Christine N. Spencer
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Christine N. Spencer.
Cancer Discovery | 2016
Pei Ling Chen; Whijae Roh; Alexandre Reuben; Zachary A. Cooper; Christine N. Spencer; Peter A. Prieto; John P. Miller; Roland L. Bassett; Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Khalida Wani; Mariana Petaccia de Macedo; Jacob Austin-Breneman; Hong Jiang; Qing Chang; Sangeetha M. Reddy; Wei Shen Chen; Michael T. Tetzlaff; R. Broaddus; Michael A. Davies; Jeffrey E. Gershenwald; Lauren E. Haydu; Alexander J. Lazar; Sapna Pradyuman Patel; Patrick Hwu; Wen-Jen Hwu; Adi Diab; Isabella C. Glitza; Scott E. Woodman; Luis Vence; Ignacio I. Wistuba
UNLABELLED Immune checkpoint blockade represents a major breakthrough in cancer therapy; however, responses are not universal. Genomic and immune features in pretreatment tumor biopsies have been reported to correlate with response in patients with melanoma and other cancers, but robust biomarkers have not been identified. We studied a cohort of patients with metastatic melanoma initially treated with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA4) blockade (n = 53) followed by programmed death-1 (PD-1) blockade at progression (n = 46), and analyzed immune signatures in longitudinal tissue samples collected at multiple time points during therapy. In this study, we demonstrate that adaptive immune signatures in tumor biopsy samples obtained early during the course of treatment are highly predictive of response to immune checkpoint blockade and also demonstrate differential effects on the tumor microenvironment induced by CTLA4 and PD-1 blockade. Importantly, potential mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to immune checkpoint blockade were also identified. SIGNIFICANCE These studies demonstrate that adaptive immune signatures in early on-treatment tumor biopsies are predictive of response to checkpoint blockade and yield insight into mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. These concepts have far-reaching implications in this age of precision medicine and should be explored in immune checkpoint blockade treatment across cancer types. Cancer Discov; 6(8); 827-37. ©2016 AACR.See related commentary by Teng et al., p. 818This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 803.
Science Translational Medicine | 2017
Whijae Roh; Pei Ling Chen; Alexandre Reuben; Christine N. Spencer; Peter A. Prieto; John P. Miller; Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Feng Wang; Zachary A. Cooper; Sangeetha M. Reddy; Curtis Gumbs; Latasha Little; Qing Chang; Wei Shen Chen; Khalida Wani; Mariana Petaccia de Macedo; Eveline Chen; Jacob Austin-Breneman; Hong Jiang; Jason Roszik; Michael T. Tetzlaff; Michael A. Davies; Jeffrey E. Gershenwald; Hussein Abdul-Hassan Tawbi; Alexander J. Lazar; Patrick Hwu; Wen-Jen Hwu; Adi Diab; Isabella C. Glitza; Sapna Pradyuman Patel
Profiling of melanoma patients treated with checkpoint blockade reveals TCR clonality and copy number loss as correlates of therapeutic response. Checking on checkpoint inhibitors Immune checkpoint blockade has greatly improved the success of treatment in melanoma and other tumor types, but it is expensive and does not work for all patients. To optimize the likelihood of therapeutic success and reduce the risks and expense of unnecessary treatment, it would be helpful to find biomarkers that can predict treatment response. Roh et al. studied patients treated with sequential checkpoint inhibitors targeting CTLA-4 and then PD-1. In these patients, the authors discovered that a more clonal T cell population specifically correlates with response to PD-1 blockade, but not CTLA-4, which may help identify the best candidates for this treatment. In addition, increased frequency of gene copy number loss was correlated with decreased responsiveness to either therapy. Immune checkpoint blockade produces clinical benefit in many patients. However, better biomarkers of response are still needed, and mechanisms of resistance remain incompletely understood. To address this, we recently studied a cohort of melanoma patients treated with sequential checkpoint blockade against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen–4 (CTLA-4) followed by programmed death receptor–1 (PD-1) and identified immune markers of response and resistance. Building on these studies, we performed deep molecular profiling including T cell receptor sequencing and whole-exome sequencing within the same cohort and demonstrated that a more clonal T cell repertoire was predictive of response to PD-1 but not CTLA-4 blockade. Analysis of CNAs identified a higher burden of copy number loss in nonresponders to CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade and found that it was associated with decreased expression of genes in immune-related pathways. The effect of mutational load and burden of copy number loss on response was nonredundant, suggesting the potential utility of a combinatorial biomarker to optimize patient care with checkpoint blockade therapy.
