Bone metastases at the nutrition–bone–immune interface: implications for immune checkpoint blockade
- 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University
- 2Department of Plastic Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University
- 3Department of Emergency and Oral Medicine, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University
Abstract
Bone metastases develop within a mineralized and hematopoietic environment shaped by continuous skeletal remodeling, immune-cell trafficking, and systemic host physiology. This specialized niche can restrict immune checkpoint blockade, but the factors governing its responsiveness remain incompletely defined. Evidence linking nutritional status and related endocrine or metabolic factors to bone-specific immunity is fragmented across osteoimmunology, tumor immunology, nutrition, endocrinology, and translational oncology. We distinguish direct nutritional exposures from host-state indices, mineral endocrine regulators, and microbiome-derived metabolites. Mechanistic studies identify osteoclast-associated pathways, including RANK–RANKL signaling and osteopontin, as direct links between skeletal remodeling, impaired T-cell recruitment, and experimental resistance to checkpoint blockade. By contrast, albumin-based indices, cachexia, anemia-related measures, glucocorticoid exposure, thyroid dysfunction, and microbiome features generally provide prognostic, treatment-related, or associative evidence across heterogeneous cancer cohorts. They do not establish ICI-specific prediction, causal reversibility, or therapeutic benefit. Clinical evidence for combining checkpoint inhibitors with antiresorptive, nutritional, endocrine, or microbiome interventions remains inconsistent or preliminary. We therefore use the nutrition–bone–immune axis as a conceptual, evidence-organizing framework, not as a clinically validated unified causal pathway. Clinical translation will require prospective bone-specific cohorts, paired systemic and lesion-level profiling, rigorous temporal definitions, treatment-interaction analyses, and randomized trials integrating skeletal, immune, and oncological endpoints.
Related
- Redox Storm in the Tumor Microenvironment (ΤΜΕ): Multifaceted Redox Injury and Immunometabolic Reprogramming Induced by Immune Checkpoint Blockade in B16F10 Melanoma: An Ultrastructural Study of the Peritumoral Interface
- 951 Engineered tumor-homing bacteria enable systemic combination immune checkpoint blockade and cytokine immunotherapy
- Patient-Derived Melanoma Organoids Preserve Tumor-Immune Heterogeneity and Reveal Context-Dependent Responses to Immune Checkpoint Blockade
- Context-dependent value of HLA class I diversity in advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint blockade
- 733 Macrophage-dendritic cell-T-cell tetrads orchestrate antitumor immunity and response to checkpoint blockade
BibTeX
@article{liu2026bone,
title = {{Bone metastases at the nutrition–bone–immune interface: implications for immune checkpoint blockade}},
author = {Wenshuo Liu and Tianqing Shui and Jiaqi Zhao and Lei Li},
journal = {Frontiers in Immunology},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3389/fimmu.2026.1982392},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1982392/full},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Bone metastases at the nutrition–bone–immune interface: implications for immune checkpoint blockade
AU - Wenshuo Liu
AU - Tianqing Shui
AU - Jiaqi Zhao
AU - Lei Li
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/03
JO - Frontiers in Immunology
DO - 10.3389/fimmu.2026.1982392
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2026.1982392/full
AB - Bone metastases develop within a mineralized and hematopoietic environment shaped by continuous skeletal remodeling, immune-cell trafficking, and systemic host physiology. This specialized niche can restrict immune checkpoint blockade, but the factors governing its responsiveness remain incompletely defined. Evidence linking nutritional status and related endocrine or metabolic factors to bone-specific immunity is fragmented across osteoimmunology, tumor immunology, nutrition, endocrinology, and translational oncology. We distinguish direct nutritional exposures from host-state indices, mineral endocrine regulators, and microbiome-derived metabolites. Mechanistic studies identify osteoclast-associated pathways, including RANK–RANKL signaling and osteopontin, as direct links between skeletal remodeling, impaired T-cell recruitment, and experimental resistance to checkpoint blockade. By contrast, albumin-based indices, cachexia, anemia-related measures, glucocorticoid exposure, thyroid dysfunction, and microbiome features generally provide prognostic, treatment-related, or associative evidence across heterogeneous cancer cohorts. They do not establish ICI-specific prediction, causal reversibility, or therapeutic benefit. Clinical evidence for combining checkpoint inhibitors with antiresorptive, nutritional, endocrine, or microbiome interventions remains inconsistent or preliminary. We therefore use the nutrition–bone–immune axis as a conceptual, evidence-organizing framework, not as a clinically validated unified causal pathway. Clinical translation will require prospective bone-specific cohorts, paired systemic and lesion-level profiling, rigorous temporal definitions, treatment-interaction analyses, and randomized trials integrating skeletal, immune, and oncological endpoints.
SN - 1664-3224
ER -