Miles C. Andrews

Gut microbiome modulates response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in melanoma patients.

Good bacteria help fight cancer Resident gut bacteria can affect patient responses to cancer immunotherapy (see the Perspective by Jobin). Routy et al. show that antibiotic consumption is associated with poor response to immunotherapeutic PD-1 blockade. They profiled samples from patients with lung and kidney cancers and found that nonresponding patients had low levels of the bacterium Akkermansia muciniphila. Oral supplementation of the bacteria to antibiotic-treated mice restored the response to immunotherapy. Matson et al. and Gopalakrishnan et al. studied melanoma patients receiving PD-1 blockade and found a greater abundance of “good” bacteria in the guts of responding patients. Nonresponders had an imbalance in gut flora composition, which correlated with impaired immune cell activity. Thus, maintaining healthy gut flora could help patients combat cancer. Science, this issue p. 91, p. 104, p. 97; see also p. 32 Gut bacteria influence patient response to cancer therapy. Preclinical mouse models suggest that the gut microbiome modulates tumor response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy; however, this has not been well-characterized in human cancer patients. Here we examined the oral and gut microbiome of melanoma patients undergoing anti–programmed cell death 1 protein (PD-1) immunotherapy (n = 112). Significant differences were observed in the diversity and composition of the patient gut microbiome of responders versus nonresponders. Analysis of patient fecal microbiome samples (n = 43, 30 responders, 13 nonresponders) showed significantly higher alpha diversity (P < 0.01) and relative abundance of bacteria of the Ruminococcaceae family (P < 0.01) in responding patients. Metagenomic studies revealed functional differences in gut bacteria in responders, including enrichment of anabolic pathways. Immune profiling suggested enhanced systemic and antitumor immunity in responding patients with a favorable gut microbiome as well as in germ-free mice receiving fecal transplants from responding patients. Together, these data have important implications for the treatment of melanoma patients with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Distinct Cellular Mechanisms Underlie Anti-CTLA-4 and Anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Blockade

Immune-checkpoint blockade is able to achieve durable responses in a subset of patients; however, we lack a satisfying comprehension of the underlying mechanisms of anti-CTLA-4- and anti-PD-1-induced tumor rejection. To address these issues, we utilized mass cytometry to comprehensively profile the effects of checkpoint blockade on tumor immune infiltrates in human melanoma and murine tumor models. These analyses reveal a spectrum of tumor-infiltrating Txa0cell populations that are highly similar between tumor models and indicate that checkpoint blockade targets only specific subsets of tumor-infiltrating Txa0cell populations. Anti-PD-1 predominantly induces the expansion of specific tumor-infiltrating exhausted-like CD8 Txa0cell subsets. In contrast, anti-CTLA-4 induces the expansion of an ICOS+ Th1-like CD4 effector population in addition to engaging specific subsets of exhausted-likexa0CD8 Txa0cells. Thus, our findings indicate that anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1 checkpoint-blockade-induced immune responses are driven by distinct cellular mechanisms.

Hallmarks of response to immune checkpoint blockade

Unprecedented advances have been made in the treatment of cancer through the use of immune checkpoint blockade, with approval of several checkpoint blockade regimens spanning multiple cancer types. However, responses to this form of therapy are not universal, and insights are clearly needed to identify optimal biomarkers of response and to combat mechanisms of therapeutic resistance. A working knowledge of the hallmarks of cancer yields insight into responses to immune checkpoint blockade, although the focus of this is rather tumour-centric and additional factors are pertinent, including host immunity and environmental influences. Herein, we describe the foundation for pillars and hallmarks of response to immune checkpoint blockade, with a discussion of their relevance to immune monitoring and mechanisms of resistance. Evolution of this understanding will ultimately help guide treatment strategies to enhance therapeutic responses.

Neoadjuvant plus adjuvant dabrafenib and trametinib versus standard of care in patients with high-risk, surgically resectable melanoma: a single-centre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUNDnDual 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.nnnMETHODSnWe 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.nnnFINDINGSnBetween 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%]).nnnINTERPRETATIONnNeoadjuvant 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.nnnFUNDINGnNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Targeting endothelin receptor signalling overcomes heterogeneity driven therapy failure

Approaches to prolong responses to BRAF targeting drugs in melanoma patients are challenged by phenotype heterogeneity. Melanomas of a “MITF‐high” phenotype usually respond well to BRAF inhibitor therapy, but these melanomas also contain subpopulations of the de novo resistance “AXL‐high” phenotype. > 50% of melanomas progress with enriched “AXL‐high” populations, and because AXL is linked to de‐differentiation and invasiveness avoiding an “AXL‐high relapse” is desirable. We discovered that phenotype heterogeneity is supported during the response phase of BRAF inhibitor therapy due to MITF‐induced expression of endothelin 1 (EDN1). EDN1 expression is enhanced in tumours of patients on treatment and confers drug resistance through ERK re‐activation in a paracrine manner. Most importantly, EDN1 not only supports MITF‐high populations through the endothelin receptor B (EDNRB), but also AXL‐high populations through EDNRA, making it a master regulator of phenotype heterogeneity. Endothelin receptor antagonists suppress AXL‐high‐expressing cells and sensitize to BRAF inhibition, suggesting that targeting EDN1 signalling could improve BRAF inhibitor responses without selecting for AXL‐high cells.

