Skip to main content
Download PDF

Concomitant medication of cetirizine in advanced melanoma could enhance anti-PD-1 efficacy by promoting M1 macrophages polarization

Journal of Translational Medicine volume 20, Article number: 436 (2022) Cite this article

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

The clinical observation showed a potential additive effect of anti-PD-1 agents and cetirizine in patients with advanced melanoma.

Methods

Clinical outcomes of concomitant cetirizine/anti-PD-1 treatment of patients with stage IIIb–IV melanoma were retrospectively collected, and a transcriptomic analysis was performed on blood samples obtained at baseline and after 3 months of treatment.

Results

Patients treated with cetirizine concomitantly with an anti-PD-1 agent had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS; mean PFS: 28 vs 15 months, HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28–0.76; p = 0.0023) and OS (mean OS was 36 vs 23 months, HR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29–0.78; p = 0.0032) in comparison with those not receiving cetirizine. The concomitant treatment was significantly associated with ORR and DCR (p < 0.05). The expression of FCGR1A/CD64, a specific marker of macrophages, was increased after the treatment in comparison with baseline in blood samples from patients receiving cetirizine, but not in those receiving only the anti-PD1, and positively correlated with the expression of genes linked to the interferon pathway such as CCL8 (rho = 0.32; p = 0.0111), IFIT1 (rho = 0.29; p = 0.0229), IFIT3 (rho = 0.57; p < 0.0001), IFI27 (rho = 0.42; p = 0.008), MX1 (rho = 0.26; p = 0.0383) and RSAD2 (rho = 0.43; p = 0.0005).

Conclusions

This retrospective study suggests that M1 macrophage polarization may be induced by cetirizine through the interferon-gamma pathway. This effect may synergize with the immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with anti-PD-1 agents.

Key messages

What is already known on this topic—Macrophage-based immunotherapy has been developed in the last decade as a novel strategy based on the modulation of this population in the tumor microenvironment, and molecular mechanisms required to induce the tumoricidal polarization of TAMs could be of therapeutic relevance.

What this study adds—M1 macrophage polarization may be induced by cetirizine and that this effect may synergize with. The immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with anti-PD-1 agents.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy—patients with advanced melanoma may have better outcomes if immunotherapy with anti PD-1 was associated with cetirizine.

Background

The availability of immune checkpoint inhibitors, specifically anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 agents, has radically changed the prognosis of patients with advanced melanoma. Indeed, PD-1 inhibitors are currently considered the standard of care as adjuvant therapy in high-risk resected stage III or IV melanoma, and tumor regression and long-term durable cancer control are possible in a high proportion of patients, compared with < 10% before the introduction of immunotherapy [3, 14]. Compared with monotherapies, even higher response rates and longer survival were obtained with the combination of anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1. The median OS was 72.1 months with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab, with a 57% OS rate at 6.5 years in patients with BRAF-mutant tumors and 46% in those with BRAF wild-type tumors [19]. Nevertheless, unmet needs still exist with many patients who do not profit from the current standard of care. Therefore, further treatment strategies are necessary to address primary or acquired resistance to treatments. In recent years, non-oncology drugs are gaining mounting attention for their potential anti-cancer activities, pending a mechanistic rationale for their use exists [15, 17, 21]. Beta adrenergic blocking drugs were found to have potential synergy with anti-PD1 agents [5].

Macrophage-based immunotherapy has been developed in the last decade as a novel strategy based on the modulation of this population in the tumor microenvironment [2, 13, 18]. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) have a role in tumor development, chemoresistance, immune evasion and metastasis [2]. TAMs are known to either promote or suppress tumor growth depending on their activation status, and macrophages with killing or antitumor activity are indicated as M1 (or classically activated). In contrast, tumor-promoting or -healing macrophages are named M2 (or alternatively activated) (Mosser 2008) [11]. The depletion of TAMs has been mainly investigated as a therapeutic strategy, aiming at counteracting the tumor growth promotion of M2 TAMs [13], but some studies aimed at reprogramming TAMs toward a tumoricidal M1 phenotype (Beatty 2011; Kaneda 2016; Guerriero 2017) [11]. Indeed, molecular mechanisms required to induce the tumoricidal polarization of TAMs could be of therapeutic relevance. IFN-γ, previously identified as macrophage-activating factor (MAF), has a major role in regulating macrophage activity toward a tumoricidal activity. However, its interactions with second signals in the tumor microenvironment, such as cytokines and killed bacteria, are not completely clarified [1, 10, 11]. IFN-γ production was found to be significantly increased following 4 weeks of therapy with cetirizine, one of the most commonly used antihistamines for treating allergic diseases. In addition, cetirizine induced a shift in the Th1/Th2 cytokine balance toward a Th1 type response by increasing IFN-γ production [16]. In mice, antihistamine treatment delayed colorectal cancer development and enhanced immune response induced by cytokines [9]. Based on this evidence, it is possible to speculate that concomitant use of cetirizine with anti-PD-1 agents could promote tumoricidal polarization of TAMs and thus enhance immunotherapy efficacy.

