The Impact of the Fecal Microbiome on Cancer Immunotherapy

Gut Microbiome Modulation and Faecal Microbiota Transplantation Following Allogenic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

Nowadays, allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) is a curative therapy that is mainly recommended for hematologic malignancies. However, complications (such as graft-versus-host disease, mucositis, disease relapse, and infections) associated with the HSCT procedure contribute to the development of gut microbiota imbalance, gut-barrier disruption, and increased intestinal permeability. In the present narrative review, the crosstalk between gut microbiota products and intestinal homeostasis is discussed. Notably, gut-microbiota-related aspects have an impact on patients' clinical outcomes and overall survival. In accordance with the most recent published data, gut microbiota is crucial for the treatment effectiveness of many diseases, not only gastrointestinal cancers but also hematologic malignancies. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate a therapeutic method allowing to modulate gut microbiota in HSCT recipients. Currently, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is the most innovative method used to alter/restore gut microbiota composition, as well as modulate its activity. Despite the fact that some previous data have shown promising results, the knowledge regarding FMT in HSCT is still strongly limited, except for the treatment of Clostridium difficile infection. Additionally, administration of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics, and postbiotics can also modify gut microbiota; however, this strategy should be considered carefully due to the high risk of fungemia/septicemia (especially in case of fungal probiotics).

The role of the microbiome in ovarian cancer: mechanistic insights into oncobiosis and to bacterial metabolite signaling

Ovarian cancer is characterized by dysbiosis, referred to as oncobiosis in neoplastic diseases. In ovarian cancer, oncobiosis was identified in numerous compartments, including the tumor tissue itself, the upper and lower female genital tract, serum, peritoneum, and the intestines. Colonization was linked to Gram-negative bacteria with high inflammatory potential. Local inflammation probably participates in the initiation and continuation of carcinogenesis. Furthermore, local bacterial colonies in the peritoneum may facilitate metastasis formation in ovarian cancer. Vaginal infections (e.g. Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis) increase the risk of developing ovarian cancer. Bacterial metabolites, produced by the healthy eubiome or the oncobiome, may exert autocrine, paracrine, and hormone-like effects, as was evidenced in breast cancer or pancreas adenocarcinoma. We discuss the possible involvement of lipopolysaccharides, lysophosphatides and tryptophan metabolites, as well as, short-chain fatty acids, secondary bile acids and polyamines in the carcinogenesis of ovarian cancer. We discuss the applicability of nutrients, antibiotics, and probiotics to harness the microbiome and support ovarian cancer therapy. The oncobiome and the most likely bacterial metabolites play vital roles in mediating the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Finally, we discuss the potential of oncobiotic changes as biomarkers for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer and microbial metabolites as possible adjuvant agents in therapy.

The Current Status of Gene Therapy for the Treatment of Cancer

Gene therapy is the administration of foreign genomic material into the host tissue to modify the expression of a gene product or to change the biological properties of cells for therapeutic use. Initially, the major objective of gene therapy was to manage genetic diseases, but now different disorders with several patterns of acquired and inherited disorders are targets of gene therapy. Over three decades, the advancement of Genome engineering technologies facilitated gene therapy for the prevention and management of intractable diseases. Researchers are advancing with cautious optimism that safe and effective treatment will give to patients with single-gene disorders and complex acquired disorders. To date, over 3000 genes associates with disease-causing mutations, and about 2600 gene therapy trials are undergoing for the management of various disorders. This review summarizes the principles of genome-editing approaches, such as zinc finger nucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases, meganucleases, and the CRISPR/Cas9 system with the underlying mechanisms. This review also explains the types of gene delivery systems as viral [adenoviral, adeno association, herpes simplex virus] and nonviral delivery systems (physical: DNA bombardment, electroporation) and (chemical: Cationic lipids, cationic polymers). Finally, this review summarizes gene therapy medicines approved to treat cancer in detail, including names, indications, vectors, and mode of gene therapy. Gene therapy becomes an alternative to an existing management for different diseases. Therefore, gene products with safe vectors and better biotechnologies play a significant role in the prophylaxis and management of various disorders in the future.

