Cancer

Review Research

The Tumor Microenvironment Innately Modulates

Cancer Progression
Dominique C. Hinshaw1 and Lalita A. Shevde1,2

Abstract
Cancer development and progression occurs in concert phoid cells, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and natural
with alterations in the surrounding stroma. Cancer cells can killer cells) as well as adaptive immune cells (T cells and B
functionally sculpt their microenvironment through the cells) contribute to tumor progression when present in the
secretion of various cytokines, chemokines, and other fac- tumor microenvironment (TME). Cross-talk between cancer
tors. This results in a reprogramming of the surrounding cells and the proximal immune cells ultimately results in an
cells, enabling them to play a determinative role in tumor environment that fosters tumor growth and metastasis.

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

survival and progression. Immune cells are important con- Understanding the nature of this dialog will allow for
stituents of the tumor stroma and critically take part in this improved therapeutics that simultaneously target multiple
process. Growing evidence suggests that the innate immune components of the TME, increasing the likelihood of favor-
cells (macrophages, neutrophils, dendritic cells, innate lym- able patient outcomes.

Introduction edge to current therapies that target dysfunctional cells in the TME.
In this review, we summarize the current knowledge on the ability
The tumor microenvironment (TME) is complex and contin-
of the TME to co-opt innate immune cells for cancer promotion
uously evolving. In addition to stromal cells, fibroblasts, and
and clinical strategies targeting these innate immune responses in
endothelial cells, the TME comprises innate and adaptive immune
the context of cancer.
cells. Previous studies have focused predominantly on adaptive
immune cells in the context of cancer. T lymphocytes, in partic-
Macrophages
ular, have been a target of interest for their potent cytotoxic
Of all of the innate immune cells, monocyte-derived macro-
capabilities, so much so that their differentiation status became
phages (Mj) best reflect the Th1/Th2 paradigm. Simplistically,
a model for other cell types and was coined the "Th1/Th2
Mjs can be polarized into inflammatory M1 (classically activat-
paradigm" (1). This dichotomy posits that T cells orchestrate
ed) or immune-suppressive M2 Mjs (alternatively activated) (2).
pathogen-dependent immune responses by differential produc-
Mjs modulate immune responses through pathogen phagocyto-
tion of cytokines: Th1 cells govern a proinflammatory phenotype
sis and antigen presentation, and also function in wound healing
and Th2 cells orchestrate an immunosuppressive phenotype.
and tissue repair, thus necessitating them for immune homeo-
Current TME-targeted treatments have focused predominantly
stasis (3). Mjs are tissue-specific and ubiquitous; they contribute
on T cells; prime examples include checkpoint blockade and
to all stages of wound healing, tissue formation, coagulation,
chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies. With an expan-
inflammation, and tissue reorganization (4). Mjs first appear in
sion of the literature regarding the TME, it is now evident that the
the yolk sac on embryonic day 7, and from there they disseminate
innate immune response not only indirectly influences the TME
to peripheral tissues to establish tissue-resident Mjs, although a
by controlling T-cell fate, but also critically sculpts the TME. These
majority of adult tissue Mj populations (including the spleen,
innate immune cell types include macrophages, dendritic cells
lung, and skin), originate in the fetal liver, indicating that the Mjs
(DC), neutrophils, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC),
established by the yolk sac are replaced by those that originate in
natural killer cells (NK), and innate lymphoid cells (ILC). Mech-
the fetal liver. Specifically, hematopoietic stem cells colonizing
anistically, cytokines within the TME manipulate immune func-
the fetal liver give rise to all hematopoietic lineages, including
tions that culminate in muted immune responses that guide
monocytes (5). In the context of cancer, one form of Mj recruit-
tumor progression. It is essential to develop a comprehensive
ment includes recruitment from the bone marrow as monocytes
understanding of the innate immune cells and extend this knowl-
by chemokines (CCL1, CCL2, CCL3, CCL4, CCL5, CCL7, CXCL1,
CXCL2, CXCL4, CX3CL1), leading to Mj differentiation in
1
response to cytokines (CSF-1) that are secreted by many different
Department of Pathology, The University of Alabama at Birmingham,
cell types, including tumor cells, osteoblasts, and uterine epithe-
Birmingham, Alabama. 2O'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, The University
of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama. lial cells (4, 6).
The TME potentiates immune suppressive M2 Mjs through the
Corresponding Author: Lalita A. Shevde, University of Alabama at Birmingham,
secretion of cytokines such as IL4 (Fig. 1A and B). Cumulatively,
Birmingham, AL 35233. Phone: 205-975-6261; Fax: 205-975-6615; E-mail:
[email protected] this enables tumor growth and progression as Mjs can make up to
50% of tumor mass (7). High Mj infiltration of most tumor types
Cancer Res 2019;79:4557–66
including breast cancer, gastric cancer, lung cancer, hepatoma,
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-3962 and other malignancies correlated with a negative prognosis,
2019 American Association for Cancer Research. further establishing their role in cancer progression (8–10). Also,

www.aacrjournals.org 4557
 Hinshaw and Shevde

A Tumor–killing immune microenvironment B Immune suppressive microenvironment

TC IL1
F & NK1 MDSC 8
an F
TC
me fa gio TC NK2
NKT1 Pe TC n zy rin ct g
rfo a o or en
rin F
TC Gr erf s i TC TC
TC 1
p
T
c Fβ
TC TC IL1 GF β TG 13
TC 3 G IL1 TC TC , IL
Phagocytosis M- 8, TC IL5
TC TC and inos CS
cytosis TC TC F TC TC TC TC IL4
Phago TC M1 NKT2 IL13
TC TC M2
DC1 F TC IL10
TC TC F
TC IL2
TC TC TC 5,
TC enesis IL3
angiog TC 3
r in &

TG
rfo e

α F Fβ
pe z y m

IFN
TNF F
Phagocytosis

, IL
M1 IL6 DC2 TGFβ EG

γT
13
an

TG
,A ,V

NF

IL4
Gr

Fβ
PC 2

IL6, IL10
α
L ILC2

IL4

, TG
0
CC

L1
IFNγ
3,

,I

Fβ
Fβ
NK1 IL

TG
Th1 APC
ILC1
3, APC

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

, IL2 IFN
IL12 N1 Treg N2
Nγ

γ
IF

ILC1 Th2
NKT3

© 2019 American Association for Cancer Research

Figure 1.
Cross-talk in the tumor microenvironment. A, The impact of inflammatory or tumor-suppressive immune cells on tumor cells in the TME. The bold arrows show
the impact that immune cells ideally have on tumor cells (TC). The interactions between NKTs, DCs, T cells, neutrophils, ILCs, Mw, and NK cells and tumor cells are
depicted. Fibroblasts are denoted with the letter "F." B, The cross-talk between immune cells in the TME that have been polarized to an immune-suppressive
type and the cytokines secreted by the TCs that contribute to this Th2-like polarization.

