Collagen and Its Roles in the Tumor Immune Microenvironment: Structure, Function, and Therapeutic Potential

Abstract

Collagen, the primary structural protein of the extracellular matrix, shows marked structure–function duality in the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). Biomechanical and biophysical alterations—matrix stiffening, viscoelastic energy dissipation, fiber alignment and tumor-associated collagen signatures, reduced pore size, and solid stress—create migration tracks, sequester signaling cues that regulate proliferation and metabolism, and from dense barriers that impede immune infiltration. These changes are sensed and transduced via mechanosensing and mechanotransduction pathways, thereby reinforcing malignant behavior and immune exclusion. Given its dynamic, spatiotemporally regulated roles, collagen is a promising therapeutic target to overcome immunotherapy resistance. This review examines the structural features, biological functions, and regulatory pathways of collagen within the TIME. Based on these insights, several clinical strategies were highlighted: targeting cancerassociated fibroblasts and profibrotic signaling to reduce fibrosis; remodeling the matrix enzymatically or physically; and inhibiting collagen receptor signaling. These approaches are often combined with immune checkpoint inhibition. Future directions will emphasize biomarker-guided stratification of collagen status; combining therapies informed by mechanobiology; and using scalable, noninvasive monitoring to optimize immunotherapy outcomes.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

tumor immune microenvironment / collagen / extracellular matrix remodeling / mechanosensing / therapeutic target / immunotherapy

1. Introduction

Collagen, comprising approximately 30% of the total protein mass in mammals, represents the most abundant structural component of the extracellular matrix (ECM). The collagen superfamily encompasses 28 distinct types (I–XXVIII) that collectively orchestrate a sophisticated three-dimensional scaffold essential for tissue architecture, biomechanical properties, and cellular homeostasis [1]. Under physiological conditions, the synthesis, deposition, and degradation of collagen are tightly regulated by a complex interplay of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs), and lysyl oxidases (LOX), maintaining a precise dynamic equilibrium. However, within the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME), this exquisite balance undergoes profound dysregulation, transforming collagen from a passive structural element into an active driver of malignant progression and therapeutic resistance [2, 3].

The pathological hallmark of many solid tumors is a pronounced desmoplastic reaction, characterized by excessive deposition of fibrillar collagens (predominantly types I, III, and V), aberrant cross-linking mediated by the LOX family of enzymes, and architectural remodeling of the ECM [4]. Tumors characterized by dense, collagen-rich tissue include pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and triple-negative breast cancer [5]. By contrast, tumors with relatively low collagen content include clear cell renal cell carcinoma and glioma. This fibrotic response is primarily orchestrated by cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs), which are activated through multiple mechanisms, including profibrotic signaling pathways such as transforming growth factor beta (TGF-\beta), platelet-derived growth factor/fibroblast growth factor (PDGF/FGF), and the renin–angiotensin axis (RAS), as well as mechanical stress and metabolic reprogramming [6]. CAFs upregulate collagen type I A1/2 (COL1A1/2) and LOX enzymes to create a protumorigenic niche, including increased matrix stiffness (often exceeding 10-fold that of normal tissue), linearization of collagen fibers, and formation of tumor-associated collagen signatures (TACS) [7]. These physical changes facilitate tumor cell invasion through contact guidance and durotaxis, while simultaneously activating mechanotransduction pathways such as Yes-associated protein/transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif (YAP/TAZ) and integrin-focal adhesion kinase (FAK) signaling that promote proliferation and stemness [8].

Critically, remodeled collagen matrix acts as a powerful immunosuppressive barrier through multiple interconnected mechanisms. Dense, linearized collagen fibers physically exclude cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) and other immune effectors from the tumor parenchyma, a phenomenon quantified by reduced CD8+ T cell/regulatory T cell (Treg) ratios in collagen-rich regions [9]. Beyond physical exclusion, collagen fragments and specific collagen receptors (e.g., integrins) deliver inhibitory signals that directly suppress T-cell activation and promote the polarization of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) toward an M2-like phenotype [10]. This creates a self-reinforcing cycle, as inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species generated during frustrated immune responses paradoxically enhance CAF activation and collagen production through signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) and nuclear factor kappa B (NF-\kappaB) pathways [11]. Distinct CAF subsets, including myofibroblastic, inflammatory, and antigen‑presenting, work together to remodel the tumor’s collagen-based ECM and shape antitumor immunity.

In addition to protumor roles, collagenous stroma can exert context‑ and stage‑dependent antitumor effects. Intact desmoplastic encapsulation may mechanically contain the lesion, stabilize perfusion, and transiently limit dissemination or antigen spillover [12]; however, chronic inflammation, fibroblast reprogramming, LOX‑mediated crosslinking, hypoxia signaling, and the immune system all work to break down the natural barriers, restructuring the tissue matrix into a dense, aligned network that promotes tumor invasion and excludes immune cells [13].

The clinical significance of this collagen-mediated immunosuppression cannot be overstated. Recent analyses of immunotherapy trials have identified high collagen density and specific collagen gene signatures as robust predictors of a poor response to checkpoint inhibitors across multiple cancer types [9]. Therefore, targeting the collagenous ECM has emerged as a crucial strategy for overcoming resistance to immunotherapy.

2. Structure and Characteristics of Collagen in the TIME

In physiological settings, tropocollagen, the basic building block of collagen, consists of three polypeptide chains coiled into a canonical right-handed triple helix. These monomers spontaneously self-assemble into staggered arrays, forming collagen fibrils. Subsequently, these fibrils are stabilized and endowed with tensile strength through covalent cross-linking. This porous and biomechanically compliant matrix provides critical tensional support and adhesion cues for maintaining cellular quiescence, while ensuring low-resistance pathways for nutrient perfusion and immune surveillance [1]. However, the collagen architecture within the TIME undergoes profound pathological remodeling (Fig. 1).

2.1 Reshaping of Physical Properties

The changes in collagen in terms of stiffness, spatial structure, and fiber morphology jointly promote tumor progression.

A primary alteration is the dramatic stiffening of the tumor stroma, a process driven by both the aberrant deposition of fibrillar collagens and their extensive cross-linking. Tumors frequently show higher levels and enzymatic activity of LOX enzymes, catalyzing the formation of covalent bonds that dramatically increases tissue tension [14]. Clinically, this is evidenced by the elastic modulus of breast cancer tissue, which can reach 4–12 kPa, starkly contrasting with the 0.4–2 kPa of normal mammary tissue [15]. This heightened matrix stiffness is not a passive feature but is a potent protumorigenic signal.

