2+ TAMs co-localized with Tregs and PLVAP+ ECs was observed compared with other TAM populations [17]. For these reasons, we postulate that interactions between FOLR2+ TAMs co-localized with Tregs, fetal-like ECs, and ALB+ tumor epithelial cells could be impacted by anti-angiogenic therapies (Figure 2), thereby, potentially impacting immunotherapy response. However, it is important to note that tumors display high levels of heterogeneity both within and between patients [93] and as such, the mechanisms speculated herein likely display spatial localizations and/or vary between tumors.

Oncofetal cells are implicated in immunotherapy response.

Figure 2.
Oncofetal cells are implicated in immunotherapy response.

Immunotherapies for HCC are often combinatorial, including the three main targets anti-PD-1/PD-L1, anti-VEGF, and/or anti-CTLA4. Two prominent clinical trials for HCC, IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA, assess the combination of these targets. The results of IMbrabe150 have led to the combination of anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF as the standard-of-care for advanced-stage HCC. Similarly, HIMALAYA is assessing the efficacy and safety of an anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA4. Pathways targeted by these therapies often include those implicated in oncofetal reprogramming or oncofetal cells directly. In the case of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies, these can hinder the development of new immunosuppressive FOLR2+ TAMs by inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. In turn, the inhibition of CD8+ T cells by FOLR2+ TAMs is reduced, permitting the proliferation of Ki67+GZMB+CD8+ T cells and resultant tumor cell death. Combination of an ICI with anti-VEGF, as in the IMbrave150 trial, further reduces the presence of FOLR2+ TAMs and PLVAP+ ECs in the TME. Anti-VEGF inhibits NOTCH signaling, reducing the presence of both FOLR2+ TAMs and PLVAP+ ECs. Furthermore, Treg expansion is also inhibited, diminishing the immunosuppressive microenvironment. Combining anti-PD-L1 instead with anti-CTLA4 therapies, as in the HIMALAYA trial, limits Treg expansion by eliminating the CTLA4-CD86 interaction. As such, CD86 is now able to provide the necessary co-stimulation to activate naïve CD4+ T cells and in turn, CD8+ T cell activation leads to an enhanced anti-tumor response. Consequently, the presence and targeting of oncofetal cells/reprogramming by immunotherapy within the TME may impact treatment response. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 2.
Oncofetal cells are implicated in immunotherapy response.

Immunotherapies for HCC are often combinatorial, including the three main targets anti-PD-1/PD-L1, anti-VEGF, and/or anti-CTLA4. Two prominent clinical trials for HCC, IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA, assess the combination of these targets. The results of IMbrabe150 have led to the combination of anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF as the standard-of-care for advanced-stage HCC. Similarly, HIMALAYA is assessing the efficacy and safety of an anti-PD-L1 and anti-CTLA4. Pathways targeted by these therapies often include those implicated in oncofetal reprogramming or oncofetal cells directly. In the case of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies, these can hinder the development of new immunosuppressive FOLR2+ TAMs by inhibiting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis. In turn, the inhibition of CD8+ T cells by FOLR2+ TAMs is reduced, permitting the proliferation of Ki67+GZMB+CD8+ T cells and resultant tumor cell death. Combination of an ICI with anti-VEGF, as in the IMbrave150 trial, further reduces the presence of FOLR2+ TAMs and PLVAP+ ECs in the TME. Anti-VEGF inhibits NOTCH signaling, reducing the presence of both FOLR2+ TAMs and PLVAP+ ECs. Furthermore, Treg expansion is also inhibited, diminishing the immunosuppressive microenvironment. Combining anti-PD-L1 instead with anti-CTLA4 therapies, as in the HIMALAYA trial, limits Treg expansion by eliminating the CTLA4-CD86 interaction. As such, CD86 is now able to provide the necessary co-stimulation to activate naïve CD4+ T cells and in turn, CD8+ T cell activation leads to an enhanced anti-tumor response. Consequently, the presence and targeting of oncofetal cells/reprogramming by immunotherapy within the TME may impact treatment response. Created with BioRender.com.

Close modal

Potential implications of anti-VEGF therapy on macrophage reprogramming

VEGF-mediated immunosuppression, driven by the overexpression of VEGF largely by malignant hepatocytes, has been implicated in HCC development and progression [108,109]. A recent study assessing the molecular mechanisms behind the combinatorial therapy of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) plus bevacizumab (anti-VEGF-A; IMbrave150) identified a reduction in VEGFR2 following treatment with atezolizumab and bevacizumab in comparison with atezolizumab alone, regardless of treatment response [41]. Furthermore, this study further identified a reduction in Treg signatures in responders following this combinatorial therapy; a mouse model suggests that this is likely due to a reduction in proliferating Tregs following atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or anti-VEGF alone (Figure 2) [41]. Similarly, the same mouse model showed a reduction in monocyte-derived macrophages and an increase in the number of CD8+ T cells following combinatorial therapy [41]. Combined, these observations highlight the potential for anti-VEGF to augment anti-tumor immunity in HCC [41], likely in part by impacting the oncofetal reprogramming of TAMs.

We speculate that a reduction in oncofetal reprogramming, and subsequently immunosuppression, within the TME may lead to an increased likelihood of therapy response. In support of this theory, VEGF is a well-described immunosuppressive cytokine [67] and serves to induce the oncofetal reprogramming of ECs and in turn TAMs in HCC [17]. As FOLR2+ TAMs have been shown to be modulators of immunosuppression in HCC [17], it is plausible that impacting their oncofetal reprogramming may lead to reduced immunosuppression. While oncofetal reprogramming has been demonstrated, it is likely to occur in a subpopulation of cells and may be subject to spatial and patient heterogeneity. As such, treatment with bevacizumab likely impacts the oncofetal reprogramming of PLVAP+ ECs and FOLR2+ TAMs due to the reduction in VEGF in patients whose tumors express high levels of VEGF. Moreover, subsequent downstream abrogation of NOTCH signaling could abrogate oncofetal reprogramming in HCC (Figure 2). Consequently, for tumors (HCC) with high levels of oncofetal cells and VEGF expression, the impact of anti-VEGF-A is likely to be more apparent due to their role in oncofetal reprogramming and orchestrating an immunosuppressive TME.

Aside from the implications of anti-VEGF therapy on macrophage reprogramming, VEGF plays a suppressive role in T cells [110] with VEGFR2 expressed by FOXP3 high Tregs [111]. VEGF has been shown to promote the proliferation of Tregs with VEGF/VEGFR2 blockade inhibiting such proliferation in colorectal cancer [112] (Figure 2). Therefore, anti-VEGF therapy may indirectly block the oncofetal reprogramming of FOLR2+ oncofetal TAMs alongside PLVAP+ ECs and reduce Treg expansion.