an aspect of their normal tissue remodeling abilities includes ligands (16). This kindles a feed-forward loop that sustains
regulation of epithelial cell movement. This function of Mjs is alternatively polarized Mjs within the TME. Interfering with
co-opted by tumor cells within the TME; Mjs release factors (e.g., this cross-talk reprogrammed the TME to be immune reactive
EGF) that promote the movement and invasion of cancer and diminished the occurrence of metastasis. Given their role in
cells (11, 12). inducing a premetastatic niche ("a favorable microenvironment
While the M1/M2 classification is a simplified understanding for survival and outgrowth of tumor cells induced at distal sites
of Mj phenotype and function, in reality Mjs are plastic in by tumors"; ref. 17), aiding in extravasation of circulating
nature and exist in a continuum of functional states (7). M2 cancer cells, and promoting metastasis (18), Mjs present as
Mjs can further be classified into M2a, M2b, M2c, and M2d prime candidates for therapeutic intervention.
subsets (Table 1). These subsets are defined on the basis of their
different inducers namely: IFNg, and LPS for M1; IL4, IL10, Dendritic cells
IL13 for M2a; TLR agonists for M2b; IL10, TNFa, and gluco- DCs bridge the gap between the adaptive and innate immune
corticoids for M2c; and TLR and adenosine A2A receptor for systems. They initiate pathogen-specific T-cell responses and are
M2d (13). Furthermore, these differential Mj subtypes have therefore important for bolstering protective immunity. It is
different functional roles as outlined in Table 1. Therefore, it is important to note that B cells and Mjs also perform antigen
unsurprising that Mjs that exhibit properties of both M1 and presentation, albeit with lower activity than that of DCs. To
M2 exist in distinct proportions in the TME, depending on the effectively stimulate the adaptive immune response, DCs must
tumor type, although the M2 phenotype is typically favored. recognize, capture, and present antigens, upregulate costimula-
This poses a conundrum because Mj-mediated killing of cancer tory molecules, produce inflammatory cytokines, and then travel
cells is virtually nonexistent in the TME of tumors with high to secondary lymphoid organs for antigen presentation to T cells.
proportions of M2 Mjs. The wound-healing phenotype of M2 The inability of DCs to perform these functions greatly hampers
Mjs established by the TME enables tumor growth, prolifera- the immune response to pathogens, viruses, and tumors. DCs are
tion, angiogenesis, and epithelial–mesenchymal transition functionally classified into different subtypes such as classical DCs
(EMT; ref. 14). There are many aspects of the TME, including (cDC), plasmacytoid DCs (pDC), and monocyte-derived inflam-
cytokines and hypoxia, which orchestrate Mj polarization and matory DCs (moDC). cDCs can be further divided into cDC1 and
function (Table 1; ref. 15). IL4, commonly present in the TME, cDC2. cDC1s develop under the control of the transcription
initiates STAT6 signaling in Mjs, launching a transcriptional factors IRF8, ID2, and BATF3, and cDC2s develop under the
program that directs alternative polarization of Mjs. In a recent control of transcription factors IRF4, ID2, ZEB, and Notch2/
publication, Hanna and colleagues have identified that tumor KLF4 (19). These subsets are also functionally distinct: cDC1s
cells engage in a dialog with Mjs via secreted Hedgehog are capable of cross-presentation and thus are able to present both

4558 Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 Cancer Research

 Innate Immunity in Cancer Progression and Metastasis

Table 1. Innate immune cells in the tumor microenvironment

Stimulatory Cytokine/
cytokines in chemokine
Cell type Normal functions the TME secretion Human markers Mouse markers Effect Source(s)
MACROPHAGES
M1 Activate Th1 responses, IFNg IL12, IL23, IL1b, CD64, IDO, SOCS1, CXCL9, CXCL10, Antitumor (2, 13, 94)
phagocytosis, type 4 IL6, IL12, IL23, CXCL10, CD80, CXCL11, NOS2
hypersensitivity CCL10, CCL11, CD86, CD68,
CCL2–5, CCL8, MHC-II, IL1R,
CCL9 SOCS3
M2a Activate Th2 responses, IL4, IL10, IL13, CSF1, IL4, L-arginine, MRC1, TGM2, CD23, Mrc1, Tgm2, Fizz1, Protumor (2, 13, 94)
wound healing, allergy CCL2, CCL3, PGE2, IL10, CCL22, CD163, IL- Ym1/2, Arg1,
CCL14 TGFb, IL1ra, 1R II MHC-II, IL1ra
CCL17, CCL22,
CCL24
M2b Th2 activation, TLR agonists, IL1, IL6, IL10, CD86, MHC-II CD86, MHC-II Protumor (13, 94)
immunoregulation Immunocomplex TNFa, CCL1
M2c Tissue repair, IL10, TNFa, TGFb, IL10, CCR2 CD163, Mrc2 CD163, Mrc1 Protumor (13, 94)
immunoregulation, Glucocorticoids
matrix remodeling

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

M2d Angiogenesis, clearance TLR, adenosine TNFa, TGFb, VEGF VEGF Protumor (13, 94)
of apoptotic tissues A2A receptor VEGF-A, IL10,
IL12, CCL5,
CXCL10,
CXCL16
DCs
Immature Recognize antigens, N/A N/A CD11c, HLA-DR, Cd11c, MHCII, Depends on (20, 95)
DCs migrate to secondary FLT3L FLT3L, CD45 tumor
lymphoid organs, type
phagocytosis, minimal
APC, induce T-cell
anergy and promote
Th2 and T-reg
responses
cDC1 APC to CD8 T cells, cross IL12, TNFa, IFNg CD11c, CD141, XCR1, CD11c, CD8a Depends on (19, 96–98)
presentation, secretion HLA-DR, Necl2, (lymphoid), tumor
of IL12 CLEC9A, CD80, MHCII, Clec9A, type
CD86, CD40, CD103 (Non-
CCR7, FLT3, TLR3, Lymphoid),
CD103, CADM1, DEC205, XCR1,
CD26, BTLA, CD80, CD86,
CD226, CD13 CADM1, CD26,
CD33, CXCR3, CD24
CXCR4 CLEC9A
cDC2 APC to CD4 T cells TGFb, IL6, IL8, IL1, CD11c, HLA-DR, CD11c, CD11b, Depends on (19, 96–98)
IL12, IL23, IL10, CD1c, CD11b, MHCII, CD4
, tumor
TNFa CD80, CD86, Sirpaþ, CD80, type
FLT3, CLEC7A, CD86, CD172a,
CLEC6A, Dectin CD26
1&2, CD40,
CADM1, CD172a,
CD2, SIRPA,
FceR1, DCIR,
CD62L, MHCII, ILT1
pDCs Abundant secretory Type 1 IFN, TNF, CD11c, HLA-DR, CD11c, B220, Depends on (20, 96–98)
activity (IFN type 1), IL6 CD304, CD303, CD45, Siglec H, tumor
respond to viral CD123, FLT3, CD317, Gr-1, type
infections B220, PDCA1, Ly6C
FceR1, ILT3, ILT7,
DR6, CD300A,
BTLA, CD62L,
CD45RA
MoDCs Produce high levels of the TNFa, IL1, IL12, CD11c,CD14, Factor CD11c, MHC-II, Antitumor (19, 95, 97, 99, 100)
pro-inflammatory IL23 XIIIA, HLA-DR, CD11b, F4/80,
cytokines TNF, IL6, and CD62L, CXCR3, Ly6C, CD206,
IL12 CD209, CD1c, CD115, CD107b,
CD80, CD86, FceRI, CD80,
CD64, MAR-1 CD86
Tolerogenic Diminished APC, PGE2, TGFb, VEGF, TGFb C1QA, C3AR1, CD163, SLAM, PDL1, PDL2, Protumor (99–101)
DCs stimulate Th2 IL10, TNFa CD300LF, CFH, DEC205, IDO
responses and Tregs to CSGALNACT1,
induce tolerance FcyR11A, FcyR11B,
P2RY14, ZBT16
(Continued on the following page)

www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 4559

 Hinshaw and Shevde

Table 1. Innate immune cells in the tumor microenvironment (Cont'd )

Stimulatory Cytokine/
cytokines in chemokine
Cell type Normal functions the TME secretion Human markers Mouse markers Effect Source(s)
NEUTROPHILS
N1 Phagocytosis; release of N/A TNFa, IL1, IFNs, TNFa, I-CAM1, FAS, TNFa, I-CAM1, Antitumor (23, 30, 33)
NETs, inflammatory MMP-8, ROS FAS, ROS
cytokines, toxin and Defensins,
ROS; respiratory burst, Along with
promotion of tumor toxic
cell apoptosis substances and
reactive
oxygen
species.
N2 Support angiogenesis, TGFb, Angiotensin Oncostatin-M, Arginase, CCL2, Arginase, CCL2, Protumor (23, 30, 33)
cancer cell migration II MMP-9, CXCL1, CCL5 CCL5
and invasion, immune CXCL8, CCL-3,
surveillance, and Neutrophil
metastasis as well as elastase (NE),
secrete chemokines, CXCL6,