This study aims to better understand the mechanisms involved in the activation of macrophages towards an antitumor M1 phenotype in patients with advanced melanoma, based on the clinical observation of a potential additive effect of anti-PD-1 agents and cetirizine.

Patients and methods

Study design

A retrospective study was carried out in the Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – Fondazione "G. Pascale," Naples, Italy, upon communication to the local Ethical Committee [protocol n.17/17 oss]. The study was performed in accordance with the revised version of the declaration of Helsinki (52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000).

Consecutive adult patients with metastatic melanoma at unresectable stage IIIb–IV and histologically confirmed, treated with an anti-PD-1 agent, either in the first line or pretreated with ipilimumab,, aged over 18 years were enrolled between July 2014 and July 2018. Concurrent use of cetirizine was retrospectively ascertained. All patients provided their written informed consent.

Evaluation of outcomes

RECIST 1.1 criteria were used to evaluate the tumor response as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD). The following parameters were recorded: concurrent use of cetirizine, response rate at first assessment, progression-free survival (PFS; defined as the time from the administration of the first dose of anti-PD-1 agent to documented radiological progression, death or lost to follow-up, whichever occurred first), overall survival (OS; defined as the time from the administration of the first dose of anti-PD-1 agent to death or lost-to-follow-up, whichever occurred first), disease control rate (DCR; defined as the sum of CR, PR, and SD > 1 year), objective response rate (ORR; defined as the sum of CR and PR), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), history of allergy, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) distant metastases category (M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level.

Transcriptomic analysis

To conduct a gene profile analysis, blood samples from enrolled patients were collected at baseline and after 3 months of treatment (concurrently with the first assessment) with an anti-PD-1 agent or at discontinuation if occurring before 3 months. RNA from whole blood was extracted using RNA blood mini-Kit (Qiagen). Purified RNA was used for hybridization and subjected to gene profiling analysis on NanoString nCounter through PanCancer IO 360 panel, characterized by 770 human genes involved in the interplay between tumor microenvironment and immune response. Gene data were normalized using nSolver Version 4.0 Software; NanoString. Counts were normalized to External RNA Controls Consortium (ERCC) technical controls and 30 housekeeping genes.

Statistical analysis

Demographic and clinical data were tabulated using descriptive statistics. PFS was calculated from the start of treatment with anti-PD-1 to the evidence of progressive disease or death, whichever occurs first; OS was calculated from the start of treatment with anti-PD-1 to death or censored at the last follow-up. Survival times were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences among curves were assessed by the log-rank test. Using a Cox regression model, hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% CIs were estimated. Spearman's rho analysis and χ2 log test were used to evaluate the association of variables.

Results

Patients' characteristics and outcomes

Overall, 121 patients were enrolled, of whom 53 (43.8%) were females, with a median age of 63 years (range: 27–91 years). The stage according to the AJCC VII classification was IV in 115 (95%) patients, IIIC in 5 (4.2%), and IIIB in 1 (0.8%). Baseline characteristics are reported in Table 1. Radiotherapy had not been used in any patient.

Table 1 Patients' characteristics at baseline
Full size table

In all patients who had received it, cetirizine had been used as a premedication on the day of immunotherapy (10 mg once); only 9 patients were allergic (Table 1). The patients who had not received cetirizine had not been administered any other antihistamine in the previous month. Cetirizine treatment was used concomitantly with anti-PD-1 in 71/121 patients, in 49/88 patients naïve to checkpoint inhibitors (named naïve thereafter), and in 22/33 patients pretreated with ipilimumab (named pretreated thereafter). The two groups, with and without cetirizine, were balanced for oncologic risk factors (Table 2). At baseline, the extent of disease was similar in the two groups of patients: 94.4% patients treated with cetirizine and 94% not treated were at stage IV, 4.2% and 4% respectively were stage IIIC, 1.4% and 2% respectively were at stage IIIB; 19.7% and 28% respectively had CSN metastases.