Anti-CTLA4 therapy may impact Treg expansion by influencing FOLR2+ TAM-Treg interactions

CTLA4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4) is a receptor present on T cells and a critical inhibitor of T cell expansion [113,114], activation, and proliferation [115]. Anti-CTLA4 therapy can be used in place of, or following, anti-angiogenics (such as anti-VEGF) and critically, where anti-angiogenic therapy has led to resistance via the up-regulation of other pro-angiogenic factors or angiogenic signaling pathways [116]. Expression of CTLA4 is primarily by activated and regulatory T cells [117] and is critical for the direct and indirect immunosuppressive properties of Tregs [118,119]. FOLR2+ oncofetal TAMs are known to interact with Tregs through the CD86-CTLA4 axis in HCC (Figure 2) [17]. Stimulation of Tregs by these fetal-like FOLR2+ TAMs is anticipated to be abrogated by anti-CTLA4 therapy, with CD86 instead able act as co-stimulation for the activation of naïve T cells and a subsequently enhanced anti-tumor response (Figure 2). This is supported by an increase in the abundance of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, alongside increased T cell receptor diversity, following anti-CTLA4 therapy in HCC [120]; increased abundance of T cells occurs from restoring the balance between regulatory and effector compartments within the TME [113,121]. As such, we hypothesize that anti-CTLA4 agents will negatively impact the ability for fetal-like FOLR2+ TAMs to induce the expansion of Tregs in HCC, subsequently reducing the immunosuppressive TME and increasing the likelihood of therapy response.

PD-1/PD-L1 expression in fetal-like FOLR2+ TAMs

Several cells in the TME are negatively regulated by PD-1 expression, including B cells, T cells [122], NK cells [123], DCs [124], and macrophages [125]. Overexpression of the corresponding ligand, PD-L1, frequently occurs in tumor cells and macrophages to facilitate escape from the immune response [126,127]. Due to this expression of PD-L1 on tumorigenic hepatocytes and the subsequent induction of fetal-like FOLR2+ TAMs [17], anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies may also impact FOLR2+ oncofetal TAMs (Figure 2); TAMs also express PD-L1 and resultantly, the use of anti-PD-L1 will blunt the functional impact of FOLR2+ TAMs. As such, patients with a high proportion of fetal-like TAMs expressing PD-L1 may benefit from treatment with an anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Such treatment may increase the likelihood of immunotherapy success in these patients by reducing immunosuppression within the TME. In support of anti-PD-1 therapy for HCC patients with oncofetal FOLR2+ TAMs expressing PD-L1, a murine model of PD-L1 knockout tumors indicated that PD-1–PD-L1 antagonism enhances the anti-tumor efficacy of myeloid cells, with this pathway inhibiting TAM function [125]. Furthermore, PD-1/PD-L1 blockade reduces tumor size with a direct influence on TAMs [125]. In a mouse model of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, proliferating (Ki67+) antigen-specific CD8+ T cells were observed following combinatorial therapy as compared to bevacizumab or sorafenib alone (Figure 2) [41]. Furthermore, these CD8+ T cells expressed GZMB [41], indicating cytotoxic potential. As FOLR2+ oncofetal TAMs inhibit the response of CD8+ T cells in HCC [17], this observation of atezolizumab suggests it likely acts to reverse inhibition by TAMs and may be reflected following durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1. Hence, we speculate that FOLR2+ oncofetal TAMs may influence immunotherapy outcome.

We speculate that due to the importance of PD-1/PD-L1, CTLA4, and VEGF in both the oncofetal ecosystem and immunosuppression, their presence may be indicative of immunotherapy response and guide clinical decision making (Figure 3). This is exemplified by the co-localization of the oncofetal ecosystem and associated signaling pathways (VEGF-A and PD-L1) in the early HCC microenvironment [17]. Yet while IMbrave150 and HIMALAYA improve the median survival of patients with advanced HCC compared with sorafenib alone [97,128], their respective objective response rates of 30% [40] and 20.1% [105] exemplify the need to predict the outcome for a range of immunotherapies, enabling clinicians to customize immunotherapy decision making to a patients individual tumor(s).

Tumor microenvironment characterization may guide personalized immunotherapy selection.

Figure 3.
Tumor microenvironment characterization may guide personalized immunotherapy selection.

Tumor tissue from patients to receive immunotherapy can be characterized by several means such as single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq), spatial technologies, imaging, and/or flow cytometry to name a few. These technologies permit the determination of cell presence/quantification and cell–cell interactions that may be harnessed to determine which immunotherapy is likely to have the highest success rate for an individual tumor. Tumors with high PD-1/PD-L1 expression likely benefit from an anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Those with abnormal vasculature and high VEGF expression likely display oncofetal reprogramming for ECs and TAMs and will likely respond to an anti-VEGF. Conversely, an anti-CTLA4 is likely beneficial in tumors with an abundance of Tregs displaying CTLA4 expression. Consequently, immunophenotyping individual tumors may guide clinicians in the assignment of immunotherapies believed to be most likely to succeed. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 3.
Tumor microenvironment characterization may guide personalized immunotherapy selection.

Tumor tissue from patients to receive immunotherapy can be characterized by several means such as single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq), spatial technologies, imaging, and/or flow cytometry to name a few. These technologies permit the determination of cell presence/quantification and cell–cell interactions that may be harnessed to determine which immunotherapy is likely to have the highest success rate for an individual tumor. Tumors with high PD-1/PD-L1 expression likely benefit from an anti-PD-1/PD-L1. Those with abnormal vasculature and high VEGF expression likely display oncofetal reprogramming for ECs and TAMs and will likely respond to an anti-VEGF. Conversely, an anti-CTLA4 is likely beneficial in tumors with an abundance of Tregs displaying CTLA4 expression. Consequently, immunophenotyping individual tumors may guide clinicians in the assignment of immunotherapies believed to be most likely to succeed. Created with BioRender.com.

Close modal

Assignment of therapy may occur based on the expression of several markers and/or predominant cell–cell interactions as determined by single-cell RNA sequencing, spatial technologies, or other immunophenotyping assays performed on tumor samples (biopsy/resection; Figure 3). Tumors with a large proportion of fetal-like FOLR2+ TAMs and PD-1/PD-L1 expression may benefit from anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy (IMbrave150 or HIMALAYA). Tumors with high VEGF expression, or ‘cold’ tumors displaying abnormal vasculature, will likely benefit from an anti-angiogenic such as anti-VEGF, potentially in combination with an anti-PD-L1 as in IMbrave150. We speculate that the combination of an anti-VEGF and anti-PD-L1 will likely be beneficial in this context due to the implications on macrophage reprogramming and immunosuppression, as detailed above. Conversely, ‘hot’ tumors and/or those with VEGF resistance may see benefit from an anti-CTLA4 as in HIMALAYA, namely where an increased proportion of Tregs displaying CTLA4 is present. In summary, if the presence and extent of an oncofetal ecosystem provide the ability to predict immunotherapy usage and response, it will pave the way for precision medicine and may reduce the incidence of recurrence if used in an adjuvant setting for early stage HCC. This is illustrated by the promising results of IMbrave050, a Phase III global, multicenter, open-label, randomized study assessing the impact of anti-PD-L1 and anti-VEGF on recurrence when given as an adjuvant for early-stage HCC [129]; interim results showed a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival using this combinatorial immunotherapy post resection or ablation [130].