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

cytokines and ROS/ Collagenase IV,
RNS Heparanase,
TGFb, PGE2
MDSCs
M-MDSCs Suppress innate and CSF-1, CCL2, CCL7, NO, CCL3, CCL4, CD11bþ, HLADRlo/, Cd11bþ, Ly6Chi, Protumor (41–43)
adaptive immune HIf1a, CXCL1 CCL5, Arg1, CD14þ CD49dþ
responses PGE2, IL4
PMN-MDSCs Suppress innate and ROS, Arg1, PGE2, CD11bþ, HLADR, Cd11bþ, Gr-1hi, Protumor (41–43)
adaptive immune IL4 CD15þ, CD14 Ly6Gþ, Ly6Clo
responses
eMDSCs Suppress innate and N/A CD33þ, Lin, CD13, Not well Protumor (42)
adaptive immune CD14 CD3, characterized
responses CD6
NK CELLS
CD56hi CD16 Produce inflammatory TGFb, PGE2, IDO, IFNg, TNFa CD16
, CD56, NKp46, NK1.1, Depends on (48, 51)
cytokines IL10 NKG2A, CCR7, CD122 tumor

NKs
CXCR, CXCR3 type
CD56lo Promote antibody- TGFb, PGE2, IDO, IL22, IL10 CD16hi, perforinhi Not well Depends on (48, 51)
CD16hi dependent cellular IL10 characterized tumor
NKs cytotoxicity, high type
perforin production,
enhanced killing
ILCs
ILC1 NK Cells Cytotoxicity, N/A IFNg, TNFa CD56, NKp46, CD56, NKp46, Antitumor (57, 62)
macrophage NKp44, IL/12RB2, NKp44, IL/
activation, chronic DNAM1 12RB2, CD161,
inflammation, CD8 T- TIGIT, CTLA-4,
cell activation CD96, NKG2A
ILC1 Non-NK Macrophage activation, N/A IFNg, TNFa ICOS, IL1R, IL/12RB2, ICOS, IL1R IL/ Antitumor (57, 62)
chronic inflammation CCR6 12RB2
ILC2 Stimulate T-cell IL33, IL25 IL5, IL13 CD117, CD127, ICOS, CD127, ICOS, Protumor (57, 62)
responses through CD294, IL1R, ST2, CD294, IL1R, and
Th2-related cytokines, IL17RB, CD161, ST2, IL17RB, antitumor
promotes skin NKp30, PD1, Sca1, PD1,
inflammation CRTH2 CRTH2
ILC3 Chronic inflammation, IL23, IL1b IL22, IL17, GM-CSF CD127, CD117, CD25, CD127, CD117, Protumor (57, 62)
intestinal homeostasis, IL1R, ICOS, IL23R, CD25, IL1R,
lymphoid MHCII, CCR6, ICOS, IL23R,
development bacterial NKp44, NKp30, Sca1, MHCII,
immunity, NKp46, CD161 NKp46, CD161
Abbreviation: N/A, not applicable.

endogenous and exogenous antigens, whereas cDC2s only pres- Analogous to Mjs, DCs are plastic in nature and can be
ent exogenous antigens and do not typically perform cross-pre- stratified into specific subtypes. In the context of cancer, DCs are
sentation. cDCs and pDCs are present and active during steady- broadly referred to as tumor-infiltrating dendritic cells (TIDC),
state conditions, while moDCs tend to only arise during inflam- which will be the predominant focus of this section. TIDCs can be
mation. DCs specialize in different functions dependent on their immunogenic or tolerogenic dependent upon environmental
stage of maturation and differentiation (Table 1). DCs can localize signals. Examples of DCs that contribute to immune suppression
and acclimate to different tissues such as skin, lung, intestine, and include CD5hi cDC2s that stimulate Th2, Th17, and T regulatory
liver and efficiently respond to environmental stimuli (20). responses (19). It is important to note that each of the subtypes

4560 Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 Cancer Research

 Innate Immunity in Cancer Progression and Metastasis

referred to in Table 1 can make up TIDCs that often adopt an (ROS/RNS). They also reconfigure the extracellular matrix
immune-suppressive phenotype due to the suppressive nature of through secretion of neutrophil elastase (NE) and matrix metal-
the TME. loproteinases (MMP8/9) in the TME and promote angiogenesis
Tumors classically reprogram their microenvironment to sup- (Oncostatin-M), tumor progression (PGE2), and invasion
port their survival. In the context of DCs, they do so by secreting (through the release of ROS/RNS, NE, MMP-9). NETs are com-
cytokines to upregulate transcriptional and metabolic pathways prised of MMPs, cathepsin G, and NE (34, 35). These proteases
that promote a tolerogenic phenotype, such as those that involve degrade proinflammatory cytokines and reposition the TME to
IDO, Arg1, iNOS, and STAT3 (21). These pathways trigger altera- enhance tumor progression and aid in metastasis (36).
tions in DC metabolism, metabolite production, energetic shifts, The plasticity of circulating neutrophils is an important feature
and/or alterations of chromatin accessibility (22). These modifi- in patients with cancer. These neutrophils, called high-density
cations impact every aspect of DC functionality, including their neutrophils (HDN) or low-density neutrophils (LDN), corre-
abilities to secrete inflammatory cytokines and to prime effector T spond to N1 and N2 phenotypes, respectively. In many cancer
cells. Generally, DCs patrolling the TME encounter immune- types, LDNs, which exhibit a more immature phenotype, pre-
suppressive factors such as VEGF, IL10, TGFb, prostaglandin E2 dominate in the circulation and may contribute to cancer pro-
(PGE2), and other cytokines (seen in Fig. 1B) that inhibit DC gression and metastasis (29). A detailed understanding of neu-
maturation into immunogenic cells and promote their develop- trophils and signals that pivot neutrophils to become immune
ment into a tolerogenic phenotype, not only stunting their Th1- suppressive holds much promise toward reprogramming the

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

priming capacities, but also affording them the ability to promote TME. This is important given that they are present in the tumor
Th2 and T regulatory responses (20). Once removed from the in large numbers. The unique mechanism of NET-osis (NET
TME, these DCs regain their ability to effectively process antigen formation) may prove to be a promising therapeutic target. While
and prime T cells (23), demonstrating that stimulating DC preclinical models demonstrate effectiveness of NET targeting,
inflammatory functions in the TME may be an effective thera- evidence on the clinical front is awaited.
peutic strategy.
Further complexity regarding DC plasticity arises when con- Myeloid-derived suppressor cells
sidering different tumor types. DCs have been reported to be Another cell type that can be found in the TME includes
tumor-promoting in some TMEs, and tumor-suppressive in myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC). Some argue that
others. For example, TIDCs correlate with a positive prognosis MDSCs are a subtype of neutrophils (33), as there are several
in endometrial carcinoma, but not in breast cancer (24, 25). This overlapping markers between MDSCs and TANs that make dis-
could be indicative of a tumor stage–dependent phenomenon, tinguishing between these cell types challenging. It is still debated
that is, DCs are tumor suppressive in early stages and become whether MDSCs represent a separate lineage of cells or are
tumor promoting as the tumor progresses. Furthermore, infiltrat- polarized immature neutrophils (37). Despite this quandary,
ing TIDC percentages differ among tumor types, suggesting that MDSCs are defined as, "a heterogeneous population of cells of
TMEs vary in their capacities to potently polarize TIDCs to myeloid origin that comprise myeloid progenitor cells and imma-
tolerogenic DCs (26). Adding to this complexity, there are dis- ture macrophages, immature granulocytes, and immature den-
crepancies among DC phenotypes between subtypes of the same dritic cells" (38). Accordingly, MDSCs and TANs clearly differen-
tumor type. For example, transcriptomics of triple-negative breast tiate into distinct cell types even though they both stem from
cancers reveals upregulated IFN pathways for all DC subtypes, myeloid progenitor cells. Other than being hypodense, MDSCs
whereas this is not the case in luminal breast cancer (27). As such, are divergent from neutrophils in several ways, including reduced
the DC composition and functionality is tremendously influ- expression of CD16 and CD62L, and increased expression of Arg1,
enced by the tumor type or the tumor subtype and its unique TME. CD66B, and CD11b (39, 40). MDSCs can be further categorized
into subsets: monocytic MDSCs (M-MDSC), which are distin-
Neutrophils guished by a CD11bhi, LY6Chi, and LY6Glo phenotype, polymor-
Neutrophils account for up to 70% of circulating leukocytes phonuclear MDSCs (PMN-MDSC), which display a CD11bhi,
and are the first line of defense against pathogens (28). These cells LY6Clo, and LY6Ghi phenotype, and early-stage MDSCs (eMDSC)
are typically short-lived, persisting up to five days in circula- that are CD13 and CD14, and CD33þ in humans (41, 42). It is
tion (29). Upon tissue damage or infection, epithelial cells secrete noteworthy that both M-MDSCs and PMN-MDSCs present within
neutrophil homing chemokines, compelling them to extravasate the TME have an enhanced suppressive phenotype when com-
from circulation and enter the damaged tissue where they secrete pared with MDSCs present within peripheral lymphoid organs,
inflammatory cytokines, release neutrophil extracellular traps due to increased expression of suppressive molecules by MDSCs
(NET), and phagocytose invading microorganisms (30). NETs in the TME (43).
are composed of a chromatin backbone as a vehicle for antimi- MDSCs present in the TME contribute to immunosuppression,
crobial peptides and toxins and are released as a further method of including T-cell suppression and innate immune regulation,
attack, although to the detriment of the neutrophil (31, 32). In the through various mechanisms (Table 1; ref. 43). Furthermore,
context of cancer, tumor-associated neutrophils (TAN) also fol- MDSCs sculpt the primary TME and also initiate formation of
low the Th1/Th2 paradigm and exhibit an N1 (tumor-suppres- the premetastatic niche. In particular, MDSCs enhance tumor cell
sive) or N2 (tumor-promoting) phenotype (Table 1). The phe- stemness, increase angiogenesis, and advance the metastatic pro-
notype of neutrophils in the TME depends on the tumor type and cess by promoting EMT through IL6 secretion (44, 45). MDSCs
the stage of disease progression. Neutrophils are inflammatory also are influenced by the TME (Fig. 1B) that further perpetuates
during early tumor stages, but as the tumor progresses, they their inherent immunosuppressive functions. For example, HIF-
adopt an immunosuppressive phenotype (33). Neutrophils mod- 1a, a key player in the hypoxic tumor microenvironment, aids in
ulate inflammation via production of reactive intermediates MDSC differentiation to tumor-promoting TAMs (46). Also,

