↓ Skip to main content

Inhibiting IDO pathways to treat cancer: lessons from the ECHO-301 trial and beyond

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Immunopathology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 600)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
patent
10 patents

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Inhibiting IDO pathways to treat cancer: lessons from the ECHO-301 trial and beyond
Published in
Seminars in Immunopathology, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00281-018-0702-0
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

With immunotherapy enjoying a rapid resurgence based on the achievement of durable remissions in some patients with agents that derepress immune function, commonly referred to as "checkpoint inhibitors," enormous attention developed around the IDO1 enzyme as a metabolic mediator of immune escape in cancer. In particular, outcomes of multiple phase 1/2 trials encouraged the idea that small molecule inhibitors of IDO1 may improve patient responses to anti-PD1 immune checkpoint therapy. However, recent results from ECHO-301, the first large phase 3 trial to evaluate an IDO1-selective enzyme inhibitor (epacadostat) in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody (pembrolizumab) in advanced melanoma, showed no indication that epacadostat provided an increased benefit. Here we discuss several caveats associated with this failed trial. First is the uncertainty as to whether the target was adequately inhibited. In particular, there remains a lack of direct evidence regarding the degree of IDO1 inhibition within the tumor, and previous trial data suggest that sufficient drug exposure may not have been achieved at the dose tested in ECHO-301. Second, while there is a mechanistic rationale for the combination tested, the preclinical data were not particularly compelling. More efficacious combinations have been demonstrated with DNA damaging modalities which may therefore be a more attractive alternative. Third, as a highly selective IDO1 inhibitor, epacadostat was advanced aggressively despite preclinical genetic evidence of tumors bypassing IDO1 blockade. Indeed, a well-grounded literature starting in 2011 points to targeting strategies that account for both IDO and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase as more appealing directions to pursue, including dual inhibitors and inhibitors of nodal downstream effector pathways such as aryl hydrocarbon receptor blockade. Overall, the clinical readout from a single trial with significant limitations is by no means a definitive test for the field. While biomarker information yet to be gleaned from ECHO-301 may yet reveal useful information regarding IDO1 pathway drugs, better rationalized compounds and better rationalized trial designs will be important in the future to accurately gauge medical impact.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 146 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Master 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 8 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 51 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 17 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 9%
Chemistry 9 6%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 56 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 March 2026.
All research outputs
#2,075,486
of 29,420,386 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Immunopathology
#45
of 600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,742
of 355,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Immunopathology
#3
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,420,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.