The TME is highly dynamic and heterogeneous, playing varied roles and having distinct characteristics as tumors progress. Interactions between cells of the TME provide the necessary microenvironment for tumor growth, with one important feature being immunosuppression [17,67,68]. Oncofetal reprogramming has been described within the TME for TAMs and ECs, yet it remains to be investigated whether cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), T and B cells, NK cells and DCs also undergo oncofetal reprogramming. ICIs and anti-angiogenic molecules target receptors, ligands, cytokines, and chemokines that are crucial in the oncofetal reprogramming of FOLR2+ TAMs and PLVAP+ ECs and promotion of immunosuppression within the TME of HCC. Thus, it is possible that the oncofetal ecosystem plays a role in immunotherapy response both directly and indirectly through immunosuppression. It is important to note that the heterogeneity of the TME means that not all cells will display oncofetal reprogramming or the described receptors/ligands.

There is a current need for precision medicine with respect to immunotherapy; in HCC only a proportion of patients respond to immunotherapy (∼20–30%), treatment is expensive, and comes with considerable side effects in a significant proportion of patients [40]. Hence, elucidating the role of the oncofetal ecosystem in therapy response will pave the way for precision medicine, determining which treatment to give to which patient based on the composition of their tumor.

  • Epithelial cells are known to exhibit embryonic-like reprogramming in cancer. The concept of an oncofetal ecosystem in HCC was the first time fetal-like reprogramming of cells within the tumor microenvironment was observed.

  • Oncofetal reprogramming orchestrates an immunosuppressive ecosystem in tumors. Therefore, the presence of oncofetal cells could predict immunotherapy response as well as provides a target for anti-cancer therapy.

  • Determining an oncofetal score, a quantification of oncofetal cells within the TME, could predict tumor progression and/or therapy response in the clinic, thereby paving the way for precision medicine.

The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with the manuscript.

A.S. Laboratory is supported by funding from NHMRC Ideas grant [2021/GNT2010795], MRFF EMCR grant [2022/MRF2016215], Perkins-Curtin start-up fellowship and Cancer Research Trust (CRT) Programme Grant to Liver Cancer Collaborative. J.C. is supported by postdoctoral salary from NHMRC Ideas grant [2021/GNT2010795].

J.C. and A.S. designed and wrote the manuscript, J.C. designed the figures, A.M., M.W., and J.G. provided insight into fetal development and clinical aspects.

We would like to acknowledge members of the Oncofetal Ecosystem laboratory for useful discussions.

ALB

albumin

CAF

cancer-associated fibroblast

DC

dendritic cell

EC

endothelial cells

EMT

epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition

FOLR2

folate receptor beta

HBC

Hofbauer cells

HCC

hepatocellular carcinoma

ICI

immune checkpoint inhibitor

LSEC

liver sinusoidal endothelial cell

PLVAP

plasmalemma vesicle-associated protein

RECIST

response evaluation criteria in solid tumors

TAM

tumor-associated macrophages

TME

tumor microenvironment

TNF

tumor necrosis factor

Tregs

regulatory T cells

VEGF

vascular endothelial growth factor

1
Schat
,
K.A.
and
Skinner
,
M.A.
(
2008
) Avian immunosuppressive diseases and immune evasion. In
Avian Immunology
(
Davison
,
F.
,
Kaspers
,
B.
and
Schat
,
K.A.
, eds), pp.
299
322
,
Academic Press
,
London
2
von Boehmer
,
H.
and
Daniel
,
C.
(
2013
)
Therapeutic opportunities for manipulating T(Reg) cells in autoimmunity and cancer
.
Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.
12
,
51
63
3
Maier
,
B.
,
Leader
,
A.M.
,
Chen
,
S.T.
,
Tung
,
N.
,
Chang
,
C.
,
LeBerichel
,
J.
et al (
2020
)
A conserved dendritic-cell regulatory program limits antitumour immunity
.
Nature
580
,
257
262
4
Jeff E
,
M.
,
Michaëlsson
,
J.
,
Burt Trevor
,
D.
,
Muench Marcus
,
O.
,
Beckerman Karen
,
P.
,
Busch Michael
,
P.
et al (
2008
)
Maternal alloantigens promote the development of tolerogenic fetal regulatory T cells in utero
.
Science
322
,
1562
1565
5
Thomas
,
J.R.
,
Naidu
,
P.
,
Appios
,
A.
and
McGovern
,
N.
(
2021
)
The ontogeny and function of placental macrophages
.
Front. Immunol.
12
,
771054
6
Ginhoux
,
F.
and
Martin
,
P.
(
2022
)
Insights into the role of immune cells in development and regeneration
.
Development
149
,
dev200829
7
McGovern
,
N.
,
Shin
,
A.
,
Low
,
G.
,
Low
,
D.
,
Duan
,
K.
,
Yao
,
L.J.
et al (
2017
)
Human fetal dendritic cells promote prenatal T-cell immune suppression through arginase-2
.
Nature
546
,
662
666
8
Labani-Motlagh
,
A.
,
Ashja-Mahdavi
,
M.
and
Loskog
,
A.
(
2020
)
The tumor microenvironment: a milieu hindering and obstructing antitumor immune responses
.
Front. Immunol.
11
,
940
9
Vignali
,
D.A.A.
,
Collison
,
L.W.
and
Workman
,
C.J.
(
2008
)
How regulatory T cells work
.
Nat. Rev. Immunol.
8
,
523
532
10
Rosser
,
E.C.
and
Mauri
,
C.
(
2015
)
Regulatory B cells: origin, phenotype, and function
.
Immunity
42
,
607
612
11
Mulder
,
K.
,
Patel
,
A.A.
,
Kong
,
W.T.
,
Piot
,
C.
,
Halitzki
,
E.
,
Dunsmore
,
G.
et al (
2021
)
Cross-tissue single-cell landscape of human monocytes and macrophages in health and disease
.
Immunity
54
,
1883
1900.e5
12
Mincheva-Nilsson
,
L.
and
Baranov
,
V.
(
2014
)
Placenta-derived exosomes and syncytiotrophoblast microparticles and their role in human reproduction: immune modulation for pregnancy success
.
Am. J. Reprod. Immunol.
72
,
440
457
13
PrabhuDas
,
M.
,
Bonney
,
E.
,
Caron
,
K.
,
Dey
,
S.
,
Erlebacher
,
A.
,
Fazleabas
,
A.
et al (
2015
)
Immune mechanisms at the maternal–fetal interface: perspectives and challenges
.
Nat. Immunol.
16
,
328
334
14
Rackaityte
,
E.
and
Halkias
,
J.
(
2020
)
Mechanisms of fetal T cell tolerance and immune regulation
.
Front. Immunol.
11
,
588
15
Schumacher
,
A.
,
Sharkey
,
D.J.
,
Robertson
,
S.A.
and
Zenclussen
,
A.C.
(
2018
)
Immune cells at the fetomaternal interface: how the microenvironment modulates immune cells to foster fetal development
.
J. Immunol.
201
,
325
334
16
Giraldo
,
N.A.
,
Sanchez-Salas
,
R.
,
Peske
,
J.D.
,
Vano
,
Y.
,
Becht
,
E.
,
Petitprez
,
F.
et al (
2019
)
The clinical role of the TME in solid cancer
.
Br. J. Cancer
120
,
45
53
17
Sharma
,
A.
,
Seow
,
J.J.W.
,
Dutertre
,
C.A.
,
Pai
,
R.
,
Blériot
,
C.
,
Mishra
,
A.
et al (
2020
)
Onco-fetal reprogramming of endothelial cells drives immunosuppressive macrophages in hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Cell
183
,
377
394.e21
18
Lillie
,
F.R
. (
1936
)
The Development of the Chick: an Introduction to Embryology
, 2nd edn, rev. ed.
Henry Holt
,
New York, NY
19
Zhu
,
X.
,
Chen
,
Z.
,
Shen
,
W.
,
Huang
,
G.
,
Sedivy
,
J.M.
,
Wang
,
H.
et al (
2021
)
Inflammation, epigenetics, and metabolism converge to cell senescence and ageing: the regulation and intervention
.
Signal Transduct. Target. Ther.
6
,
245
20
Abelev
,
G.I.
,
Perova
,
S.D.
,
Khramkova
,
N.I.
,
Postnikova
,
Z.A.
and
Irlin
,
I.S.
(
1963
)
Production of embryonal alpha-globulin by transplantable mouse hepatomas
.
Transplantation
1
,
174
180
21
Gold
,
P.
and
Freedman
,
S.O.
(
1965
)
Specific carcinoembryonic antigens of the human digestive system
.
J. Exp. Med.
122
,
467
481
22
Kundu
,
J.K.
and
Surh
,
Y.J.
(
2008
)
Inflammation: gearing the journey to cancer
.
Mutat. Res.
659
,
15
30
23
Manzo
,
G.
(
2019
)
Similarities between embryo development and cancer process suggest new strategies for research and therapy of tumors: a new point of view
.
Front. Cell Dev. Biol.
7
,
20
24
Schapira
,
F.
,
Dreyfus
,
J.-C.
and
Schapira
,
G.
(
1963
)
Anomaly of aldolase in primary liver cancer
.
Nature
200
,
995
997
25
Chew
,
S.C.
,
Choo
,
S.Y.
and
Chow
,
P.K.
(
2021
)
A new perspective on the immune escape mechanism in HCC: onco-foetal reprogramming
.
Br. J. Cancer
124
,
1897
1899
26
Chew
,
V.
,
Lee
,
Y.H.
,
Pan
,
L.
,
Nasir
,
N.J.M.
,
Lim
,
C.J.
,
Chua
,
C.
et al (
2019
)
Immune activation underlies a sustained clinical response to Yttrium-90 radioembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Gut
68
,
335
346
27
Larkin
,
J.
,
Chiarion-Sileni
,
V.
,
Gonzalez
,
R.
,
Grob
,
J.J.
,
Cowey
,
C.L.
,
Lao
,
C.D.
et al (
2015
)
Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
373
,
23
34
28
Postow
,
M.A.
,
Chesney
,
J.
,
Pavlick
,
A.C.
,
Robert
,
C.
,
Grossmann
,
K.
,
McDermott
,
D.
et al (
2015
)
Nivolumab and ipilimumab versus ipilimumab in untreated melanoma
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
372
,
2006
2017
29
Motzer
,
R.J.
,
Escudier
,
B.
,
McDermott
,
D.F.
,
George
,
S.
,
Hammers
,
H.J.
,
Srinivas
,
S.
et al (
2015
)
Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
373
,
1803
1813
30
Powles,
T.
,
Eder,
J.P.
,
Fine,
G.D.
,
Braiteh,
F.S.
,
Loriot,
Y.
,
Cruz,
C.
et al (
2014
)
MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer
.
Nature
515
,
558
562
.
31
Garon
,
E.B.
,
Rizvi
,
N.A.
,
Hui
,
R.
,
Leighl
,
N.
,
Balmanoukian
,
A.S.
,
Eder
,
J.P.
et al (
2015
)
Pembrolizumab for the treatment of non–small-cell lung cancer
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
372
,
2018
2028
32
Pardoll
,
D.M.
(
2012
)
The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy
.
Nat. Rev. Cancer
12
,
252
264
33
Sharma
,
P.
,
Hu-Lieskovan
,
S.
,
Wargo
,
J.A.
and
Ribas
,
A.
(
2017
)
Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy
.
Cell
168
,
707
723
34
Topalian
,
S.L.
,
Drake
,
C.G.
and
Pardoll
,
D.M.
(
2015
)
Immune checkpoint blockade: a common denominator approach to cancer therapy
.
Cancer Cell
27
,
450
461
35
Ansell
,
S.M.
(
2021
)
PD-1 Blockade in classic hodgkin lymphoma
.
JCO Oncol. Pract.
17
,
72
73
36
Leach
,
D.R.
,
Krummel
,
M.F.
and
Allison
,
J.P.
(
1996
)
Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade
.
Science
271
,
1734
1736
37
Butte
,
M.J.
,
Keir
,
M.E.
,
Phamduy
,
T.B.
,
Sharpe
,
A.H.
and
Freeman
,
G.J.
(
2007
)
Programmed death-1 ligand 1 interacts specifically with the B7-1 costimulatory molecule to inhibit T cell responses
.
Immunity
27
,
111
122
38
Paterson
,
A.M.
,
Brown
,
K.E.
,
Keir
,
M.E.
,
Vanguri
,
V.K.
,
Riella
,
L.V.
,
Chandraker
,
A.
et al (
2011
)
The programmed death-1 ligand 1:B7-1 pathway restrains diabetogenic effector T cells in vivo
.
J. Immunol.
187
,
1097
1105
39
Huang
,
C.T.
,
Workman
,
C.J.
,
Flies
,
D.
,
Pan
,
X.
,
Marson
,
A.L.
,
Zhou
,
G.
et al (
2004
)
Role of LAG-3 in regulatory T cells
.
Immunity
21
,
503
513
40
Finn
,
R.S.
,
Qin
,
S.
,
Ikeda
,
M.
,
Galle
,
P.R.
,
Ducreux
,
M.
,
Kim
,
T.-Y.
et al (
2021
)
IMbrave150: updated overall survival (OS) data from a global, randomized, open-label phase III study of atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) versus sorafenib (sor) in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
.
J. Clin. Oncol.
39
,
267
41
Zhu
,
A.X.
,
Abbas
,
A.R.
,
de Galarreta
,
M.R.
,
Guan
,
Y.
,
Lu
,
S.
,
Koeppen
,
H.
et al (
2022
)
Molecular correlates of clinical response and resistance to atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Nat. Med.
28
,
1599
1611
42
Thellin
,
O.
,
Coumans
,
B.
,
Zorzi
,
W.
,
Igout
,
A.
and
Heinen
,
E.
(
2000
)
Tolerance to the foeto-placental ‘graft': ten ways to support a child for nine months
.
Curr. Opin. Immunol.
12
,
731
737
43
Jeanty
,
C.
,
Derderian
,
S.C.
and
Mackenzie
,
T.C.
(
2014
)
Maternal–fetal cellular trafficking: clinical implications and consequences
.
Curr. Opin. Pediatr.
26
,
377
382
44
Mishra
,
A.
,
Lai
,
G.C.
,
Yao
,
L.J.
,
Aung
,
T.T.
,
Shental
,
N.
,
Rotter-Maskowitz
,
A.
et al (
2021
)
Microbial exposure during early human development primes fetal immune cells
.
Cell
184
,
3394
3409.e20
45
Thomas
,
J.R.
,
Appios
,
A.
,
Zhao
,
X.
,
Dutkiewicz
,
R.
,
Donde
,
M.
,
Lee
,
C.Y.C.
et al (
2021
)
Phenotypic and functional characterization of first-trimester human placental macrophages, Hofbauer cells
.
J. Exp. Med.
218
,
e20200891
46
Zhang
,
S.
,
Liu
,
S.
,
Hong
,
L.
,
Wang
,
X.
,
Diao
,
L.
,
Cai
,
S.
et al (
2021
)
Identification of profound metabolic alterations in human dendritic cells by progesterone through integrated bioinformatics analysis
.
Front. Immunol.
12
,
806110
47
La Rocca
,
C.
,
Carbone
,
F.
,
Longobardi
,
S.
and
Matarese
,
G.
(
2014
)
The immunology of pregnancy: regulatory T cells control maternal immune tolerance toward the fetus
.
Immunol. Lett.
162
,
41
48
48
Samstein
,
R.M.
,
Josefowicz
,
S.Z.
,
Arvey
,
A.
,
Treuting
,
P.M.
and
Rudensky
,
A.Y.
(
2012
)
Extrathymic generation of regulatory T cells in placental mammals mitigates maternal–fetal conflict
.
Cell
150
,
29
38
49
Adams
,
K.M.
and
Nelson
,
J.L.
(
2004
)
Microchimerism: an investigative frontier in autoimmunity and transplantation
.
J. Am. Med. Assoc.
291
,
1127
1131
50
Michaëlsson
,
J.
,
Mold
,
J.E.
,
McCune
,
J.M.
and
Nixon
,
D.F.
(
2006
)
Regulation of T cell responses in the developing human fetus
.
J. Immunol.
176
,
5741
5748
51
Takahata
,
Y.
,
Nomura
,
A.
,
Takada
,
H.
,
Ohga
,
S.
,
Furuno
,
K.
,
Hikino
,
S.
et al (
2004
)
CD25 + CD4+ t cells in human cord blood: an immunoregulatory subset with naive phenotype and specific expression of forkhead box p3 (Foxp3) gene
.
Exp. Hematol.
32
,
622
629
52
Kitisin
,
K.
,
Saha
,
T.
,
Blake
,
T.
,
Golestaneh
,
N.
,
Deng
,
M.
,
Kim
,
C.
et al (
2007
)
Tgf-beta signaling in development
.
Sci. STKE
2007
,
cm1
53
Neuzillet
,
C.
,
Tijeras-Raballand
,
A.
,
Cohen
,
R.
,
Cros
,
J.
,
Faivre
,
S.
,
Raymond
,
E.
et al (
2015
)
Targeting the TGFβ pathway for cancer therapy
.
Pharmacol. Ther.
147
,
22
31
54
Delyea
,
C.
,
Bozorgmehr
,
N.
,
Koleva
,
P.
,
Dunsmore
,
G.
,
Shahbaz
,
S.
,
Huang
,
V.
et al (
2018
)
CD71(+) erythroid suppressor cells promote fetomaternal tolerance through arginase-2 and PDL-1
.
J. Immunol.
200
,
4044
4058
55
Elahi
,
S.
,
Ertelt
,
J.M.
,
Kinder
,
J.M.
,
Jiang
,
T.T.
,
Zhang
,
X.
,
Xin
,
L.
et al (
2013
)