www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 4561

 Hinshaw and Shevde

factors in the TME can alter the metabolism of MDSCs toward breast cancer (55) in mouse models. However, NKTIIs have been
fatty acid oxidation, prompting an upregulation of Arg1 and reported to support MDSCs in a B-cell lymphoma mouse mod-
NOS2 production (47). The critical role of MDSCs in tumorigen- el (54, 56). As such, targeting NKTIIs and supplementation with
esis, growth, the establishment of the premetastatic niche, and NKTIs may provide an exciting therapeutic approach.
metastatic outgrowth warrants the need to effectively target them
by depletion or blockade. Although their critical role in the Innate lymphoid cells
survival and advancement of tumors is well known, there are Another crucial component of the TME is the ILCs that have
currently no FDA-approved drugs or therapies that directly target characteristics similar to those of NK cells. ILCs share a common
MDSCs. lymphoid progenitor with B and T cells, but lack B- and T-cell
receptors and are thus classified as innate immune cells (57). ILCs
Natural killer cells and natural killer T cells contribute to T-cell polarization through antigen presentation
NK cells are circulatory, innate lymphoid cells recognized for and cytokine secretion (58). There are three types of ILCs (ILC1,
their cytotoxic effector functions. Classically, there are two subsets ILC2, and ILC3) classified on the basis of their production of Th1,
of NKs defined by their expression of CD16 and CD56 levels: Th2, and Th17-based cytokines and distinct transcription fac-
namely, CD56hi CD16
and CD56lo CD16hi (48). CD56hi CD16
tors. (59). ILC1s tend to exhibit antitumor functions through
NKs secrete inflammatory cytokines, whereas CD56lo CD16hi NKs cytokine production (mainly IFNg). Furthermore, ILC1s can be
specialize in cytotoxic functions and cell-mediated killing. Within divided into NK ILC1s and non-NK ILC1s based on their expres-

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

the cancer framework, these cells are extremely efficient in elim- sion or lack thereof of the NK-specific transcription factor, Eome-
inating malignant cells and limiting tumor metastases (49). Their sodermin. Importantly, NK ILCs can be distinguished from con-
significance in tumor surveillance is illustrated by a correlation ventional NKs by differences in transcriptional regulation, phe-
between low NK-cell activity and increased cancer risk (50). NKs notype, and localization as described by Seillet and collea-
employ death receptor–mediated apoptosis and perforin/gran- gues (60). While ILC2s can functionally either promote or
zyme-mediated cytotoxicity to target tumor cells and limit pri- antagonize tumor growth depending on the tumor type (Fig. 1),
mary tumor growth (51). While NKs characteristically destroy ILC3s are classically protumorigenic. ILC polarization is deter-
circulating tumor cells, they are much less efficient at cell killing mined by the composition of each specific TME (Table 1). As such,
within the TME. Tumors deploy many mechanisms to evade ILCs are differentially associated with different tumor types, likely
destruction by NKs, including coating themselves in collagen to because different tumor types have distinct TME compositions;
engage inhibitory NK receptors and utilizing platelets as a shield for example, ILC2s are typically found in the TME of breast and
to avoid NK detection (52). Within the TME, both NK subsets gastric cancer, ILC3s are implicated in colon cancer (61, 62), and
exhibit reduced inflammatory cytokine production and reduced ILC1s prevent melanoma growth through the production of
or no cytotoxicity and both subsets will be referred to collectively inflammatory cytokines (63, 64). ILC3s may differentiate into
as tumor-infiltrating natural killer cells (TINK). Many cytokines ILC1s upon IL12 stimulation, and ILC1s may differentiate into
commonly present in the TME diminish NK effector functions ILC3s upon stimulation by retinoic acid and IL23 (62). The
(Table 1). These cytokines can stunt the cytotoxicity of TINKs conversion of ILC1 to ILC3 stunts their ability to aggressively
(Fig. 1B), which not only display diminished cytotoxicity, but also target the tumor. This plasticity offers an attractive opportunity for
contribute to arresting the proliferation and expansion of T cells, therapeutically reprogramming ILC3s to ILC1s.
enhancing their immune-suppressive properties (these cells are
often referred to as NKregs as well). Future efforts for developing Immune cells and other components of the microenvironment
therapeutic approaches could consider augmentation of cytotoxic While the importance of direct interactions between tumor cells
NKs and/or targeting of TINKs. It is tempting to speculate that and immune cells is clear, it is also noteworthy to mention that
administration of NKs may enable a cancer-preventative immune cell interactions with other components in the TME can
approach, or at the very least, a metastasis-preventative approach impact tumor fate. For example, it has been reported that
as NKs are extremely efficient at targeting circulating cancer cells. the extracellular matrix can play both supportive and inhibitory
Also prevalent in the TME are natural killer T cells (NKT), which roles to the adaptive immune response by providing migratory
are CD1d restricted, innate-like T lymphocytes that, like T cells, pathways that allow T cells to invade the tissue or by directly
possess a T-cell receptor, and like NKs, respond quickly to anti- inhibiting T-cell proliferation, respectively (65). Also, lymphatic
genic exposure (53). Also, like T cells, overstimulation of NKTs vessels can regulate the immune microenvironment. Lymphatic
can render them anergic. There are two major types of NKTs, type 1 vessels have been linked to providing nutrients to tumors through
NKTs (NKTI) and type II (NKTII) cells, which are characterized by increased angiogenesis. They may also serve as migratory high-
their distinct T-cell repertoires. While NKTIs express the Va14Ja18 ways for immune cells (66), and lymphatic endothelial cells have
invariant TCR alpha chain, the T-cell repertoire of NKTIIs is less also been reported to directly regulate DC activation (67).
defined (54). Both types can be dissected into further subsets that Immune cells also interact with stromal cells, including cancer-
reflect the T-cell subsets that play inflammatory or immune- associated fibroblasts (CAF). CAFs exhibit wound-healing prop-
suppressive roles in the context of the TME. Specifically, NKTIs erties and have been implicated as contributors to tumor prolif-
can be divided into Th1-like, Th2-like, Th17-like, Treg-like, and T eration, invasion, and metastasis. CAFs may secrete immune-
follicular helper (TFH)-like NKTs; and NKTIIs can be divided into suppressive cytokines that polarize Mjs to the M2 phenotype
Th1-like and Th2-like NKTs. Furthermore, NKTs are reported to and contribute to CD8þ T-cell exhaustion and deletion (68).
switch back and forth between inflammatory and immune- These observations indicate a complex series of interactions
suppressive subsets in response to their environment. In partic- between immune cell types and nontumor cells within the TME
ular, NKTIs are typically antitumor, whereas NKTIIs are predom- that clearly impact tumor progression, invasion, and metastasis.
inantly protumor. NKTIs have been reported to prevent metastatic Therefore, not only should therapy designs consider tumor–