Cancer biology and medicine | 2014
Teresa Kim; Rodabe N. Amaria; Christine N. Spencer; Alexandre Reuben; Zachary A. Cooper; Jennifer A. Wargo
Melanoma is the deadliest form of skin cancer and has an incidence that is rising faster than any other solid tumor. Metastatic melanoma treatment has considerably progressed in the past five years with the introduction of targeted therapy (BRAF and MEK inhibitors) and immune checkpoint blockade (anti-CTLA4, anti-PD-1, and anti-PD-L1). However, each treatment modality has limitations. Treatment with targeted therapy has been associated with a high response rate, but with short-term responses. Conversely, treatment with immune checkpoint blockade has a lower response rate, but with long-term responses. Targeted therapy affects antitumor immunity, and synergy may exist when targeted therapy is combined with immunotherapy. This article presents a brief review of the rationale and evidence for the potential synergy between targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockade. Challenges and directions for future studies are also proposed.
Lancet Oncology | 2018
Jennifer L. McQuade; Carrie R. Daniel; Kenneth R. Hess; Carmen Mak; Daniel Y. Wang; Rajat Rai; John J. Park; Lauren E. Haydu; Christine N. Spencer; Matthew Wongchenko; Stephen R. Lane; Dung Yang Lee; Mathilde Kaper; Meredith Ann McKean; Kathryn E. Beckermann; Samuel M. Rubinstein; Isabelle Rooney; Luna Musib; Nageshwar Budha; Jessie J. Hsu; Theodore S. Nowicki; Alexandre Avila; Tomas Haas; Maneka Puligandla; Sandra J. Lee; Shenying Fang; Jennifer A. Wargo; Jeffrey E. Gershenwald; Jeffrey E. Lee; Patrick Hwu
BACKGROUND Obesity has been linked to increased mortality in several cancer types; however, the relation between obesity and survival outcomes in metastatic melanoma is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between body-mass index (BMI) and progression-free survival or overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma who received targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy. METHODS This retrospective study analysed independent cohorts of patients with metastatic melanoma assigned to treatment with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy in randomised clinical trials and one retrospective study of patients treated with immunotherapy. Patients were classified according to BMI, following the WHO definitions, as underweight, normal, overweight, or obese. Patients without BMI and underweight patients were excluded. The primary outcomes were the associations between BMI and progression-free survival or overall survival, stratified by treatment type and sex. We did multivariable analyses in the independent cohorts, and combined adjusted hazard ratios in a mixed-effects meta-analysis to provide a precise estimate of the association between BMI and survival outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed with meta-regression analyses. Analyses were done on the predefined intention-to-treat population in the randomised controlled trials and on all patients included in the retrospective study. FINDINGS The six cohorts consisted of a total of 2046 patients with metastatic melanoma treated with targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or chemotherapy between Aug 8, 2006, and Jan 15, 2016. 1918 patients were included in the analysis. Two cohorts containing patients from randomised controlled trials treated with targeted therapy (dabrafenib plus trametinib [n=599] and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib [n=240]), two cohorts containing patients treated with immunotherapy (one randomised controlled trial of ipilimumab plus dacarbazine [n=207] and a retrospective cohort treated with pembrolizumab, nivolumab, or atezolizumab [n=331]), and two cohorts containing patients treated with chemotherapy (two randomised controlled trials of dacarbazine [n=320 and n=221]) were classified according to BMI as normal (694 [36%] patients), overweight (711 [37%]), or obese (513 [27%]). In the pooled analysis, obesity, compared with normal BMI, was associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (average adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·77 [95% CI 0·66-0·90] for progression-free survival and 0·74 [0·58-0·95] for overall survival). The survival benefit associated with obesity was restricted to patients treated with targeted therapy (HR 0·72 [0·57-0·91] for progression-free survival and 0·60 [0·45-0·79] for overall survival) and immunotherapy (HR 0·75 [0·56-1·00] and 0·64 [0·47-0·86]). No associations were observed with chemotherapy (HR 0·87 [0·65-1·17, pinteraction=0·61] for progression-free survival and 1·03 [0·80-1·34, pinteraction=0·01] for overall survival). The association of BMI with overall survival for patients treated with targeted and immune therapies differed by sex, with inverse associations in men (HR 0·53 [0·40-0·70]), but no associations observed in women (HR 0·85 [0·61-1·18, pinteraction=0·03]). INTERPRETATION Our results suggest that in patients with metastatic melanoma, obesity is associated with improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with those outcomes in patients with normal BMI, and that this association is mainly seen in male patients treated with targeted or immune therapy. These results have implications for the design of future clinical trials for patients with metastatic melanoma and the magnitude of the benefit found supports further investigation of the underlying mechanism of these associations. FUNDING ASCO/CCF Young Investigator Award, ASCO/CCF Career Development Award, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) Melanoma Moonshot Program, MDACC Melanoma SPORE, and the Dr Miriam and Sheldon G Adelson Medical Research Foundation.
