Cited by 44Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersT-cell and B-cell ImmunologyImmunotherapy and Immune Responses

Age effects of distinct immune checkpoint blockade treatments in a mouse melanoma model

Open access
Padrón, Álvaro, Hurez, Vincent, Gupta, Harshita B., Clark, Curtis A., Pandeswara, Sri Lakshmi, Yuan, Bin, Svatek, Robert S., Turk, Mary Jo +3 more·2018·Experimental Gerontology

Abstract

Cancer immunotherapy has shown remarkable recent progress. Immune checkpoint blocking antibodies have become the most successful anti-cancer agent class ever developed, with six distinct agents approved since 2011 for a wide variety of cancers. Although age is the biggest risk factor for cancer (aside from selected early-onset pediatric cancers), these agents were tested pre-clinically in young hosts, and there is remarkably little published on the effects of host age on treatment outcomes in pre-clinical studies or human clinical trials. The three principal immune checkpoints against which blocking antibodies have been FDA-approved for human use are CTLA-4, PD-1 and PD-L1. We used a mouse model of transplantable, orthotopic B16 melanoma to test age effects of treatments with anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. All three agents were highly effective in treating young tumor-bearing hosts as expected. Anti-PD-L1 as a single agent had no effect on tumor growth in aged hosts, anti-CTLA-4 had detectable, modest effects and anti-PD-1 was essentially as effective in aged as in young hosts, the first single agent we have identified not to lose efficacy with age in this model. Other important differences in young versus aged hosts included lack of anti-CTLA-4-mediated depletion of intratumor regulatory T cells in aged hosts and poorer ability of all three agents to activate T cells in aged versus young hosts. Anti-CTLA-4 efficacy appeared to improve when combined with anti-PD-L1. Regulatory T cell depletion with FDA-approved denileukin diftitox did not improve treatment by any single agent. Aged mice tolerated treatments as well as young mice without obvious toxicities at equivalent doses.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.exger.2017.12.025

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The efficacy of immunotherapy is poorer in older mouse models than in younger mouse models.

    “a preclinical study highlights that the efficacy is poorer in older mouse models than in younger mouse models, indicating that age may have a significant effect on different tumor types and various physiological states [153].”

    From Immunosenescence: a key player in cancer development (2020) · cites this paper as [153]

  • In a melanoma mouse model, anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, and anti-PD-L1 antibodies were very effective in treating young mice.

    “Padron et al. [153] found that in a melanoma mouse model, anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, and anti-PD-L1 antibodies were very effective in treating young mice.”

    From Immunosenescence: a key player in cancer development (2020) · cites this paper as [153]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 54 · Cited by 44

Authors
Padrón, Á., Hurez, V., Gupta, H. B., Clark, C. A., Pandeswara, S. L., Yuan, B., Svatek, R. S., Turk, M. J., Drerup, J. M., Li, R., & Curiel, T. J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
Corresponding author
Curiel, Tyler J.
Venue
Experimental Gerontology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
105
Pages
146-154
ISSN
0531-5565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783072793
Cited by
44
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4
FWCI
1.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental Gerontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • The Owens Foundation
  • The Barker Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotherapy and Immune Responses
Keywords
immune checkpoint blockade, host age effects, cancer immunotherapy, CTLA-4, PD-1, PD-L1, B16 melanoma, regulatory T cells, T cell activation, denileukin diftitox, anti-PD-L1 combination therapy, aged mice, treatment toxicity
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Diphtheria Toxin, Disease Models, Animal, Female, Immunotherapy, Interleukin-2, Male, Melanoma, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Recombinant Fusion Proteins, T-Lymphocytes, Regulatory, Mice, B7-H1 Antigen, CTLA-4 Antigen, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review