Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Radiotherapy (RT) is currently used in more than 50% of cancer patients during the course of their disease in the curative, adjuvant or palliative setting. RT achieves good local control of tumor growth, conferring DNA damage and impacting tumor vasculature and the immune system. Formerly regarded as a merely immunosuppressive treatment, pre- and clinical observations indicate that the therapeutic effect of RT is partially immune mediated. In some instances, RT synergizes with immunotherapy (IT), through different mechanisms promoting an effective antitumor immune response. Cell death induced by RT is thought to be immunogenic and results in modulation of lymphocyte effector function in the tumor microenvironment promoting local control. Moreover, a systemic immune response can be elicited or modulated to exert effects outside the irradiation field (so called abscopal effects). In this review, we discuss the body of evidence related to RT and its immunogenic potential for the future design of novel combination therapies.

Keywords

abscopal brachytherapy checkpoint inhibitors immunogenic cell death immunotherapy PD-1 radiotherapy

Introduction

Radiotherapy (RT) represents one of the pillars in the management of cancer patients. Alone or in combination with surgery, RT displays a range of antitumor effects, which are mainly cytotoxic, evidenced by the drastic changes in proliferation, morphology and cell death, leading to tumor shrinkage. At the molecular level, RT induces nonrepairable DNA strand breaks, leading to mitotic catastrophe, resulting in cellular senescence and apoptosis.¹ These cytotoxic effects can also affect leukocytes because conventional radiation fields frequently include the thymus, hematopoietic bone marrow or large blood volumes leading to lymphopenia together with impaired leukocyte function in irradiated cancer patients which perpetuates the view that RT is generally immunosuppressive.²

The first evidence for an immune-stimulatory effect of RT emerged from infrequent clinical observations of tumor remission outside the radiation field in satellite secondary tumors. This event was called the ‘abscopal effect’ (Latin, ab scopus, away from the target).³ Preclinical models showed that this effect is largely immune mediated,^3,4 a finding further supported by associations in early clinical studies.^5–8 Importantly, these abscopal effects seldom occur after RT alone, suggesting that RT as a single agent is not sufficient to trigger an effective antitumor immune response in cancer patients. Abscopal effects more frequently emerge in patients treated with combined RT and immunotherapy (IT).^8–11 Likewise, RT boosted the antitumor effects of a range of immunotherapies including checkpoint inhibitors and adoptive transfers of T or natural killer (NK) cells. A wide range of ITs are currently being tested in combination with RT in clinical trials seeking to ameliorate current response and survival rates.¹² Thus, the robust results obtained with IT and the RT-elicited abscopal effects open a new front to revolutionize the usage of RT.

In this review, we will delineate the scope of combined RT and IT, as well as recent advances in preclinical models and clinical trials showing the encouraging results of this dual combination. We will dissect the challenges of combining IT and RT, emphasizing the opportunities for increasing synergistic benefits.

Significance and hurdles of radiation-induced immune responses

The combination of immune-checkpoint inhibitors with the ability of RT to act on the immune system has gathered much interest. Striking responses using checkpoint inhibition not previously anticipated in melanoma, lung and other solid tumors are leading to a paradigm shift, and represent novel US Food and Drug administration (FDA)-approved treatments for a growing number of tumor types.^13–15 These drugs act by blocking negative regulators of T-cell activation, restoring antitumor activity that is usually impaired by tumor cells themselves and other elements present in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Unfortunately, checkpoint inhibitors are not always efficacious to induce tumor rejection, and a significant number of patients do not respond or become refractory to IT. Several obstacles preventing IT from unleashing its full potential have been proposed:

the insufficient priming of tumor-antigen reactive T cells;

the weak infiltration of antitumor effectors into the neoplastic tissues (lymphocyte exclusion phenotype);¹⁶

the presence of a highly immunosuppressive TME;

the ability of cancer cells to effectively evade recognition by immune effectors, impaired tumor-associated antigen presentation and the absence of danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) and loss of sensitivity to interferon gamma (IFNγ).¹⁷

The combination of RT with IT may offer novel strategies to overcome the current limitations. Using these limitations as organizing principles, we conceptualize the effects of RT on the antitumor immune response (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Principles of the radiation-induced immune response.

Priming of tumor antigen-specific T cells

Preclinical data show that RT-mediated tumor eradication largely depends on T cells and their ability to recognize tumor antigens with sufficient affinity.^18,19 Irradiation, especially in combination with checkpoint inhibitors, effectively induces priming of tumor antigen-specific T cells in cancer patients and animal models. In the latter, T-cell priming mediates the rejection of established primary tumors and prevents distant dissemination. The mechanistic insights by which RT boosts tumor-specific immune responses are summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Mechanistic changes in the antitumor immune response after radiotherapy.

A growing body of evidence indicates that RT-mediated T-cell priming occurs through the activation of different branches of host immunity. RT releases waves of potential tumor antigens in a phenomenon called ‘epitope spreading’ in which cell damage leads to the priming of tumor antigen-specific T cells, which attack the tumor, releasing another antigen wave creating a positive feedback loop.⁶⁸ Interestingly, this process seems to be favored by checkpoint inhibitors, which enhance the repertoire of tumor antigen-specific T cells. In this context, RT could facilitate dendritic-cell-mediated tumor antigen-specific T-cell priming.^19,69,70

In addition, RT triggers immunogenic cell death (ICD) in a range of animal models. This is a unique type of cell death characterized by the release of danger signals, which elicit the effective costimulation concomitant to presentation of tumor antigens and subsequent priming of antigen-specific T cells.⁷¹ Cellular events mediating effective ICD after RT include the release of ATP,²⁰ which attracts dendritic cells (DCs) into the tumor,²¹ as well as the cell surface exposure of calreticulin, an endoplasmic reticulum-resident protein, which promotes phagocytosis of irradiated tumor cells.^72,73 Finally, another factor is the release of the chromatin-binding protein HMGB1 (high mobility group box 1), which facilitates antigen presentation and type I-IFN-mediated DC maturation.⁴⁶ Interestingly, low calreticulin and HMGB1 levels are associated with poor prognosis in RT-treated cancer patients. These findings substantiate the notion that RT could transform a tumor into an ‘in situ vaccine’ (Table 1).⁷⁴ Importantly, a subset of DCs, now termed DC1 are critical for crosspriming of cytotoxic T lymphocytes including those involved in tumor immunity. These cells are specialized in taking up antigen from other cells and introducing the antigenic material into their class-I antigen-presenting pathway. Two studies have found that this rare basic leucine zipper ATF-like transcription factor 3 (BATF3) dependent DC subset is critical for the synergistic effects of RT and IT, including abscopal effects.^26,75 In this line, it is proposed that DNA released from dying cells is able to turn on the transmembrane protein 173 (STING) pathway in tumor-surrounding DCs as a key element in the ignition of adaptive antitumor immunity.

Table 1.

Mechanisms of radiation-induced T-cell priming.

Signal inducedby RT	Function and mechanisms	Tumor	Dose	Time	References
Calreticulin	Is exposed on the surface of irradiated tumor cellsTriggers phagocytosis of irradiated tumor cells by DCsIncreases lysis of irradiated tumor cells by CTLsIs required for the formation of antitumor immunity after vaccination with irradiated tumor cellsCorrelates with OS in lung cancer patients receiving RT	3 × breast1 × chordoma2 × colon2 × lung1 × melanoma2 × prostate	8 Gy10 Gy20 Gy25 Gy75 Gy75 Gy	4h7h12h24h72h4 d	Golden et al.;²¹ Garg et al.;⁷² Perez et al.;⁷³ Gameiro et al.;²³ Gameiro et al.;⁷⁶ Obeid et al.²⁴
HMGB1	Is released from irradiated tumor cellsTriggers antigen presentation by DC and priming of antigen-specific T cells after local RT in a TLR4 dependent mannerESCC patients show elevated HMGB1 concentrations post CRTHMGB1 expression correlates with overall survival in ESCC patients receiving CRT	3 × breast1 × ESCC2 × lung2 × lymphoma1 × prostate	10 Gy20 Gy30 Gy30–33*2 Gy100 Gy	24h48h72h72h72h	Golden et al.;²¹ Gameiro et al.;²³ Apetoh et al.;²⁵ Suzuki et al.;⁷⁷ Yoshimoto et al.⁷⁸
ATP	Is released from irradiated tumor cellsRelease from irradiated tumor cells is dependent on expression of the autophagy factor ATG5	1 × breast1 × colon1 × lung1 × prostate	4 Gy20 Gy100 Gy	24h24h72h	Ko et al.;²² Golden et al.;²¹ Gameiro et al.²³
IFN-α/β	Is induced by sensing of irradiated tumor cells in DCs in a cGAS and STING dependent mannerIs required for priming of antigen-specific T cells by DCs after local RT and for the antitumor effect of RTDirectly activates lymphocytes after RTIncreases intratumoral IFN-γ production and CXCR3-dependent T-cell recruitment after local RT	1 × colon1 × lung2 × melanoma	14 Gy15 Gy20 Gy20 Gy	48h48h72hNA	Wu et al.;⁴⁶ Deng et al.;²⁶ Lim et al.;⁴⁴ Burnette et al.⁷⁹
Complement	Is activated by local RTComplement activation can either favor or inhibit antitumor immune responses depending on the use of single dose or fractionated RT, respectivelyTriggers DC maturation and IFN- γ production in tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells after local RT	1 × breast1 × colon1 × lymphoma1 × melanoma	20 Gy4*1.5 Gy	24h24h	Surace et al.;²⁷ Elvington et al.⁸⁰

Preclinical studies analyzing the mechanisms of antigen-specific T-cell priming after RT, as well as studies analyzing the effect of RT on DC maturation and antigen-presentation. Indicated are the analyzed tumor types and the lowest radiation dose and earliest timepoints after RT at which maximum effects on the indicated mechanism were observed in vivo or in vitro.

ATG5, autophagy related 5; ATP, adenosine triphosphate; cGAS, cyclic GMP-AMP synthase; CTL, cytotoxic lymphocytes; CRT, chemoradiotherapy; CXCR, C-X-C motif chemokine receptor; d, days; DC, dendritic cell; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; Gy, Gray; HMGB1, high mobility group box 1; h, hours; IFN, interferon; NA, not applicable; n.d., not disclosed; OS, overall survival; RT, radiotherapy; STING, transmembrane protein 173; TLR4, toll-like receptor 4.

Current approved ITs directed to restore antitumor immune responses might benefit from the antitumor effect of RT because of debulking and because of enhancing crosspriming of T cells. For instance, the relevance of RT in priming antitumor-specific T-cell responses is also supported by the high expression of programmed-cell-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in irradiated tumors.⁴⁷ RT enhances the expression of CD137, a co-stimulatory immune checkpoint molecule on tumor and programmed-cell-death 1 (PD-1) on T cells.⁴ Consequently, PD-1 or PD-L1 blockade and CD137 activation act in synergism with RT and favor abscopal effects.⁸¹ These preclinical findings suggest that local RT may enhance the systemic beneficial effects of immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies and explain the large number of ongoing clinical trials exploring the clinical activity of these combinations⁸² (vide infra).

Attracting leukocytes into the tumor tissue

Low infiltration of effector T cells into the tumor represents a major obstacle for cancer IT.^83,84 RT-mediated leukocyte infiltration can be directed by changes in leukocyte extravasation, an event partially modulated by the in situ generation of leukocyte chemoattractants. In addition to effector T cells, RT also induces the infiltration of a wide range of leukocytes including NK cells, regulatory T cells (Tregs) and CD11b-positive (CD11b+) cells, such as MDSCs (myeloid-derived suppressor cells) and TAMs (tumor-associated macrophages).