Gut microbiota contributes towards immunomodulation against cancer: New frontiers in precision cancer therapeutics

The microbiota influences human health and the development of diverse diseases, including cancer. Microbes can influence tumor initiation and development in either a positive or negative manner. In addition, the composition of the gut microbiota affects the efficacy and toxicity of cancer therapeutics as well as therapeutic resistance. The striking impact of microbiota on oncogenesis and cancer therapy provides compelling evidence to support the notion that manipulating microbial networks represents a promising strategy for treating and preventing cancer. Specific microbes or the microbial ecosystem can be modified via a multiplicity of processes, and therapeutic methods and approaches have been evolving. Microbial manipulation can be applied as an adjunct to traditional cancer therapies such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Furthermore, this approach displays great promise as a stand-alone therapy following the failure of standard therapy. Moreover, such strategies may also benefit patients by avoiding the emergence of toxic side effects that result in treatment discontinuation. A better understanding of the host-microbial ecosystem in patients with cancer, together with the development of methodologies for manipulating the microbiome, will help expand the frontiers of precision cancer therapeutics, thereby improving patient care. This review discusses the roles of the microbiota in oncogenesis and cancer therapy, with a focus on efforts to harness the microbiota to fight cancer.

Roles of microbiota in response to cancer immunotherapy

Immunotherapy, which shows great promise for treating patients with metastatic malignancies, has dramatically changed the therapeutic landscape of cancer, particularly subsequent to the discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the responses to immunotherapy are heterogeneous and often transient. More problematic is that a high proportion of patients with cancer are resistant to such therapy. Much effort has been expended to identify reliable biomarkers that accurately predict clinical responses to immunotherapy. Unfortunately, such tools are lacking, and our knowledge of the mechanisms underlying its efficacy and safety is insufficient. The microbiota is increasingly recognized for its influence on human health and disease. Microbes create a pro- or an anti-inflammatory environment through complex interactions with host cells and cytokines. Emerging evidence indicates that microbes alter the efficacy and toxicity of immunotherapy by modulating the host's local and systemic immune responses. It is therefore critically important to exploit the microbiota to develop biomarkers as well as to identify therapeutic targets that can be applied to cancer immunotherapy. This review provides insights into the challenges that must be addressed to achieve these goals.

Adverse Events of Concurrent Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Antiangiogenic Agents: A Systematic Review

Background: Immune checkpoint blockade has revolutionized the treatment of multiple malignancies. Currently, however, the effect is not universal, with objective response rates (ORR) of about 15–25%, and even lower for some cancers. Abnormal vasculature is a hallmark of most solid tumors and plays a role in immune evasion. Growing body of evidence suggests that vascular normalization and immune reprogramming could operate synergistic effect, resulting in an enhanced therapeutic efficacy. However, the benefit of antitumor efficacy must be weighed against the risk of added toxicity. In this systematic review, we summarize severe toxicity observed in such a kind of combination regimen.

Methods: PubMed and Embase were searched for English references published up to May 31, 2019, with MeSH and keywords search terms of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and antiangiogenic agents approved for using in solid tumors. Studies performing concomitant use of ICIs and antiangiogenic agents, and also reporting severe treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) (≥grade 3), were included for further analysis.

Results: A total of 32 studies including a total of 2,324 participants were analyzed. Limited available data suggests that both antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) show potential risk of increasing treatment-related toxicity when combined with ICIs. Overall, the total incidence of severe adverse events (AEs) associated with ICIs plus mAbs (44.5%) is lower than that of ICIs plus TKIs (60.1%). However, the trAEs observed in combination therapy are mostly consistent with the known safety profiles of corresponding monotherapy, and they seem to be largely related to antiangiogenic agents, rather than a true immune-related adverse event (irAE) predominantly due to ICIs. The majority of trAEs are intervened by holding ICI treatment and adding corticosteroids, as well as reducing dose or adjusting administration frequency of the antiangiogenic drugs.

Conclusions: Concurrent use of ICIs and antiangiogenic agents shows potential treatment-related toxicity. Further research is required to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination regimen and corresponding monotherapy and identify predictive biomarkers, as well as explore dose, duration, and sequencing schedules of drugs.