Table 2 Univariate and multivariate analysis of oncologic risk factors in patients who had received cetirizine and in those who had not received it
Full size table

PFS was significantly longer in patients treated with cetirizine in comparison with those not receiving cetirizine within the total study population (mean PFS was 28 vs 15 months, HR 0.47, 95% CI: 0.29–0.76; p = 0.0023), and within naïve patients (30 vs 15 months, HR 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23–0.72; p = 0.0021) (Fig. 1A, B). No significant difference in PFS was found for pretreated patients, whether receiving cetirizine or not.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Progression-free survival in A the overall study population and B naïve patients, either receiving cetirizine or not

Full size image

A significantly longer OS was reported for patients receiving cetirizine concomitantly with the anti-PD-1 agent in comparison with those not receiving cetirizine, within the whole study population (mean OS was 36 vs 23 months, HR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29–0.78; p = 0.0032), and within the naïve group (mean OS was 40 vs 22 months, HR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.20–0.67; p = 0.001) (Fig. 2A, B). OS was not significantly different in pretreated patients either with or without cetirizine.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Overall survival in A the overall study population and B naïve patients, either receiving cetirizine or not

Full size image

The administration of cetirizine concomitantly with the anti-PD-1 agent was significantly associated with ORR and DCR in the overall study population and the naïve population (both variables for both groups, p < 0.05), but not in the pretreated population.

Transcriptomic analysis

Overall, blood samples were obtained from the same 120 patients before and after immunotherapy. Overall, 210 blood samples were obtained for the transcriptomic analysis. At baseline, 49 samples were gathered from patients receiving only the anti-PD-1 agent (10 pretreated and 39 naïve), and 67 from patients receiving cetirizine concomitantly with the anti-PD-1 agent (18 pretreated and 49 naïve). After 3 months of treatment with an anti-PD-1 agent or at discontinuation, 34 samples were obtained from subjects not receiving cetirizine (9 pretreated and 25 naïve) and 60 from subjects receiving cetirizine (18 pretreated and 42 naïve).

The gene expression of the high-affinity immunoglobulin gamma Fc receptor I (FCGR1A/CD64), C–C motif chemokine 8 (CCL8), interferon-induced antiviral RNA-binding protein (IFIT1), IFN-induced antiviral protein (IFIT3), and interferon-inducible antiviral protein (RSAD2) was increased after the treatment in comparison with baseline in the overall study population receiving cetirizine (Fig. 3A), and in naïve patients receiving cetirizine (Fig. 3B). In contrast, it was not increased in patients pretreated with ipilimumab and receiving cetirizine (Fig. 3C) and in patients not receiving cetirizine (Fig. 3D). Gene expression was unchanged after treatment also in patients who did not receive cetirizine even if naïve to checkpoint inhibitors (Fig. 3E). Genes expressed in samples from patients receiving cetirizine and those not receiving it are described in Fig. 4 and in Additional file 1: Table S1.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Transcritomic analysis of samples obtained at baseline and after treatment with anti-PD-1 agent. A all patients receiving concomitant cetirizine; B naïve patients receiving concomitant cetirizine; C patients pretreated with anti-CTLA4 agent and receiving concomitant cetirizine; D all patients not receiving cetirizine; E naïve patients not receiving cetirizine. p values are reported on the Y axis; values reported over the orizontal dotted line are significant

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Heatmap representation of analysis on patients who had received cetirizine (A) and those who had not received it (B)

Full size image

Finally, it was found that the expression of FCGR1A positively correlated with the expression of genes linked to the interferon pathway, such as CCL8 (rho = 0.32; p = 0.0111), IFIT1 (rho = 0.29; p = 0.0229), IFIT3 (rho = 0.57; p < 0.0001), IFI27 (rho = 0.42; p = 0.008), MX1 (rho = 0.26; p = 0.0383) and RSAD2 (rho = 0.43; p = 0.0005).