4562 Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 Cancer Research

 Innate Immunity in Cancer Progression and Metastasis

immune cell cross-talk and tumor–stromal cross-talk, but also back into the patient. This therapy has achieved significant success
stromal–immune cell cross-talk as it contributes significantly to marked by diminished tumor burden in patients with prostate
tumor development. cancer. A new DC vaccine targeting glioblastoma is DCVax-L that
includes autologous DCs loaded with glioblastoma tumor lysate.
Current and future therapeutics This vaccine has been tested in a phase III clinical trial for
The tumor masterfully controls its surrounding environment to glioblastoma, and overall patient survival was shown to increase
promote its establishment, growth, survival, and spread. One of by 6 months (80).
the chief ways it does this is through reprogramming innate Despite success with DC vaccinations, there are challenges
immune cells to foster tumor growth and survival, leaving the associated with them, including high cost, the absence of univer-
patient with a weakened defense and often a worse prognosis. This sal vaccine, the need for massive amounts of DCs, and issues with
is a potential Achilles heel of the tumor; as such, reprogramming polarizing conventional DCs in vitro. Previous attempts at DC
the innate immune system is a potentially important approach to vaccinations focused on moDCs that are rare and do not func-
improve patient outcomes. tionally resemble cross-presenting DCs in vivo (81). It is now
recognized that cDCs comprise the DC subtype that is most likely
Macrophage therapies to come into contact with cancer cells in the TME and mount the
Previous clinical trials targeting Mjs in the TME have been ensuing immune response. While cDCs are challenging to isolate,
unsuccessful. Many prior trials involved the activation a cDC vaccine for melanoma has been reported to elicit a cytotoxic

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

and injection of Mjs into patients with cancer using various T-cell response making them functionally more relevant (82).
activation methods such as IFNg, mifamurtide, and LPS, but Further work is required to standardize methods to effectively
none of these methods were therapeutically efficacious isolate cDCs for antigen loading and DC vaccination. A new
(69–71). There have been some promising clinical trials uti- focus for DC therapy involves directly targeting them in vivo.
lizing anti-M-CSFR antibodies. One such example includes the In vivo delivery of antibodies to cDC1 receptors conjugated to
administration of RG7155, an anti-M-CSFR antibody, to dif- tumor antigens results in better DC activity and a higher rate of
fuse-type giant cell tumor (Dt-GCT) patients. This strategy led primed T cells. This is expected to reduce treatment costs due to
to decreased TAM infiltration and overall positive patient the universality of the therapy and improve therapeutic effec-
responses (72). It is noteworthy that anti-M-CSFR antibodies tiveness because DCs in vivo are already at the tumor site (in
have yet to be successful in glioblastoma models, and there is contrast to direct tumor injections that are not always possible
still work to be done on this front. Ongoing clinical trials that or effective depending on tumor type). Combining this
target Mj receptor, CSF-1R, and the CCL2–CCR2 signaling axis approach with immune checkpoint inhibitor blockade therapy
ablate tumor-infiltrating Mjs and show promise in advanced will allow for rapid, effective T-cell priming without T-cell
solid tumors (73). Moreover, the efficacy of CSF-1R inhibition exhaustion.
is vastly improved when combined with receptor tyrosine
kinase inhibitors. In addition to targeting CSF-1R and the Neutrophil therapies
CCL2–CCR2 signaling axis, there are ongoing clinical trials There are ongoing efforts to target neutrophils in the TME.
targeting CXCL12/CXCR4, CD40, and angiopoietin1/2 (74). Preclinical models have yielded optimistic success in reducing
Treatment with IFNa has yielded favorable outcomes in neutrophil number by squelching G-MCSF from the TME. Repar-
patients with melanoma. IFNa promotes an inflammatory ixin is a noncompetitive allosteric inhibitor of CXCR1 and
environment, stimulates Mjs toward an M1 type, and has CXCR2 (83) and targets neutrophil maturation to inhibit the
been demonstrated to reduce tumor growth and diminish immunosuppressive impact of tumor-induced N2 neutrophils.
metastasis (75). Reparixin is currently in one phase I and two phase II clinical trials
for metastatic breast cancer. Targeting neutrophil polarization is
DC therapies another enticing therapeutic option through TGFb inhibi-
Targeting DC activation via DC vaccination is another thera- tors (84). While there are currently many clinical trials that use
peutic option. An important consideration in using DC vaccina- TGFb inhibitors, off-target effects, and cytotoxicity have been
tions as cancer treatment is the method of priming DCs with reported (85).
tumor antigen. Options including priming with whole tumor
cells, tumor cell lysate, apoptotic bodies, exosomes, or DNA or MDSC therapies
RNA need to be considered when designing an effective DC There are currently several ongoing clinical trials that target
vaccine (76–78). Thus far, whole-cell vaccines seem to be the MDSCs in different cancer types including leukemia, melanoma,
most promising. Several DC vaccination trials are currently ongo- glioblastoma, and breast cancer (86). These trials utilize different
ing (clinicaltrials.gov). One trial (NCT01204684) involves mechanisms of indirectly impacting MDSC function, including
enrichment of DCs from patients with glioma, pulsation with targeting Arg1, iNOS, and STAT3 activities, metabolism through
tumor lysate, and autologous intradermal injection. In their phase CD36, and trafficking through CXCR2 (86). MDSC depletion is
I clinical trial, Hus and colleagues primed DCs from patients with another tested avenue for cancer therapeutics. There has been
B-cell chronic lymphocytic lymphoma with tumor lysates and some success in triggering MDSC apoptosis with gemcitabine and
autologously vaccinated patients with these primed DCs (79). 5-fluorouracil, correlating with diminished tumor growth. Doc-
This strategy resulted in an increase in cytotoxic T-cell response. An etaxel, doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors
example of a successful DC-based therapy for prostate cancer is have also been demonstrated to reduce the numbers and effec-
Provenge. The regimen for Provenge therapy involves harvesting tiveness of MDSCs in the TME (86). There also are therapies
monocytes from prostate cancer patients, differentiating and targeting MDSCs in combination with immune checkpoint inhi-
activating them in vivo with PAP antigen, and introducing them bitors. A phase I/II clinical trial in patients with renal cell

www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 4563

 Hinshaw and Shevde

carcinoma using atezolizumab and a histone deacetylase inhib- Conclusion

itor shows promise (NCT03024437). Also, a phase II clinical trial
Each of the therapeutic approaches discussed in this review has
in patients with melanoma combines ipilimumab and ATRA,
focused on targeting one aspect of the immune system. While
which blocks retinoic acid signal transduction, leading to the
some of these treatments yield positive outcomes, a more defin-
differentiation of MDSCs into Mjs and DCs (NCT02403778).
itive and likely more effective approach involves altering multiple
ATRA alone also leads to a reduction of MDSC frequencies in
facets of the TME through a strong inflammatory response by
small-cell lung cancer (87, 88). While these trials show moderate
promoting the inflammatory innate immune cells. There are
yet encouraging success, off-target effects of these drugs may
multiple strategies that target immune-suppressive cells, but
contribute to diminished therapeutic efficacy.
unfortunately many of these responses are important for self-
tolerance mechanisms and aid in protection against autoimmu-
nity. Targeting immune-suppressive cells cannot focus on a global
NK-cell therapies
depletion of all innate cells in the TME as this could cause dire
Multiple enduring clinical trials aim to stimulate the
effects in the host. The solution must be an intricate combination
immune system with NK-cell therapy. For example, there is a
that involves selective inhibition or depletion of robust tumor-
phase I trial targeting advanced biliary tract cancer via alloge-
suppressive cytokines and cell types in addition to bolstering the
neic NK injection (NCT03358849). Yang and colleagues pio-
inflammatory phenotype of immune cells.
neered allogeneic NK-cell therapy by activating allogeneic NKs