Immunosuppressive CD71 + erythroid cells compromise neonatal host defence against infection
.
Nature
504
,
158
162
56
Jasper
,
M.J.
,
Tremellen
,
K.P.
and
Robertson
,
S.A.
(
2006
)
Primary unexplained infertility is associated with reduced expression of the T-regulatory cell transcription factor Foxp3 in endometrial tissue
.
Mol. Hum. Reprod.
12
,
301
308
57
Jin
,
L.P.
,
Chen
,
Q.Y.
,
Zhang
,
T.
,
Guo
,
P.F.
and
Li
,
D.J.
(
2009
)
The CD4 + CD25 bright regulatory T cells and CTLA-4 expression in peripheral and decidual lymphocytes are down-regulated in human miscarriage
.
Clin. Immunol.
133
,
402
410
58
Winger
,
E.E.
and
Reed
,
J.L.
(
2011
)
Low circulating CD4(+) CD25(+) Foxp3(+) T regulatory cell levels predict miscarriage risk in newly pregnant women with a history of failure
.
Am. J. Reprod. Immunol.
66
,
320
328
59
Zenclussen
,
A.C.
,
Gerlof
,
K.
,
Zenclussen
,
M.L.
,
Sollwedel
,
A.
,
Bertoja
,
A.Z.
,
Ritter
,
T.
et al (
2005
)
Abnormal T-cell reactivity against paternal antigens in spontaneous abortion: adoptive transfer of pregnancy-induced CD4 + CD25+ T regulatory cells prevents fetal rejection in a murine abortion model
.
Am. J. Pathol.
166
,
811
822
60
Cheng
,
N.
,
Bai
,
X.
,
Shu
,
Y.
,
Ahmad
,
O.
and
Shen
,
P.
(
2021
)
Targeting tumor-associated macrophages as an antitumor strategy
.
Biochem. Pharmacol.
183
,
114354
61
Dunn
,
G.P.
,
Bruce
,
A.T.
,
Ikeda
,
H.
,
Old
,
L.J.
and
Schreiber
,
R.D.
(
2002
)
Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape
.
Nat. Immunol.
3
,
991
998
62
Eggert
,
T.
and
Greten
,
T.F.
(
2017
)
Tumor regulation of the tissue environment in the liver
.
Pharmacol. Ther.
173
,
47
57
63
Lanaya
,
H.
,
Natarajan
,
A.
,
Komposch
,
K.
,
Li
,
L.
,
Amberg
,
N.
,
Chen
,
L.
et al (
2014
)
EGFR has a tumour-promoting role in liver macrophages during hepatocellular carcinoma formation
.
Nat. Cell Biol.
16
,
972
977
64
Lu
,
C.
,
Rong
,
D.
,
Zhang
,
B.
,
Zheng
,
W.
,
Wang
,
X.
,
Chen
,
Z.
et al (
2019
)
Current perspectives on the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma: challenges and opportunities
.
Mol. Cancer
18
,
130
65
Wang
,
D.
,
Yang
,
L.
,
Yue
,
D.
,
Cao
,
L.
,
Li
,
L.
,
Wang
,
D.
et al (
2019
)
Macrophage-derived CCL22 promotes an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment via IL-8 in malignant pleural effusion
.
Cancer Lett.
452
,
244
253
66
Zhou
,
J.
,
Ding
,
T.
,
Pan
,
W.
,
Zhu
,
L.Y.
,
Li
,
L.
and
Zheng
,
L.
(
2009
)
Increased intratumoral regulatory T cells are related to intratumoral macrophages and poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma patients
.
Int. J. Cancer
125
,
1640
1648
67
Vesely
,
M.D.
,
Kershaw
,
M.H.
,
Schreiber
,
R.D.
and
Smyth
,
M.J.
(
2011
)
Natural innate and adaptive immunity to cancer
.
Annu. Rev. Immunol.
29
,
235
271
68
Ferrara
,
N.
and
Davis-Smyth
,
T.
(
1997
)
The biology of vascular endothelial growth factor
.
Endocr. Rev.
18
,
4
25
69
Gatenbee
,
C.D.
,
Baker
,
A.-M.
,
Schenck
,
R.O.
,
Strobl
,
M.
,
West
,
J.
,
Neves
,
M.P.
et al (
2022
)
Immunosuppressive niche engineering at the onset of human colorectal cancer
.
Nat. Commun.
13
,
1798
70
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group
.
United States Cancer Statistics: 1999–2009 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report (2013). Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute
. Atlanta, U.S. www.cdc.gov/uscs
71
Derhovanessian
,
E.
,
Solana
,
R.
,
Larbi
,
A.
and
Pawelec
,
G.
(
2008
)
Immunity, ageing and cancer
.
Immun. Ageing
5
,
11
72
Solana
,
R.
,
Pawelec
,
G.
and
Tarazona
,
R.
(
2006
)
Aging and innate immunity
.
Immunity
24
,
491
494
73
Franceschi
,
C.
,
Bonafè
,
M.
,
Valensin
,
S.
,
Olivieri
,
F.
,
De Luca
,
M.
,
Ottaviani
,
E.
et al (
2000
)
Inflamm-aging: an evolutionary perspective on immunosenescence
.
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.
908
,
244
254
74
Kanterman
,
J.
,
Sade-Feldman
,
M.
and
Baniyash
,
M.
(
2012
)
New insights into chronic inflammation-induced immunosuppression
.
Semin. Cancer Biol.
22
,
307
318
75
Salminen
,
A.
(
2020
)
Activation of immunosuppressive network in the aging process
.
Ageing Res. Rev.
57
,
100998
76
Tili
,
E.
,
Michaille
,
J.J.
,
Wernicke
,
D.
,
Alder
,
H.
,
Costinean
,
S.
,
Volinia
,
S.
et al (
2011
)
Mutator activity induced by microRNA-155 (miR-155) links inflammation and cancer
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
108
,
4908
4913
77
Williams
,
A.E.
,
Perry
,
M.M.
,
Moschos
,
S.A.
,
Larner-Svensson
,
H.M.
and
Lindsay
,
M.A.
(
2008
)
Role of miRNA-146a in the regulation of the innate immune response and cancer
.
Biochem. Soc. Trans.
36
,
1211
1215
78
Simon
,
A.K.
,
Hollander
,
G.A.
and
McMichael
,
A.
(
2015
)
Evolution of the immune system in humans from infancy to old age
.
Proc. Biol. Sci.
282
,
20143085
79
Peng
,
H.
,
Wang
,
X.
,
Du
,
J.
,
Cui
,
Q.
,
Huang
,
Y.
and
Jin
,
H.
(
2021
)
Metabolic reprogramming of vascular endothelial cells: basic research and clinical applications
.
Front. Cell Dev. Biol.
9
,
626047
80
Dick
,
S.A.
,
Wong
,
A.
,
Hamidzada
,
H.
,
Nejat
,
S.
,
Nechanitzky
,
R.
,
Vohra
,
S.
et al (
2022
)
Three tissue resident macrophage subsets coexist across organs with conserved origins and life cycles
.
Sci. Immunol.
7
,
eabf7777
81
Khan
,
S.
,
Katabuchi
,
H.
,
Araki
,
M.
,
Nishimura
,
R.
and
Okamura
,
H.
(
2000
)
Human villous macrophage-conditioned media enhance human trophoblast growth and differentiation in vitro
.
Biol. Reprod.
62
,
1075
1083
82
Ferrara
,
N.
,
Houck
,
K.
,
Jakeman
,
L.
and
Leung
,
D.W.
(
1992
)
Molecular and biological properties of the vascular endothelial growth factor family of proteins