RT by itself exerts dual and opposite effects on the immune system, which underscores its role as a double-edged sword in the antitumor immune response. On the one hand, RT increases tumor infiltration by endogenously primed or adoptively transferred effector T cells, NK cells and other leukocytes which impede tumor growth.^32,85 On the other hand, RT increases infiltration by Treg and CD11b+ cells, including MDSCs and TAMs, which are associated with an immunosuppressive TME and poor outcome in cancer patients.^46,86 However, CD11b+-mediated immunosuppression may be transient and be later replaced by influx of effector T cells.⁸⁷ Moreover, in combined RT with IT, the accumulation of CD11b+ cells can be prevented and the immunostimulatory effects of RT seem to prevail.⁴⁸ For example, intratumor vaccination and monoclonal antibodies against PD-L1 can render CD11b+ cells susceptible to T-cell mediated lysis.⁴⁶ In the same line, MDSCs and Tregs can be directly depleted using monoclonal antibodies, targeting CD11b or CD25 to achieve more salient effects.^54,85 These findings highlight the notion that radiation-induced immune responses can be optimized using novel combined strategies to achieve an optimal therapeutic synergy.

An important mechanism involved in leukocyte infiltration after RT is the alteration and normalization of the aberrant tumor vasculature. Tumors induce a chronically activated angiogenesis creating anomalous vasculature, resulting in distorted vessel sprouting, abnormal branching, large vessel diameter, abnormal blood flow with leakiness, and microhemorrhaging. In addition, an endothelium nonpermissive for lymphocytes is maintained by an array of immunosuppressive and proangiogenic signals together with endothelium-associated cells.

The combination of RT and IT leads to a normalization of the vasculature characterized by a reduction of vascular density and leakiness, together with increased vessel homogeneity. This phenotypic change is associated with higher infiltration by endogenous or transferred CD8+ T cells and higher immunotherapeutic efficacy. Some of these effects are mediated by nitric oxide (NO) that, depending on radiation dose, can exert dual functions. At least after low-dose (LD) radiation, normalization of vasculature can be mediated by the induction of nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) by macrophages residing in the irradiated tissue, an event crucial for the therapeutic efficacy of adoptive T-cell transfer.³² However, when high-dose RT is used without concurrent IT, the tumor-promoting role of NO prevails over its effect on vasculature.⁴¹

In addition to changes in tumor vasculature, RT also induces the expression of adhesion molecules on blood vessel and lymphatic endothelial cells, which are crucial mediators for migration and extravasation of leukocytes into the tumor bulk.^75,88 So far, their functional relevance in modifying antitumor immunity post-RT remains to be established. Radiation-induced intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), for instance, mediates the transmigration of tumor-promoting CD11b+ myeloid cells after RT alone.⁸⁵ Nevertheless, when RT was combined with an adoptive T-cell transfer or a cancer vaccine, induction of adhesion molecules was associated with higher infiltration by cytotoxic T cells and therapeutic efficacy.⁸⁹ Intriguingly, RT-induced vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) expression depends on nitric oxide synthase 2 (iNOS) positive macrophages and on interferon-γ (IFN-γ) produced by hematopoietic cells.^32,33 It is therefore likely that radiation-induced mechanisms of T-cell priming and T-cell infiltration are closely interconnected.

Among the most relevant signals regulating leukocyte infiltration post-RT are radiation-induced chemokines secreted by irradiated tumor cells and other stromal components, including myeloid cells and fibroblasts. The net balance and the type of radiation-induced chemokines determine the composition of the leukocyte infiltrate. For instance, RT-induced chemokine (C-X-C motif) ligand 9 (CXCL9), -10 and -16 secretion attracts adoptively transferred T cells and thereby enhances tumor control.^42–45 By contrast, CXCL12 and colony stimulating factor-1 (CSF-1) induced by RT can attract tumor-promoting CD11b+ myeloid cells.^34,35 Concurrently, this massive release of chemokines can also potently increase epithelial–mesenchymal transition and invasiveness of tumor cells.^90,91 Thus, the overall combination of RT-induced chemokines will determine not only the infiltration of pro- or antitumorogenic leukocytes, but will also affect tumor cell behavior.

Beyond these effects on vessel structure and chemokine expression, RT can also lead to the accumulation of Tregs in the tumor tissue postradiation due to their high intrinsic radioresistance⁵⁴ and due to Treg priming by radioresistant Langerhans-cells.⁵⁵

In summary, RT can help endogenous CD8+ T cells or transferred CD8+ T cells and NK cells to infiltrate the tumor tissue and thereby enhance IT efficacy. Radiation-induced changes in the tumor vasculature generally support tumor regrowth after RT alone by favoring infiltration of immunosuppressive myeloid cells. Importantly, IT counteracts this radiation-induced accumulation of immunosuppressive leukocytes in the tumor and thereby prevents tumor regrowth after RT by increasing vascular permeability to cytotoxic lymphocytes. Further comprehensive studies are needed to dissect how the chemokine milieu can be optimally influenced by RT to support IT efficacy (Table 2).

Table 2.

Mechanisms of radiation-induced leukocyte infiltration.

Effect of RT	Function and mechanisms		Tumor	Dose	Time	References
Effect of RT	Favoring tumor growth	Favoring tumor control	Tumor	Dose	Time	References
Reduction of vascular density and induction of vasculogenesis	CD11b+ cells are recruited by RT and drive vasculogenesis and tumor regrowth in an MMP-9-dependent manner	Vessel normalization is mediated by iNOS+ M1-like macrophages and leads to enhanced infiltration by endogenous or adoptively transferred CD8+ and CD4+ T cellsRT in combination with IT normalizes the vasculature: vessel area and hemorrhages decrease, circularity and pericyte coverage increaseDecreased vessel density after RT is associated with impaired tumor growth in irradiated tissues	1 × breast1 × colon1 × glioma2 × HNSCC2 × lung2 × pancreas (endocrine)1 × sarcoma	2 Gy7.5 Gy9.5 Gy10 Gy15 Gy20 Gy20 Gy15 Gy + 6 Gy	24 h3 d8 d14 d14 d17 dn.d.n.d.	Klug et al.;³² Ahn et al.;⁸⁵ Mondini et al.;⁸⁹ Kozin et al.;³⁴ Kioi et al.;³⁵ Ganss et al.;⁹² Udagawa et al.;⁹³ Ahn et al.³⁶
Induction of adhesion molecules on tumor vasculature	ICAM-1 is induced on irradiated endothelial cells and mediates leukocyte adhesion to irradiated endothelium;Radiation-induced ICAM-1 expression is associated with transmigration of tumor-promoting CD11b+ myeloid cells after RT alone and with higher infiltration by tumor antigen-specific T cells after RT + IT;ICAM-1 is induced by RT on tumor-associated endothelium of HNSCC patients	VCAM-1 induction after RT + IT is mediated by iNOS+ M1-like macrophages and IFN-γ from hematopoietic cells;VCAM-1 induction by RT is associated with higher infiltration of CD8+ T cells	2 × HNSCC2 × melanoma1 × pancreas (endocrine)NANA	2 Gy7.5 Gy10 Gy15 Gy15 Gy20 Gy30*2 Gy	24 h24 h24 h6 d7 d7 dn.d.	Klug et al.;³² Ahn et al.;⁸⁵ Mondini et al.;⁸⁹ Lugade et al.;³³ Handschel et al.;⁹⁴ Lugade et al.;⁹⁵ Hallahan et al.⁹⁶
Induction of chemokines	CXCL12:Radiation-induced CXCL12 recruits CD11b+ myeloid cells that mediate vasculogenesis;Radiation-induced fibroblast-derived CXCL12 increases tumor-cell EMT and invasiveness;CXCL12 induction is mediated by upregulation of HIF-1αOther:Radiation induces CSF-1 in tumor cells, which attracts MDSCs and macrophages favoring tumor growth;RT induces CCL2 and CCL5 expression in an IL-6-dependent manner, which attracts monocytes and favors tumor growth;CCL2-mediated attraction of monocytes favors tumor growth after RT	CXCL9, 10:STING-dependent induction of type I IFNs mediates upregulation of CXCL10 and subsequent T cell, macrophage and DC infiltration;CXCL9, CXCL10 and CCL4 correlate with response to RT + anti-CTLA-4 in melanoma patientsOther:Radiation-induced CXCL16 attracts T and NK cells and increases antitumor activity of adoptively transferred T cells;Radiation-induced CCL5 is associated with increased CD8+ T-cell infiltration	3 × breast1 × colon2 × glioma1 × HNSCC2 × lung2 × melanoma3 × pancreas1 × prostate	4 Gy6 Gy8 Gy15 Gy15 Gy15 Gy20 Gy20 Gy20 Gy20 Gy20 Gy2*12 Gy18–50 Gy	24 h24 h24 h48 h48 h48 h72 h72 h7 d8 d14 dn.d.n.d.	Hiniker et al.;⁵ Deng et al.;²⁶ Matsumura et al.;⁴² Yoon et al.;⁴³ Lim et al.;⁴⁴ Zheng et al.;⁴⁵ Kozin et al.;³⁴ Kioi et al.;³⁵ Li et al.;⁹⁰ Xu et al.;³⁷ Tabatabai et al.;³⁸ Kalbasi et al.;³⁹ Wang et al.⁴⁰

Representative preclinical/clinical studies analyzing the effects of RT on radiation-induced leukocyte infiltration. Indicated are effects of RT leading to leukocyte infiltration, suggested underlying mechanisms, the analyzed tumor type, the lowest radiation dose and earliest timepoint after RT at which maximum effects were observed in vivo or in vitro (if no in vivo data available).

CCL, C-C motif chemokine ligand; CSF, colony stimulating factor; CTLA-4; cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4; CXCL, C-X-C motif chemokine ligand; d, days; EMT, ephithelial-mesenchymal transition; HIF, hypoxia inducible factor; HNSCC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; Gy, Gray; h, hours; ICAM-1, intercellular adhesion molecule 1; IL, interleukin; IFN, interferon; IT, immunotherapy; iNOS+, nitric oxide synthase 2; MDSCs, myeloid-derived suppressor cells; MMP-9, matrix metalloproteinase; M1, M1-like macrophage (iNOShi, Arg1lo, Fizz-1lo); M2, M2-like macrophage (iNOSlo, Arg1hi, Fizz-1hi); NA, not applicable; n.d., not disclosed; NK, natural killer; RT, radiotherapy; STING, transmembrane protein 173; VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1.

Modifying the tumor microenvironment

Modulation by secreted factors of the tumor microenvironment

Once tumor-reactive lymphocytes have been primed and have infiltrated the tumor tissue, they must overcome a highly immunosuppressive tumor milieu. The TME encompasses an intricate interplay of tumor cells and their associated stroma, which, as the tumor progresses, entails the secretion of an array of soluble factors (Table 3). RT profoundly alters the TME, impacting tumor growth and effective antitumor immune responses. A wide variety of growth factors and cytokines is released after RT into the tumor milieu to configure a net balance of pro- and anti-immunogenic cues, greatly modulating the immune response.

Table 3.

Radiation-induced changes in the tumor microenvironment.

Effect of RT	Function and mechanisms		Tumor	Dose	Time	References
Effect of RT	Favoring tumor growth	Favoring tumor control	Tumor	Dose	Time	References
Cytokine secretion	TGF-β:RT induces TGF-β facilitating metastasis formation;TGF-β abolishes priming of antigen-specific T cells in response to RT;TGF-β confers intrinsic protection from radiation damage to cancer cells;Captopril inhibits induction of TGF-β by RT in endothelial cellsIL-6:IL-6 is released from tumor cells after RT and increases tumor cell invasivenessCSF-1:CSF-1 drives systemic expansion of CD11b+ cells	Type I IFN:Radiation-induced IFN-β leads to upregulation of MHC-I expression on tumor cells;IFN-α/β induced by RT directly activates lymphocytes by the IFNAR;Tumor cells protect themselves from IFN-β mediated killing by upregulation of LGP2Type II IFN:IFN-γ is induced by irradiation and mediates the antitumor effect of RT;Radiation-induced IFN-γ from hematopoietic cells mediates radiation-induced upregulation of VCAM-1 on tumor vasculature and radiation-induced MHC-I expression on tumor cells	4 × breast1 × colon1 × glioma1 × HNSCC1 × lung2 × melanoma1 × prostateNA	8 Gy10 Gy10 Gy12 Gy15 Gy15 Gy15 Gy142 Gy56 Gy3*12 Gy	24 h24 h4 d5 d7 d7 dNANANAn.d.	Lugade et al.;³³ Lim et al.;⁴⁴ Coppe et al.;⁹¹ Vanpouille-Box et al.;³⁰ Vanpouille-Box et al.;⁹⁷ Xu et al.;³⁷ Biswas et al.;⁹⁸ Wang et al.;⁹⁹ Wei et al.;¹⁰⁰ Widau et al.⁴⁹
Macrophage polarization	M2:High dose RT skews macrophages towards an M2 phenotype, in an NFkB dependent manner, due to cell intrinsic effects or due to soluble factors released from irradiated tumor cellsM2-like macrophages from high dose irradiated tumors promote tumor growth;High-dose RT triggers iNOS induction in macrophages favoring tumor growth;Macrophage polarization after RT depends on macrophage genotype	M1:Low dose RT skews macrophages towards an iNOS+ producing M1-like phenotype by cell intrinsic mechanisms;iNOS+ M1-like macrophages from low dose irradiated mice potentiate the therapeutic effect of adoptive T cell transfers;iNOS+ M1-like macrophages from low dose irradiated mice in combination with adoptively transferred T cells normalize the tumor vasculature	2 × breast1 × glioma2 × pancreas(endocrine)3 × prostateNA	2 Gy3 Gy2*2 Gy4 Gy6 Gy10 Gy25 Gy25 Gy25 Gy	24 h24 h24 h72 h5 d14 d21 d3 W4 W	Klug et al.;³² Li et al.;⁴¹ Xu et al.;³⁷ Tsai et al.;⁵¹ Prakash et al.;¹⁰¹ Crittenden et al.;⁵² Chiang et al.;¹⁰² Chen et al.;⁵³ Coates et al.¹⁰³
Immunosuppressive leukocytes	Priming of Treg cells after RT by radioresistant Langerhans cells facilitates tumor growth;RT leads to increased abundance of tumor infiltrating Tregs, due to their intrinsic radioresistance	RT triggers antigen-presentation on MDSCs leading to their eradication by CD8+ T cells or TNF-α	1 × breast1 × lung1 × melanoma1 × prostate1 × sarcoma	6 Gy10 Gy10 Gy12 Gy14 Gy	48 h48 h72 h10 d12 d	Wu et al.;⁴⁶ Deng et al.;⁴⁷ Kachikwu et al.;⁵⁴ Price et al.⁵⁵

Representative preclinical/clinical studies analyzing the effects of RT on the tumor microenvironment. Indicated are effects of RT on the tumor microenvironment, suggested underlying mechanisms, the analyzed tumor type and the lowest radiation dose and earliest time-point after RT at which maximum effects were observed in vivo or in vitro (if no in vivo data available).

CSF, colony stimulating factor; d, days; Gy, Gray; h, hours; HNSCC, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; IFN, interferon; IFNAR, interferon-α receptor; IL, interleukin; iNOS+, nitric oxide synthase 2; IT, immunotherapy; LGP2, laboratories of genetics and physiology 2; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cell; MHC, major histocompatibility complex; M1, M1-like macrophage (iNOShi, Arg1lo, Fizz-1lo); M2, M2-like macrophage (iNOSlo, Arg1hi, Fizz-1hi); NA, not applicable; n.d., not disclosed; NFκB, nuclear factor kappa B; PD-L1, CD274 molecule; TGF, transforming growth factor; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; RT, radiotherapy; Treg, regulatory T lymphocytes; VCAM-1, vascular cell adhesion molecule 1; W, weeks.

RT induces a cytokine burst from a few hours post-RT to several weeks postradiation. Cytokines are produced by both tumor cells and other tumor-associated cells including fibroblasts, macrophages and other leukocytes. The bulk of soluble mediators and cytokines that are released from senescent cells after cytotoxic treatments has been termed the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) and includes major secretion of interleukin-1β (IL-1β), IL-6, IL-7 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF).⁹¹

Among the RT-mediated cytokine burst, transforming growth-factor beta (TGF-β) represents a major immunosuppressive factor limiting both the priming of tumor-reactive T cells and the release of macrophage pro-inflammatory cytokines. Indeed, this cytokine released after RT displays a protumorigenic and prometastatic role in some tumors.³⁰ TGF-β release occurs in advanced pro-inflammatory and postradiation fibrotic events during tissue repair and extracellular matrix remodeling.¹⁰⁴ Beyond its immunosuppressive effects, TGF-β also confers intrinsic radioresistance on tumor cells thus providing a dual protection from both the RT-induced cytotoxic effects, as well as antitumor immune response post-RT.⁹⁷ In addition to transcriptional induction of TGF-β1, the activation of the latent as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation has been reported.^30,105

CSF-1 is another RT-induced cytokine with a protumorigenic effect, which can drive the systemic expansion and survival of macrophages and MDSCs.³⁷ In addition, IL-6 released from tumor cells’ T cells and TAMs supports tumor proliferation, invasiveness and radioresistance.⁵⁰

Radiation-induced IFNs are crucial for the therapeutic effect of RT.⁷⁹ They can directly activate T cells and other lymphocytes.^33,44 The induction of type-I IFNs by RT via STING induces the priming of T cells, which in turn release IFN-γ.²⁶ This cytokine seems to represent the dominant effector molecule of the antitumor immune response post-RT.³³ Indeed, IFN-γ knockout mice showed severely diminished survival post-RT accompanied with low CD8+ T cell and high MDSC infiltration.⁸⁷

Nevertheless, exposure to type I and II IFN signaling can also confer resistance to anti-CTLA-4 checkpoint blockade by upregulating PD-L1 or ligands for T-cell-inhibitory receptors suppressing antitumor immunity.¹⁰⁶ Preventing chronic upregulation of these IFN-stimulated genes represents a highly effective approach to restore susceptibility of tumors that recur after combined RT and checkpoint blockade therapy.

RT can also activate the complement system, an event most likely mediated by the binding of immunoglobulin M (IgM) to necrotic cells.²⁷ However, its impact on tumor control remains elusive. Whereas one-time activation of complement by single-dose RT led to improved tumor control and the induction of an adaptive antitumor immune response,²⁷ repeated activation by fractionated RT showed a negative effect on tumor control.⁸⁰

In contrast to local tumor irradiation, total body irradiation (TBI) leads to systemic changes in cytokine levels. This has been attributed to the removal of so-called ‘cytokine sinks’, which are host leukocytes sequestering and limiting the availability of cytokines.^107,108 Thereby, TBI can drive the proliferation and engraftment of transferred CD8+ T cells and NK cells.^85,109 Effects on intestinal permeability and ensuing translocation of luminal bacteria to the submucosa are also likely elements in the boosting of immunity by sublethal TBI.¹¹⁰

Modulation by changes in tumor infiltrating leukocytes

MDSCs and TAMs are considered protumor stromal components.⁹⁴ RT can induce cross-presentation of tumor antigens on CD11b+ myeloid cells leading to their elimination by antigen-specific T cells.⁴⁸ In addition, LD irradiation can skew macrophages towards an M1-polarized phenotype (iNOShi, Arg1lo, Fizz-1lo), including the upregulation of iNOS and T-helper-1 cytokines and render them supportive of antitumor immunity.³² However, higher radiation doses may polarize macrophages to an M2-phenotype that can promote tumor growth, an event mediated by soluble factors released from irradiated tumor cells.⁵¹ Since polarization of macrophages is extremely dependent on the contextual signals of the TME, characterization of the radiation-induced factors regulating polarization remains to be elucidated.

Increasing tumor cell susceptibility to lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity

RT increases the susceptibility of tumor cells to T and NK-cell-mediated lysis by modulating the expression pattern of surface molecules including (major histocompatibility complex I) MHC-I, NK cell ligands, costimulatory receptors and death receptors. All these changes mediated by RT in immunomodulatory surface molecules, also observed with other cytotoxic treatments, have been termed immunogenic modulation.^111,112

Radiation-induced upregulation of MHC-I molecules was associated with enhanced lysis of irradiated tumor cells by tumor antigen-specific T cells in vitro and in vivo (Table 4). The induction of MHC-I after RT occurs by a three-step mechanism, including a proteasome-dependent increase in cytosolic peptide levels, mTOR-dependent protein translation and induction of radiation-specific peptides.⁵⁶ In addition to these cell intrinsic mechanisms of MHC-I induction, radiation-induced IFN-γ induces MHC-I upregulation.³³ Of note, upregulation of MHC-I post-RT does not seem to be a universal mechanism, but it is confined to a fraction of tumor cell lines.⁵⁷ Thus, RT could increase MHC-I levels in some tumors with low endogenous MHC-I to increase immune-mediated attack.

Table 4.

Effects of ionizing radiation on tumor-cell susceptibility to T or natural killer cell-mediated lysis.

Signal inducedby RT	Function and mechanisms	Tumor	Dose	Time	References
MHC-I/Ib	RT induces MHC-I expression on tumor cells in an IFN-β-dependent or mTOR-dependent manner;MHC-I induction on tumor cells is associated with increased susceptibility to T-cell-mediated lysis;MHC-I induction is associated with increased intracellular peptide levels;HLA-E induction on endothelial cells is associated with decreased susceptibility to NK-cell-mediated lysis	2 × colon2 × lung1 × melanoma1 × prostateNA	4 Gy10 Gy3*12 Gy25 Gy	12 h18 h72 h5 d	Reits et al.;⁵⁶ Garnett et al.;⁵⁷ Wang et al.;⁹⁹ Riederer et al.¹¹³
NKG2D ligands	Upregulation of NKG2D ligands after irradiation is mediated by ATM and the absence of STAT3 and can be inhibited by allopurinol;RAE-1 induction by RT restores intratumoral lymphocyte arrest and increases tumor control after combined anti-CTLA-4 and RT;MICA/B and ULBP1 induction is associated with increased NK cell mediated lysis;MICA/B is preferentially upregulated on stem-like cancer cells;	1 × breast1 × glioma1 × ovarian2 × pancreas2 × sarcoma	8 Gy2*12 Gy25 Gy40 Gy40 Gy	16h16h24h24h48h	Gasser et al.;⁶¹ Xu et al.;⁶² Ames et al.;⁶⁰ Bedel et al.;¹¹⁴ Ruocco et al.⁶³
TNFRSF members	RT induces Fas expression on stem-like cancer cells;Fas induction increases tumor cell susceptibility to T-cell mediated lysis and is associated with increased NK-cell-mediated lysis;Upregulation of CD137 is associated with enhanced tumor control by anti-CD137	3 × colon1 × breast1 × AML2 × lung1 × prostate2 × sarcoma	8 Gy8 Gy10 Gy16 Gy20 Gy20 Gy20 Gy	24h24h48h48h72h72h7d	Garnett et al.;⁵⁷ Chakraborty et al.;⁷⁷ Chakraborty et al.;⁵⁹ Ames et al.⁶⁰; Shi and Siemann¹¹⁵
Immune checkpoint molecules	PD-L1 is upregulated on leukocytes and nonleukocytic cells in the tumor microenvironment and associated with enhanced tumor control after RT + anti-PD-L1;Radiation-induced PD-L1 expression limits T-cell proliferation and cytotoxicity;PD-L1 upregulation on tumor cells is mediated by CD8+ T cells and IL-6;High IL-6 expression correlates with PD-L1 expression in ESCC patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy;PD-1 is upregulated on T cells/TILs after RT	1 × bladder2 × breast2 × colon1 × ESCC1 × pancreas	6 Gy9 Gy5*2 Gy12 Gy12 Gy15 Gy20 Gy30 Gy	24h24h48h48h72h72h72h21d	Rodriguez-Ruiz et al.;⁴ Deng et al.;⁴⁷ Verbrugge et al.;³¹ Azad et al.;⁶⁴ Dovedi et al.;⁶⁵ Liang et al.;¹¹⁶ Chen et al.;⁶⁶ Wu et al.⁶⁷
Other	Upregulation of the NKp30 ligand B7-H6 sensitizes tumor cells to NK-cell-mediated lysis;Radiation-induced calreticulin sensitizes tumor cells to CTL-mediated lysis	1 × AML1 × breast1 × lung1 × prostate	8 Gy10 Gy	24h72h	Gameiro et al.;²³ Cao et al.¹¹⁷

Representative preclinical/clinical studies analyzing the effects of RT on tumor-cell susceptibility to T or NK-cell-mediated lysis. Indicated are the respective effects of RT, the suggested underlying mechanisms, the analyzed tumor type and the lowest radiation dose and earliest timepoint after RT at which maximum effects on the indicated mechanism were observed in vivo or in vitro (if no in vivo data available).