OncoImmunology | 2016
Zachary A. Cooper; Alexandre Reuben; Christine N. Spencer; Peter A. Prieto; Jacob Austin-Breneman; Hong Jiang; Cara Haymaker; Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Michael T. Tetzlaff; Dennie T. Frederick; Ryan J. Sullivan; Rodabe N. Amaria; Sapna Pradyuman Patel; Patrick Hwu; Scott E. Woodman; Isabella C. Glitza; Adi Diab; Luis Vence; Jaime Rodriguez-Canales; Edwin R. Parra; Ignacio I. Wistuba; Lisa M. Coussens; Arlene H. Sharpe; Keith T. Flaherty; Jeffrey E. Gershenwald; Lynda Chin; Michael A. Davies; Karen Clise-Dwyer; James P. Allison; Padmanee Sharma
ABSTRACT We have made major advances in the treatment of melanoma through the use of targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockade; however, clinicians are posed with therapeutic dilemmas regarding timing and sequence of therapy. There is a growing appreciation of the impact of antitumor immune responses to these therapies, and we performed studies to test the hypothesis that clinical patterns and immune infiltrates differ at progression on these treatments. We observed rapid clinical progression kinetics in patients on targeted therapy compared to immune checkpoint blockade. To gain insight into possible immune mechanisms behind these differences, we performed deep immune profiling in tumors of patients on therapy. We demonstrated low CD8+ T-cell infiltrate on targeted therapy and high CD8+ T-cell infiltrate on immune checkpoint blockade at clinical progression. These data have important implications, and suggest that antitumor immune responses should be assessed when considering therapeutic options for patients with melanoma.
Lancet Oncology | 2018
Rodabe N. Amaria; Peter A. Prieto; Michael T. Tetzlaff; Alexandre Reuben; Miles C. Andrews; Merrick I. Ross; Isabella C. Glitza; Janice N. Cormier; Wen-Jen Hwu; Hussein Abdul-Hassan Tawbi; Sapna Pradyuman Patel; Jeffrey E. Lee; Jeffrey E. Gershenwald; Christine N. Spencer; Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Roland L. Bassett; Lauren Simpson; Rosalind Mouton; Courtney W. Hudgens; Li Zhao; Haifeng Zhu; Zachary A. Cooper; Khalida Wani; Alexander J. Lazar; Patrick Hwu; Adi Diab; Michael K. Wong; Jennifer L. McQuade; Richard E. Royal; Anthony Lucci
BACKGROUND Dual BRAF and MEK inhibition produces a response in a large number of patients with stage IV BRAF-mutant melanoma. The existing standard of care for patients with clinical stage III melanoma is upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy, which is insufficient to cure most patients. Neoadjuvant targeted therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors (such as dabrafenib and trametinib) might provide clinical benefit in this high-risk p opulation. METHODS We undertook this single-centre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA). Eligible participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically or cytologically confirmed surgically resectable clinical stage III or oligometastatic stage IV BRAFV600E or BRAFV600K (ie, Val600Glu or Val600Lys)-mutated melanoma. Eligible patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, a life expectancy of more than 3 years, and no previous exposure to BRAF or MEK inhibitors. Exclusion criteria included metastases to bone, brain, or other sites where complete surgical excision was in doubt. We randomly assigned patients (1:2) to either upfront surgery and consideration for adjuvant therapy (standard of care group) or neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib (8 weeks of neoadjuvant oral dabrafenib 150 mg twice per day and oral trametinib 2 mg per day followed by surgery, then up to 44 weeks of adjuvant dabrafenib plus trametinib starting 1 week after surgery for a total of 52 weeks of treatment). Randomisation was not masked and was implemented by the clinical trial conduct website maintained by the trial centre. Patients were stratified by disease stage. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed event-free survival (ie, patients who were alive without disease progression) at 12 months in the intent-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02231775. FINDINGS Between Oct 23, 2014, and April 13, 2016, we randomly assigned seven patients to standard of care, and 14 to neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. The trial was stopped early after a prespecified interim safety analysis that occurred after a quarter of the participants had been accrued revealed significantly longer event-free survival with neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib than with standard of care. After a median follow-up of 18·6 months (IQR 14·6-23·1), significantly more patients receiving neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were alive without disease progression than those receiving standard of care (ten [71%] of 14 patients vs none of seven in the standard of care group; median event-free survival was 19·7 months [16·2-not estimable] vs 2·9 months [95% CI 1·7-not estimable]; hazard ratio 0·016, 95% CI 0·00012-0·14, p<0·0001). Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib were well tolerated with no occurrence of grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. The most common adverse events in the neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib group were expected grade 1-2 toxicities including chills (12 patients [92%]), headache (12 [92%]), and pyrexia (ten [77%]). The most common grade 3 adverse event was diarrhoea (two patients [15%]). INTERPRETATION Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib significantly improved event-free survival versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable, clinical stage III-IV melanoma. Although the trial finished early, limiting generalisability of the results, the findings provide proof-of-concept and support the rationale for further investigation of neoadjuvant approaches in this disease. This trial is currently continuing accrual as a single-arm study of neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib. FUNDING Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.