Immunotherapy resistance: the answers lie ahead – not in front – of us

Mechanisms of innate and adaptive resistance to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy are under intense investigation with a view to broadening the therapeutic potential of this form of treatment. In a recent manuscript by Zaretsky and colleagues, mutational events were identified that effectively crippled ongoing immunotherapy responses in patients treated with anti-PD-1 therapy. These results are discussed in the light of other recent and ongoing research efforts exploring both mutational and non-mutational resistance mechanisms, highlighting the critical translational importance of longitudinal tumor sampling.

The RNA-binding Protein MEX3B Mediates Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy by Downregulating HLA-A Expression

Purpose: Cancer immunotherapy has shown promising clinical outcomes in many patients. However, some patients still fail to respond, and new strategies are needed to overcome resistance. The purpose of this study was to identify novel genes and understand the mechanisms that confer resistance to cancer immunotherapy. Experimental Design: To identify genes mediating resistance to T-cell killing, we performed an open reading frame (ORF) screen of a kinome library to study whether overexpression of a gene in patient-derived melanoma cells could inhibit their susceptibility to killing by autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL). Results: The RNA-binding protein MEX3B was identified as a top candidate that decreased the susceptibility of melanoma cells to killing by TILs. Further analyses of anti–PD-1–treated melanoma patient tumor samples suggested that higher MEX3B expression is associated with resistance to PD-1 blockade. In addition, significantly decreased levels of IFNγ were secreted from TILs incubated with MEX3B-overexpressing tumor cells. Interestingly, this phenotype was rescued upon overexpression of exogenous HLA-A2. Consistent with this, we observed decreased HLA-A expression in MEX3B-overexpressing tumor cells. Finally, luciferase reporter assays and RNA-binding protein immunoprecipitation assays suggest that this is due to MEX3B binding to the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) of HLA-A to destabilize the mRNA. Conclusions: MEX3B mediates resistance to cancer immunotherapy by binding to the 3′ UTR of HLA-A to destabilize the HLA-A mRNA and thus downregulate HLA-A expression on the surface of tumor cells, thereby making the tumor cells unable to be recognized and killed by T cells. Clin Cancer Res; 24(14); 3366–76. ©2018 AACR. See related commentary by Kalbasi and Ribas, p. 3239

Cancer Evolution during Immunotherapy

Immune checkpoint blockade has revolutionized cancer treatment. In this issue of Cell, insights from a longitudinal multi-omics analysis of the largest yet-reported cohort of melanoma patients reveal how tumor and immunity co-evolve during anti-PD-1 therapy.

Predictors of Response to Immune Checkpoint Blockade

Cancer therapy has been revolutionized over the past several years through the use of immunotherapy—with demonstrable success in the treatment of multiple cancer types using immune checkpoint blockade and other therapeutic strategies. However, responses are still quite variable, and predictive biomarkers of response and toxicity are currently underdeveloped. A deep understanding of responses to immune checkpoint blockade pivots on a fundamental knowledge of antitumor immune responses, which are influenced by numerous factors in the tumor itself, in the tumor microenvironment, in host immunity, and in the local and extended environment. Together, a more holistic approach incorporating assessment of each of these factors will help facilitate a more customized and tailored approach in this age of precision medicine.

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in high-risk resectable melanoma

Preclinical studies suggest that treatment with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade is associated with enhanced survival and antigen-specific T cell responses compared with adjuvant treatment1; however, optimal regimens have not been defined. Here we report results from a randomized phase 2 study of neoadjuvant nivolumab versus combined ipilimumab with nivolumab in 23 patients with high-risk resectable melanoma (NCT02519322). RECIST overall response rates (ORR), pathologic complete response rates (pCR), treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) and immune correlates of response were assessed. Treatment with combined ipilimumab and nivolumab yielded high response rates (RECIST ORR 73%, pCR 45%) but substantial toxicity (73% grade 3 trAEs), whereas treatment with nivolumab monotherapy yielded modest responses (ORR 25%, pCR 25%) and low toxicity (8% grade 3 trAEs). Immune correlates of response were identified, demonstrating higher lymphoid infiltrates in responders to both therapies and a more clonal and diverse T cell infiltrate in responders to nivolumab monotherapy. These results describe the feasibility of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma and emphasize the need for additional studies to optimize treatment regimens and to validate putative biomarkers.Neoadjuvant combination treatment with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with high-risk melanoma results in higher response rates than nivolumab monotherapy and warrants future optimization of dosing regimens to preserve efficacy while limiting toxicity.