Discussion

In this retrospective study on 121 patients with histologically confirmed metastatic melanoma at stage IIIb–IV, we found that using cetirizine in concomitance with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy was associated with improved PFS, OS, ORR and DCR in subjects naïve to checkpoint inhibitors. Our results are in agreement with findings published by Li et al. (2022); we cannot compare the role of histamine levels as this data is not available, yet, and will be assessed later to further explore the subject. In addition, the transcriptomic analysis showed that patients receiving cetirizine and naïve to anti-PD-1 had a different gene expression after the immunotherapy compared to baseline. Overall, our observations suggest that concomitant cetirizine therapy may enhance the efficacy of anti-PD-1 agents, through the IFN-γ pathway promoting the M1 polarization of TAMs. We had no rationale for selecting cetirizine as a possible promoter of tumoricidal TAM polarization excepting our clinical observation of benefits in treated patients. Our results remain a provoking issue, with many open questions.

FCGR1A/CD64 binds the FC portion of IgG with high affinity and functions during early immune responses. It is constitutively found only on macrophages and monocytes and is a specific marker of M1 macrophages (UniProt https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P12314). CCL8 is a chemotactic factor that attracts monocytes, and it is involved in cellular responses to IFN-γ (UniProt https://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P80075), as well as IFIT1, IFIT3, and RSAD2. FCGR1A/CD64 expression was increased after the treatment period, suggesting a polarization of TAMs to the M1 phenotype. Activation of the IFN-γ pathway was associated, as shown by the increased expression of CCL8, IFIT1, IFIT3, RSAD2, IFI27, MX1 in our samples.

It is possible that the M1 polarization of macrophages is a mechanism responsible for the improved outcomes of immunotherapy in the subjects receiving concomitant cetirizine. Cetirizine is known to have an antihistamine activity and anti-inflammatory effects and enhance the production of IFN-gamma by peripheral blood monocytes [16]. Although this is a retrospective study, our clinical observation of a correlation between improved outcomes and concomitant cetirizine stands for a favorable drug interaction where increased macrophage killing phenotype in the tumor microenvironment has a beneficial effect potentiating the immunotherapy. Indeed, the expression of CCL8, IFIT1, IFIT3, IFI27, MX1, and RSAD2 has previously been considered favorably prognostic in several types of cancer [4, 6, 8, 20].

On the contrary, we observed that the outcomes of treatment with anti-PD-1 in subjects previously treated with ipilimumab were not different in those receiving cetirizine and in those not receiving it. In pretreated patients, we could not demonstrate a change in the expression of FCGR1A/CD64 and genes involved in the IFN-γ pathway after the treatment period. It is possible that this result is only due to the low sample size. We can also speculate that a very aggressive tumor environment, such as in the presence of secondary resistance, may induce further mechanisms of resistance, which would block the activity of cetirizine on macrophages, along with a block of the antitumor effect of immunotherapy. Anyway, further investigation is necessary for interpretation.

In conclusion, this retrospective study suggests that M1 macrophage polarization may be induced by cetirizine and that this effect may synergize with the immunotherapy of advanced melanoma with anti-PD-1 agents.

Availability of data and materials

The samples were collected from July 2014 to June 2018. Data related to this article are available from the corresponding author, upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Data accessibility

Data and material have been deposited and are publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6340437.

Change history

  • 19 May 2023

    Missing accessibility link in the backmatter.

Abbreviations

CCL8 :

C–C motif chemokine 8

CR:

Complete response

DCR:

Disease control rate

FCGR1A/CD64 :

High-affinity immunoglobulin gamma Fc receptor I

IFIT1 :

Interferon-induced antiviral RNA-binding protein

MAF:

Macrophage-activating factor

OS:

Overall survival

PD:

Progressive disease

PFS:

Progression-free survival

PR:

Partial response

RSAD2 :

Interferon-inducible antiviral protein

SD:

Stable disease

TAM:

Tumor-associated macrophages

References

  1. Banete A, Barilo J, Whittaker R, Basta S. The activated macrophage - a tough fortress for virus invasion: how viruses strike back. Front Microbiol. 2022;12: 803427. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.803427.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Baradaran A, Asadzadeh Z, Hemmat N, Baghbanzadeh A, Shadbad MA, Khosravi N, Derakhshani A, Alemohammad H, Afrashteh Nour M, Safarpour H, et al. The cross-talk between tumor-associated macrophages and tumor endothelium: recent advances in macrophage-based cancer immunotherapy. Biomed Pharmacother. 2022;146: 112588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112588.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carlino MS, Larkin J, Long GV. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in melanoma. Lancet. 2021;398(10304):1002–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)01206-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jiang YZ, Liu YR, Xu XE, Jin X, Hu X, Yu KD, Shao ZM. Transcriptome analysis of triple-negative breast cancer reveals an integrated mRNA-lncRNA signature with predictive and prognostic value. Cancer Res. 2016;76(8):2105–14. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-3284.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gandhi S, Pandey MR, Attwood K, Ji W, Witkiewicz AK, Knudsen ES, Allen C, Tario JD, Wallace PK, Cedeno CD, Levis M, Stack S, Funchain P, Drabick JJ, Bucsek MJ, Puzanov I, 2021

  6. John SP, Sun J, Carlson RJ, Cao B, Bradfield CJ, Song J, Smelkinson M, Fraser IDC. IFIT1 exerts opposing regulatory effects on the inflammatory and interferon gene programs in LPS-activated human macrophages. Cell Rep. 2018;25(1):95-106.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.09.002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Larkin J, Hodi FS, Wolchok JD. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(13):1270–1. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1509660.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Li JW, Zhou J, Shi ZT, Li N, Zhou SC, Chang C. Sonographic features of triple-negative breast carcinomas are correlated with mRNA-lncRNA signatures and risk of tumor recurrence. Front Oncol. 2021;10: 587422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.587422.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lin X, Zhang J, Wang X, Lin G, Chen T. Pre-activation with TLR7 in combination with thioridazine and loratadine promotes tumoricidal T-cell activity in colorectal cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2020;31(10):989–96. https://doi.org/10.1097/CAD.0000000000000972.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Martinez FO, Gordon S. The M1 and M2 paradigm of macrophage activation: time for reassessment. F1000 Prime Rep. 2014;6:13. https://doi.org/10.12703/P6-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Müller E, Christopoulos PF, Halder S, Lunde A, Beraki K, Speth M, Øynebråten I, Corthay A. Toll-like receptor ligands and interferon-γ synergize for induction of antitumor M1 macrophages. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1383. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.01383.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Pace JL, Russell SW, Schreiber RD, Altman A, Katz DH. Macrophage activation: priming activity from a T-cell hybridoma is attributable to interferon-gamma. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1983;80(12):3782–6. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.12.3782.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Pyonteck SM, Akkari L, Schuhmacher AJ, Bowman RL, Sevenich L, Quail DF, Olson OC, Quick ML, Huse JT, Teijeiro V, et al. CSF-1R inhibition alters macrophage polarization and blocks glioma progression. Nat Med. 2013;19(10):1264–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3337.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Robert C, Ribas A, Schachter J, Arance A, Grob JJ, Mortier L, Daud A, Carlino MS, McNeil CM, Lotem M, et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma (KEYNOTE-006): post-hoc 5-year results from an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(9):1239–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30388-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Saengboonmee C, Sanlung T, Wongkham S. Repurposing metformin for cancer treatment: a great challenge of a promising drug. Anticancer Res. 2021;41(12):5913–8. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15410.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Uğuz A, Sanlioğlu S, Yüzbey S, Coşkun M, Yeğin O. The effect of cetirizine on IFN-gamma and IL-10 production in children with allergic rhinitis. Turk J Pediatr. 2005;47(2):111–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uprety B, Abrahamse H. Targeting breast cancer and their stem cell population through AMPK activation: novel insights. Cells. 2022;11(3):576. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells11030576.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang Y, Chen B, He Z, Tu B, Zhao P, Wang H, Asrorov A, Muhitdinov B, Jiang J, Huang Y. Nanotherapeutic macrophage-based immunotherapy for the peritoneal carcinomatosis of lung cancer. Nanoscale. 2022;14(6):2304–15. https://doi.org/10.1039/d1nr06518a.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wolchok JD, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Grob JJ, Rutkowski P, Lao CD, Cowey CL, Schadendorf D, Wagstaff J, Dummer R, et al. Long-term outcomes with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(2):127–37. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.02229.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhang JF, Chen Y, Lin GS, Zhang JD, Tang WL, Huang JH, Chen JS, Wang XF, Lin ZX. High IFIT1 expression predicts improved clinical outcome, and IFIT1 along with MGMT more accurately predicts prognosis in newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Hum Pathol. 2016;52:136–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2016.01.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang Z, Ji J, Liu H. Drug repurposing in oncology: current evidence and future direction. Curr Med Chem. 2021;28(11):2175–94. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929867327999200820124111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the Italian Ministry of Health (IT-MOH) for funding. Editorial assistance was provided by Luca Giacomelli, Ph.D., Laura Brogelli, Ph.D., and Aashni Shah, Polistudium, Milan, Italy.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Melanoma, Cancer Immunotherapy and Development Therapeutics Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Domenico Mallardo, Ester Simeone, Vito Vanella, Maria Grazia Vitale, Marco Palla, Luigi Scarpato, Miriam Paone, Teresa De Cristofaro, Francesca Sparano & Paolo Antonio Ascierto