.
Endocr. Rev.
13
,
18
32
83
Zhang
,
Z.
,
Neiva
,
K.G.
,
Lingen
,
M.W.
,
Ellis
,
L.M.
and
Nör
,
J.E.
(
2010
)
VEGF-dependent tumor angiogenesis requires inverse and reciprocal regulation of VEGFR1 and VEGFR2
.
Cell Death Differ.
17
,
499
512
84
Cheng
,
S.
,
Li
,
Z.
,
Gao
,
R.
,
Xing
,
B.
,
Gao
,
Y.
,
Yang
,
Y.
et al (
2021
)
A pan-cancer single-cell transcriptional atlas of tumor infiltrating myeloid cells
.
Cell
184
,
792
809.e23
85
Ramos R
,
N.
,
Missolo-Koussou
,
Y.
,
Gerber-Ferder
,
Y.
,
Bromley
,
C.P.
,
Bugatti
,
M.
,
Núñez
,
N.G.
et al (
2022
)
Tissue-resident FOLR2 + macrophages associate with CD8+ T cell infiltration in human breast cancer
.
Cell
185
,
1189
1207.e25
86
Franklin
,
R.A.
,
Liao
,
W.
,
Sarkar
,
A.
,
Kim
,
M.V.
,
Bivona
,
M.R.
,
Liu
,
K.
et al (
2014
)
The cellular and molecular origin of tumor-associated macrophages
.
Science
344
,
921
925
87
Zhu
,
Y.
,
Herndon
,
J.M.
,
Sojka
,
D.K.
,
Kim
,
K.W.
,
Knolhoff
,
B.L.
,
Zuo
,
C.
et al (
2017
)
Tissue-resident macrophages in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma originate from embryonic hematopoiesis and promote tumor progression
.
Immunity
47
,
323
338.e6
88
Samaniego
,
R.
,
Domínguez-Soto
,
Á.
,
Ratnam
,
M.
,
Matsuyama
,
T.
,
Sánchez-Mateos
,
P.
,
Corbí
,
Á.L
et al (
2020
)
Folate receptor β (FRβ) expression in tissue-resident and tumor-associated macrophages associates with and depends on the expression of PU.1
.
Cells
9
,
1445
89
Rodriguez-Garcia
,
A.
,
Lynn
,
R.C.
,
Poussin
,
M.
,
Eiva
,
M.A.
,
Shaw
,
L.C.
,
O'Connor
,
R.S.
et al (
2021
)
CAR-T cell-mediated depletion of immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages promotes endogenous antitumor immunity and augments adoptive immunotherapy
.
Nat. Commun.
12
,
877
90
Rantakari
,
P.
,
Auvinen
,
K.
,
Jäppinen
,
N.
,
Kapraali
,
M.
,
Valtonen
,
J.
,
Karikoski
,
M.
et al (
2015
)
The endothelial protein PLVAP in lymphatics controls the entry of lymphocytes and antigens into lymph nodes
.
Nat. Immunol.
16
,
386
396
91
Rantakari
,
P.
,
Jäppinen
,
N.
,
Lokka
,
E.
,
Mokkala
,
E.
,
Gerke
,
H.
,
Peuhu
,
E.
et al (
2016
)
Fetal liver endothelium regulates the seeding of tissue-resident macrophages
.
Nature
538
,
392
396
92
Ramachandran
,
P.
,
Dobie
,
R.
,
Wilson-Kanamori
,
J.R.
,
Dora
,
E.F.
,
Henderson
,
B.E.P.
,
Luu
,
N.T.
et al (
2019
)
Resolving the fibrotic niche of human liver cirrhosis at single-cell level
.
Nature
575
,
512
518
93
Aizarani
,
N.
,
Saviano
,
A.
,
Sagar
,
M.L.
,
Durand
,
S.
,
Herman
,
J.S.
et al (
2019
)
A human liver cell atlas reveals heterogeneity and epithelial progenitors
.
Nature
572
,
199
204
94
Kumar
,
V.
,
Ramnarayanan
,
K.
,
Sundar
,
R.
,
Padmanabhan
,
N.
,
Srivastava
,
S.
,
Koiwa
,
M.
et al (
2022
)
Single-cell atlas of lineage states, tumor microenvironment, and subtype-specific expression programs in gastric cancer
.
Cancer Discov.
12
,
670
691
95
Amersfoort
,
J.
,
Eelen
,
G.
and
Carmeliet
,
P.
(
2022
)
Immunomodulation by endothelial cells — partnering up with the immune system?
Nat. Rev. Immunol.
22
,
576
588
96
Waldman
,
A.D.
,
Fritz
,
J.M.
and
Lenardo
,
M.J.
(
2020
)
A guide to cancer immunotherapy: from T cell basic science to clinical practice
.
Nat. Rev. Immunol.
20
,
651
668
97
Finn
,
R.S.
,
Qin
,
S.
,
Ikeda
,
M.
,
Galle
,
P.R.
,
Ducreux
,
M.
,
Kim
,
T.-Y.
et al (
2020
)
Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
382
,
1894
1905
98
Lee
,
M.S.
,
Ryoo
,
B.Y.
,
Hsu
,
C.H.
,
Numata
,
K.
,
Stein
,
S.
,
Verret
,
W.
et al (
2020
)
Atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (GO30140): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b study
.
Lancet Oncol.
21
,
808
820
99
Motzer
,
R.J.
,
Penkov
,
K.
,
Haanen
,
J.
,
Rini
,
B.
,
Albiges
,
L.
,
Campbell
,
M.T.
et al (
2019
)
Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
380
,
1103
1115
100
Rini
,
B.I.
,
Plimack
,
E.R.
,
Stus
,
V.
,
Gafanov
,
R.
,
Hawkins
,
R.
,
Nosov
,
D.
et al (
2019
)
Pembrolizumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib for advanced renal-cell carcinoma
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
380
,
1116
1127
101
Socinski
,
M.A.
,
Jotte
,
R.M.
,
Cappuzzo
,
F.
,
Orlandi
,
F.
,
Stroyakovskiy
,
D.
,
Nogami
,
N.
et al (
2018
)
Atezolizumab for first-line treatment of metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
378
,
2288
2301
102
Makker
,
V.
,
Rasco
,
D.
,
Vogelzang
,
N.J.
,
Brose
,
M.S.
,
Cohn
,
A.L.
,
Mier
,
J.
et al (
2019
)
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with advanced endometrial cancer: an interim analysis of a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 trial
.
Lancet Oncol.
20
,
711
718
103
Llovet
,
J.M.
,
Kelley
,
R.K.
,
Villanueva
,
A.
,
Singal
,
A.G.
,
Pikarsky
,
E.
,
Roayaie
,
S.
et al (
2021
)
Hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers
7
,
6
104
Llovet
,
J.M.
,
Castet
,
F.
,
Heikenwalder
,
M.
,
Maini
,
M.K.
,
Mazzaferro
,
V.
,
Pinato
,
D.J.
et al (
2021
)
Immunotherapies for hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol.
19
,
151
172
105
Abou-Alfa
,
G.K.
,
Chan
,
S.L.
,
Kudo
,
M.
,
Lau
,
G.
,
Kelley
,
R.K.
,
Furuse
,
J.
et al (
2022
)
Phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tremelimumab (T) and durvalumab (D) as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC): HIMALAYA
.
J. Clin. Oncol.
40
,
379
106
Foerster
,
F.
,
Gairing
,
S.J.
,
Ilyas
,
S.I.
and
Galle
,
P.R.
(
2022
)
Emerging immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a guide for hepatologists
.
Hepatology
75
,
1604
1626
107
Huang
,
Y.
,
Ge
,
W.
,
Zhou
,
J.
,
Gao
,
B.
,
Qian
,
X.
and
Wang
,