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

with IL2, followed by administration to patients with advanced
lymphoma (89). The results revealed diminished T-reg and
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
L.A. Shevde is a consultant/advisory board member for NIH and CDMRP. No
MDSC populations and increased expression of NKG2D on potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other author.
cytotoxic T cells (90). NK-cell therapy in combination with
chemotherapy for small-cell lung cancer (NCT03410368) is Acknowledgments
also an effective strategy (91). Also, the use of CAR-NK cells, We acknowledge funding from the Department of Defense (W81XWH-14-1-
genetically engineered cells that directly target tumor-specific 0516 and W81XWH-18-1-0036), NCI R01CA169202, and The Breast Cancer
antigens in an HLA-unrestricted manner, has shown favorable Research Foundation of Alabama (BCRFA; to L.A. Shevde). We would also like
outcomes in preclinical studies for B-cell malignancies, ovarian, to acknowledge Will Jackson who contributed to figure development and
conceptualization of this work, Dr. Rajeev Samant, Dr. Ann Hanna, Brandon
breast, prostate, and colon cancers (92). All of these approaches Metge, and Sarah Bailey for editorial suggestions, and the UAB O'Neal Com-
have exhibited varying degrees of positive outcomes, but they prehensive Cancer Center (P30CA013148).
also are limited by toxicity and detrimental side effects, high
cost, and low efficacy (51, 93). In contrast, there have been few Received December 27, 2018; revised February 28, 2019; accepted May 21,
successful clinical trials for ILC therapy in cancer. 2019; published first July 26, 2019.

References
1. McGuirk P, Mills KH.Pathogen-specific regulatory T cells provoke a shift in stimulating factor-1/epidermal growth factor paracrine loop. Cancer Res
the Th1/Th2 paradigm in immunity to infectious diseases. 2005;65:5278–83.
Trends Immunol 2002;23:450–5. 12. Wyckoff J, Wang W, Lin EY, Wang Y, Pixley F, Stanley ER, et al. A paracrine
2. Yang L, Zhang Y. Tumor-associated macrophages: from basic research to loop between tumor cells and macrophages is required for tumor cell
clinical application. J Hematol Oncol 2017;10:58. migration in mammary tumors. Cancer Res 2004;64:7022–9.
3. Chen H, Shi R, Luo B, Yang X, Qiu L, Xiong J, et al. Macrophage 13. Funes SC, Rios M, Escobar-Vera J, Kalergis AM. Implications of mac-
peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma deficiency delays skin rophage polarization in autoimmunity. Immunology 2018;154:
wound healing through impairing apoptotic cell clearance in mice. 186–95.
Cell Death Dis 2015;6:e1597. 14. Zheng X, Turkowski K, Mora J, Br€ une B, Seeger W, Weigert A, et al.
4. Peiseler M, Kubes P.Macrophages play an essential role in trauma-induced Redirecting tumor-associated macrophages to become tumoricidal
sterile inflammation and tissue repair. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2018;44: effectors as a novel strategy for cancer therapy. Oncotarget 2017;8:
335–49. 48436–52.
5. Varol C, Mildner A, Jung S. Macrophages: development and tissue spe- 15. Petrova V, Annicchiarico-Petruzzelli M, Melino G, Ivano Amelio I. The
cialization. Annu Rev Immunol 2015;33:643–75. hypoxic tumour microenvironment. Oncogenesis 2018;7:10.
6. Qin L, Wu YL, Toneff MJ, Li D, Liao L, Gao X, et al. NCOA1 Directly Targets 16. Hanna A, Metge BJ, Bailey SK, Chen D, Chandrashekar DS, Varambally S,
M-CSF1 expression to promote breast cancer metastasis. Cancer Res 2014; et al. Inhibition of Hedgehog signaling reprograms the dysfunctional
74:3477–88. immune microenvironment in breast cancer. Oncoimmunology 2019;8:
7. Kim J, Bae JS.Tumor-associated macrophages and neutrophils in tumor 1548241.
microenvironment. Mediators Inflamm 2016;2016:6058147. 17. Peinado H, Zhang H, Matei IR, Costa-Silva B, Hoshino A, Rodrigues G,
8. Cardoso AP, Pinto ML, Pinto AT, Oliveira MI, Pinto MT, Gonçalves R, et al. et al. Pre-metastatic niches: organ-specific homes for metastases. Nat Rev
Macrophages stimulate gastric and colorectal cancer invasion through Cancer 2017;17:302–17.
EGFR Y(1086), c-Src, Erk1/2 and Akt phosphorylation and smallGTPase 18. Doak GR, Schwertfeger KL, Wood DK. Distant Relations: Macrophage
activity. Oncogene 2014;33:2123–33. Functions in the Metastatic Niche. Trends Cancer 2018;4:445–59.
9. Wang N, Liu W, Zheng Y, Wang S, Yang B, Li M, et al. CXCL1 derived from 19. Collin M, Bigley V. Human dendritic cell subsets: an update. Immunology
tumor-associated macrophages promotes breast cancer metastasis via 2018;154:3–20.
activating NF-kappaB/SOX4 signaling. Cell Death Dis 2018;9:880. 20. Motta JM, Rumjanek VM.Sensitivity of Dendritic Cells to Microenviron-
10. Zhao X, Qu J, Sun Y, Wang J, Liu X, Wang F, et al. Prognostic significance of ment Signals. J Immunol Res 2016;2016:4753607.
tumor-associated macrophages in breast cancer: a meta-analysis of the 21. Sumpter TL, Dangi A, Matta BM, Huang C, Stolz DB, Vodovotz Y, et al.
literature. Oncotarget 2017;8:30576–86. Hepatic stellate cells undermine the allostimulatory function of liver
11. Goswami S, Sahai E, Wyckoff JB, Cammer M, Cox D, Pixley FJ, et al. myeloid dendritic cells via STAT3-dependent induction of IDO.
Macrophages promote the invasion of breast carcinoma cells via a colony- J Immunol 2012;189:3848–58.

4564 Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 Cancer Research

 Innate Immunity in Cancer Progression and Metastasis

22. Basit F, Mathan T, Sancho D, de Vries IJM. Human dendritic cell subsets pressor cells in the tumor microenvironment. J Exp Med 2010;207:
undergo distinct metabolic reprogramming for immune response. 2439–53.
Front Immunol 2018;9:2489. 47. Hossain F, Al-Khami AA, Wyczechowska D, Hernandez C, Zheng L, Reiss
23. Fridlender ZG, Sun J, Kim S, Kapoor V, Cheng G, Ling L, et al. Polarization K, et al. Inhibition of fatty acid oxidation modulates immunosuppressive
of tumor-associated neutrophil phenotype by TGF-beta: "N1" versus functions of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and enhances cancer ther-
"N2" TAN. Cancer Cell 2009;16:183–94. apies. Cancer Immunol Res 2015;3:1236–47.
24. Chaput N, Conforti R, Viaud S, Spatz A, Zitvogel L. The Janus face of 48. Stabile H, Fionda C, Gismondi A, Santoni A. Role of distinct natural killer
dendritic cells in cancer. Oncogene 2008;27:5920–31. cell subsets in anticancer response. Front Immunol 2017;8:293.
25. Aspord C, Pedroza-Gonzalez A, Gallegos M, Tindle S, Burton EC, Su D, 49. Glasner A, Levi A, Enk J, Isaacson B, Viukov S, Orlanski S, et al. NKp46
et al. Breast cancer instructs dendritic cells to prime interleukin 13- receptor-mediated interferon-gamma production by natural killer cells
secreting CD4þ T cells that facilitate tumor development. J Exp Med increases fibronectin 1 to alter tumor architecture and control metastasis.
2007;204:1037–47. Immunity 2018;48:396–398.
26. Tran Janco JM, Lamichhane P, Karyampudi L, Knutson KL. Tumor- 50. Imai K, Matsuyama S, Miyake S, Suga K, Nakachi K. Natural cytotoxic
infiltrating dendritic cells in cancer pathogenesis. J Immunol 2015; activity of peripheral-blood lymphocytes and cancer incidence: an 11-
194:2985–91. year follow-up study of a general population. Lancet 2000;356:
27. Michea P, No€el F, Zakine E, Czerwinska U, Sirven P, Abouzid O, et al. 1795–9.
Adjustment of dendritic cells to the breast-cancer microenvironment is 51. Langers I, Renoux VM, Thiry M, Delvenne P, Jacobs N, et al. Natural
subset specific. Nat Immunol 2018;19:885–97. killer cells: role in local tumor growth and metastasis. Biologics 2012;
28. Wang J, Jia Y, Wang N, Zhang X, Tan B, Zhang G, et al. The clinical 6:73–82.
significance of tumor-infiltrating neutrophils and neutrophil-to-CD8þ 52. Maurer S, Kropp KN, Klein G, Steinle A, Haen SP, Walz JS, et al. Platelet-