Concurrently, the matrix undergoes profound architectural reorganization. The physiological, porous, and randomly oriented collagen meshwork transforms into a dense, linearized architecture, resulting in a significant reduction in interstitial pore size from the normal range of 10–50 µm down to 1–10 µm in tumors [16]. This densified structure forms a formidable physical barrier that severely impedes the intratumoral trafficking of immune effector cells, such as CTLs, as well as the perfusion of therapeutic agents. This phenomenon, widely termed “immune exclusion”, is an important mechanism contributing to resistance against both chemotherapy and immunotherapy [5].

On a microscopic scale, the morphology of individual collagen fibers is also remodeled. Tumor-associated collagen fibers become significantly thicker and longer, with diameters increasing from 50–500 nm in healthy tissue to 200–2000 nm [17]. Critically, at the tumor’s invasive front, these fibers are often realigned and bundled into taut, linear tracks oriented perpendicularly to the tumor boundary. These unique topological features are known as TACS [18].

2.2 Remodeling of Biochemical Properties

Beyond its role as a physical scaffold, the collagen matrix operates as a dynamic and potent biochemical signaling hub. On the one hand, the TME’s collagen network functions as a crucial reservoir, concentrating and modulating the bioavailability of growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines. The high density of positively charged residues on collagen fibers facilitates the electrostatic sequestration of numerous anionic signaling molecules, including TGF-\beta, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and FGF [8]. This interaction is further stabilized and specified by intermediaries such as heparan sulfate proteoglycans, which act as co-receptors [17]. This creates a localized, high-concentration gradient of protumorigenic signals.

On the other hand, the collagen fibers themselves serve as solid-phase ligands, directly initiating intracellular signaling cascades upon binding to cell surface receptors on both cancer and immune cells. On cancer cells, specific cryptic binding motifs within the collagen triple helix, such as the GFOGER (for Gly-Phe-Hyp-Gly-Glu-Arg) and RGD (Arg-Gly-Asp) sequences, become exposed during matrix remodeling [19]. These motifs are recognized by integrin heterodimers and discoidin domain receptors 1 and 2 (DDR1/2), which are unique receptor tyrosine kinases [20]. This engagement establishes a pernicious feed-forward loop: activated cancer cells increase their secretion of MMPs, which further remodel the collagen matrix, exposing more binding sites and thus amplifying these protumorigenic signals. Additionally, collagen can bind to inhibitory receptors on immune cells (e.g., leukocyte-associated immunoglobulin-like receptor-1 [LAIR-1]) [21].

3. Functions of Collagen in the TIME

Structural remodeling of the collagen matrix is not just a sign of disease but is the mechanistic basis for changes to its function. Thus, within the TIME, collagen is not a passive architectural bystander but is a dynamic orchestrator of tumor malignancy and immunity (Fig. 2).

3.1 Physical Functions: Contact-Guided Migration and Permeability Barrier

The primary physical function of collagen is to provide a critical three-dimensional structural support framework for tumor tissues. Tumor cells tend to proliferate preferentially in regions with higher collagen density. These areas not only offer stable anchor points necessary for cells to resist mechanical stress and maintain their shape but also function as migration tracks [22]. Cells can migrate along these collagen fibers through contact guidance, at speeds up to 5 to 10 times faster than free migration in the matrix. Live imaging techniques have confirmed that tumor cells preferentially invade outward along collagen fibers perpendicular to the tumor boundary (TACS-3) [18]. Notably, different types of immune cells have varying abilities to utilize these collagen tracks, which may be related to their deformability: dendritic cells and macrophages can efficiently use these tracks for migration, while T-cell migration is more dependent on the interstitial network’s gaps [23].

High-density collagen deposition can form a fibrous capsule around the tumor, serving a protective function. On the one hand, this dense barrier severely hinders the effective penetration of chemotherapy drugs and antibody drugs, which is a significant cause of treatment resistance. For instance, in pancreatic cancer characterized by dense stroma, the penetration distance of drugs is often limited to 50–100 micrometers around blood vessels, far below the range required to achieve an effective therapeutic concentration [24]. On the other hand, it significantly restricts the infiltration of immune effector cells. Studies have shown that for every doubling of collagen density, the infiltration depth of CD8+ T cells decreases by approximately 30% [11]. Notably, some immune cells also have regulatory roles in tumor fibrosis. Research has found that TAMs, through mannose receptor-mediated mechanisms, upregulate inducible nitric oxide synthase, thereby generating reactive nitrogen species to promote tumor fibrosis [25].

3.2 Biochemical Functions: Signal-Mediated Phenotypic and Immune Regulation

In the TIME, the physical functions of collagen and its biochemical functions are not independent of each other but form a continuous spectrum through “mechano-chemical transduction”: extracellular mechanical stress is first integrated into intracellular signals, which then cascade to affect cell proliferation, metabolism, and immune regulation [26].

Mechanical cues of collagen are sensed by cell-surface receptors (integrins \alpha2\beta1, \alpha11\beta1 and DDR1/2), which activate mechanosensitive pathways such as FAK–extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), phosphoinositide 3-kinase–Akt, and the Hippo–YAP/TAZ axis [27]. Studies have shown that the stiff collagen matrix can accelerate the transition of the cell cycle from G1 to S phase by 2 to 3 times through activation of the FAK–ERK signaling pathway, thereby promoting tumor cell proliferation [13]. At the same time, collagen signals can upregulate the expression of cyclins D1 and E and downregulate the levels of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors p21 and p27 [28]. However, for T cells, excessive collagen signals can lead to functional exhaustion through continuous activation, thereby inhibiting their proliferation [21].

These mechanosignals further orchestrate a profound metabolic reprogramming. In response to matrix stiffness, the Hippo–YAP/TAZ signaling axis is activated, which, in concert with the hypoxia common in poorly vascularized fibrotic regions, stabilizes hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha (HIF-1\alpha) [29]. This axis collaboratively upregulates key glycolytic enzymes (e.g., facilitative glucose transporter 1, hexokinase 2, and lactate dehydrogenase A), forcing cancer cells into a state of enhanced aerobic glycolysis (the Warburg effect). This metabolic shift not only fuels rapid proliferation but also acidifies the microenvironment [30]. The stiff environment imposes a metabolic penalty on immune cells, leading to dysfunctional mitochondria in T cells that produce less ATP and forcing macrophages to develop a protumor M2-like phenotype characterized by altered oxidative phosphorylation [8].