W.
(
2021
)
The role of tumor associated macrophages in hepatocellular carcinoma
.
J. Cancer
12
,
1284
1294
108
Morse
,
M.A.
,
Sun
,
W.
,
Kim
,
R.
,
He
,
A.R.
,
Abada
,
P.B.
,
Mynderse
,
M.
et al (
2019
)
The role of angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Clin. Cancer Res.
25
,
912
920
109
Zhu
,
A.X.
,
Duda
,
D.G.
,
Sahani
,
D.V.
and
Jain
,
R.K.
(
2011
)
HCC and angiogenesis: possible targets and future directions
.
Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol.
8
,
292
301
110
Li
,
Y.L.
,
Zhao
,
H.
and
Ren
,
X.B.
(
2016
)
Relationship of VEGF/VEGFR with immune and cancer cells: staggering or forward?
Cancer Biol. Med.
13
,
206
214
111
Suzuki
,
H.
,
Onishi
,
H.
,
Wada
,
J.
,
Yamasaki
,
A.
,
Tanaka
,
H.
,
Nakano
,
K.
et al (
2010
)
VEGFR2 is selectively expressed by FOXP3high CD4+ Treg
.
Eur. J. Immunol.
40
,
197
203
112
Terme
,
M.
,
Pernot
,
S.
,
Marcheteau
,
E.
,
Sandoval
,
F.
,
Benhamouda
,
N.
,
Colussi
,
O.
et al (
2013
)
VEGFA-VEGFR pathway blockade inhibits tumor-induced regulatory T-cell proliferation in colorectal cancer
.
Cancer Res.
73
,
539
549
113
Peggs
,
K.S.
,
Quezada
,
S.A.
,
Chambers
,
C.A.
,
Korman
,
A.J.
and
Allison
,
J.P.
(
2009
)
Blockade of CTLA-4 on both effector and regulatory T cell compartments contributes to the antitumor activity of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies
.
J. Exp. Med.
206
,
1717
1725
114
Linsley
,
P.S.
,
Brady
,
W.
,
Urnes
,
M.
,
Grosmaire
,
L.S.
,
Damle
,
N.K.
and
Ledbetter
,
J.A.
(
1991
)
CTLA-4 is a second receptor for the B cell activation antigen B7
.
J. Exp. Med.
174
,
561
569
115
Walunas
,
T.L.
,
Lenschow
,
D.J.
,
Bakker
,
C.Y.
,
Linsley
,
P.S.
,
Freeman
,
G.J.
,
Green
,
J.M.
et al (
1994
)
CTLA-4 can function as a negative regulator of T cell activation
.
Immunity
1
,
405
413
116
Lopes-Coelho
,
F.
,
Martins
,
F.
,
Pereira
,
S.A.
and
Serpa
,
J.
(
2021
)
Anti-angiogenic therapy: current challenges and future perspectives
.
Int. J. Mol. Sci.
22
,
3765
117
Lindsten
,
T.
,
Lee
,
K.P.
,
Harris
,
E.S.
,
Petryniak
,
B.
,
Craighead
,
N.
,
Reynolds
,
P.J.
et al (
1993
)
Characterization of CTLA-4 structure and expression on human T cells
.
J. Immunol.
151
,
3489
3499
118
Jain
,
N.
,
Nguyen
,
H.
,
Chambers
,
C.
and
Kang
,
J.
(
2010
)
Dual function of CTLA-4 in regulatory T cells and conventional T cells to prevent multiorgan autoimmunity
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
107
,
1524
1528
119
Wing
,
K.
,
Onishi
,
Y.
,
Prieto-Martin
,
P.
,
Yamaguchi
,
T.
,
Miyara
,
M.
,
Fehervari
,
Z.
et al (
2008
)
CTLA-4 control over Foxp3 + regulatory T cell function
.
Science
322
,
271
275
120
Agdashian
,
D.
,
ElGindi
,
M.
,
Xie
,
C.
,
Sandhu
,
M.
,
Pratt
,
D.
,
Kleiner
,
D.E.
et al (
2019
)
The effect of anti-CTLA4 treatment on peripheral and intra-tumoral T cells in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Cancer Immunol. Immunother.
68
,
599
608
121
Sharma
,
N.
,
Vacher
,
J.
and
Allison
,
J.P.
(
2019
)
TLR1/2 ligand enhances antitumor efficacy of CTLA-4 blockade by increasing intratumoral Treg depletion
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
116
,
10453
10462
122
Agata
,
Y.
,
Kawasaki
,
A.
,
Nishimura
,
H.
,
Ishida
,
Y.
,
Tsubat
,
T.
,
Yagita
,
H.
et al (
1996
)
Expression of the PD-1 antigen on the surface of stimulated mouse T and B lymphocytes
.
Int. Immunol.
8
,
765
772
123
Jr DM
,
B.
,
Bakan
,
C.E.
,
Mishra
,
A.
,
Hofmeister
,
C.C.
,
Efebera
,
Y.
,
Becknell
,
B.
et al (
2010
)
The PD-1/PD-L1 axis modulates the natural killer cell versus multiple myeloma effect: a therapeutic target for CT-011, a novel monoclonal anti–PD-1 antibody
.
Blood
116
,
2286
2294
124
Karyampudi
,
L.
,
Lamichhane
,
P.
,
Krempski
,
J.
,
Kalli
,
K.R.
,
Behrens
,
M.D.
,
Vargas
,
D.M.
et al (
2016
)
Pd-1 blunts the function of ovarian tumor–Infiltrating dendritic cells by inactivating NF-κB
.
Cancer Res.
76
,
239
250
125
Gordon
,
S.R.
,
Maute
,
R.L.
,
Dulken
,
B.W.
,
Hutter
,
G.
,
George
,
B.M.
,
McCracken
,
M.N.
et al (
2017
)
PD-1 expression by tumour-associated macrophages inhibits phagocytosis and tumour immunity
.
Nature
545
,
495
499
126
Keir
,
M.E.
,
Butte
,
M.J.
,
Freeman
,
G.J.
and
Sharpe
,
A.H.
(
2008
)
PD-1 and its ligands in tolerance and immunity
.
Annu. Rev. Immunol.
26
,
677
704
127
Okazaki
,
T.
and
Honjo
,
T.
(
2006
)
The PD-1–PD-L pathway in immunological tolerance
.
Trends Immunol.
27
,
195
201
128
Cheng
,
A.L.
,
Qin
,
S.
,
Ikeda
,
M.
,
Galle
,
P.
,
Ducreux
,
M.
,
Zhu
,
A.
et al (
2019
)
IMbrave150: efficacy and safety results from a ph III study evaluating atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) vs sorafenib (Sor) as first treatment (tx) for patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
.
Ann. Oncol.
30
,
ix186-ix7
129
Hack
,
S.P.
,
Spahn
,
J.
,
Chen
,
M.
,
Cheng
,
A.-L.
,
Kaseb
,
A.
,
Kudo
,
M.
et al (
2020
)
IMbrave 050: a phase III trial of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection or ablation
.
Fut. Oncol.
16
,
975
989
130
Genentech's Tecentriq Plus Avastin Is the First Treatment Combination to Reduce the Risk of Cancer Returning in People With Certain Types of Early-Stage Liver Cancer in a Phase III Trial [press release]. Wednesday, Jan 18, 2023, 2023
131
Reig
,
M.
,
Forner
,
A.
,
Rimola
,
J.
,
Ferrer-Fàbrega
,
J.
,
Burrel
,
M.
,
Garcia-Criado
,
Á.
et al (
2022
)
BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update
.
J. Hepatol
.
76
,
681
693
This is an open access article published by Portland Press Limited on behalf of the Biochemical Society and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).