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

lymphocyte ratio in patients with resectable esophageal squamous cell mediated shedding of NKG2D ligands impairs NK cell immune-
carcinoma. J Transl Med 2014;12:7. surveillance of tumor cells. Oncoimmunology 2018;7:e1364827.
29. Deniset JF, Kubes P.Recent advances in understanding neutrophils. 53. Nair S, Dhodapkar MV.Natural killer T cells in cancer immunotherapy.
F1000Res 2016;5:2912. Front Immunol 2017;8:1178.
30. Uribe-Querol E, Rosales C.Neutrophils in cancer: two sides of the same 54. Krijgsman D, Hokland M, Kuppen PJK. The role of natural killer T cells in
coin. J Immunol Res 2015;2015:983698. cancer-a phenotypical and functional approach. Front Immunol 2018;9:
31. Cools-Lartigue J, Spicer J, Najmeh S, Ferri L. Neutrophil extracellular traps 367.
in cancer progression. Cell Mol Life Sci 2014;71:4179–94. 55. Gebremeskel S, Clattenburg DR, Slauenwhite D, Lobert L, Johnston B.
32. Jin W, Xu HX, Zhang SR, Li H, Wang WQ, Gao HL, et al. Tumor-infiltrating Natural killer T cell activation overcomes immunosuppression to enhance
NETs predict postsurgical survival in patients with pancreatic ductal clearance of postsurgical breast cancer metastasis in mice. Oncoimmu-
adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2018;26:635–43. nology 2015;4:e995562.
33. Fridlender ZG, Albelda SM. Tumor-associated neutrophils: friend or foe? 56. Renukaradhya GJ, Khan MA, Vieira M, Du W, Gervay-Hague J, Brutkiewicz
Carcinogenesis 2012;33:949–55. RR. Type I NKT cells protect (and type II NKT cells suppress) the host's
34. Demers M, Wong SL, Martinod K, Gallant M, Cabral JE, Wang Y, et al. innate antitumor immune response to a B-cell lymphoma. Blood 2008;
Priming of neutrophils toward NETosis promotes tumor growth. 111:5637–45.
Oncoimmunology 2016;5:e1134073. 57. Flores-Borja F, Irshad S, Gordon P, Wong F, Sheriff I, Tutt A, et al. Crosstalk
35. He M, Peng A, Huang XZ, Shi DC, Wang JC, Zhao Q, et al. Peritumoral between innate lymphoid cells and other immune cells in the tumor
stromal neutrophils are essential for c-Met-elicited metastasis in human microenvironment. J Immunol Res 2016;2016:7803091.
hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncoimmunology 2016;5:e1219828. 58. von Burg N, Chappaz S, Baerenwaldt A, Horvath E, Bose Dasgupta S,
36. Schauer C, Janko C, Munoz LE, Zhao Y, Kienh€ ofer D, Frey B, et al. Ashok D, et al. Activated group 3 innate lymphoid cells promote T-cell-
Aggregated neutrophil extracellular traps limit inflammation by degrad- mediated immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014;111:
ing cytokines and chemokines. Nat Med 2014;20:511–7. 12835–40.
37. Pillay J, Tak T, Kamp VM, Koenderman L. Immune suppression by 59. Kyoizumi S, Kubo Y, Kajimura J, Yoshida K, Hayashi T, Nakachi K, et al.
neutrophils and granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells: similar- Fate decision between group 3 innate lymphoid and conventional nk cell
ities and differences. Cell Mol Life Sci 2013;70:3813–27. lineages by Notch signaling in human circulating hematopoietic pro-
38. Gabrilovich DI, Nagaraj S.Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators genitors. J Immunol 2017;199:2777–93.
of the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 2009;9:162–74. 60. Seillet C, Belz GT, Huntington ND. Development, homeostasis, and
39. Rodriguez PC, Ernstoff MS, Hernandez C, Atkins M, Zabaleta J, Sierra R, heterogeneity of NK cells and ILC1. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol
et al. Arginase I-producing myeloid-derived suppressor cells in renal cell 2016;395:37–61.
carcinoma are a subpopulation of activated granulocytes. Cancer Res 61. Jovanovic IP, Pejnovic NN, Radosavljevic GD, Pantic JM, Milovanovic
2009;69:1553–60. MZ, Arsenijevic NN, et al. Interleukin-33/ST2 axis promotes breast cancer
40. Youn JI, Collazo M, Shalova IN, Biswas SK, Gabrilovich DI. Character- growth and metastases by facilitating intratumoral accumulation of
ization of the nature of granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells in immunosuppressive and innate lymphoid cells. Int J Cancer 2014;134:
tumor-bearing mice. J Leukoc Biol 2012;91:167–81. 1669–82.
41. Gabrilovich DI,Ostrand-Rosenberg S., Bronte V.Coordinated regulation 62. van Beek JJP, Martens AWJ, Bakdash G, de Vries IJM. Innate
of myeloid cells by tumours. Nat Rev Immunol 2012;12:253–68. lymphoid cells in tumor immunity. Biomedicines 2016;4. doi:
42. Bronte V, Brandau S, Chen SH, Colombo MP, Frey AB, Greten TF, et al. 10.3390/biomedicines4010007.
Recommendations for myeloid-derived suppressor cell nomenclature 63. Fuchs A, Vermi W, Lee JS, Lonardi S, Gilfillan S, Newberry RD, et al.
and characterization standards. Nat Commun 2016;7:12150. Intraepithelial type 1 innate lymphoid cells are a unique subset of IL-12-
43. Kumar V, Patel S, Tcyganov E, Gabrilovich DI. The nature of myeloid- and IL-15-responsive IFN-gamma-producing cells. Immunity 2013;38:
derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment. Trends 769–81.
Immunol 2016;37:208–20. 64. Mattner J, Wirtz S.Friend or foe? The ambiguous role of innate lymphoid
44. Condamine T, Ramachandran I, Youn JI, Gabrilovich DI. Regulation of cells in cancer development. Trends Immunol 2017;38:29–38.
tumor metastasis by myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Annu Rev Med 65. Pickup MW, Mouw JK, Weaver VM. The extracellular matrix modulates the
2015;66:97–110. hallmarks of cancer. EMBO Rep 2014;15:1243–53.
45. Condamine T, Dominguez GA, Youn JI, Kossenkov AV, Mony S, Alicea- 66. Lund AW, Wagner M, Fankhauser M, Steinskog ES, Broggi MA,
Torres K, et al. Lectin-type oxidized LDL receptor-1 distinguishes popu- Spranger S, et al. Lymphatic vessels regulate immune microenviron-
lation of human polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells in ments in human and murine melanoma. J Clin Invest 2016;126:
cancer patients. Sci Immunol 2016;1:aaf8943. 3389–402.
46. Corzo CA, Condamine T, Lu L, Cotter MJ, Youn JI, Cheng P, et al. HIF- 67. Podgrabinska S, Kamalu O, Mayer L, Shimaoka M, Snoeck H, Randolph
1alpha regulates function and differentiation of myeloid-derived sup- GJ, et al. Inflamed lymphatic endothelium suppresses dendritic cell