CD137, tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 9; AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ATM, ataxia telangiectasia mutated; NKp30 ligand B7-H6, natural killer cell cytotoxicity receptor 3 ligand 1; CTL, cytotoxic lymphocyte; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4; d, days; ESCC; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; Fas, Fas cell surface death receptor; Gy, Gray; HLA, human leukocyte antigen; IFN, interferon; IL, interleukin; MHC, major histocompatibility complex; MICA/B, MHC class I polypeptide-related sequence A OR MHC class I polypeptide-related sequence B; mTOR, mechanistic target of rapamycin; NA, not applicable; n.d., not disclosed; NK, natural killer; NKG2D, killer cell lectin-like receptor K1; NKp30, natural cytotoxicity triggering receptor 3; PD-1, programmed cell death 1; PD-L1, CD274 molecule; RAE-1, retinoic acid early inducible-1; RT, radiotherapy; STAT3, signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; TIL, tumor-infiltrating leukocyte; TNFRSF, tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily; ULBP1, UL16 binding protein 1; W, weeks.

A crucial role of NK cell-mediated response eliminating small tumors and metastases has been shown. Irradiated tumors increase their visibility to NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity by enhanced expression of tumor ligands for NK receptors (NKG2D and NKp30) (Table 4).^61,118 Although RT has shown beneficial effects on NK effector function, various factors in the TME can suppress NK effector responses. These include TGF-β, suppressive cells (MDSCs and Tregs), low pH and oxygen levels. Moreover, MHC-I molecules inhibit NK cell effector function even though they are crucial in the initiation of T-cell responses, as previously mentioned.

Other radiation-induced changes include the induction of Fas and TNF related apoptosis-inducing ligand receptors (TRAILRs) on tumor cells, members of the TNFR superfamily, which increases susceptibility to NK and T-cell-mediated lysis. Calreticulin is exposed in the outer layer of the plasma membrane upon irradiation and triggers tumor cell phagocytosis by DCs and increases susceptibility to T-cell-mediated lysis.^23,58,59,119 Moreover, RT also induces expression of immune checkpoint ligands such as PD-L1 on tumor cells, which interferes with the effector functions of interacting T cells.^4,31,47

Implications for clinical radioimmunotherapy

Clinical trials combining radio- and immunotherapy

Despite the plethora of preclinical information available, clinical data on combining RT and IT are scarce and largely limited to anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab)–RT combinations (Table 5). Importantly, concurrent or sequential combinations of RT and anti-CTLA-4 or anti-PD-1 were safe and well tolerated in several prospective clinical trials and retrospective analyses,^{5,69,120–122} although 34% grade 3 toxicities were reported when biologically effective doses of over 90 Gy for liver or lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) were used.⁶

Table 5.

Treatment characteristics of studies combining radiotherapy and checkpoint inhibitors.

Study type	Therapy	Tumor type	Timepoint of IT before/after RT	RT type	Fractionation(# fractions)	Cumulative dose (Gy)	Ref
Phase III	Anti-CTLA-4	Prostate	+<2 d	SBRT	1	8	Kwon et al.¹²³
Phase I/II	Anti-CTLA-4	Prostate	+3 d	SBRT	1	8	Slovin et al.¹²¹
Phase I	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent	SBRT/IMRT/3D	1–5/10–15/5–15	18–50/30–45/20–40	Hiniker et al.⁵
Phase I	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	+3–5 d	SBRT	2–3	12–24	Twyman-Saint Victor et al.⁶⁹
Phase I	Anti-CTLA-4	Various	Concurrent	SBRT	4–10	50–60	Tang et al.⁶
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent/before/after	SRS (+ WBRT)	1–6(+10–15)	16–24(+30–37.5)	Skrepnik et al.¹²⁴
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent/before/after	SRS	1	20	Mathew et al.¹²⁵
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent/before/after	SRS	1	15–24	Kiess et al.¹²⁶
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent/before/after	IMRS	3–5	15–21	Patel et al.¹²⁷
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent/before/after	SRS	1–5	n.d.	Tazi et al.¹²⁸
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent	CEBRT	n.d.	n.d.	Koller et al.¹²⁹
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Concurrent	SBRT	1–25	24–62.5	Barker et al.¹³⁰
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Before/after	SRS/WBRT	1–5/10–13	14–24/30–37.5	Silk et al.¹³¹
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4	Melanoma	Before/after	SBRT/CEBRT	1–5/6–16	18–25/21–42	Qin et al.¹³²
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4 oranti-PD-1	Melanoma	Concurrent/before/after	SRS	1	15–24	Ahmed et al.¹³³
Retrospective	Anti-CTLA-4 oranti-PD-1 or both	Melanoma, NSCLC,Renal cell	Concurrent/before/after	SBRT/SRS/IMRT/WBRT	1–15	8–66	Bang et al.¹²²
Retrospective	Anti-PD-1	Melanoma	Concurrent/before: 1–6M/after: 1–6M	SRS	1–5	16–30	Ahmed et al.¹³⁴
Retrospective	Anti-PD-L1	Various	Concurrent	SRS/3D	1–10	6–92 (BED)	Levy et al.¹³⁵
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Breast	0 d/concurrent	Local	1–3	8–30	Vanpouille-Box et al.¹³⁶
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Breast	+1 d	Local	1–2	12–24	Demaria et al.⁸¹
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Breast	+1 d	Local	2	24	Pilones et al.¹³⁷
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Breast	+1 d	Local	2	24	Matsumura et al.⁴²
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Breast	+2 d	Local	2	24	Ruocco et al.⁶³
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Breast,colon	Concurrent	Local	1–5	20–30	Dewan et al.¹³⁸
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Lung	+1 d	Local	1	30	Yoshimoto et al.⁷⁸
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4	Lung,colon	−7 d	Local	1	20	McGinnis et al.¹³⁹
Preclinical	Anti-CTLA-4Anti-CD137	Glioma	Concurrent/1–2 d	Local	1	10	Belcaid et al.¹⁴⁰
Preclinical	Anti-PD-L1	Breast	+21 d	Local	1	15	Liang et al.¹¹⁶
Preclinical	Anti-PD-L1	Breast,colon	+0 d	Local	1	12	Deng et al.⁴⁷
Preclinical	Anti-PD-L1	Pancreatic	0 d/concurrent	Local	1–5	12–15	Azad et al.⁶⁴
Preclinical	Anti-PD-L1 + cancer vaccine	Pancreatic	Concurrent	Local	2	35	Zheng et al.⁴⁵
Preclinical	Anti-PD-L1Anti-CD137	Breast,colon,melanoma	Concurrent	Local	2–3	16–24	Rodriguez-Ruiz et al.¹⁴¹
Preclinical	Anti-PD-L1Anti-PD-1	Melanoma,colon	Concurrent	Local	5	10/20	Dovedi et al.⁶⁵
Preclinical	Anti-PD-1	Breast	+1 d	Local	5	30	Vanpouille-Box et al.¹⁴²
Preclinical	Anti-PD-1	Glioma	+0 d	Local	1	10	Zeng et al.¹⁴³
Preclinical	Anti-PD-1	Lung	Concurrent	Local	3	36	Wang et al.⁹⁹
Preclinical	Anti-PD-1	Melanoma	+5 d	Local	2	24	Hettich et al.¹⁴⁴
Preclinical	Anti-PD-1	Renal cell	Concurrent	Local	1	15	Park et al.¹⁴⁵
Preclinical	Anti-PD-1Anti-CD137Anti-CD40	Breast	Sequential/concurrent	Local	1–4	12–20	Verbrugge et al.³¹
Preclinical	Anti-PD-1Anti-TIM-3	Glioma	Concurrent	Local	1	10	Kim et al.¹⁴⁶
Preclinical	CD137 aptamer,anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1	Breast, colonsarcoma	+3–6 d	Local	1	12–20	Schrand et al.¹⁴⁷
Preclinical	Anti-CD137	Breast, lung	+0 d/concurrent	Local	1–5	5–20	Shi and Siemann¹¹⁵
Preclinical	Anti-CD40	Lymphoma	+0 d	TBI	1	5	Honeychurch et al.¹⁴⁸
Preclinical	Anti-CD134	NSCLC	+1 d	Local	3	60	Gough et al.¹⁴⁹

Representative clinical and preclinical in vivo studies combining RT and checkpoint inhibitors. We define concurrent administration as ⩾1 dose of checkpoint inhibitor before and ⩾1 dose after a fraction of RT.

BED, biologically effective dose; CEBRT, conventional external beam radiation therapy; CTLA-4; cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4; d, days; IMRS, intensity-modulated radiosurgery; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiation therapy; IT, immunotherapy; local, local radiotherapy (all preclinical radiation therapy techniques confined to a specified target volume of the animal); M, months, n.d., not disclosed; NSCLC, non-small cell lung cancer; PD-1, programmed cell death 1; PD-L1, CD274 molecule; RT, radiotherapy; SBRT, stereotactic body radiation therapy SRS, stereotactic radiosurgery; TIM-3, hepatitis A virus cellular receptor 2; TBI, total body irradiation; WBRT, whole-brain radiotherapy; 3D, three-dimensional conformal-radiation therapy.

Combinations of RT and ipilimumab have yielded encouraging results, especially in melanoma. A phase I clinical trial of concurrent ipilimumab and a physician’s choice RT regimen in 22 metastatic melanoma patients reported three complete responses (CRs) (13.6%).⁵ Notably, CRs are rare under ipilimumab monotherapy (1.4–2.2%).^13,150,151 Another phase I trial in 22 melanoma patients of ipilimumab administered after RT did not show CRs but four partial responses (PRs) (18%), which is comparable with ipilimumab monotherapy (9.5–16.8%).^13,151,152 Moreover, combined ipilimumab and SBRT achieved a 10% response rate in 35 patients with tumor types other than cutaneous melanoma.⁶ Nevertheless, in metastatic prostate cancer, a phase III clinical trial comparing ipilimumab (n = 399) and SBRT for bone metastases with SBRT alone (n = 400) failed to meet its primary endpoint.¹²³ Notably, prostate cancer infrequently responds to immune checkpoint therapy and a synergy of RT and IT in preclinical models of metastatic prostate cancer has not been demonstrated yet; calling for more basic immunological research in this tumor type (Table 5).^17,153 Aside from checkpoint inhibitors, a phase I/II trial combining GM-CSF and conformal RT in various tumor types reported an overall response rate of 26%, including two CRs in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).⁸

Currently, more than 90 clinical trials assessing RT–IT combinations are ongoing.⁸² Of interest are combinations of RT with PD-1 antibodies, which in monotherapy have already shown clinical activity in a variety of cancers.^{14,15,154,155} Over 40 clinical trials are assessing safety and efficacy of this combination, including two phase III studies in glioblastoma multiforme and NSCLC [ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02768558 and NCT02617589].⁸² Moreover, triple combinations of RT, anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-L1 are being tested and may have complementary effects on antitumor immune responses, as demonstrated in preclinical models [ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02701400 and NCT02639026].⁶⁹

Despite encouraging results in first clinical trials, most patients do not respond to RT–IT combinations. Several factors of the radiation regimen could be important to enhance its local and systemic antitumor effects in combination with IT.

