Review assesses TIGIT's potential to improve tumor control in various malignancies, suggesting new treatment strategies.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) encounter significant clinical hurdles, primarily stemming from the high incidence of acquired resistance. To address these challenges, researchers have investigated second-generation targets like lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3) and T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing protein 3 (TIM-3). However, these alternatives face limitations: LAG-3 necessitates PD-1 co-blockade for optimal efficacy, while TIM-3 inhibitors face delays in clinical translation due to restricted cellular expression patterns. In contrast, T-cell immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif domain (TIGIT) emerges as a promising option by bridging these gaps through its wide cellular distribution and synergistic mechanisms. This is attributed to its prevalent expression in T cells and natural killer (NK) cells, its ability to inhibit CD226 phosphorylation via the CD155/CD112 pathway, its synergistic reversal of T-cell exhaustion with PD-1, and its capacity to overcome drug resistance. Recent clinical trials have shown that TIGIT monotherapy yields modest responses, while combinations with PD-1 inhibitors exhibit enhanced tumor control in conventional malignancies, surpassing standard PD-1/CTLA-4 or PD-1/chemotherapy protocols. Future research priorities include validating predictive biomarkers, optimizing dosing schedules to prevent resistance development, and devising multi-checkpoint strategies. This review systematically assesses the therapeutic synergy centered on TIGIT, offering a translational framework for surmounting tumor diversity and immunotherapy resistance through advanced combinatorial approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: