Journal Articles

Five-year survival with neoadjuvant therapy in melanoma: updated pooled analysis from the International Neoadjuvant Melanoma Consortium (INMC) Featured  

Long et al. performed a pooled analysis of long-term efficacy of neoadjuvant ICB and targeted therapies in stage IIIB-D melanoma. Pathological response was higher for ICB than for BRAF/MEKis, and higher for combination ICB than anti-PD-1 alone. Pathological response was associated with event-free, recurrence-free, and overall survival. Patients who had a pathological response to neoadjuvant ICB did not benefit from adjuvant ICB.

Long et al. performed a pooled analysis of long-term efficacy of neoadjuvant ICB and targeted therapies in stage IIIB-D melanoma. Pathological response was higher for ICB than for BRAF/MEKis, and higher for combination ICB than anti-PD-1 alone. Pathological response was associated with event-free, recurrence-free, and overall survival. Patients who had a pathological response to neoadjuvant ICB did not benefit from adjuvant ICB.

ABSTRACT: Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard of care for resectable stage IIIB-D melanoma, but knowledge gaps remain regarding optimal treatment type, long-term survival, postsurgical management and clinical, histopathological or molecular subgroups. We analyzed 1,038 patients treated with neoadjuvant ICIs (n = 735), BRAF and MEK inhibitors (BRAF/MEKis; n = 119) or ICI plus any targeted therapy (ICI + TT; n = 184) from 26 international sites in both trial (755, 72.7%) and nontrial (283, 27.3%) settings. ICI regimens included anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) alone (PD-1 alone; n = 242) and anti-PD-1 plus other immuno-oncology agent(s) (PD-1 + IO; n = 489). Outcomes included major pathological response (MPR), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). An MPR was achieved in 57.8% of patients with ICIs, 51.4% with BRAF/MEKis and 44.6% with ICI + TT. PD-1 + IO elicited higher MPR rates than PD-1 alone (61.4% versus 49.5%). The 5-year RFS rate was 61.0% with PD-1 alone, 73.9% with PD-1 + IO, 37.4% with BRAF/MEKis and 76.4% with ICI + TT; the 5-year OS rates were 83.3%, 87.5%, 69.8% and 83.9%, respectively. ICI-treated patients with MPR had 5-year OS rates of 98.8% with PD-1 alone and 97.9% with PD-1 + IO and gained no benefit from continuing ICIs into the adjuvant setting. Neoadjuvant ICIs were active in BRAF-mutant melanoma (MPR, 46.3%), acral melanoma (38.1%), in-transit metastases (66.7%) and oligometastases (41.2%), although subgroup sizes and relative effectiveness varied. Survival outcomes were excellent with neoadjuvant ICIs, particularly in patients achieving MPR, but poor with BRAF/MEKis and mixed with ICI + TT. Predictive biomarker-driven trials, effective adjuvant strategies and subgroup-specific research are needed for nonresponders.

Author Info: (1) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Sydne

Author Info: (1) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. georgina.long@sydney.edu.au. (2) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal. (3) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (4) Tygat Institute for Intestinal and Liver Research, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (5) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (6) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Fiona Stanley Hospital, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. (7) Universitˆ degli Studi di Napoli 'Federico II', Naples, Italy. Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione 'G. Pascale', Naples, Italy. (8) University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. (9) Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA. (10) Gustave Roussy, DŽpartement de MŽdecine Oncologique, UniversitŽ Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. (11) LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany. (12) Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (13) Centro de Referncia em Tumores Cut‰neos, AC Camargo Cancer Center, S‹o Paulo, Brazil. (14) Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (15) H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. (16) FSBI 'N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology' of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation. (17) University of TŸbingen, TŸbingen, Germany. (18) UniversitŽ Paris Cite, AP-HP Dermato-oncology and CIC, Cancer Institute APHP.nord Paris citŽ, INSERM U1342-Equipe-CNRS EMR8000, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France. (19) Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. (20) Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. (21) Vall d'Hebr—n Hospital and Vall d'Hebr—n Institute of Oncology (VHIO), Barcelona, Spain. (22) The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. (23) Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione 'G. Pascale', Naples, Italy. (24) Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione 'G. Pascale', Naples, Italy. (25) Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, Rochester, MN, USA. (26) Gustave Roussy, DŽpartement de MŽdecine Oncologique, UniversitŽ Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. (27) Gustave Roussy, DŽpartement de MŽdecine Oncologique, UniversitŽ Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France. (28) LMU University Hospital, Munich, Germany. (29) Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (30) H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. (31) FSBI 'N. N. Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology' of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation. (32) University of TŸbingen, TŸbingen, Germany. (33) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (34) University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. (35) Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. (36) European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS Milan, Milan, Italy. (37) Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. (38) Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. (39) University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. (40) UniversitŽ Paris Cite, AP-HP Dermato-oncology and CIC, Cancer Institute APHP.nord Paris citŽ, INSERM U1342-Equipe-CNRS EMR8000, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, France. (41) Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. (42) Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland. (43) The Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA. (44) Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. (45) Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. (46) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (47) University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. (48) University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. (49) University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. (50) Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. (51) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. NSW Health Pathology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. (52) Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. University Clinic Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany. European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. (53) Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Royal North Shore and Mater Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Senescence-directed nanotherapy ameliorates fibrosis and overcomes immune exclusion in cancer Spotlight 

Hinterleitner, Barthet, and Goldberg et al. showed that senescent-like cells in fibrotic human and mouse tissues expressed P-selectin, and the team developed fucoidan-based senescence-modulating nanoparticles (SMNPs) to target these cells. SMNPs selectively depleted P-selectin+ senescent-like macrophages (Sen+MP) and reduced liver and lung fibrosis with limited toxicities. In fibrotic liver and lung tumor models, SMNPs remodeled stromal and myeloid barriers, increased DC and T cell infiltration, and improved response to ICB. P-selectin+ Sen+MP were enriched in immune-excluded human tumors and correlated with poor response to neoadjuvant ICB plus chemotherapy.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

Hinterleitner, Barthet, and Goldberg et al. showed that senescent-like cells in fibrotic human and mouse tissues expressed P-selectin, and the team developed fucoidan-based senescence-modulating nanoparticles (SMNPs) to target these cells. SMNPs selectively depleted P-selectin+ senescent-like macrophages (Sen+MP) and reduced liver and lung fibrosis with limited toxicities. In fibrotic liver and lung tumor models, SMNPs remodeled stromal and myeloid barriers, increased DC and T cell infiltration, and improved response to ICB. P-selectin+ Sen+MP were enriched in immune-excluded human tumors and correlated with poor response to neoadjuvant ICB plus chemotherapy.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

ABSTRACT: Fibrotic remodeling of tissues and tumors establishes immunosuppressive microenvironments that drive organ dysfunction and, in cancer, limit response to immunotherapy. Senescent-like cells are conserved drivers of fibrosis and therapeutic targets, yet their functional heterogeneity complicates therapeutic intervention. Here, we show that P-selectin is expressed by a subset of senescent-like cells in fibrotic tissues and tumors. Leveraging fucoidan-based nanoparticles that bind P-selectin, we developed senescence-modulating nanoparticles (SMNPs) to selectively target these disease-associated states. SMNPs exerted potent antifibrotic and immunomodulatory effects while improving the therapeutic index. Mechanistically, we identified a pathogenic, immunosuppressive macrophage population as a functional target in vivo. In fibrotic tumors, niche remodeling restored immune infiltration and sensitized tumors to immune checkpoint-based therapies. These findings establish SMNPs as a generalizable strategy to target pathogenic senescent cell subsets across fibrosis and cancer.

Author Info: (1) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (2) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Ketter

Author Info: (1) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (2) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (3) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. (4) Molecular Pharmacology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Tri-Institutional PhD Program in Chemical Biology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (5) Molecular Pharmacology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Cancer Engineering Program, Gerstner Sloan Kettering School for Biomedical Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (6) Molecular Pharmacology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (7) Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Molecular Pharmacology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (8) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (9) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (10) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (11) Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (12) Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (13) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Cancer Engineering Program, Gerstner Sloan Kettering School for Biomedical Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (14) Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (15) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (16) Flow Cytometry Core Facility, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (17) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (18) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (19) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (20) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (21) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (22) Flow Cytometry Core Facility, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (23) Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (24) Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Early Drug Development Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (25) Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (26) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (27) Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Molecular Pharmacology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. (28) Cancer Biology and Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Chemotherapy enhances cancer vaccine efficacy and expands stem-like TCF1+CD8+ T cells

Spotlight 

Noblecourt and Wicki et al. showed that carboplatin and paclitaxel (CarboTaxol) with viral vector vaccines expanded antigen-specific TCF1+CD8+ T cells during priming, slowed tumor growth, and improved survival in mouse models. Acting as an adjuvant, CarboTaxol induced early tumor- and vaccine-independent expansion of stem-like TCF1+CD8+ T cells that depended on TCF1/β-catenin activity. Adding PD-1 blockade to chemotherapy and cancer vaccines further improved tumor control and long-term survival. Expansion of TCF7+CD8+ T cells was also seen in ovarian and cervical cancer patients treated with CarboTaxol.

Contributed by Katherine Turner

Noblecourt and Wicki et al. showed that carboplatin and paclitaxel (CarboTaxol) with viral vector vaccines expanded antigen-specific TCF1+CD8+ T cells during priming, slowed tumor growth, and improved survival in mouse models. Acting as an adjuvant, CarboTaxol induced early tumor- and vaccine-independent expansion of stem-like TCF1+CD8+ T cells that depended on TCF1/β-catenin activity. Adding PD-1 blockade to chemotherapy and cancer vaccines further improved tumor control and long-term survival. Expansion of TCF7+CD8+ T cells was also seen in ovarian and cervical cancer patients treated with CarboTaxol.

Contributed by Katherine Turner

ABSTRACT: Therapeutic cancer vaccines are increasingly tested in clinical settings alongside standard-of-care treatments that often include chemotherapy, yet whether chemotherapy synergizes with cancer vaccines remains unclear. Here, we tested heterologous prime-boost viral vector vaccines in combination with various chemotherapy regimens. Both carboplatin plus paclitaxel (CarboTaxol) and cyclophosphamide improve vaccine efficacy and enhance antigen-specific CD8(+) T cell responses. These chemotherapies act as immunological adjuvants independently of tumor presence. Mechanistically, CarboTaxol induces an early, antigen-independent expansion of stem-like T cell factor 1 (TCF1)(+)CD8(+) T cells, an effect also observed in patients with different cancer types. Genetic or pharmacological disruption of TCF1 impairs the immunological adjuvant effect of CarboTaxol. Adding programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) blockade to viral vector vaccines and CarboTaxol further improves tumor control and survival. Together, these findings identify a TCF1-dependent mechanism underlying the immune adjuvant effect of chemotherapy and provide a rationale for clinical evaluation of this triple combination therapy.

Author Info: (1) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (2) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medici

Author Info: (1) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (2) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (3) Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (4) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (5) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (6) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (7) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (8) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (9) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (10) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (11) Centre for Immuno-Oncology, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (12) Department of Medical Oncology, Oncode Institute, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef, 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, the Netherlands. (13) Jenner Institute, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (14) Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (15) Department of Medical Oncology, Oncode Institute, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef, 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, the Netherlands. (16) Department of Medical Oncology, Oncode Institute, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef, 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, the Netherlands. (17) Centre for Immuno-Oncology, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. (18) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, de Duve Institute, UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium; WEL Research Institute, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: benoit.vandeneynde@ludwig.ox.ac.uk. (19) Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Centre for Immuno-Oncology, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: carol.leung@immonc.ox.ac.uk.

CD4 T cells convert transient responses to KRAS inhibition to durable remissions in pancreatic cancer Featured  

Qiang, Hoffman, Chun, et al. investigated immunotherapy combinations with KRAS inhibition in PDAC models. An IL-21 mimic synergized with a KRAS inhibitor, inducing durable antitumor efficacy. Therapy induced responses from IFNγ-producing CD4+ Th1 cells, decreased Tregs, and stimulated macrophage tumor phagocytosis.

Qiang, Hoffman, Chun, et al. investigated immunotherapy combinations with KRAS inhibition in PDAC models. An IL-21 mimic synergized with a KRAS inhibitor, inducing durable antitumor efficacy. Therapy induced responses from IFNγ-producing CD4+ Th1 cells, decreased Tregs, and stimulated macrophage tumor phagocytosis.

ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is refractory to most therapies, including immunotherapies, for which reinvigoration of CD8 T cells through immune checkpoint blockade is insufficient to induce long-term, durable remissions. Direct KRAS inhibitors (KRASi) have shown clinical promise, although acquired resistance is common. We modeled KRASi response and relapse in mice and demonstrated that, unlike chemotherapy or combinations with checkpoint blockade, an interleukin (IL)-21 cytokine mimic (21h10) induced long-term, durable remissions. Its efficacy depends on T helper 1 (Th1)-polarized CD4 T cells, but not on CD8 T cells or tumor cell expression of major histocompatibility complex class I (MHC class I). Specifically, CD4 T cells primed by type 2 conventional dendritic cells (cDC2s) produce interferon _ (IFN-_), which promotes macrophage-mediated phagocytosis of tumor cells. Ex vivo treatment of human PDAC specimens with 21h10 induces IFN-_ production by infiltrating T cells. Thus, IL-21-elicited CD4 T cells exert antitumor activity in mice and potentially in humans, converting transient responses to KRAS inhibition into durable remissions.

Author Info: (1) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (2)

Author Info: (1) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (2) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (3) Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. (4) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA. (5) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA. (6) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. (7) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (8) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. (9) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA. (10) Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. (11) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. (12) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, USA. (13) Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. (14) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (15) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (16) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (17) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA. (18) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (19) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA. (20) Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (21) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (22) Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (23) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (24) Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (25) Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (26) Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (27) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (28) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (29) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (30) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (31) Department of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (32) Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (33) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (34) Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY 10016, USA. (35) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (36) Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (37) Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA 98195, USA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA. (38) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. (39) Department of Cancer Immunology and Virology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02215, USA; Department of Immunology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA. Electronic address: stephanie_dougan@dfci.harvard.edu.

KRAS-G12C inhibition-induced enrichment of MHC-Ihigh immune-active tumor cells directs immune-effector TME development to augment therapeutic efficacy Spotlight 

Ibrahim et al. profiled sotorasib-induced changes in syngeneic KRASG12C/Trp53−/− lung and colon carcinoma models with and without anti-PD-1. scRNAseq revealed that sotorasib reduced proliferative tumor cells and enriched MHC-Ihigh immune-active tumor cells with elevated NF-κB and STAT1 signaling, chemokine expression, and inflammatory cytokine responsiveness. Immune-active tumor cell states were associated with increased effector T cells and MHC-IIhigh macrophages, reduced regulatory myeloid cells, and enhanced anti-PD-1 efficacy. Sotorasib-resistant tumors lacked MHC-Ihigh immune-active tumor cells and associated immune remodeling.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

Ibrahim et al. profiled sotorasib-induced changes in syngeneic KRASG12C/Trp53−/− lung and colon carcinoma models with and without anti-PD-1. scRNAseq revealed that sotorasib reduced proliferative tumor cells and enriched MHC-Ihigh immune-active tumor cells with elevated NF-κB and STAT1 signaling, chemokine expression, and inflammatory cytokine responsiveness. Immune-active tumor cell states were associated with increased effector T cells and MHC-IIhigh macrophages, reduced regulatory myeloid cells, and enhanced anti-PD-1 efficacy. Sotorasib-resistant tumors lacked MHC-Ihigh immune-active tumor cells and associated immune remodeling.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

ABSTRACT: Inhibition of KRASG12C (G12Ci) has shown promising clinical activity in several cancers; however, emergence of resistance is a major limitation to long-term benefit. It remains unknown how G12Ci impacts the tumor immune microenvironment and its association with resistance. We investigated the immune modulatory impact of the G12Ci sotorasib in KrasG12C/Trp53-/- (KP) lung and colon carcinoma models. Single-cell RNA sequencing of tumors in both models demonstrated sotorasib-induced loss of proliferative tumor cells and to the enrichment of immune-active tumor cells with elevated NF-_B and interferon signaling, and elevated MHC-I expression. These changes led to an increased proportion of effector T cells and MHC-IIhi macrophages in the tumors, and a reduced proportion of regulatory myeloid cells. Furthermore, sotorasib-resistant tumors exhibited a marked reduction of MHC-Ihigh immune-active tumor cells and immune cell type changes. Enrichment of immune-active tumor cells was associated directly with sotorasib-induced activation of NF-_B and STAT1, leading to heightened responsiveness to inflammatory cytokines and to upregulation of MHC-I and chemokine expression. These findings indicate that modulation of immune-active tumor cell populations is a key mechanism associated with G12Ci therapeutic efficacy and the development of resistance.

Author Info: (1) California Northstate University Elk grove United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03h0d2228 (2) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (3) Moffi

Author Info: (1) California Northstate University Elk grove United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03h0d2228 (2) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (3) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (4) Moffitt Cancer Center United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (5) Moffitt Cancer Center United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (6) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (7) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (8) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (9) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (10) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (11) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (12) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, Florida United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (13) Moffitt Cancer Center Tampa, FL United States. ROR: https://ror.org/01xf75524 (14) H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute Tampa, FL United States.

Coordinated immune activation following KRAS inhibition in syngeneic models reveals molecular pathways that potentiate and limit antitumor immunity Spotlight 

Lu et al. profiled the cellular changes after KRAS(G12C) and MEK inhibition, and demonstrated that these treatments drove distinct neoplastic cell fates and immune responses in a CT26 KRASG12C tumor model. KRAS(G12C)i induced a cDC1-driven mature cDC state via tumor, endothelial, and fibroblast signaling, increased CD8+ T cell clonal expansion, and promoted anti-inflammatory macrophage polarization, while MEKi induced limited clonal expansion and anti-inflammatory macrophages. KRAS(G12C)i plus anti-PD-1 expanded effector T cells and increased T cell clonal persistence, proinflammatory macrophage states, and mediators of antitumor immunity.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

Lu et al. profiled the cellular changes after KRAS(G12C) and MEK inhibition, and demonstrated that these treatments drove distinct neoplastic cell fates and immune responses in a CT26 KRASG12C tumor model. KRAS(G12C)i induced a cDC1-driven mature cDC state via tumor, endothelial, and fibroblast signaling, increased CD8+ T cell clonal expansion, and promoted anti-inflammatory macrophage polarization, while MEKi induced limited clonal expansion and anti-inflammatory macrophages. KRAS(G12C)i plus anti-PD-1 expanded effector T cells and increased T cell clonal persistence, proinflammatory macrophage states, and mediators of antitumor immunity.

Contributed by Shishir Pant

ABSTRACT: While mutant-specific KRAS inhibitors are approved to treat cancer, a deeper understanding of intratumoral changes driven specifically by KRAS inhibition is needed to maximize therapeutic responses. Here, we used single-cell RNA-seq, flow cytometry, and spatial transcriptomics to distinguish mechanisms of tumor control after KRASG12C inhibition (KRAS(G12C)i) or MEK inhibition (MEKi). Despite both inhibiting the MAPK pathway, KRAS(G12C)i and MEKi drive the adaptation of distinct neoplastic cell fates affecting metabolism and cell cycle regulation, and additive tumor suppression is observed after co-administration. KRAS(G12C)i results in the emergence of a specific, cDC1-driven mature conventional dendritic cell (cDC) state. Co-culture of treated neoplastic cells with cDC1s is sufficient to upregulate maturation markers such as CCR7, intercellular communication analyses suggest activation is augmented through non-immune mediators. Both KRAS(G12C)i and MEKi increase infiltration of cytotoxic T cells, but MEKi, which also targets non-malignant cells, is associated with a reduced capacity for T-cell proliferation and degranulation, consistent with distinct adaptive immune activation mechanisms. We observe that combination treatment of KRAS(G12C)i with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy further expands effector T-cell states, increases clonal persistence, and induces pro-inflammatory macrophages associated with higher overall survival that were largely absent after KRAS(G12C)i alone. Furthermore, combination treatment enhances intercellular communication networks among non-PD-1+ expressing cells that can perpetuate cDC activation. Our findings delineate distinct tumor and immune responses to KRAS and MEK inhibition and identify molecular features of the responding tumor microenvironment that may be leveraged to improve therapeutic efficacy.

Author Info: (1) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (2) Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA United States. (3) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (4) Amgen Inc. South San

Author Info: (1) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (2) Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA United States. (3) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (4) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (5) Amgen (United States) South San Franciso United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03g03ge92 (6) Amgen (United States) South San Francisco, CA United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03g03ge92 (7) Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA United States. (8) Amgen (United States) South San Francisco, CA United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03g03ge92 (9) Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA United States. (10) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (11) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (12) Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA United States. (13) Amgen (United States) South San Francisco, CA United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03g03ge92 (14) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (15) Amgen Inc. South San Francisco, CA United States. (16) Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA United States. (17) Amgen (United States) United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03g03ge92 (18) Amgen Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA United States. (19) Amgen (United States) South San Francisco, CA United States. ROR: https://ror.org/03g03ge92

Oncogenic Kras targeting with MRTX1133 or Daraxonrasib specifically synergize with anti-CTLA4 to promote anti-tumor immunity in pancreatic cancer

Spotlight 

To overcome PDAC resistance to Kras* targeting using MRTX1133 or daraxonrasib, which enhances infiltration T cells, including various CD8+ T cell, CD4+ conventional T cell, and Treg phenotypes, Mahadevan et al. found that the addition of anti-CTLA-4 (but not other ICB) synergized by further increasing TILs, reprogramming Tregs to a more naive (less suppressive) phenotype, reversing exhaustion in CD8+ T cells, and promoting the formation of TLSs, together resulting in better PDAC suppression and longer survival. Treg reprogramming occurred through epigenetic downregulation of AP-1 transcription factors in the IL-10 and IL-35 promoter regions.

Contributed by Lauren Hitchings

To overcome PDAC resistance to Kras* targeting using MRTX1133 or daraxonrasib, which enhances infiltration T cells, including various CD8+ T cell, CD4+ conventional T cell, and Treg phenotypes, Mahadevan et al. found that the addition of anti-CTLA-4 (but not other ICB) synergized by further increasing TILs, reprogramming Tregs to a more naive (less suppressive) phenotype, reversing exhaustion in CD8+ T cells, and promoting the formation of TLSs, together resulting in better PDAC suppression and longer survival. Treg reprogramming occurred through epigenetic downregulation of AP-1 transcription factors in the IL-10 and IL-35 promoter regions.

Contributed by Lauren Hitchings

ABSTRACT: Lack of sustained response to oncogenic Kras (Kras*) inhibition in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) underscores the need to identify effective combination therapies. Here, we demonstrate that Kras* targeting using MRTX1133 or Daraxonrasib recruits diverse T-cell infiltrates, including regulatory (Tregs), effector and exhausted T cells into the PDAC microenvironment. Kras* inhibition induces T-cell influx and offers a therapeutic window to specifically prime PDAC to anti-CTLA4 immune checkpoint blockade efficacy, in contrast to anti-PD1, anti-Tim3, anti-Lag3, anti-Vista, and anti-4-1BB agonist combination therapy. Mechanistically, anti-CTLA4 combination therapy transcriptionally reprograms effector Tregs to a naive phenotype, reverses CD8+ T-cell exhaustion, and promotes recruitment of functional tertiary lymphoid structures to mediate anti-tumor immunity. Single-cell ATAC sequencing reveals that Treg reprogramming by anti-CTLA4 is epigenetically regulated by downregulation of AP-1 family transcription factors in the IL-35 promoter region. This study reveals an actionable vulnerability in the adaptive immune response in Kras* targeted PDAC with immediate clinical implications.

Author Info: (1) Department of Cancer Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA (2) 3P-Medicine Laboratory, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-210 Gdansk, Poland (3

Author Info: (1) Department of Cancer Biology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA (2) 3P-Medicine Laboratory, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-210 Gdansk, Poland (3) Departments of Anatomical Pathology and Translational Molecular Pathology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA (4) Department of Investigative Cancer Therapeutics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA (5) Institute for Applied Science and TRACTION platform, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA (6) Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA (7) Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA (8) Department of Pathology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA

mRNA lipid nanoparticle cancer vaccine platform delivering multiple STING activators for enhanced antitumor activity Spotlight 

Zeng, Xu, and Wang et al. developed an optimized cancer vaccine platform comprising a novel LNP co-encapsulating tumor antigen mRNA and two STING agonists. In primary BM-DCs, vaccination synergistically boosted CD80/CD86 expression and IFN-I secretion, and in mice, it enhanced antigen cross-presentation in spleens and tdLNs to induce antigen-specific CD8+ cytotoxic and memory T cell expansion. In tumor models, i.v. vaccine delivery inhibited s.c. tumor growth and vascularization. Vaccination upregulated gene sets for apoptosis and antigen processing, and reprogrammed immunosuppressive TAMs to a proinflammatory phenotype.

Contributed by Paula Hochman

Zeng, Xu, and Wang et al. developed an optimized cancer vaccine platform comprising a novel LNP co-encapsulating tumor antigen mRNA and two STING agonists. In primary BM-DCs, vaccination synergistically boosted CD80/CD86 expression and IFN-I secretion, and in mice, it enhanced antigen cross-presentation in spleens and tdLNs to induce antigen-specific CD8+ cytotoxic and memory T cell expansion. In tumor models, i.v. vaccine delivery inhibited s.c. tumor growth and vascularization. Vaccination upregulated gene sets for apoptosis and antigen processing, and reprogrammed immunosuppressive TAMs to a proinflammatory phenotype.

Contributed by Paula Hochman

ABSTRACT: mRNA-based cancer vaccines offer a modular and safe platform to elicit antitumor immunity, yet their efficacy is often limited by inefficient mRNA delivery and inadequate dendritic cell (DC) activation, both of which are essential for initiating robust cytotoxic T cell responses. Inadequate innate immune activation coupled with poor antigen presentation further diminishes their effectiveness, particularly in immunologically "cold" tumors. While stimulator of interferon genes (STING) agonists can enhance DC maturation and cross-presentation, their therapeutic utility is constrained by poor intracellular delivery and limited colocalization with tumor antigens. In this study, we developed a lipid nanoparticle (LNP) platform via high-throughput screening of ionizable lipids for potent mRNA delivery to DCs both in vitro and in vivo. To amplify immune activation, we coencapsulated the STING agonists c-di-AMP (AMP) and manganese (Mn(2+)) together with tumor antigen-encoding mRNA into the lead LNP formulation. This codelivery strategy synergistically activated type I interferon signaling, upregulated costimulatory molecules, enhanced antigen presentation, and elicited potent tumor-specific T cell responses and superior antitumor efficacy. Our results demonstrate that integrating innate immune stimulation with mRNA-LNP delivery provides a promising strategy to overcome current limitations in mRNA vaccine efficacy and to improve cancer immunotherapy outcomes.

Author Info: (1) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (2) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, P

Author Info: (1) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (2) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (3) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (4) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (5) Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (6) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (7) Chinese Academy of Sciences Key Laboratory for Biomedical Effects of Nanomaterials and Nanosafety, Chinese Academy of Sciences Center for Excellence in Nanoscience, National Center for Nanoscience and Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China. ROR: https://ror.org/04f49ff35 (8) Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (9) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (10) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (11) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (12) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (13) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (14) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (15) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 Bioprocessing Technology Institute, Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Republic of Singapore, Singapore 138668, Singapore. ROR: https://ror.org/036wvzt09 (16) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (17) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (18) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (19) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (20) Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 (21) Department of Bioengineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 Penn Institute for RNA Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 Institute for Immunology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 Cardiovascular Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10 Center for Precision Engineering for Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104. ROR: https://ror.org/00b30xv10

RIG-I-targeted immunotherapy synergizes with immune checkpoint inhibition in a hepatocellular carcinoma model Spotlight 

Marx, Teppert, and Marisch et al. showed retinoic acid-inducible gene-I (RIG-I), the cytoplasmic sensor of short dsRNA with uncapped 5’-triphosphate (3p-RNA), was expressed in human HCC samples and induced by IFN-I on cell lines. 3p-RNA treatment given i.v. reduced tumor burden in murine orthotopic tumor models and induced immune memory. Therapeutic effects depended on CD4+ and CD8+ T, but not NK cells, and on tumor-intrinsic Fas expression, but not systemic intracellular RIG-I pathway signaling. Treatment with 3p-RNA upregulated PD-L1 expression on HCC cells and synergized with anti-PD-1 to improve efficacy in HCC mouse models.

Contributed by Paula Hochman

Marx, Teppert, and Marisch et al. showed retinoic acid-inducible gene-I (RIG-I), the cytoplasmic sensor of short dsRNA with uncapped 5’-triphosphate (3p-RNA), was expressed in human HCC samples and induced by IFN-I on cell lines. 3p-RNA treatment given i.v. reduced tumor burden in murine orthotopic tumor models and induced immune memory. Therapeutic effects depended on CD4+ and CD8+ T, but not NK cells, and on tumor-intrinsic Fas expression, but not systemic intracellular RIG-I pathway signaling. Treatment with 3p-RNA upregulated PD-L1 expression on HCC cells and synergized with anti-PD-1 to improve efficacy in HCC mouse models.

Contributed by Paula Hochman

ABSTRACT: Retinoic acid-inducible gene-I (RIG-I) is a cytoplasmic pattern recognition receptor that senses short double-stranded RNA with uncapped 5'-triphosphate (3p-RNA). Upon activation, RIG-I induces type I interferons and proinflammatory cytokines, thereby promoting adaptive immunity. Thus, RIG-I activation is a promising approach for creating a proinflammatory tumor microenvironment. In this study, we investigated its therapeutic potential in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We explored and confirmed RIG-I expression and signaling in human HCC samples and cell lines. The therapeutic potential of RIG-I activation by 3p-RNA for the treatment of HCC was investigated in vitro and in syngeneic murine orthotopic tumor models. In vivo, 3p-RNA treatment significantly reduced the tumor burden, delayed disease progression, and achieved partial complete remission of RIL-175 tumors with durable immune memory. However, no therapeutic effects were observed in the Hep-55.1C model. Tumor clearance depended on CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells, but not NK cells. Additionally, 3p-RNA induced PD-L1 expression on HCC cells, enhancing their sensitivity to anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint therapy in vivo. RIG-I activation via 3p-RNA therapy shows promise as an immunotherapeutic strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Future investigations need to focus on tumor-intrinsic factors to understand heterogeneity between tumors and to overcome resistance mechanisms.

Author Info: (1) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (2) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (3) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.or

Author Info: (1) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (2) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (3) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (4) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (5) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (6) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (7) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (8) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (9) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (10) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (11) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (12) Ludwig-Maximilians-UniversitŠt MŸnchen Munich, Bavaria Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/05591te55 (13) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (14) Sanofi (Germany) Frankfurt Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/03ytdtb31 (15) Sanofi (Germany) Frankfurt Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/03ytdtb31 (16) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (17) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (18) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (19) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32 (20) LMU Klinikum Munich Germany. ROR: https://ror.org/02jet3w32

Neoadjuvant stereotactic body radiation therapy with durvalumab and oleclumab in ER+HER2- breast cancer: a randomized phase 2 trial

Featured  

De Caluwé et al. conducted a phase 2 clinical trial in patients with ER+HER2- breast cancer assessing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immune-modulating stereotactic body radiation therapy (iSBRT) alone or combined with anti-PD-L1 and anti-CD73 ICB. The addition of single or double ICB improved residual cancer burden and complete response rates. Patients with node-positive, PD-L1-negative tumors containing stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes at baseline benefited most, with treatment modulating the tumor immune microenvironment from cold to hot.

De Caluwé et al. conducted a phase 2 clinical trial in patients with ER+HER2- breast cancer assessing neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immune-modulating stereotactic body radiation therapy (iSBRT) alone or combined with anti-PD-L1 and anti-CD73 ICB. The addition of single or double ICB improved residual cancer burden and complete response rates. Patients with node-positive, PD-L1-negative tumors containing stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes at baseline benefited most, with treatment modulating the tumor immune microenvironment from cold to hot.

ABSTRACT: Patients with estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), HER2-negative, early breast cancer (BC) have low pathologic complete response (pCR) rates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) provide limited benefit in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative tumors, characterized by an immune-cold tumor microenvironment. Here we hypothesized that immune-modulating stereotactic body radiation therapy (iSBRT; 3 × 8 Gy) could enhance response through tumor microenvironment reprogramming, and that CD73 blockade could further improve efficacy. We conducted a phase 2, randomized, multicenter trial (Neo-CheckRay) in 147 female patients with high-risk, ER+HER2- early BC. Patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus iSBRT alone (No_ICI), with anti-PD-L1 durvalumab (Single_ICI) or with durvalumab plus anti-CD73 oleclumab (Double_ICI). In the intention-to-treat population, the primary endpoint, residual cancer burden 0/1 rate, was 35.4% with No_ICI, 45.1% with Single_ICI and 47.9% with Double_ICI, without statistically significant differences. pCR rates were 16.7%, 29.4% and 33.3%, respectively (P = 0.059). In the per-protocol population (MammaPrint High Risk, n = 131), pCR rates were 16.3%, 32.6% and 35.6%, respectively (P = 0.040). Among PD-L1-negative tumors (n = 91), pCR rates were 3.4%, 28.1% and 30.0%, respectively. No new safety signals were observed. Baseline transcriptomic analysis showed low immune signature expression in PD-L1-negative tumors. Paired baseline and on-treatment biopsies obtained 1 week after iSBRT demonstrated tumor microenvironment reprogramming toward an inflamed phenotype in the iSBRT + anti-PD-L1 arms. These findings suggest that iSBRT + anti-PD-L1 may convert immune-cold ER+HER2- BC into more inflamed tumors and improve response, particularly in PD-L1-negative disease. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03875573 .

Author Info: (1) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. alex.decaluwe@bordet.be. (2) Centre Georges-Franoi

Author Info: (1) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. alex.decaluwe@bordet.be. (2) Centre Georges-Franois Leclerc, UniversitŽ Bourgogne Europe, Dijon, France. (3) Institut Curie, Paris, France. (4) CHU St Elisabeth, Namur, Belgium. (5) Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. (6) H™pital Universitaire St Luc, Brussels, Belgium. (7) Centre Georges-Franois Leclerc, UniversitŽ Bourgogne Europe, Dijon, France. (8) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (9) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (10) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (11) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (12) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (13) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (14) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (15) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (16) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (17) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (18) ZAS Hospitals, Antwerp, Belgium. Peter Mac Callum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. (19) Iridium Netwerk, Antwerp, Belgium. University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. (20) Goodman Cancer Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. (21) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (22) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (23) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium. (24) Institut Curie, Paris, France. (25) Institut Jules Bordet, H™pitaux Universitaires de Bruxelles (H.U.B), UniversitŽ Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.

Close Modal

Small change for you. Big change for us!

This Thanksgiving season, show your support for cancer research by donating your change.

In less than a minute, link your credit card with our partner RoundUp App.

Every purchase you make with that card will be rounded up and the change will be donated to ACIR.

All transactions are securely made through Stripe.