  2. Radiation Oncology Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS –Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Valentina Borzillo & Paolo Muto

  3. Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, Du Cane Road, London, W120HS, UK

    Alessio Cortellini

  4. Department of Urology and Gynecology, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS –Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Sandro Pignata

  5. Interventional Radiology Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS –Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Francesco Fiore

  6. Division of Surgery of Melanoma and Skin Cancer, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Corrado Caracò

  7. Hospital Pharmacy, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Piera Maiolino

  8. Radiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Antonella Petrillo

  9. Division of Laboratory Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS –Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Ernesta Cavalcanti

  10. Nuclear Medicine Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Secondo Lastoria

  11. Experimental Pharmacology Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori – IRCCS – Fondazione ”G. Pascale”, Naples, Italy

    Alfredo Budillon

  12. NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA, USA

    Sarah Warren

Authors
  1. Domenico Mallardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ester Simeone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vito Vanella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maria Grazia Vitale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marco Palla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luigi Scarpato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Miriam Paone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Teresa De Cristofaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Valentina Borzillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Alessio Cortellini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Francesca Sparano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Sandro Pignata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Francesco Fiore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Corrado Caracò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Piera Maiolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Antonella Petrillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Ernesta Cavalcanti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Secondo Lastoria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Paolo Muto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Alfredo Budillon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Sarah Warren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Paolo Antonio Ascierto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design: DM, PAA; collection and interpretation of data: DM, MGV, ES; statistical analysis: DM; manuscript drafting: DM, PAA; manuscript editing: DM, ES, VV, MGV, MP, LS, MP, TDC, VB, AC, SP, FF, CC, PM, AP, EC, SL, PM, AB, SW, PAA; approval to submit: DM, ES, VV, MGV, MP, LS, MP, TDC, VB, AC, SP, FF, CC, PM, AP, EC, SL, PM, AB, SW, PAA. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Antonio Ascierto.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Istituto Nazionale Tumori—IRCCS—Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy, protocol number 17/17 oss.

All patients provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Consent for publication

Consent to publication of data was given by patients.

Competing interests

PAA has/had a consultant/advisory role for Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, Sun Pharma, Sanofi, Idera, Sandoz, Immunocore, 4SC, Italfarmaco, Nektar, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eisai, Regeneron, Daiichi Sankyo, Pfizer, Oncosec, Nouscom, Lunaphore, Seagen, iTeos, Medicenna, Bio-Al Health. He also received research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche-Genentech, Pfizer, Sanofi. AC received grant consultancies from BMS, Astrazeneca, Roche and MSD. He also received speaker's fee from Astrazeneca, Novartis and Eisai. SW is employee and stockholder in NanoString Technologies. SP has/had a consultant/advisory role for Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Roche. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Supplementary table 1. Description of genes expressed either with cetirizine administration or without cetirizine in the overall population.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mallardo, D., Simeone, E., Vanella, V. et al. Concomitant medication of cetirizine in advanced melanoma could enhance anti-PD-1 efficacy by promoting M1 macrophages polarization. J Transl Med 20, 436 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-022-03643-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-022-03643-w

Keywords

  • Malignant melanoma
  • Anti-PD-1
  • Cetirizine
  • Tumor-associated macrophage
  • Drug repurposing

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

Contact us