npj Genomic Medicine | 2017
Alexandre Reuben; Christine N. Spencer; Peter A. Prieto; Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Sangeetha M. Reddy; John P. Miller; Xizeng Mao; Mariana Petaccia de Macedo; Jiong Chen; Xingzhi Song; Hong Jiang; Pei Ling Chen; Hannah C. Beird; Haven R. Garber; Whijae Roh; Khalida Wani; Eveline Chen; Cara Haymaker; Marie Andrée Forget; Latasha Little; Curtis Gumbs; Rebecca Thornton; Courtney W. Hudgens; Wei Shen Chen; Jacob Austin-Breneman; Robert Sloane; Luigi Nezi; Alexandria P. Cogdill; Chantale Bernatchez; Jason Roszik
Appreciation for genomic and immune heterogeneity in cancer has grown though the relationship of these factors to treatment response has not been thoroughly elucidated. To better understand this, we studied a large cohort of melanoma patients treated with targeted therapy or immune checkpoint blockade (n = 60). Heterogeneity in therapeutic responses via radiologic assessment was observed in the majority of patients. Synchronous melanoma metastases were analyzed via deep genomic and immune profiling, and revealed substantial genomic and immune heterogeneity in all patients studied, with considerable diversity in T cell frequency, and few shared T cell clones (<8% on average) across the cohort. Variables related to treatment response were identified via these approaches and through novel radiomic assessment. These data yield insight into differential therapeutic responses to targeted therapy and immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma, and have key translational implications in the age of precision medicine.Melanoma: Tumor differences within a patient may explain heterogeneous responsesPatients with metastatic melanoma display molecular and immune differences across tumor sites associated with differential drug responses. A team led by Jennifer Wargo from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA, studied the radiological responses of 60 patients with metastatic melanoma, half of whom received targeted drug therapy and half of whom received an immune checkpoint inhibitor. The majority (83%) showed differences in responses across metastases. The group then profiled tumors in a subset, and found molecular and immune heterogeneity in different tumors within the same patient. Heterogeneity in mutational and immune profiles within tumors from individual patients could explain differences in treatment response. Knowing this, the authors emphasize the importance of acquiring biopsies from more than one tumor site in order to best tailor therapies to the features of metastatic cancer.
Cancer Cell | 2018
Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Beth A. Helmink; Christine N. Spencer; Alexandre Reuben; Jennifer A. Wargo
The microbiome is receiving significant attention given its influence on a host of human diseases including cancer. Its role in response to cancer treatment is becoming increasingly apparent, with evidence suggesting that modulating the gut microbiome may affect responses to numerous forms of cancer therapy. A working knowledge of the microbiome is vital as we move forward in this age of precision medicine, and an understanding of the microbiomes influence on immune responses and cancer is key. It is also important to understand factors influencing the gut microbiome and strategies to manipulate the microbiome to augment therapeutic responses.