In parallel, collagen provides precise directional guidance to immune cells by forming stable concentration gradients through its degradation products and chemokines bound to it. For instance, the degradation product PGP (Pro-Gly-Pro) of type I collagen can specifically recruit neutrophils through the C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 2 receptor, while the NC1 domain fragments of type IV collagen (e.g., tumstatin and canstatin) have anti-angiogenic activity [31]. Particularly in the TIME, the chemotactic effect of collagen tends to recruit immunosuppressive cells, such as Tregs and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. For the few effector cells that do infiltrate, the dense, stiff matrix impairs the maturation and antigen-presentation capacity of dendritic cells, evidenced by a marked reduction in MHC-II and co-stimulatory molecule (cluster of differentiation 80 [CD80]/CD86) expression [32]. Furthermore, matrix stiffness induces cytoskeletal tension in T cells, physically disrupting the formation of a stable immunological synapse. Crucially, studies have found that collagen can directly transmit strong inhibitory signals to various immune cells (including T cells and natural killer [NK] cells) by binding to LAIR-1 [8].

4. Regulation and Spatiotemporal Heterogeneity of Collagen

The collagenous matrix of the TIME is the dynamically, on-demand, and precisely regulated output of a complex interplay among synthesis, enzymatic remodeling, and degradation. These processes collectively manifest as profound spatiotemporal heterogeneity that evolves with and contributes to malignancy (Fig. 3).

4.1 Regulatory Pathways of the Collagen Matrix

First, the acidic pH of the TIME (typically 6.5–6.8) can affect the collagen network by modulating charge changes. Under acidic conditions, the protonation of key amino acid residues on collagen (e.g., lysine and arginine) increases, raising the surface positive charge density by approximately 30%. This not only alters the electrostatic binding ability of growth factors but also influences the interaction between collagen fibers, potentially leading to relaxation of the fiber network. Additionally, acidic pH can directly activate pH-sensitive proteases such as cathepsins B and L, accelerating collagen degradation [33].

Second, the MMP family is the main enzymatic driver of collagen turnover. The TIME is characterized by the aberrant expression and activity of specific MMPs, including interstitial collagenases (MMP-1, MMP-8, MMP-13) that execute the initial cleavage of the native collagen triple helix, and gelatinases (MMP-2, MMP-9) that degrade the denatured products and associated basement membrane structures [34]. Secreted predominantly by CAFs and tumor cells, these MMPs form highly active “hotspot regions” at the tumor invasion front. This localized degradation not only carves out pathways for cellular invasion but also liberates bioactive collagen fragments and releases matrix-sequestered signaling molecules, which in turn regulate angiogenesis and inflammation [35].

Furthermore, oxidative stress profoundly affects the integrity of collagen. Elevated reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels in the TIME can directly oxidize proline and lysine residues in collagen, destabilizing the triple-helical structure and even causing peptide chain breaks. Additionally, ROS can activate latent MMPs, indirectly accelerating collagen degradation. This oxidative damage is highly spatially specific, mainly occurring in the hypoxia-reoxygenation junction areas within the TIME [34].

Finally, the tumor-associated inflammatory cytokine network regulates collagen synthesis and degradation. For instance, tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 1 beta (IL-1\beta) can upregulate MMP expression and downregulate their endogenous inhibitors, TIMPs, promoting degradation [34]. TGF-\beta is the most potent promoter of collagen synthesis and inhibitor of its degradation [36]. Additionally, IL-6 contributes to fibrosis through the STAT3 signaling pathway [37]. The complex spatiotemporal distribution patterns of these factors ultimately determine the overall pattern of collagen remodeling in tumors.

4.2 Temporal Evolution of the Collagen Matrix

The dynamic remodeling of collagen architecture has been systematically characterized into distinct TACS, which serve as structural indicators of tumor invasiveness and potential biomarkers for evaluating treatment responses [7].

In the early stage of tumor occurrence (precancerous lesions and early in situ carcinoma), TACS-1 is defined by a locally disorganized and wavy collagen configuration. These fibers, showing only a modest increase in density, loosely encircle nascent tumor foci. This signature reflects a period of localized matrix degradation, primarily mediated by tumor cell-secreted MMPs, which creates the necessary space for initial tumor expansion and has relatively immune accessibility [38]. Early, less‑aligned matrices can sequester antigens and chemokines within peritumoral niches and support local immune surveillance, acting as a transient barrier to systemic spread; this immunoprotective compartmentalization diminishes as fibers straighten, pores narrow, and inhibitory collagen–immune receptor pathways intensify [39].

As the tumor progresses and its volume increases, it exerts significant mechanical pressure on the surrounding stroma, leading to the TACS-2 signature. This stage is characterized by collagen fibers that become linearized, bundled, and aligned tangentially (parallel) to the tumor boundary [38]. This architectural shift is dominated by the robust activation of CAFs, which become the primary source of de novo collagen synthesis, dramatically increasing overall matrix density and stiffness [40].

When tumor enters the invasion stage, it is marked by the emergence of TACS-3. These fibers are reorganized into thick, straightened bundles oriented perpendicularly to the tumor margin. This radial alignment creates veritable ‘highways’ that facilitate directed cell migration into the surrounding tissue. At this stage, the matrix reaches its peak density and degree of cross-linking, providing stable, pre-established conduits for invasion [13]. Critically, intravital imaging has confirmed that the vast majority of motile, invasive tumor cells migrate along these TACS-3 fibers [18]. In addition, TACS-3 also features dual physical–ligand barriers and T-cell rejection characteristics, including collagen–LAIR-1 signaling and DDR1/DDR2-directed invasion [41].

Notably, the tumor immune response itself can also have a reverse effect on the evolution of collagen. In the early stage of immune activation, local degradation of collagen occurs by effector T cells and NK cells, forming “hot zones” where immune cells aggregate [42]. However, as chronic inflammation is established, the elevated levels of T helper 2-type cytokines and TGF-\beta conversely promote fibrotic reactions, leading to a dense, restrictive matrix [6]. This dynamic relationship is clinically important, as the study showed a clear link between effective immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy correlates and a measurable reduction in collagen density [9].

4.3 Regional Distribution of Collagen Matrix

The collagenous stroma within the TIME is organized into distinct spatial regions, from the peritumoral capsule to the invasive front and perivascular niches. This structural heterogeneity has functional consequences.

The central regions of many tumors are often characterized by a sparse and fragmented collagen landscape. This is typically a consequence of localized hypoxia and necrosis, which limit the metabolic activity of stromal cells and favor a degradative enzymatic environment [14]. However, in some dense tumors (e.g., pancreatic cancer), even the central region can maintain a high collagen content, which is mainly related to the tumor type and distribution pattern of CAFs [24].

Encapsulating the tumor mass is the peritumoral region or invasive front, which typically represents the zone of maximal collagen deposition. Here, a dense, highly cross-linked fibrous capsule (often 50–200 µm thick) forms a strong physical barrier. This structure can achieve a mechanical stiffness 10- to 20-fold greater than that of adjacent normal tissue [14]. Spatially resolved transcriptomic studies have confirmed that CAFs in this area express the highest levels of collagen synthesis genes (e.g., COL1A1) and cross-linking enzyme genes (e.g., LOX). This marginal barrier is a critical determinant of both immune cell exclusion and drug penetration [9].

At the junction between tumors and normal tissues, there is a dynamic transition zone with a width of approximately 100–500 micrometers. Real-time imaging shows that the collagen in this area is in a highly dynamic remodeling state, with both synthesis and degradation actively occurring simultaneously [17]. This interface represents a critical arena for tumor–immune interactions. Thus, the collagen density and structure in this area directly affect the efficiency of immune surveillance [14].

Finally, a special pattern of collagen tissue is present around the tumor neovasculature. This collagen is frequently arranged in concentric circles, forming a vascular sheath [43]. This structure, on the one hand, provides structural support for the fragile tumor blood vessels, and on the other hand, forms another barrier for the extravasation of immune cells from the blood vessels. A study has shown that a higher density of collagen density surrounding blood vessels is statistically linked to lower levels of immune cell infiltration [44].

5. Therapeutic Strategies Involving the Collagen Matrix

The pivotal role of collagen in orchestrating tumor progression and immune evasion has established it as a critical therapeutic target. Preclinical and clinical efforts are largely focused on two complementary axes. The first involves anti-fibrotic approaches aimed at inhibiting excessive collagen synthesis, primarily by targeting CAFs or their activation pathways [45]. The second involves matrix remodeling, which seeks to degrade the established collagen barrier or neutralize the downstream protumorigenic signaling it elicits via cell–matrix receptors [46] (Table 1, Ref. [47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63]).

5.1 Inhibition of Collagen Biosynthesis

Direct ablation or functional modulation of CAFs represents a foundational strategy in antifibrotic tumor therapy. Talabostat (PT-100) [47], a small molecule inhibitor of fibroblast activation protein (FAP), exemplifies this approach. By targeting FAP—a serine protease highly expressed on activated CAFs that facilitates ECM remodeling—Talabostat disrupts the proteolytic activity essential for collagen turnover and CAF maintenance [64]. However, clinical translation has revealed modest single-agent efficacy, likely due to the remarkable plasticity of the stromal compartment and compensatory activation of alternative fibrogenic pathways. This limitation has catalyzed the development of combination therapies, such as combining ICIs with FAP-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells or antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) [5, 48]. Early-phase trials have shown encouraging tumor regression and stromal depletion, suggesting that cellular immunotherapy may overcome the barriers that hampered small molecule approaches [65].

A complementary strategy is to inhibit the signaling pathways that drive the profibrotic phenotype in CAFs. The TGF-\beta signaling axis orchestrates CAF activation, collagen synthesis, and matrix cross-linking through both canonical (SMAD-dependent) and non-canonical pathways [36]. Galunisertib (LY2157299) [49], a selective TGF-\beta receptor I (ALK5) kinase inhibitor, disrupts SMAD2/3 phosphorylation, thereby attenuating downstream fibrogenic gene expression [50]. Clinical trials have demonstrated not only reduced collagen deposition but also reversal of the immunosuppressive microenvironment, with enhanced responsiveness to ICIs. In addition, fresolimumab [51], a pan-isoform TGF-\beta-neutralizing antibody, sequesters all three TGF-\beta isoforms in the extracellular space [66]. While both agents show promise, their clinical development must carefully balance antifibrotic benefits against potential safety concerns, as TGF-\beta also functions as a tumor suppressor in early-stage disease [67].

This concept of pathway inhibition extends to leveraging clinically approved antifibrotic agents. Drugs such as pirfenidone [52] and nintedanib [53], standard-of-care for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, exert pleiotropic effects by simultaneously inhibiting multiple fibrogenic pathways including TGF-\beta, VEGF, FGF, and PDGF [68]. Their repurposing for oncology is compelling, and preclinical studies combining these agents with ICIs have demonstrated synergistic antitumor activity by remodeling the stromal landscape. Similarly, direct inhibitors of PDGF/FGF receptors, such as the multikinase inhibitor imatinib [54], are also being evaluated for their potential to reduce stromal density and enhance drug delivery, particularly when combined with chemotherapy [69].

5.2 Enhancement of Collagen Degradation

Therapeutic strategies for matrix degradation have undergone a significant paradigm shift, moving away from early, crude approaches towards highly specific and targeted interventions.

Initial forays with broad-spectrum MMPs inhibitors were largely unsuccessful in clinical trials. This failure stemmed from significant dose-limiting toxicities, and more critically, a flawed underlying premise, namely, these inhibitors failed to discriminate between protumorigenic MMPs (e.g., MMP-2, MMP-9) and those with antitumorigenic or homeostatic functions (e.g., MMP-8) [70]. Small molecule agonists and antibody fragments that enhance MMP-8 activity have been shown to accelerate collagen turnover, curb metastatic spread, and boost intratumoral CD8+ T-cell density in breast- and pancreatic-cancer models [55, 71]. Moreover, studies have exploited tumor-specific proteases (e.g., FAP or MMP-14) to activate otherwise quiescent pro-MMP-8 or pro-MMP-9 zymogens, thereby confining collagenolysis to the malignant compartment [72].

Another more direct and precise but technically challenging strategy involves the exogenous delivery of matrix-degrading enzymes. Local or intratumoral delivery of recombinant collagenase (Clostridial class I/II) formulated in thermosensitive hydrogels or lipid nanoparticles can liquefy dense type I collagen. In mouse models of pancreatic cancer, a single intratumoral dose followed by gemcitabine doubled intratumoral drug concentrations and extended median survival by 40%. Similar gains have been reproduced with doxorubicin-loaded liposomes and ICIs, indicating that mechanical decompression, rather than enzyme-drug synergy per se, underlies the therapeutic benefit [73, 74]. The primary obstacle remains the safe and effective translation of this powerful local effect into a viable clinical therapy.

Beyond direct collagenolysis, an alternative strategy involves degrading other critical structural components of the ECM. Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a large glycosaminoglycan that creates immense interstitial fluid pressure and organizes the stroma. The enzymatic agent PEGPH20 (pegvorhyaluronidase) [56] works by systemically degrading HA. It melts the gel-like component of the matrix, which not only improves vascular perfusion but also relieves the mechanical constraints on the collagen fibers. While this approach showed significant promise in clinical trials for patient subgroups with “HA-high” tumors, its development has unfortunately faced setbacks [75]. Besides, inhibition of LOX-mediated cross-linking (e.g., \beta-aminopropionitrile or simtuzumab) renders collagen fibers more susceptible to endogenous proteases and can be combined with collagenase or selective MMP activation for additive effects [25, 57]. Likewise, photodynamic or focused ultrasound-mediated matrix debulking is being explored to create transient “windows” for drug entry [76].

5.3 Intervention of Collagen Signal Transduction

Beyond physically degrading the matrix, a more nuanced therapeutic strategy aims to sever the protumorigenic communication lines between malignant cells and the collagen scaffold.

DDR1/2 have emerged as a particularly compelling target class. As the only receptor tyrosine kinases activated directly by collagen, they initiate potent and sustained downstream signaling cascades. Strong preclinical data have shown that the selective small molecule inhibitor, nilotinib [58], effectively suppresses the activation of CAFS, as well as collagen-induced invasion and metastasis [58]. The validation of this concept has propelled several DDR inhibitor candidates into Phase I clinical trials [77].

Integrins, fundamental receptors governing cell–ECM adhesion, have been explored as therapeutic targets for several decades. Early enthusiasm was tempered by the high-profile clinical failure of broad-spectrum agents like cilengitide (an RGD-mimetic targeting \alphav\beta3/\alphav\beta5) [59]. Consequently, a new generation of more refined integrin-targeted therapies is being developed [78]. This includes developing inhibitors that target specific collagen-binding integrin pairs (e.g., \alpha2\beta1 or \alpha11\beta1), which are highly upregulated on cancer cells or CAFs, or that selectively block the intracellular signaling adaptors downstream of integrin activation [60]. By doing so, these next-generation agents aim to not only inhibit tumor cell adhesion and migration but also disrupt integrin-mediated angiogenesis and resistance to conventional therapies [79].

5.4 Indirect Anticollagen Strategies: Pleiotropic Pathway

A significant frontier in stroma-modulating therapy involves the strategic use of agents whose primary mechanisms of action are not directly antifibrotic, but that exert potent, indirect effects on collagen-producing CAFs and the broader TIME.

The ADC YL201 targets B7-H3 (CD276) [61], a molecule co-expressed on tumor cells, immune cells, and CAFs. This approach offers a dual benefit: directly blocking T-cell immune checkpoint while also weakening the CAF-mediated collagen network to remodel the immunosuppressive stroma [80, 81].

Angiotensin II receptor blockers such as Losartan, originally developed as antihypertensives, have been repurposed to inhibit the profibrotic RAS axis within tumors [82]. Blocking the angiotensin II type 1 receptor on CAFs directly suppresses their activation and collagen synthesis. Critically, this also alleviates solid stress, which decompresses intratumoral blood vessels, thereby improving perfusion and enhancing the drug delivery [83].

The impact of anti-angiogenic drugs on fibrosis is highly dependent on their specific targets. Multikinase inhibitors targeting PDGF and FGF receptors (e.g., sunitinib [62]) can directly suppress CAF activation. By contrast, agents that exclusively target the VEGF pathway (e.g., bevacizumab) can induce tumor hypoxia. This, in turn, can paradoxically promote a more aggressive, profibrotic CAF phenotype via HIF-1\alpha stabilization [44].

The antidiabetic drug Metformin has demonstrated significant antifibrotic effects by activating the central metabolic sensor, AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). AMPK activation inhibits the anabolic processes required for CAF activation and ECM protein synthesis. This metabolic intervention effectively suppresses the fibrogenic function of CAFs [37, 63].

6. Conclusions and Perspectives

The multifaceted roles of collagen in the TIME represent a paradigm shift in our understanding of cancer biology and therapeutic resistance. This review systematically delineated how collagen transitions from a passive structural scaffold to an active orchestrator of malignancy, functioning through interconnected physical and biochemical mechanisms. Beyond its role as a physical impediment to immune cell infiltration and drug penetration, the collagenous matrix operates as a sophisticated signaling hub that actively promotes tumor progression through mechanotransduction pathways, metabolic reprogramming, and direct immunosuppressive signals [12]. The spatiotemporal heterogeneity of collagen, evolving dynamically throughout tumor progression and varying across distinct microanatomical regions, underscores the complexity of targeting this multifunctional component of the TIME [42].

Current therapeutic strategies targeting the collagenous matrix have yielded both promising advances and instructive failures: (i) a predominance of small, earlyphase and histologyheterogeneous cohorts with largely exploratory endpoints; (ii) suboptimal target–disease alignment and minimal enrichment for specific collagen states (density, alignment, crosslinking, and hyaluronan load)—with the HAhigh signal seen with PEGPH20 illustrating the need for biomarkerguided selection; (iii) limited incorporation of mechanistic pharmacodynamic assessments of matrix remodeling (e.g., TACS, pore size, stiffness, and circulating collagen fragments) and few paired biopsies; (iv) insufficient testing and suboptimal sequencing of rational combinations with immunotherapy or mechanotransduction inhibitors. These constraints likely contribute to mixed or marginal efficacy signals (e.g., negative outcomes with LOX/LOXL2 or integrin strategies) and complicate attribution to the collagen–immune axis; and (v) the dual role of collagen in tumors argue for stage‑aware stromal interventions: dismantling a protective capsule too early may facilitate spread, whereas targeted de‑alignment or de‑crosslinking after the loss of containment can improve immune access and therapeutic efficacy [11, 46].

In conclusion, re-engineering the collagenous matrix represents one of the most promising frontiers in modern oncology. In addition, we argue for prospectively defined biomarkers that classify tumor collagen states and immune accessibility, such as the pan-cancer level immunocollagenic subtypes that we have already established [5]. Success will require continued interdisciplinary collaboration, bridging matrix biology, immunology, bioengineering, and clinical oncology to translate these mechanistic insights into transformative therapies that can overcome the stromal barriers to cure.

References

[1] Zhou N, Liu YD, Zhang Y, Gu TW, Peng LH. Pharmacological Functions, Synthesis, and Delivery Progress for Collagen as Biodrug and Biomaterial. Pharmaceutics. 2023; 15: 1443. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15051443.

[2] Bonnans C, Chou J, Werb Z. Remodelling the extracellular matrix in development and disease. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2014; 15: 786–801. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3904.

[3] Chen Y, Xiao C, Fan Q, Zhang Y, Huang Q, Ou Y. Multi-Omics Pan-Cancer Analysis of Procollagen N-Propeptidase Gene Family of ADAMTS as Novel Biomarkers to Associate with Prognosis, Tumor Immune Microenvironment, Signaling Pathways, and Drug Sensitivities. Frontiers in Bioscience (Landmark edition). 2024; 29: 151. https://doi.org/10.31083/j.fbl2904151.

[4] Xiao Z, Puré E. The fibroinflammatory response in cancer. Nature Reviews. Cancer. 2025; 25: 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-025-00798-8.

[5] Mei J, Cai Y, Xu R, Li Q, Chu J, Luo Z, et al. Conserved immuno-collagenic subtypes predict response to immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Communications (London, England). 2024; 44: 554–575. https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12538.

[6] Sahai E, Astsaturov I, Cukierman E, DeNardo DG, Egeblad M, Evans RM, et al. A framework for advancing our understanding of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nature Reviews. Cancer. 2020; 20: 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0238-1.

[7] Xi G, Qiu L, Xu S, Guo W, Fu F, Kang D, et al. Computer-assisted quantification of tumor-associated collagen signatures to improve the prognosis prediction of breast cancer. BMC Medicine. 2021; 19: 273. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02146-7.

[8] Su H, Karin M. Collagen architecture and signaling orchestrate cancer development. Trends in Cancer. 2023; 9: 764–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trecan.2023.06.002.

[9] Wang M, Wang Y, Pan X, Wang B, Wang Y, Luo X, et al. Acquired resistance to immunotherapy by physical barriers with cancer cell-expressing collagens in non-small cell lung cancer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2025; 122: e2500019122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2500019122.

[10] Chen M, Zhang Y, Zhou P, Liu X, Zhao H, Zhou X, et al. Substrate stiffness modulates bone marrow-derived macrophage polarization through NF-κB signaling pathway. Bioactive Materials. 2020; 5: 880–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2020.05.004.

[11] Sutherland TE, Dyer DP, Allen JE. The extracellular matrix and the immune system: A mutually dependent relationship. Science (New York, N.Y.). 2023; 379: eabp8964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp8964.

[12] Chen Y, Yang S, Tavormina J, Tampe D, Zeisberg M, Wang H, et al. Oncogenic collagen I homotrimers from cancer cells bind to α3β1 integrin and impact tumor microbiome and immunity to promote pancreatic cancer. Cancer Cell. 2022; 40: 818–834.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2022.06.011.

[13] Di Martino JS, Nobre AR, Mondal C, Taha I, Farias EF, Fertig EJ, et al. A tumor-derived type III collagen-rich ECM niche regulates tumor cell dormancy. Nature Cancer. 2022; 3: 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-021-00291-9.

[14] Zhang Q, An ZY, Jiang W, Jin WL, He XY. Collagen code in tumor microenvironment: Functions, molecular mechanisms, and therapeutic implications. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapie. 2023; 166: 115390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2023.115390.

[15] Xu YJ, Gong HL, Hu B, Hu B. Role of “Stiff Rim” sign obtained by shear wave elastography in diagnosis and guiding therapy of breast cancer. International Journal of Medical Sciences. 2021; 18: 3615–3623. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.64243.

[16] Xiao Z, Todd L, Huang L, Noguera-Ortega E, Lu Z, Huang L, et al. Desmoplastic stroma restricts T cell extravasation and mediates immune exclusion and immunosuppression in solid tumors. Nature Communications. 2023; 14: 5110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40850-5.

[17] He Y, Liu T, Dai S, Xu Z, Wang L, Luo F. Tumor-Associated Extracellular Matrix: How to Be a Potential Aide to Anti-tumor Immunotherapy? Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2021; 9: 739161. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.739161.

[18] Conklin MW, Eickhoff JC, Riching KM, Pehlke CA, Eliceiri KW, Provenzano PP, et al. Aligned collagen is a prognostic signature for survival in human breast carcinoma. The American Journal of Pathology. 2011; 178: 1221–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2010.11.076.

[19] Rappu P, Salo AM, Myllyharju J, Heino J. Role of prolyl hydroxylation in the molecular interactions of collagens. Essays in Biochemistry. 2019; 63: 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1042/EBC20180053.

[20] Su H, Karin M. Multifaceted collagen-DDR1 signaling in cancer. Trends in Cell Biology. 2024; 34: 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2023.08.003.

[21] Peng DH, Rodriguez BL, Diao L, Chen L, Wang J, Byers LA, et al. Collagen promotes anti-PD-1/PD-L1 resistance in cancer through LAIR1-dependent CD8⁺ T cell exhaustion. Nature Communications. 2020; 11: 4520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18298-8.

[22] Bansaccal N, Vieugue P, Sarate R, Song Y, Minguijon E, Miroshnikova YA, et al. The extracellular matrix dictates regional competence for tumour initiation. Nature. 2023; 623: 828–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06740-y.

[23] Du W, Nair P, Johnston A, Wu PH, Wirtz D. Cell Trafficking at the Intersection of the Tumor-Immune Compartments. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering. 2022; 24: 275–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-bioeng-110320-110749.

[24] Di Chiaro P, Nacci L, Arco F, Brandini S, Polletti S, Palamidessi A, et al. Mapping functional to morphological variation reveals the basis of regional extracellular matrix subversion and nerve invasion in pancreatic cancer. Cancer Cell. 2024; 42: 662–681.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2024.02.017.

[25] Tharp KM, Kersten K, Maller O, Timblin GA, Stashko C, Canale FP, et al. Tumor-associated macrophages restrict CD8⁺ T cell function through collagen deposition and metabolic reprogramming of the breast cancer microenvironment. Nature Cancer. 2024; 5: 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43018-024-00775-4.

[26] Humphrey JD, Dufresne ER, Schwartz MA. Mechanotransduction and extracellular matrix homeostasis. Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology. 2014; 15: 802–812. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3896.

[27] Xiong YX, Zhang XC, Zhu JH, Zhang YX, Pan YL, Wu Y, et al. Collagen I-DDR1 signaling promotes hepatocellular carcinoma cell stemness via Hippo signaling repression. Cell Death and Differentiation. 2023; 30: 1648–1665. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41418-023-01166-5.

[28] Zhang P, Gao Y, Tao R, Zheng J, Fu Y, He Y, et al. Membrane-anchored tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinase (TIMP)-1 promotes cell death in head and neck cancer by inducing DNA damage, accumulating collagen II and disrupting cell survival mechanisms. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules. 2025; 310: 143558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2025.143558.

[29] Cai X, Wang KC, Meng Z. Mechanoregulation of YAP and TAZ in Cellular Homeostasis and Disease Progression. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2021; 9: 673599. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.673599.

[30] Shen Y, Zhao S, Wang S, Pan X, Zhang Y, Xu J, et al. S1P/S1PR3 axis promotes aerobic glycolysis by YAP/c-MYC/PGAM1 axis in osteosarcoma. EBioMedicine. 2019; 40: 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.12.038.

[31] Naomi R, Ridzuan PM, Bahari H. Current Insights into Collagen Type I. Polymers. 2021; 13: 2642. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13162642.

[32] Kuczek DE, Larsen AMH, Thorseth ML, Carretta M, Kalvisa A, Siersbæk MS, et al. Collagen density regulates the activity of tumor-infiltrating T cells. Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. 2019; 7: 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-019-0556-6.

[33] Gong X, Wen Z, Liang Z, Xiao H, Lee S, Rossello-Martinez A, et al. Instant assembly of collagen for tissue engineering and bioprinting. Nature Materials. 2025; 24: 1307–1318. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-025-02241-7.

[34] de Almeida LGN, Thode H, Eslambolchi Y, Chopra S, Young D, Gill S, et al. Matrix Metalloproteinases: From Molecular Mechanisms to Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Pharmacology. Pharmacological Reviews. 2022; 74: 712–768. https://doi.org/10.1124/pharmrev.121.000349.

[35] Verginadis II, Avgousti H, Monslow J, Skoufos G, Chinga F, Kim K, et al. A stromal Integrated Stress Response activates perivascular cancer-associated fibroblasts to drive angiogenesis and tumour progression. Nature Cell Biology. 2022; 24: 940–953. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-022-00918-8.

[36] Herzog BH, Baer JM, Borcherding N, Kingston NL, Belle JI, Knolhoff BL, et al. Tumor-associated fibrosis impairs immune surveillance and response to immune checkpoint blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science Translational Medicine. 2023; 15: eadh8005. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.adh8005.

[37] Di X, Li Y, Wei J, Li T, Liao B. Targeting Fibrosis: From Molecular Mechanisms to Advanced Therapies. Advanced Science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany). 2025; 12: e2410416. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202410416.

[38] Li Z, Kang D, Xu S, Xi G, Li L, Zheng L, et al. Collagen signature adds prognostically significant information to staging for breast cancer. ESMO Open. 2024; 9: 103990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.103990.

[39] Ray A, Callaway MK, Rodríguez-Merced NJ, Crampton AL, Carlson M, Emme KB, et al. Stromal architecture directs early dissemination in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. JCI Insight. 2022; 7: e150330. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.150330.

[40] Caligiuri G, Tuveson DA. Activated fibroblasts in cancer: Perspectives and challenges. Cancer Cell. 2023; 41: 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2023.02.015.

[41] Xi G, Guo W, Kang D, Ma J, Fu F, Qiu L, et al. Large-scale tumor-associated collagen signatures identify high-risk breast cancer patients. Theranostics. 2021; 11: 3229–3243. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.55921.

[42] Hu Q, Zhu Y, Mei J, Liu Y, Zhou G. Extracellular matrix dynamics in tumor immunoregulation: from tumor microenvironment to immunotherapy. Journal of Hematology & Oncology. 2025; 18: 65. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-025-01717-y.

[43] Silvestri VL, Henriet E, Linville RM, Wong AD, Searson PC, Ewald AJ. A Tissue-Engineered 3D Microvessel Model Reveals the Dynamics of Mosaic Vessel Formation in Breast Cancer. Cancer Research. 2020; 80: 4288–4301. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-1564.

[44] Mei J, Yang K, Zhang X, Luo Z, Tian M, Fan H, et al. Intratumoral Collagen Deposition Supports Angiogenesis Suggesting Anti-angiogenic Therapy in Armored and Cold Tumors. Advanced Science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany). 2025; 12: e2409147. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202409147.

[45] Jensen C, Nissen NI, Von Arenstorff CS, Karsdal MA, Willumsen N. Serological assessment of collagen fragments and tumor fibrosis may guide immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research: CR. 2021; 40: 326. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-021-02133-z.

[46] Prakash J, Shaked Y. The Interplay between Extracellular Matrix Remodeling and Cancer Therapeutics. Cancer Discovery. 2024; 14: 1375–1388. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-24-0002.

[47] Meany H, Balis FM, Aikin A, Whitcomb P, Murphy RF, Steinberg SM, et al. Pediatric phase I trial design using maximum target inhibition as the primary endpoint. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2010; 102: 909–912. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djq174.

[48] Verlingue L, Italiano A, Prenen H, Guerra Alia EM, Tosi D, Perets R, et al. Phase 2 study of the antitumour activity and safety of simlukafusp alfa (FAP-IL2v) combined with atezolizumab in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic cervical squamous cell carcinoma. EBioMedicine. 2024; 109: 105374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105374.

[49] Faivre S, Santoro A, Kelley RK, Gane E, Costentin CE, Gueorguieva I, et al. Novel transforming growth factor beta receptor I kinase inhibitor galunisertib (LY2157299) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver International: Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver. 2019; 39: 1468–1477. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14113.

[50] Fujiwara Y, Nokihara H, Yamada Y, Yamamoto N, Sunami K, Utsumi H, et al. Phase 1 study of galunisertib, a TGF-beta receptor I kinase inhibitor, in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology. 2015; 76: 1143–1152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-015-2895-4.

[51] Formenti SC, Hawtin RE, Dixit N, Evensen E, Lee P, Goldberg JD, et al. Baseline T cell dysfunction by single cell network profiling in metastatic breast cancer patients. Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. 2019; 7: 177. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40425-019-0633-x.

[52] Widemann BC, Babovic-Vuksanovic D, Dombi E, Wolters PL, Goldman S, Martin S, et al. Phase II trial of pirfenidone in children and young adults with neurofibromatosis type 1 and progressive plexiform neurofibromas. Pediatric Blood & Cancer. 2014; 61: 1598–1602. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.25041.

[53] Auberle C, Gao F, Sloan M, Morgensztern D, Winkler L, Ward JP, et al. A pilot study of nintedanib in molecularly selected patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Disease. 2024; 16: 3782–3793. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-23-1717.

[54] Wyman K, Atkins MB, Prieto V, Eton O, McDermott DF, Hubbard F, et al. Multicenter Phase II trial of high-dose imatinib mesylate in metastatic melanoma: significant toxicity with no clinical efficacy. Cancer. 2006; 106: 2005–2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21834.

[55] Chiappori AA, Eckhardt SG, Bukowski R, Sullivan DM, Ikeda M, Yano Y, et al. A phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of s-3304, a novel matrix metalloproteinase inhibitor, in patients with advanced and refractory solid tumors. Clinical Cancer Research: an Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2007; 13: 2091–2099. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1586.

[56] Hingorani SR, Zheng L, Bullock AJ, Seery TE, Harris WP, Sigal DS, et al. HALO 202: Randomized Phase II Study of PEGPH20 Plus Nab-Paclitaxel/Gemcitabine Versus Nab-Paclitaxel/Gemcitabine in Patients With Untreated, Metastatic Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2018; 36: 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.74.9564.

[57] Benson AB, 3rd, Wainberg ZA, Hecht JR, Vyushkov D, Dong H, Bendell J, et al. A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Simtuzumab or Placebo in Combination with Gemcitabine for the First-Line Treatment of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. The Oncologist. 2017; 22: 241–e15. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2017-0024.

