Antiangiogenic–immune-checkpoint inhibitor combinations: lessons from phase III clinical trials

Antiangiogenic agents, generally antibodies or tyrosine-kinase inhibitors that target the VEGF–VEGFR pathway, are currently among the few combination partners clinically proven to improve the efficacy of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). This benefit has been demonstrated in pivotal phase III trials across different cancer types, some with practice-changing results; however, numerous phase III trials have also had negative results. The rationale for using antiangiogenic drugs as partners for ICIs relies primarily on blocking the multiple immunosuppressive effects of VEGF and inducing several different vascular-modulating effects that can stimulate immunity, such as vascular normalization leading to increased intratumoural blood perfusion and flow, and inhibition of pro-apoptotic effects of endothelial cells on T cells, among others. Conversely, VEGF blockade can also cause changes that suppress antitumour immunity, such as increased tumour hypoxia, and reduced intratumoural ingress of co-administered ICIs. As a result, the net clinical benefits from antiangiogenic–ICI combinations will be determined by the balance between the opposing effects of VEGF signalling and its inhibition on the antitumour immune response. In this Perspective, we summarize the results from the currently completed phase III trials evaluating antiangiogenic agent–ICI combinations. We also discuss strategies to improve the efficacy of these combinations, focusing on aspects that include the deleterious functions of VEGF–VEGFR inhibition on antitumour immunity, vessel co-option as a driver of non-angiogenic tumour growth, clinical trial design, or the rationale for drug selection, dosing and scheduling. The benefit of combining antiangiogenic agents with immune-checkpoint inhibitors has been demonstrated in pivotal phase III trials across different cancer types, some with practice-changing results; however, other phase III trials have had negative results. The authors of this Perspective discuss the variable outcomes of these trials, considering factors that account for these differences and suggesting future initiatives for improving the outcomes in patients receiving these combinations.