OncoImmunology | 2017
Yong Qin; Mariana Petaccia de Macedo; Alexandre Reuben; Marie Andrée Forget; Cara Haymaker; Chantale Bernatchez; Christine N. Spencer; Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Sujan Reddy; Zachary A. Cooper; Orenthial J. Fulbright; Arely Wahl; Esteban Flores; Shawne T. Thorsen; René J. Tavera; Claudius Conrad; Michelle D. Williams; Michael T. Tetzlaff; Wei Lien Wang; Dan S. Gombos; Bita Esmaeli; Rodabe N. Amaria; Patrick Hwu; Jennifer A. Wargo; Alexander J. Lazar; Sapna Pradyuman Patel
ABSTRACT The low response rates to immunotherapy in uveal melanoma (UM) sharply contrast with reputable response rates in cutaneous melanoma (CM) patients. To characterize the mechanisms responsible for resistance to immunotherapy in UM, we performed immune profiling in tumors from 10 metastatic UM patients and 10 metastatic CM patients by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Although there is no difference in infiltrating CD8+ T cells between UM and CM, a significant decrease in programmed death-1 (PD-1)-positive lymphocytes was observed and lower levels of programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) in UM metastases compared with CM metastases. Tumors from metastatic UM patients showed a lower success rate of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) growth compared with metastatic CM (45% vs. 64% success), with a significantly lower quantity of UM TIL expanded overall. These studies suggest that UM and CM are immunologically distinct, and provide potential explanation for the impaired success of immunotherapy in UM.
Cancer Research | 2017
Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan; Christine N. Spencer; Alexandre Reuben; Peter A. Prieto; Diego Vicente; Tatiana Karpinets; Courtney W. Hudgens; Diane S. Hutchinson; Michael T. Tetzlaff; Alexander J. Lazar; Michael A. Davies; Jeffrey E. Gershenwald; Robert R. Jenq; Patrick Hwu; Padmanee Sharma; James P. Allison; Andrew Futreal; Nadim J. Ajami; Joseph F. Petrosino; Carrie Daniel-MacDougall; Jennifer A. Wargo
Background: Melanoma therapy has benefitted greatly from immune checkpoint blockade, although responses are variable and not always durable. There is a growing appreciation of the role of the microbiome in cancer-related outcomes and recent evidence in murine models suggests that modulation of the gut microbiome may enhance responses to immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma. However this has not been investigated in patients. Here, we demonstrate that differential bacterial “signatures” exist in the gut microbiome of responders (R) and non-responders (NR) to anti-PD-1 therapy, and that insights gained could be used to derive actionable strategies to enhance responses. Methods: We collected buccal (n=105) and stool (n=53) samples from a cohort of anti-PD-1 treated metastatic melanoma patients (n=110). Patients were classified as either R or NR based on RECIST criteria, and 16S rDNA, and whole-genome shotgun sequencing was performed to characterize the diversity, composition and functional capabilities of the microbiomes. Immune profiling (via 7-marker IHC panel of CD3, CD8, PD-1, PD-L1, Granzyme B, RORγT and FoxP3) and cytokine analyses were also performed on available tumors and serum samples at baseline. Results: In these studies, we observed significant differences in the diversity and composition of the gut microbiome in R versus NR to PD-1 blockade at baseline, but no clear differences in buccal microbiomes. Specifically, R had a significantly higher alpha diversity compared to NR (p=0.017), and the Ruminococcaceae family of the Clostridiales order was enriched in R whereas Prevotellaceae family of the Bacteroidales order was enriched in NR. Immune profiling demonstrated significantly increased immune infiltrates in baseline tumor samples of R, with a positive correlation between CD8, CD3, PD-1 and FoxP3 T-cell density and abundance of specific bacteria enriched in R (e.g. Faecalibacterium). Low diversity was also associated with elevated levels of chronic inflammation markers in the serum at baseline. Lastly, we saw differentially abundant metabolic pathways in the gut microbiomes of R (pyrimidine nucleotide biosynthesis, fatty acid biosynthesis, shikimate pathway) vs NR (Tricarboxylic acid cycle, assimilatory sulphate and nitrate reduction, tryptophan biosynthesis). Conclusion: Differences exist in the diversity and composition of the gut microbiome in R vs NR to anti-PD-1 therapy and these microbiota could bridge the gap between host metabolism and anti-tumor immunity. These results have far-reaching implications and suggest that modifications to the gut microbiome could potentially enhance therapeutic responses to immune checkpoint blockade. Citation Format: Vancheswaran Gopalakrishnan, Christine Spencer, Alexandre Reuben, Peter Prieto, Diego Vicente, Tatiana V. Karpinets, Courtney W. Hudgens, Diane S. Hutchinson, Michael Tetzlaff, Alexander Lazar, Michael A. Davies, Jeffrey E. Gershenwald, Robert Jenq, Patrick Hwu, Padmanee Sharma, James Allison, Andrew Futreal, Nadim Ajami, Joseph Petrosino, Carrie Daniel-MacDougall, Jennifer A. Wargo. Response to anti-PD-1 based therapy in metastatic melanoma patients is associated with the diversity and composition of the gut microbiome [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 2672. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-2672