Usage Information
Abstract
Targeting tumor-associated blood vessels to increase immune infiltration may enhance treatment effectiveness, yet limited data exist regarding anti-angiogenesis effects on the tumor microenvironment (TME). We hypothesized that dual targeting of angiogenesis with immune checkpoints would improve both intracranial and extracranial disease. We used subcutaneous and left ventricle melanoma models to evaluate anti–PD-1/anti-VEGF and anti–PD-1/lenvatinib (pan-VEGFR inhibitor) combinations. Cytokine/chemokine profiling and flow cytometry were performed to assess signaling and immune-infiltrating populations. An in vitro blood-brain barrier (BBB) model was utilized to study intracranial treatment effects on endothelial integrity and leukocyte transmigration. Anti–PD-1 with either anti-VEGF or lenvatinib improved survival and decreased tumor growth in systemic melanoma murine models; treatment increased Th1 cytokine/chemokine signaling. Lenvatinib decreased tumor-associated macrophages but increased plasmacytoid DCs early in treatment; this effect was not evident with anti-VEGF. Both lenvatinib and anti-VEGF resulted in decreased intratumoral blood vessels. Although anti-VEGF promoted endothelial stabilization in an in vitro BBB model, while lenvatinib did not, both regimens enabled leukocyte transmigration. The combined targeting of PD-1 and VEGF or its receptors promotes enhanced melanoma antitumor activity, yet their effects on the TME are quite different. These studies provide insights into dual anti–PD-1 and anti-angiogenesis combinations.
Authors
Thuy T. Tran, Jasmine Caulfield, Lin Zhang, David Schoenfeld, Dijana Djureinovic, Veronica L. Chiang, Victor Oria, Sarah A. Weiss, Kelly Olino, Lucia B. Jilaveanu, Harriet M. Kluger
Usage data is cumulative from January 2025 through January 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,498 | 467 |
| 211 | 80 | |
| Figure | 584 | 3 |
| Supplemental data | 88 | 33 |
| Citation downloads | 81 | 0 |
| Totals | 2,462 | 583 |
| Total Views | 3,045 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