www.aacrjournals.org Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 4565

 Hinshaw and Shevde

maturation and function via Mac-1/ICAM-1-dependent mechanism. 84. Colak S,Ten Dijke P.Targeting TGF-beta signaling in cancer. Trends Cancer
J Immunol 2009;183:1767–79. 2017;3:56–71.
68. Lakins MA, Ghorani E, Munir H, Martins CP, Shields JD. Cancer- 85. Connolly EC, Freimuth J, Akhurst RJ. Complexities of TGF-beta targeted
associated fibroblasts induce antigen-specific deletion of CD8 (þ) T cells cancer therapy. Int J Biol Sci 2012;8:964–78.
to protect tumour cells. Nat Commun 2018;9:948. 86. Fleming V, Hu X, Weber R, Nagibin V, Groth C, Altevogt P, et al. Targeting
69. Faradji A, Bohbot A, Frost H, Schmitt-Goguel M, Siffert JC, Dufour P, et al. myeloid-derived suppressor cells to bypass tumor-induced immunosup-
Phase I study of liposomal MTP-PE-activated autologous monocytes pression. Front Immunol 2018;9:398.
administered intraperitoneally to patients with peritoneal carcinomato- 87. Iclozan C, Antonia S, Chiappori A, Chen DT, Gabrilovich D. Therapeutic
sis. J Clin Oncol 1991;9:1251–60. regulation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and immune response to
70. Hennemann B, Beckmann G, Eichelmann A, Rehm A, Andreesen R. Phase cancer vaccine in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer.
I trial of adoptive immunotherapy of cancer patients using monocyte- Cancer Immunol Immunother 2013;62:909–18.
derived macrophages activated with interferon gamma and lipopolysac- 88. Weber R, Fleming V, Hu X, Nagibin V, Groth C, Altevogt P, et al. Myeloid-
charide. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1998;45:250–6. derived suppressor cells hinder the anti-cancer activity of immune check-
71. Stevenson HC, Keenan AM, Woodhouse C, Ottow RT, Miller P, Steller EP, point inhibitors. Front Immunol 2018;9:1310.
et al. Fate of gamma-interferon-activated killer blood monocytes adop- 89. Yang Y, Lim O, Kim TM, Ahn YO, Choi H, Chung H, et al. Phase I Study
tively transferred into the abdominal cavity of patients with peritoneal of random healthy donor-derived allogeneic natural killer cell therapy
carcinomatosis. Cancer Res 1987;47:6100–3. in patients with malignant lymphoma or advanced solid tumors.
72. Ries CH, Cannarile MA, Hoves S, Benz J, Wartha K, Runza V, et al. Cancer Immunol Res 2016;4:215–24.
Targeting tumor-associated macrophages with anti-CSF-1R antibody 90. Veluchamy JP, Kok N, van der Vliet HJ, Verheul HMW, de Gruijl TD,
reveals a strategy for cancer therapy. Cancer Cell 2014;25:846–59. Spanholtz J. The rise of allogeneic natural killer cells as a platform for

Downloaded from http://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article-pdf/79/18/4557/2785583/4557.pdf by guest on 23 April 2025

73. Ostuni R, Kratochvill F, Murray PJ, Natoli G. Macrophages and cancer: cancer immunotherapy: recent innovations and future developments.
from mechanisms to therapeutic implications. Trends Immunol 2015;36: Front Immunol 2017;8:631.
229–39. 91. Tang X, Yang L, Li Z, Nalin AP, Dai H, Xu T, et al. First-in-man clinical trial
74. Quail DF, Joyce JA. Molecular pathways: deciphering mechanisms of of CAR NK-92 cells: safety test of CD33-CAR NK-92 cells in patients with
resistance to macrophage-targeted therapies. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23: relapsed and refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Cancer Res 2018;8:
876–884. 1083–9.
75. De Palma M, Mazzieri R, Politi LS, Pucci F, Zonari E, Sitia G, et al. Tumor- 92. Rezvani K, Rouce R, Liu E, Shpall E. Engineering natural killer cells for
targeted interferon-alpha delivery by Tie2-expressing monocytes inhibits cancer immunotherapy. Mol Ther 2017;25:1769–81.
tumor growth and metastasis. Cancer Cell 2008;14:299–311. 93. Bolourian A, Mojtahedi Z.Possible damage to immune-privileged sites in
76. Boczkowski D, Nair SK, Snyder D, Gilboa E. Dendritic cells pulsed with natural killer cell therapy in cancer patients: side effects of natural killer
RNA are potent antigen-presenting cells in vitro and in vivo. J Exp Med cell therapy. Immunotherapy 2017;9:281–288.
1996;184:465–72. 94. Roszer TUnderstanding the mysterious M2 macrophage through activa-
77. Cao J, Jin Y, Li W, Zhang B, He Y, Liu H, et al. DNA vaccines targeting the tion markers and effector mechanisms. Mediators Inflamm 2015;2015:
encoded antigens to dendritic cells induce potent antitumor immunity in 816460.
mice. BMC Immunol 2013;14:39. 95. Steinman RM, Hawiger D, Nussenzweig MC. Tolerogenic dendritic cells.
78. Hamilton DH, Litzinger MT, Jales A, Huang B, Fernando RI, Hodge JW, Annu Rev Immunol 2003;21:685–711.
et al. Immunological targeting of tumor cells undergoing an epithelial- 96. Ma DY, Clark EA.The role of CD40 and CD154/CD40L in dendritic cells.
mesenchymal transition via a recombinant brachyury-yeast vaccine. Semin Immunol 2009;21:265–72.
Oncotarget 2013;4:1777–90. 97. Conejo-Garcia JR, Rutkowski MR, Cubillos-Ruiz JR. State-of-the-art
79. Hus I, Rolinski J, Tabarkiewicz J, Wojas K, Bojarska-Junak A, Greiner J, of regulatory dendritic cells in cancer. Pharmacol Ther 2016;164:
et al. Allogeneic dendritic cells pulsed with tumor lysates or apoptotic 97–104.
bodies as immunotherapy for patients with early-stage B-cell chronic 98. Guilliams M, Dutertre CA, Scott CL, McGovern N, Sichien D, Chakarov S,
lymphocytic leukemia. Leukemia 2005;19:1621–7. et al. Unsupervised high-dimensional analysis aligns dendritic cells across
80. van Willigen WW, Bloemendal M, Gerritsen WR, Schreibelt G, de Vries tissues and species. Immunity 2016;45:669–684.
IJM, Bol KF. Dendritic cell cancer therapy: vaccinating the right patient at 99. Collin M, McGovern N, Haniffa M. Human dendritic cell subsets. Immu-
the right time. Front Immunol 2018;9:2265. nology 2013;140:22–30.
81. Saxena M, Bhardwaj N.Re-emergence of dendritic cell vaccines for cancer 100. Chen K, Wang JM, Yuan R, Yi X, Li L, Gong W, et al. Tissue-resident
treatment. Trends Cancer 2018;4:119–137. dendritic cells and diseases involving dendritic cell malfunction.
82. Lesterhuis WJ, Aarntzen EH, De Vries IJ, Schuurhuis DH, Figdor CG, Int Immunopharmacol 2016;34:1–15.
Adema GJ, et al. Dendritic cell vaccines in melanoma: from promise to 101. Gueguen C, Bouley J, Moussu H, Luce S, Duchateau M, Chamot-Rooke J,
proof? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008;66:118–34. et al. Changes in markers associated with dendritic cells driving the
83. Ocana A, Nieto-Jimenez C, Pandiella A, Templeton AJ. Neutrophils in differentiation of either TH2 cells or regulatory T cells correlate with
cancer: prognostic role and therapeutic strategies. Mol Cancer 2017;16: clinical benefit during allergen immunotherapy. J Allergy Clin Immunol
137. 2016;137:545–58.

4566 Cancer Res; 79(18) September 15, 2019 Cancer Research