[58] Carvajal RD, Lawrence DP, Weber JS, Gajewski TF, Gonzalez R, Lutzky J, et al. Phase II Study of Nilotinib in Melanoma Harboring KIT Alterations Following Progression to Prior KIT Inhibition. Clinical Cancer Research: an Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 2015; 21: 2289–2296. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1630.

[59] Vansteenkiste J, Barlesi F, Waller CF, Bennouna J, Gridelli C, Goekkurt E, et al. Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO). Annals of Oncology: Official Journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. 2015; 26: 1734–1740. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv219.

[60] Dean A, Gill S, McGregor M, Broadbridge V, Järveläinen HA, Price T. Dual αV-integrin and neuropilin-1 targeting peptide CEND-1 plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a first-in-human, open-label, multicentre, phase 1 study. The Lancet. Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2022; 7: 943–951. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00167-4.

[61] Ma Y, Yang Y, Huang Y, Fang W, Xue J, Meng X, et al. A B7H3-targeting antibody-drug conjugate in advanced solid tumors: a phase 1/1b trial. Nature Medicine. 2025; 31: 1949–1957. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03600-2.

[62] Wildiers H, Fontaine C, Vuylsteke P, Martens M, Canon JL, Wynendaele W, et al. Multicenter phase II randomized trial evaluating antiangiogenic therapy with sunitinib as consolidation after objective response to taxane chemotherapy in women with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2010; 123: 463–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1066-x.

[63] Pujalte Martin M, Borchiellini D, Thamphya B, Guillot A, Paoli JB, Besson D, et al. TAXOMET: A French Prospective Multicentric Randomized Phase II Study of Docetaxel Plus Metformin Versus Docetaxel Plus Placebo in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Clinical Genitourinary Cancer. 2021; 19: 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2021.08.008.

[64] Yan Y, Sun D, Hu J, Chen Y, Sun L, Yu H, et al. Multi-omic profiling highlights factors associated with resistance to immuno-chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature Genetics. 2025; 57: 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-024-01998-y.

[65] Cui XY, Li Z, Kong Z, Liu Y, Meng H, Wen Z, et al. Covalent targeted radioligands potentiate radionuclide therapy. Nature. 2024; 630: 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07461-6.

[66] Peng D, Fu M, Wang M, Wei Y, Wei X. Targeting TGF-β signal transduction for fibrosis and cancer therapy. Molecular Cancer. 2022; 21: 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-022-01569-x.

[67] Zhang M, Zhang YY, Chen Y, Wang J, Wang Q, Lu H. TGF-β Signaling and Resistance to Cancer Therapy. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2021; 9: 786728. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.786728.

[68] Richeldi L, Azuma A, Cottin V, Kreuter M, Maher TM, Martinez FJ, et al. Nerandomilast in Patients with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2025; 392: 2193–2202. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2414108.

[69] Kim HD, Yoo C, Ryu MH, Kang YK. A randomised phase 2 study of continuous or intermittent dosing schedule of imatinib re-challenge in patients with tyrosine kinase inhibitor-refractory gastrointestinal stromal tumours. British Journal of Cancer. 2023; 129: 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-023-02269-z.

[70] Zou M, Zhang C, Sun Y, Wu H, Xiao F, Gao W, et al. Comprehensive analysis of matrix metalloproteinases and their inhibitors in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Acta Oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden). 2022; 61: 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2021.2009564.

[71] Huang P, Gao W, Fu C, Wang M, Li Y, Chu B, et al. Clinical functional proteomics of intercellular signalling in pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2025; 637: 726–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-08225-y.

[72] Mustafa S, Koran S, AlOmair L. Insights Into the Role of Matrix Metalloproteinases in Cancer and its Various Therapeutic Aspects: A Review. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences. 2022; 9: 896099. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2022.896099.

[73] Yang C, Liao X, Zhou K, Yao Y, He X, Zhong W, et al. Multifunctional nanoparticles and collagenase dual loaded thermosensitive hydrogel system for enhanced tumor-penetration, reversed immune suppression and photodynamic-immunotherapy. Bioactive Materials. 2025; 48: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2025.02.014.

[74] Zhou P, Du X, Jia W, Feng K, Zhang Y. Engineered extracellular vesicles for targeted reprogramming of cancer-associated fibroblasts to potentiate therapy of pancreatic cancer. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2024; 9: 151. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-024-01872-7.

[75] Van Cutsem E, Tempero MA, Sigal D, Oh DY, Fazio N, Macarulla T, et al. Randomized Phase III Trial of Pegvorhyaluronidase Alfa With Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine for Patients With Hyaluronan-High Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2020; 38: 3185–3194. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.00590.

[76] Li Y, Chen W, Kang Y, Zhen X, Zhou Z, Liu C, et al. Nanosensitizer-mediated augmentation of sonodynamic therapy efficacy and antitumor immunity. Nature Communications. 2023; 14: 6973. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42509-7.

[77] Sun X, Wu B, Chiang HC, Deng H, Zhang X, Xiong W, et al. Tumour DDR1 promotes collagen fibre alignment to instigate immune exclusion. Nature. 2021; 599: 673–678. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04057-2.

[78] Pang X, He X, Qiu Z, Zhang H, Xie R, Liu Z, et al. Targeting integrin pathways: mechanisms and advances in therapy. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy. 2023; 8: 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-022-01259-6.

[79] Guelfi S, Hodivala-Dilke K, Bergers G. Targeting the tumour vasculature: from vessel destruction to promotion. Nature Reviews. Cancer. 2024; 24: 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-024-00736-0.

[80] Aggarwal C, Prawira A, Antonia S, Rahma O, Tolcher A, Cohen RB, et al. Dual checkpoint targeting of B7-H3 and PD-1 with enoblituzumab and pembrolizumab in advanced solid tumors: interim results from a multicenter phase I/II trial. Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. 2022; 10: e004424. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2021-004424.

[81] Mei J, Cai Y, Zhu H, Jiang Y, Fu Z, Xu J, et al. High B7-H3 expression with low PD-L1 expression identifies armored-cold tumors in triple-negative breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2024; 10: 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-024-00618-6.

[82] Mei J, Chu J, Yang K, Luo Z, Yang J, Xu J, et al. Angiotensin receptor blocker attacks armored and cold tumors and boosts immune checkpoint blockade. Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer. 2024; 12: e009327. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2024-009327.

[83] Garg M, Royce SG, Tikellis C, Shallue C, Batu D, Velkoska E, et al. Imbalance of the renin-angiotensin system may contribute to inflammation and fibrosis in IBD: a novel therapeutic target? Gut. 2020; 69: 841–851. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318512.