Dose of radiotherapy

Radiation dose largely affects both the immunomodulatory and cytotoxic effects of RT. Most preclinical studies combining RT and IT use high cumulative radiation doses of 5–20 Gy and most immune-stimulatory effects of RT peak at similar doses (Tables 1 –5). For example, cytokine therapy combined with 10 Gy of local RT led to a strong synergistic effect and tumor control in 70% of mice, while combinations with 5 Gy or 2 Gy only led to tumor control in 50% or 10% of mice, respectively.¹⁵⁶ Clinical trials combining RT and IT applied even higher cumulative doses up to 66 Gy using more hyperfractionated radiation regimens (Table 5). Interestingly, a preclinical study showed that radiation doses above 12–18 Gy attenuate the immunogenicity by cytosolic DNA degradation induced by exonuclease Trex1, whereas lower doses rather stimulate IFN-β secretion, activating a subset of DCs critically important for CD8 T-cell priming, allowing tumor rejection (abscopal effect) when combined with immune-checkpoint blockade.¹³⁶ LD irradiation has been shown to have immunomodulatory capacity both when applied locally or as TBI. In 30 patients with low-grade B-cell lymphoma or mycosis fungoides, local LD irradiation of 2*2 Gy in combination with local administration of a toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist led to one CR and eight PRs at distant sites.^7,157 In preclinical models, a local LD irradiation with 2 Gy synergized with adoptive T-cell transfer via the induction of iNOS in TAMs^32,158 and also resulted in an abscopal effect when combined with an FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand.³ Moreover, 1.25 Gy total body LD irradiation in combination with a DC gp100 tumor vaccine enhanced priming of antigen-specific T cells and reduced relative Treg numbers in peripheral lymph nodes.^158,159 Furthermore, total body LD irradiation with 0.1, 0.2 Gy or 0.75 Gy has been repeatedly shown to reduce outgrowth of intravenously injected tumor cells in the lungs of different mouse models, an event associated with increased NK cell numbers and cytotoxicity.^160–164 However, the dose range in which the beneficial effects of total body LD irradiation can be observed appears to be narrow and slightly higher doses can already abrogate NK cell proliferation and activity.¹⁶³ The advantage of local LD radiation results from its mild adverse events facilitating clinical application.¹⁶⁵ Several ongoing clinical trials are investigating the immunomodulatory properties of local LD irradiation in pancreatic, colorectal and NSCLC patients.^166–168

Fractionation of RT

Fractionation of RT represents another key factor usually applied to reduce radiation damage to healthy tissues and maximize exposure of tumor cells in a sensitive phase of their cell cycle. Focused modern radiation techniques allow for a reduced number of RT fractions and prevent generalized lymphopenia by improved definition of the irradiated volume.¹⁶⁹ Although the underlying mechanisms remain to be elucidated, hypofractionated ablative RT (8–12.5 Gy/fraction, for two to three fractions) seems to be superior to single-dose RT in inducing an antitumor T-cell response and creating a favorable TME for maximal efficacy of checkpoint blockade in preclinical models (Table 6).^{87,138,170,171} A recent clinical trial reported the outcomes of 22 metastatic melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab and different RT regimens.⁵ Three patients experienced a sustained complete response and were treated with 50 Gy in 4 fractions, 24 Gy in 3 fractions or 40 Gy in 10 fractions, respectively. Finally, a retrospective analysis of 44 melanoma patients treated with RT and ipilimumab showed a significantly increased survival of patients treated with ablative as compared with patients treated with conventionally fractionated RT.¹³² However, conventionally or less hypofractionated RT may also synergize with immune-checkpoint therapy. A clinical trial combining GM-CSF and hypofractionated RT of 35 Gy in 10 fractions in 41 patients of several tumor types reported two CRs and six PRs.⁸ Moreover, conventionally fractionated RT synergized with anti-PD-L1 in different mouse models and induced the formation of antitumor immunological memory.^64,65 Indeed, the effects of conventionally fractionated RT on IT efficacy may be underestimated due to the technical difficulties in applying many sequential RT doses to mice. Future studies should address this question, since conventionally fractionated RT remains the standard radiation regimen in many tumor types and stages. Hence, the limited number of reports calls for further investigation of the effects of different fractionation regimens on combined RT and IT.

Table 6.

Comparison of different radiation regimens in combination with immune checkpoint therapy.

Study type	Immunecheckpoint	Tumor type	Timepoint of IT before/after RT	Fractionationradiation dose	Conclusions	References
Retrospective clinical	CTLA-4	Melanoma	Before/after	1–55–22 Gy5–202.3–4 Gy	Median OS 19.6 versus 10.2 months in patients with ablative versus patients with conventionally fractionated RT, respectively	Qin et al.¹³²
Preclinical	CTLA-4	Breast (4T1)	+1, 4, 7 d	112 Gy212 Gy	Fractionated RT is superior to single-dose RT.	Demaria et al.⁸¹
Preclinical	CTLA-4	Breast (TSA)	+0, 3, 6 d	18 Gy130 Gy3*8 Gy	Fractionated radiotherapy, but not single-dose radiotherapy, induces an abscopal effect.	Vanpouille-Box et al.¹³⁶
Preclinical	CTLA-4	Breast (TSA)MCA38(colorectal)	+2, 5, 8 d	120 Gy38 Gy5*6 Gy	Fractionated radiotherapy is superior to single-dose radiotherapy when combined with anti-CTLA-4 in two mouse models; a more hypofractionated regimen of 38 Gy is superior to a less hypofractionated regimen of 56 Gy when combined with CTLA-4	Dewan et al.¹³⁸
Preclinical	PD-L1	Pancreatic (Pan02)	+0 d	112 Gy53 Gy	Fractionated and single dose equally synergize with anti-PD-L1.	Azad et al.⁶⁴
Preclinical	PD-1CD137	Breast (AT-3)	+0 d	112 Gy45 Gy4*4 Gy	Both single dose and fractionated RT + IT synergize with anti-PD-1 and anti-CD137.	Verbrugge et al.³¹

Representative clinical and preclinical in vivo studies comparing different radiation regimens in combination with immune checkpoint therapy. Characteristics of the studies with the main conclusions are included.

CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4; d, days; Gy, Gray; OS, median overall survival; IT, immunotherapy; PD-1, programmed cell death 1; PD-L1, CD274 molecule; RT, radiotherapy.

Irradiation volume

Another important factor which could impact the outcome of combined RTs and ITs is the irradiated volume. Most preclinical and clinical studies combining RT and IT focused on local RT. Local RT can either be administered by external-beam RT or brachytherapy and both approaches can induce abscopal responses.^3,4,172 However, A adoptive T or NK cell transfers (ACTs) not only benefit from local RT, but also from TBI and other lymphodepleting regimens.¹⁷³ Preclinical studies revealed several effects of TBI on ACTs, including enhanced engraftment, increased proliferation and effector function of transferred lymphocytes.^85,107,109 Besides, both TBI and local RT enhance T-cell infiltration or tumor susceptibility to T-cell-mediated lysis, resulting in higher antitumor efficacy of ACTs. It is therefore compelling to assume that combining TBI with a local booster dose could optimally enhance ACTs. Nevertheless, in cancer patients, chemotherapy is generally used instead of TBI to enhance ACT engraftment. A recent phase III clinical trial showed no benefit of adding TBI to an adoptive T-cell transfer after a preconditioning chemotherapy regimen, suggesting that the latter is sufficient for effective lympho-depletion.¹⁷⁴ However, this could be different in hematopoietic cancers where cells frequently spread to the bone-marrow and where TBI constitutes a standard treatment before hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.

In ITs relying on priming of tumor-reactive T cells such as checkpoint inhibitors, radiation or surgical removal of the tumor-draining lymph nodes could impede therapeutic efficacy. Sparing macroscopically nonaffected tumor-draining lymph nodes from RT may add benefit to patient survival and its combination with IT needs to be prospectively addressed in clinical trials.¹⁸ Moreover, the radiation field should not include large skin areas, since Treg cells can be primed by activation of Langerhans cells residing in the irradiated skin.¹⁷⁵ Therefore, irradiating the tumor from few angles could be superior to conventional three-dimensional conformal RT.

Timing

Timing is another critical factor when applying combined RT and IT. A retrospective analysis revealed that in patients undergoing combined RT and IT for brain metastasis, timing of RT strongly correlated with patient outcome. Interestingly, patients receiving concurrent RT and ipilimumab had a longer overall survival than patients receiving ipilimumab before or after RT.^124,126 Moreover, a phase I clinical trial of concurrent RT and ipilimumab in 22 patients with metastatic melanoma reported three CRs, whereas no CRs were observed in a clinical trial of sequential RT and ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma.^5,69 This notion was further substantiated by studies in syngeneic mouse models confirming the superiority of concurrent versus consecutive PD-L1 or CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibition.¹⁴⁰ Likewise, most preclinical and clinical studies administered checkpoint inhibitors concurrently with RT, which appears to be the preferred timing schedule, as recently supported by mathematical modeling¹⁷⁶ (Table 5).

As opposed to checkpoint inhibitors, ACTs were not delivered concurrently but sequentially, directly after RT, because adoptively transferred cells may be impaired or killed by concurrent irradiation. Importantly, the window for effective adoptive transfer after RT appears to be narrow. In a syngeneic mouse model, T cells rejected all tumors when they were adoptively transferred 2 days after RT but did not reject any tumors when they were transferred 4 days after RT.⁴⁸ This might suggest that ACTs mainly benefit from early effects of RT, such as the induction of chemokines, cytokines and immunogenic modulation of DAMPs on the tumor cells (Tables 2, 4). Of note, animal models often progress considerably faster than cancer patients, rendering delayed spaced regimens unfeasible. These must therefore be evaluated differently.

Additional factors influencing combined radio- and immunotherapy

Immunogenicity of the tumor is a critical factor that needs to be considered. The tumor type may heavily influence the response to combined RT and IT. Priming of tumor antigen-specific T cells in cancer patients after RT was frequently observed in colorectal cancer patients but less frequently in prostate cancer patients. In this sense, prostate cancer is believed to be a poorly immunogenic cancer entity.¹⁷⁷ Moreover, the upregulation of immunogenic surface molecules after RT is confined to a fraction of cell lines.⁵⁷ Nevertheless, there are few comprehensive studies to generalize these findings.

The patient’s immune status should be considered when planning RT and IT combination trials.^19,116 It is conceivable that immune parameters could also be employed to predict the response of patients to combined RT and IT but this remains to be evaluated. In this line, patients responding to combined RT and IT showed a lower number of tumor-infiltrating MDSCs and a higher frequency of T cells with an activated effector memory phenotype.^178,179 Moreover, a recent randomized controlled clinical trial in castration-resistant prostate cancer patients indicated that patients with features of less advanced disease benefited more from RT plus ipilimumab compared with RT alone than patients with advanced disease,¹²³ which could be explained by a less advanced TME with lower suppression of antitumor immunity.

Concurrent treatments and medication of the patient could alter the radiation-induced immune response and should therefore be considered. Surgery greatly diminished antigen abundance and impeded antitumor immunity in a preclinical mouse model of fibrosarcoma.¹⁴⁹ Corticoids and antibiotics are frequently administered after RT to treat complications such as radiation-induced emesis, pneumonitis and infections. Dexamethasone entails immunosuppressant effects and ciprofloxacin abrogates the radiation-induced translocation of gut microbiota resulting in limited efficacy of RT or combined RT and IT in mice.^27,110 Despite the fact that some cytotoxic drugs alone can induce antitumor immune responses,¹¹⁹ they can either have beneficial or detrimental effects when added to combined RT and IT. LD chemotherapy administered before initiation of combined RT and IT can be beneficial by lowering systemic Treg or MDSC numbers.¹⁵⁸ By contrast, full-dose chemotherapy administered after initiation of combined RT and IT inhibits the proliferation of tumor-reactive T cells. Thus, the type of concurrent medication and its effects on the immune system should be considered when combining RT and IT.

Conclusion

Preclinical studies have been of much importance elucidating new mechanisms of RT on the immune system. But more translational studies are needed to evaluate whether RT can enhance the priming of tumor-reactive T cells in large cohorts of patients and whether they induce CD8 and CD4 immunological memory. Even though combined treatments have shown considerable promise, many patients do not respond to combined RT and IT, which means that further mechanistic preclinical studies are needed to unveil novel clinical approaches combining these two treatments.^106,121,123

Radiation dose, fractionation and timing must all be optimized to enhance IT in each tumor type and stage, and these should be established in future clinical trials. The complexity of this question would require systematic approaches in experimental models and in patients. In our opinion, consensus on novel radiological response criteria are needed to capture benefit in terms of local versus abscopal/systemic responses to radioimmunotherapy. Ultimate evidence in randomized clinical trials is unlikely to be available in the next 5 years.

The wide implementation of modern RT techniques such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy and four-dimensional conformal radiation therapy facilitates the clinical translation of combined RT and IT. The high radiation doses frequently needed for enhancing IT can be administered with high precision. Moreover, detailed analyses of the effects of emerging RT techniques such as proton and heavy ion therapy on the immune system remain to be addressed. Inflammatory responses post-RT can cause serious side effects such as pneumonitis, myocarditis and fibrosis. It is currently unknown how enhanced immune reactivity after RT and IT may impact these adverse events and how they can be prevented without limiting the antitumor immune response. Finally, a scenario, which has so far been largely ignored in preclinical studies, is the combination of RT, IT and surgery either in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Future preclinical research should account for this combination of great clinical importance and identify its distinct immunological features such as a highly diminished tumor antigen load in the adjuvant setting.

Brachytherapy offers opportunity for local delivery of IT agents in addition to the local instigation of RT. Indeed, the combination of intraoperative RT and IT also offers opportunities that remain unexplored at this point.

The insights obtained from studying the effects of RT on the immune system could also lead to the development of new ITs acting synergistically with RT. Given the complexity of immunological changes in the TME postirradiation, approaches using computational tools and systems biology will gain more importance in the field and shed light on complex spatio-temporal players of the TME post-RT. This can ultimately lead to the development of novel and more complex combination therapies,¹⁸⁰ which could overcome resistance to RT plus single/dual-agent immunotherapies and which may therefore be applicable in complex settings such as at multimetastatic stages. Abscopal effects after RT represent one of the most exciting themes, and a better understanding of their mechanistic basis in multiple tumors and stages could lead to a paradigm shift in radiation oncology that could turn a local mode of cancer treatment into a systemic one.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank all members of the Martínez-Monge, Melero and Lecanda’s Laboratories for helpful discussions. T Walle and F Lecanda were responsible for the conceptual design of this article and contributed equally. All authors were involved in the revision of the literature, interpretation of the reviewed studies and in writing selected sections of this manuscript. All authors approved the final version of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Foundation for Applied Medical Research (FIMA), Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer (RD12/0036/0040), CIBERONC CB16/12/00443, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness to F.L. (SAF2015-71606-R), Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias to RMM (PI 16/01847) to DA (FEDER PI 17/00411) and Deutsche Krebshilfe (German Cancer Aid). F. L. is funded by ‘La Caixa’ Foundation and Caja Navarra Foundation, Fundación Ramón Areces and Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC).

Conflict of interest statement

IM has received research support and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Lilly, Genmab, Incyte, Alligator, Merck-Serono, Pfizer, MSD. The rest of the authors declare no conflicts of interest.

ORCID iD

Fernando Lecanda

References

Maier

Hartmann

Wenz

et al . Cellular pathways in response to ionizing radiation and their targetability for tumor radiosensitization. Int J Mol Sci 2016; 17. pii: E102.

Wara

WM.

Immunosuppression associated with radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1977; 2: 593–596.

Demaria

Devitt

et al . Ionizing radiation inhibition of distant untreated tumors (abscopal effect) is immune mediated. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004; 58: 862–870.

Rodriguez-Ruiz

Rodriguez

Garasa

et al . Abscopal effects of radiotherapy are enhanced by combined immunostimulatory mAbs and are dependent on CD8 T cells and crosspriming. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 5994–6005.

Hiniker

Reddy

Maecker

et al . A prospective clinical trial combining radiation therapy with systemic immunotherapy in metastatic melanoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96: 578–588.

Tang

Welsh

de Groot

et al . Ipilimumab with stereotactic ablative radiation therapy: phase I results and immunologic correlates from peripheral T cells. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 1388–1396.

Brody

Czerwinski

et al . In situ vaccination with a TLR9 agonist induces systemic lymphoma regression: a phase I/II study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4324–4332.

Golden

Chhabra

Chachoua

et al . Local radiotherapy and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor to generate abscopal responses in patients with metastatic solid tumours: a proof-of-principle trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 795–803.

Grimaldi

Simeone

Giannarelli

et al . Abscopal effects of radiotherapy on advanced melanoma patients who progressed after ipilimumab immunotherapy. Oncoimmunology 2014; 3: e28780.

10.

Barker

Postow

MA.

Combinations of radiation therapy and immunotherapy for melanoma: a review of clinical outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 88: 986–997.

11.

Reynders

Illidge

Siva

et al . The abscopal effect of local radiotherapy: using immunotherapy to make a rare event clinically relevant. Cancer Treat Rev 2015; 41: 503–510.

12.

Johnson

Jagsi

The promise of the abscopal effect and the future of trials combining immunotherapy and radiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95: 1254–1256.

13.

Hodi

O’Day

McDermott

et al . Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 711–723.

14.

Borghaei

Paz-Ares

Horn

et al . Nivolumab versus docetaxel in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1627–1639.

15.

Motzer

Escudier

McDermott

et al . Nivolumab versus everolimus in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1803–1813.

16.

Gajewski

Schreiber

Innate and adaptive immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. Nature Immunol 2013; 14: 1014–1022.

17.

Sharma

Hu-Lieskovan

Wargo

et al . Primary, adaptive, and acquired resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Cell 2017; 168: 707–723.

18.

Takeshima

Chamoto

Wakita

et al . Nishimura, Local radiation therapy inhibits tumor growth through the generation of tumor-specific CTL: its potentiation by combination with Th1 cell therapy. Cancer Res 2010; 70: 2697–2706.

19.

Lee

Auh

Wang

et al . Therapeutic effects of ablative radiation on local tumor require CD8+ T cells: changing strategies for cancer treatment. Blood 2009; 114: 589–595.

20.

Elliott

Chekeni

Trampont

et al . Nucleotides released by apoptotic cells act as a find-me signal to promote phagocytic clearance. Nature 2009; 461: 282–286.

21.

Golden

Frances

Pellicciotta

et al . Radiation fosters dose-dependent and chemotherapy-induced immunogenic cell death. Oncoimmunology 2014; 3: e28518.

22.

Kanehisa

Martins

et al . Autophagy inhibition radiosensitizes in vitro, yet reduces radioresponses in vivo due to deficient immunogenic signalling. Cell Death Differ 2014; 21: 92–99.

23.

Gameiro

Jammeh

Wattenberg

et al . Radiation-induced immunogenic modulation of tumor enhances antigen processing and calreticulin exposure, resulting in enhanced T-cell killing. Oncotarget 2014; 5: 403–416.

24.

Obeid

Panaretakis

Joza

et al . Calreticulin exposure is required for the immunogenicity of gamma-irradiation and UVC light-induced apoptosis. Cell Death Differ 2007; 14: 1848–1850.

25.

Apetoh

Ghiringhelli

Tesniere

et al . Toll-like receptor 4-dependent contribution of the immune system to anticancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Nat Med 2007; 13: 1050–1059.

26.

Deng

Liang

et al . STING-dependent cytosolic DNA sensing promotes radiation-induced type I interferon-dependent antitumor immunity in immunogenic tumors. Immunity 2014; 41: 843–852.

27.

Surace

Lysenko

Fontana

et al . Complement is a central mediator of radiotherapy-induced tumor-specific immunity and clinical response. Immunity 2015; 42: 767–777.

28.

Burnette

Liang

Lee

et al . The efficacy of radiotherapy relies upon induction of type I interferon-dependent innate and adaptive immunity. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 2488–2496.

29.

Gupta

Probst

Vuong

et al . Radiotherapy promotes tumor-specific effector CD8+ T cells via dendritic cell activation. J Immunol 2012; 189: 558–566.

30.

Vanpouille-Box

Diamond

Pilones

et al . TGFβ is a master regulator of radiation therapy-induced antitumor immunity. Cancer Res 2015; 75: 2232–2242.

31.

Verbrugge

Hagekyriakou

Sharp

et al . Radiotherapy increases the permissiveness of established mammary tumors to rejection by immunomodulatory antibodies. Cancer Res 2012; 72: 3163–3174.

32.

Klug

Prakash

Huber

et al . Low-dose irradiation programs macrophage differentiation to an iNOS(+)/M1 phenotype that orchestrates effective T cell immunotherapy. Cancer Cell 2013; 24: 589–602.

33.

Lugade

Sorensen

Gerber

et al . Radiation-induced IFN-gamma production within the tumor microenvironment influences antitumor immunity. J Immunol 2008; 180: 3132–3139.

34.

Kozin

Kamoun

Huang

et al . Recruitment of myeloid but not endothelial precursor cells facilitates tumor regrowth after local irradiation. Cancer Res 2010; 70: 5679–5685.

35.

Kioi

Vogel

Schultz

et al . Inhibition of vasculogenesis, but not angiogenesis, prevents the recurrence of glioblastoma after irradiation in mice. J Clin Invest 2010; 120: 694–705.

36.

Ahn

Brown

JM.

Matrix metalloproteinase-9 is required for tumor vasculogenesis but not for angiogenesis: role of bone marrow-derived myelomonocytic cells. Cancer Cell 2008; 13: 193–205.

37.

Escamilla

Mok

et al . CSF1R signaling blockade stanches tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells and improves the efficacy of radiotherapy in prostate cancer. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 2782–2794.

38.

Tabatabai

Frank

Mohle

et al . Irradiation and hypoxia promote homing of haematopoietic progenitor cells towards gliomas by TGF-beta-dependent HIF-1alpha-mediated induction of CXCL12. Brain 2006; 129: 2426–2435.

39.

Kalbasi

Komar

Tooker

et al . Tumor-derived CCL2 mediates resistance to radiotherapy in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 137–148.

40.

Wang

Yang

Tsai

et al . IL-6 mediates macrophage infiltration after irradiation via up-regulation of CCL2/CCL5 in non-small cell lung cancer. Radiat Res 2017; 187: 50–59.

41.

Sonveaux

Rabbani

et al . Regulation of HIF-1α stability through S-nitrosylation, Mol Cell 2007; 26: 63–74.

42.

Matsumura

Wang

Kawashima

et al . Radiation-induced CXCL16 release by breast cancer cells attracts effector T cells. J Immunol 2008; 181: 3099–3107.

43.

Yoon

Pham

Phan

et al . Irradiation of breast cancer cells enhances CXCL16 ligand expression and induces the migration of natural killer cells expressing the CXCR6 receptor. Cytotherapy 2016; 18: 1532–1542.

44.

Lim

Gerber

Murphy

et al . Type I interferons induced by radiation therapy mediate recruitment and effector function of CD8(+) T cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2014; 63: 259–271.

45.

Zheng

Skowron

Namm

et al . Combination of radiotherapy and vaccination overcome checkpoint blockade resistance. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 43039–43051.

46.

Yang

et al . Enhanced cancer radiotherapy through immunosuppressive stromal cell destruction in tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20: 644–657.

47.

Deng

Liang

Burnette

et al . Irradiation and anti-PD-L1 treatment synergistically promote antitumor immunity in mice. J Clin Invest 2014; 124: 687–695.

48.

Zhang

Bowerman

Salama

et al . Induced sensitization of tumor stroma leads to eradication of established cancer by T cells. J Exp Med 2007; 204: 49–55.

49.

Widau

Parekh

Ranck

et al . RIG-I-like receptor LGP2 protects tumor cells from ionizing radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014; 111: E484–E491.

50.

Matsuoka

Nakayama

Yoshida

et al . IL-6 controls resistance to radiation by suppressing oxidative stress via the Nrf2-antioxidant pathway in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2016; 115: 1234–1244.

51.

Tsai

Chen

Wang

et al . Macrophages from irradiated tumors express higher levels of iNOS, arginase-I and COX-2, and promote tumor growth. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007; 68: 499–507.

52.

Crittenden

Cottam

Savage

et al . Expression of NF-κB p50 in tumor stroma limits the control of tumors by radiation therapy. PloS One 2012; 7: e39295.

53.

Chen

Chiang

Wang

et al . Radiotherapy decreases vascular density and causes hypoxia with macrophage aggregation in TRAMP-C1 prostate tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 1721–1729.

54.

Kachikwu

Iwamoto

Liao

et al . Radiation enhances regulatory T cell representation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2011; 81: 1128–1135.

55.

Price

Idoyaga

Salmon

et al . CDKN1A regulates Langerhans cell survival and promotes Treg cell generation upon exposure to ionizing irradiation. Nat Immunol 2015; 16: 1060–1068.

56.

Reits

Hodge

Herberts

et al . Radiation modulates the peptide repertoire, enhances MHC class I expression, and induces successful antitumor immunotherapy. J Exp Med 2006; 203; 1259–1271.

57.

Garnett

Palena

Chakarborty

et al . Sublethal irradiation of human tumor cells modulates phenotype resulting in enhanced killing by cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 7985–7994.

58.

Chakraborty

Abrams

Camphausen

et al . Irradiation of tumor cells up-regulates Fas and enhances CTL lytic activity and CTL adoptive immunotherapy. J Immunol 2003; 170: 6338–6347.

59.

Chakraborty

Abrams

Coleman

et al . External beam radiation of tumors alters phenotype of tumor cells to render them susceptible to vaccine-mediated T-cell killing. Cancer Res 2004; 64: 4328–4337.

60.

Ames

Canter

Grossenbacher

et al . Enhanced targeting of stem-like solid tumor cells with radiation and natural killer cells. Oncoimmunology 2015; 4: e1036212.

61.

Gasser

Orsulic

Brown

et al . The DNA damage pathway regulates innate immune system ligands of the NKG2D receptor. Nature 2005; 436: 1186–1190.

62.

Rao

Groh

et al . Major histocompatibility complex class I-related chain A/B (MICA/B) expression in tumor tissue and serum of pancreatic cancer: role of uric acid accumulation in gemcitabine-induced MICA/B expression. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 194.

63.

Ruocco

Pilones

Kawashima

et al . Suppressing T cell motility induced by anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy improves antitumor effects. J Clin Invest 2012; 122: 3718–3730.

64.

Azad

Yin Lim

D’Costa

et al . PD-L1 blockade enhances response of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to radiotherapy. EMBO Mol Med 2017; 9: 167–180.

65.

Dovedi

Adlard

Lipowska-Bhalla

et al . Acquired resistance to fractionated radiotherapy can be overcome by concurrent PD-L1 blockade. Cancer Res 2014; 74: 5458–5468.

66.

Chen

et al . The role of PD-L1 in the radiation response and prognosis for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma related to IL-6 and T-cell immunosuppression. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 7913–7924.

67.

Chen

Chang

et al . The role of PD-L1 in the radiation response and clinical outcome for bladder cancer. Sci Rep 2016; 6: 19740.

68.

Gulley

Arlen

Bastian

et al . Combining a recombinant cancer vaccine with standard definitive radiotherapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 3353–3362.

69.

Twyman-Saint Victor

Rech

Maity

et al . Radiation and dual checkpoint blockade activate non-redundant immune mechanisms in cancer. Nature 2015; 520: 373–377.

70.

Pilones

Emerson

Formenti

et al . Unique changes in the TCR repertoire of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes underlie the synergy of radiation therapy with CTLA-4 blockade. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96: S129.

71.

Chajon

Castelli

Marsiglia

et al . The synergistic effect of radiotherapy and immunotherapy: a promising but not simple partnership. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2017; 111: 124–132.

72.

Garg

Elsen

Krysko

et al . Resistance to anticancer vaccination effect is controlled by a cancer cell-autonomous phenotype that disrupts immunogenic phagocytic removal. Oncotarget 2015; 6: 26841–26860.

73.

Perez

Onishko

et al . Radiation induces an antitumour immune response to mouse melanoma. Int J Radiat Biol 2009; 85: 1126–1136.

74.

Formenti

Demaria

Combining radiotherapy and cancer immunotherapy: a paradigm shift. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105: 256–265.

75.

Rodriguez-Ruiz

Garasa

Rodriguez

et al . Intercellular adhesion molecule-1 and vascular cell adhesion molecule are induced by ionizing radiation on lymphatic endothelium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 97: 389–400.

76.

Gameiro

Malamas

Bernstein

et al . Tumor cells surviving exposure to proton or photon radiation share a common immunogenic modulation signature, rendering them more sensitive to T cell-mediated killing. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 95: 120–130.

77.

Suzuki

Mimura

Yoshimoto

et al . Immunogenic tumor cell death induced by chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2012; 72: 3967–3976.

78.

Yoshimoto

Suzuki

Mimura

et al . Radiotherapy-induced anti-tumor immunity contributes to the therapeutic efficacy of irradiation and can be augmented by CTLA-4 blockade in a mouse model. PloS One 2014; 9: e92572.

79.

Burnette

Liang

Lee

et al . The efficacy of radiotherapy relies upon induction of type I interferon–dependent innate and adaptive immunity. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 2488–2496.

80.

Elvington

Scheiber

Yang

et al . Complement-dependent modulation of antitumor immunity following radiation therapy. Cell Rep 2014; 8: 818–830.

81.

Demaria

Kawashima

Yang

et al . Immune-mediated inhibition of metastases after treatment with local radiation and CTLA-4 blockade in a mouse model of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11: 728–734.

82.

Vacchelli

Bloy

Aranda

et al . Trial watch: immunotherapy plus radiation therapy for oncological indications. Oncoimmunology 2016; 5: e1214790.

83.

Melero

Rouzaut

Motz

et al . T-cell and NK-cell infiltration into solid tumors: a key limiting factor for efficacious cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Discov 2014; 4: 522–526.

84.

Tang

Wang

Chlewicki

et al . Facilitating T cell infiltration in tumor microenvironment overcomes resistance to PD-L1 blockade. Cancer Cell 2016; 30: 500.

85.

Miller

Stojanovic

et al . Sustained effector function of IL-12/15/18-preactivated NK cells against established tumors. J Exp Med 2012; 209: 2351–2365.

86.

Ahn

Tseng

Liao

et al . Inhibition of Mac-1 (CD11b/CD18) enhances tumor response to radiation by reducing myeloid cell recruitment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010; 107: 8363–8368.

87.

Filatenkov

Baker

Mueller

et al . Ablative tumor radiation can change the tumor immune cell microenvironment to induce durable complete remissions. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21: 3727–3739.

88.

Ley

Laudanna

Cybulsky

et al . Getting to the site of inflammation: the leukocyte adhesion cascade updated. Nat Rev Immunol 2007; 7: 678–689.

89.

Mondini

Nizard

Tran

et al . Synergy of radiotherapy and a cancer vaccine for the treatment of HPV-associated head and neck cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 2015; 14: 1336–1345.

90.

Ning

et al . Radiation promotes epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and invasion of pancreatic cancer cell by activating carcinoma-associated fibroblasts. Am J Cancer Res 2016; 6: 2192–2206.

91.

Coppe

Patil

Rodier

et al . Senescence-associated secretory phenotypes reveal cell-nonautonomous functions of oncogenic RAS and the p53 tumor suppressor. PLoS Biol 2008; 6: 2853–2868.

92.

Ganss

Ryschich

Klar

et al . Combination of T-cell therapy and trigger of inflammation induces remodeling of the vasculature and tumor eradication. Cancer Res 2002; 62: 1462–1470.

93.

Udagawa

Birsner

Wood

et al . Chronic suppression of angiogenesis following radiation exposure is independent of hematopoietic reconstitution. Cancer Res 2007; 67: 2040–2045.

94.

Handschel

Prott

Sunderkotter

et al . Irradiation induces increase of adhesion molecules and accumulation of β2-integrin-expressing cells in humans. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1999; 45: 475–481.

95.

Lugade

Moran

Gerber

et al . Local radiation therapy of B16 melanoma tumors increases the generation of tumor antigen-specific effector cells that traffic to the tumor. J Immunol 2005; 174: 7516–7523.

96.

Hallahan

Kuchibhotla

Wyble

Cell adhesion molecules mediate radiation-induced leukocyte adhesion to the vascular endothelium. Cancer Res 1996; 56: 5150–5155.

97.

Bouquet

Pal

Pilones

et al . TGFβ1 inhibition increases the radiosensitivity of breast cancer cells in vitro and promotes tumor control by radiation in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 2011; 17: 6754–6765.

98.

Biswas

Guix

Rinehart

et al . Inhibition of TGF-beta with neutralizing antibodies prevents radiation-induced acceleration of metastatic cancer progression. J Clin Invest 2007; 117: 1305–1313.

99.

Wang

Schoenhals

et al . Suppression of type I IFN signaling in tumors mediates resistance to anti-PD-1 treatment that can be overcome by radiotherapy. Cancer Res 2017; 77: 839–850.

100.

Wei

Liu

et al . Effect of captopril on radiation-induced TGF-beta1 secretion in EA.Hy926 human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 20842–20850.

101.

Prakash

Klug

Nadella

et al . Low doses of gamma irradiation potentially modifies immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment by retuning tumor-associated macrophages: lesson from insulinoma. Carcinogenesis 2016; 37: 301–313.

102.

Chiang

Wang

et al . Irradiation promotes an m2 macrophage phenotype in tumor hypoxia. Front Oncol 2012; 2: 89.

103.

Coates

Rundle

Lorimore

et al . Indirect macrophage responses to ionizing radiation: implications for genotype-dependent bystander signaling. Cancer Res 2008; 68: 450–456.

104.

Barker

Paget

Khan

et al . The tumour microenvironment after radiotherapy: mechanisms of resistance and recurrence. Nat Rev Cancer 2015; 15: 409–425.

105.

Rube

Uthe

Schmid

et al . Dose-dependent induction of transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) in the lung tissue of fibrosis-prone mice after thoracic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2000; 47: 1033–1042.

106.

Benci

Qiu

et al . Tumor interferon signaling regulates a multigenic resistance program to immune checkpoint blockade. Cell 2016; 167: 1540–1554 e1512.

107.

Gattinoni

Finkelstein

Klebanoff

et al . Removal of homeostatic cytokine sinks by lymphodepletion enhances the efficacy of adoptively transferred tumor-specific CD8+ T cells. J Exp Med 2005; 202: 907–912.

108.

Dudley

Yang

Sherry

et al . Adoptive cell therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: evaluation of intensive myeloablative chemoradiation preparative regimens. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5233–5239.

109.

Wang

Shu

Plautz

GE.

Host lymphodepletion augments T cell adoptive immunotherapy through enhanced intratumoral proliferation of effector cells. Cancer Res 2005; 65: 9547–9554.

110.

Paulos

Wrzesinski

Kaiser

et al . Microbial translocation augments the function of adoptively transferred self/tumor-specific CD8+ T cells via TLR4 signaling. J Clin Invest 2007; 117: 2197–2204.

111.

Kwilas

Donahue

Bernstein

et al . In the field: exploiting the untapped potential of immunogenic modulation by radiation in combination with immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer. Front Oncol 2012; 2: 104.

112.

Rosental

Appel

Yossef

et al . The effect of chemotherapy/radiotherapy on cancerous pattern recognition by NK cells. Curr Med Chem 2012; 19: 1780–1791.

113.

Riederer

Sievert

Eissner

et al . Irradiation-induced up-regulation of HLA-E on macrovascular endothelial cells confers protection against killing by activated natural killer cells. PloS One 2010; 5: e15339.

114.

Bedel

Thiery-Vuillemin

Grandclement

et al . Novel role for STAT3 in transcriptional regulation of NK immune cell targeting receptor MICA on cancer cells. Cancer Res 2011; 71: 1615–1626.

115.

Shi

Siemann

DW.

Augmented antitumor effects of radiation therapy by 4-1BB antibody (BMS-469492) treatment. Anticancer Res 2006; 26: 3445–3453.

116.

Liang

Deng

Chmura

et al . Radiation-induced equilibrium is a balance between tumor cell proliferation and T cell-mediated killing. J Immunol 2013; 190: 5874–5881.

117.

Cao

Wang

Zheng

et al . Tumor therapeutics work as stress inducers to enhance tumor sensitivity to natural killer (NK) cell cytolysis by up-regulating NKp30 ligand B7-H6. J Biol Chem 2015; 290: 29964–29973.

118.

Matta

Baratin

Chiche

et al . Induction of B7-H6, a ligand for the natural killer cell-activating receptor NKp30, in inflammatory conditions. Blood 2013; 122: 394–404.

119.

Obeid

Tesniere

Ghiringhelli

et al . Calreticulin exposure dictates the immunogenicity of cancer cell death. Nat Med 2007; 13: 54–61.

120.

Kwon

Drake

Scher

et al .; CA184-043 Investigators. 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.

121.

Slovin

Higano

Hamid

et al . Ipilimumab alone or in combination with radiotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from an open-label, multicenter phase I/II study. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 1813–1821.

122.

Bang

Wilhite

Pike

et al . Multicenter evaluation of the tolerability of combined treatment with PD-1 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoint inhibitors and palliative radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2017; 98: 344–351.

123.

Kwon

Drake

Scher

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.

124.

Skrepnik

Sundararajan

Cui

et al . Improved time to disease progression in the brain in patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with concurrent delivery of radiosurgery and ipilimumab. Oncoimmunology 2017; 6: e1283461.

125.

Mathew

Tam

Ott

et al . Ipilimumab in melanoma with limited brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery. Melanoma Res 2013; 23: 191–195.

126.

Kiess

Wolchok

Barker

et al . Stereotactic radiosurgery for melanoma brain metastases in patients receiving ipilimumab: safety profile and efficacy of combined treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2015; 92: 368–375.

127.

Patel

Shoukat

Oliver

et al . Ipilimumab and stereotactic radiosurgery versus stereotactic radiosurgery alone for newly diagnosed melanoma brain metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 2017; 40: 444–450.

128.

Tazi

Hathaway

Chiuzan

et al . Survival of melanoma patients with brain metastases treated with ipilimumab and stereotactic radiosurgery. Cancer Med 2015; 4: 1–6.

129.

Koller

Mackley

Liu

et al . Improved survival and complete response rates in patients with advanced melanoma treated with concurrent ipilimumab and radiotherapy versus ipilimumab alone. Cancer Biol Ther 2017; 18: 36–42.

130.

Barker

Postow

Khan

et al . Concurrent radiotherapy and ipilimumab immunotherapy for patients with melanoma. Cancer Immunol Res 2013; 1: 92–98.

131.

Silk

Bassetti

West

et al . Ipilimumab and radiation therapy for melanoma brain metastases. Cancer Med 2013; 2: 899–906.

132.

Qin

Olson

Singh

et al . Safety and efficacy of radiation therapy in advanced melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96: 72–77.

133.

Ahmed

Abuodeh

Echevarria

et al . Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery and anti-PD-1 therapy, anti-CTLA-4 therapy, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, BRAF inhibitor, or conventional chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 2288–2294.

134.

Ahmed

Stallworth

Kim

et al . Clinical outcomes of melanoma brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiation and anti-PD-1 therapy. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 434–441.

135.

Levy

Massard

Soria

et al . Concurrent irradiation with the anti-programmed cell death ligand-1 immune checkpoint blocker durvalumab: single centre subset analysis from a phase 1/2 trial. Eur J Cancer 2016; 68: 156–162.

136.

Vanpouille-Box

Alard

Aryankalayil

et al . DNA exonuclease Trex1 regulates radiotherapy-induced tumour immunogenicity. Nat Commun 2017; 8: 15618.

137.

Pilones

Kawashima

Yang

et al . Invariant natural killer T cells regulate breast cancer response to radiation and CTLA-4 blockade. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 597–606.

138.

Dewan

Galloway

Kawashima

et al . Fractionated but not single-dose radiotherapy induces an immune-mediated abscopal effect when combined with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 5379–5388.

139.

McGinnis

Friedman

Young

et al . Neuroinflammatory and cognitive consequences of combined radiation and immunotherapy in a novel preclinical model. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 9155–9173.

140.

Belcaid

Phallen

Zeng

et al . Focal radiation therapy combined with 4-1BB activation and CTLA-4 blockade yields long-term survival and a protective antigen-specific memory response in a murine glioma model. PloS One 2014; 9: e101764.

141.

Rodriguez-Ruiz

Rodriguez

Garasa

et al . Abscopal effects of radiotherapy are enhanced by combined immunostimulatory mAbs and are dependent on CD8 T cells and crosspriming. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 5994–6005.

142.

Vanpouille-Box

Pilones

Wennerberg

et al . In situ vaccination by radiotherapy to improve responses to anti-CTLA-4 treatment. Vaccine 2015; 33: 7415–7422.

143.

Zeng

See

Phallen

et al . Anti-PD-1 blockade and stereotactic radiation produce long-term survival in mice with intracranial gliomas. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2013; 86: 343–349.

144.

Hettich

Lahoti

Prasad

et al . Checkpoint antibodies but not T cell-recruiting diabodies effectively synergize with TIL-inducing gamma-irradiation. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 4673–4683.

145.

Park

Dong

Liu

et al . PD-1 restrains radiotherapy-induced abscopal effect. Cancer Immunol Res 2015; 3: 610–619.

146.

Kim

Patel

Mangraviti

et al . Combination therapy with anti-PD-1, anti-TIM-3, and focal radiation results in regression of murine gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 124–136.

147.

Schrand

Verma

Levay

et al . Radiation-induced enhancement of antitumor T-cell immunity by VEGF-targeted 4-1BB costimulation. Cancer Res 2017; 77: 1310–1321.

148.

Honeychurch

Glennie

Johnson

et al . Anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody therapy in combination with irradiation results in a CD8 T-cell-dependent immunity to B-cell lymphoma. Blood 2003; 102: 1449–1457.

149.

Gough

Crittenden

Sarff

et al . Adjuvant therapy with agonistic antibodies to CD134 (OX40) increases local control after surgical or radiation therapy of cancer in mice. J Immunother 2010; 33: 798–809.

150.

Larkin

Hodi

Wolchok

JD.

Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 1270–1271.

151.

Robert

Schachter

Long

et al .; KEYNOTE-006 investigators. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2521–2532.

152.

Larkin

Chiarion-Sileni

Gonzalez

et al . Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 23–34.

153.

Beer

Kwon

Drake

et al . Randomized, double-blind, phase III trial of ipilimumab versus placebo in asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with metastatic chemotherapy-naive castration-resistant prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 40–47.

154.

Robert

Long

Brady

et al . Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 320–330.

155.

Ferris

Blumenschein

Jr Fayette

et al . Nivolumab for recurrent squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1856–1867.

156.

Zegers

Rekers

Quaden

et al . Radiotherapy combined with the immunocytokine L19-IL2 provides long-lasting antitumor effects. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21: 1151–1160.

157.

Kim

Gratzinger

Harrison

et al . In situ vaccination against mycosis fungoides by intratumoral injection of a TLR9 agonist combined with radiation: a phase 1/2 study. Blood 2012; 119: 355–363.

158.

Dewan

Vanpouille-Box

Kawashima

et al . Synergy of topical toll-like receptor 7 agonist with radiation and low-dose cyclophosphamide in a mouse model of cutaneous breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 6668–6678.

159.

Liu

Xiong

Zhang

et al . Enhancement of antitumor immunity by low-dose total body irradiationis associated with selectively decreasing the proportion and number of T regulatory cells. Cell Mol Immunol 2010; 7: 157–162.

160.

Safwat

Aggerholm

Roitt

et al . Low-dose total body irradiation augments the therapeutic effect of interleukin-2 in a mouse model for metastatic malignant melanoma. J Exp Ther Oncol 2003; 3: 161–168.

161.

Cheda

Wrembel-Wargocka

Lisiak

et al . Single low doses of X rays inhibit the development of experimental tumor metastases and trigger the activities of NK cells in mice. Radiat Res 2004; 161: 335–340.

162.

Hashimoto

Shirato

Hosokawa

et al . The suppression of metastases and the change in host immune response after low-dose total-body irradiation in tumor-bearing rats. Radiat Res 1999; 151: 717–724.

163.

Yang

Kong

Wang

et al . Low-dose ionizing radiation induces direct activation of natural killer cells and provides a novel approach for adoptive cellular immunotherapy. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2014; 29: 428–434.

164.

Sonn

Choi

Kim

et al . Augmentation of natural cytotoxicity by chronic low-dose ionizing radiation in murine natural killer cells primed by IL-2. J Radiat Res 2012; 53: 823–829.

165.

Janiak

Wincenciak

Cheda

et al . Cancer immunotherapy: how low-level ionizing radiation can play a key role. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2017; 66: 819–832.

166.

Reissfelder

Timke

Schmitz-Winnenthal

et al . A randomized controlled trial to investigate the influence of low dose radiotherapy on immune stimulatory effects in liver metastases of colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 419.

167.

Timke

Winnenthal

Klug

et al . Randomized controlled phase I/II study to investigate immune stimulatory effects by low dose radiotherapy in primarily operable pancreatic cancer. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 134.

168.

Safi

Beckhove

Warth

et al . A randomized phase II study of radiation induced immune boost in operable non-small cell lung cancer (RadImmune trial). BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 988.

169.

Wild

Herman

Dholakia

et al . Lymphocyte-sparing effect of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 94: 571–579.

170.

Schaue

Ratikan

Iwamoto

et al . Maximizing tumor immunity with fractionated radiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 83: 1306–1310.

171.

Lan

Deng

et al . Hypofractionated radiation therapy slashes the immunosuppressive activity on CD8+T cell in tumor microenvironment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2016; 96: S86.

172.

Rodriguez-Ruiz

Rodriguez

Barbes

et al . Brachytherapy attains abscopal effects when combined with immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies. Brachytherapy 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.brachy.2017.06.012.

173.

Dudley

Wunderlich

Robbins

et al . Cancer regression and autoimmunity in patients after clonal repopulation with antitumor lymphocytes. Science 2002; 298: 850–854.

174.

Goff

Dudley

Citrin

et al . Randomized, prospective evaluation comparing intensity of lymphodepletion before adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2389–2397.

175.

Zitvogel

Kroemer

Subversion of anticancer immunosurveillance by radiotherapy. Nat Immunol 2015; 16: 1005–1007.

176.

Serre

Benzekry

Padovani

et al . Mathematical modeling of cancer immunotherapy and its synergy with radiotherapy. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 4931–4940.

177.

Slovin

SF.

Immunotherapy for prostate cancer: is prostate an immune responsive tumor?

Curr Opin Urol 2016; 26: 529–534.

178.

Seung

Curti

Crittenden

et al . Phase 1 study of stereotactic body radiotherapy and interleukin-2—tumor and immunological responses. Sci Transl Med 2012; 4: 137ra174.

179.

Finkelstein

Iclozan

Bui

et al . Combination of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with intratumoral injection of dendritic cells as neo-adjuvant treatment of high-risk soft tissue sarcoma patients. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012; 82: 924–932.

180.

Melero

Berman

Aznar

et al . Evolving synergistic combinations of targeted immunotherapies to combat cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2015; 15: 457–472.

Radiation effects on antitumor immune responses: current perspectives and challenges

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Significance and hurdles of radiation-induced immune responses

Priming of tumor antigen-specific T cells

Attracting leukocytes into the tumor tissue

Modifying the tumor microenvironment

Modulation by secreted factors of the tumor microenvironment

Modulation by changes in tumor infiltrating leukocytes

Increasing tumor cell susceptibility to lymphocyte-mediated cytotoxicity

Implications for clinical radioimmunotherapy

Clinical trials combining radio- and immunotherapy

Dose of radiotherapy

Fractionation of RT

Irradiation volume

Timing

Additional factors influencing combined radio- and immunotherapy

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

Conflict of interest statement

ORCID iD

References