In an analysis of a multi-center trial involving 628 patients with high-risk melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab, Othus et al. identified optimal time cut-points for the first infusion of 1:18 pm for recurrence-free survival and 3:48 pm for overall survival (OS). These findings, however, did not reach statistical significance regarding patient outcomes. Furthermore, the lack of threshold robustness was demonstrated when shifting the OS cut-point 30 minutes earlier, which yielded a hazard ratio of 0.98. Average infusion times trended earlier over the year, while appointments were on average later for patients living further from the treatment center.
Contributed by Ute Burkhardt
Addressing Biases in Analysis of Time of Infusion: NCI/SWOG Trial S1404 Among Participants With High-Risk Resectable Melanoma Who Received Adjuvant Anti-PD-1 Therapy Spotlight
(1) Othus M (2) Truong TG (3) Sharon E (4) Kendra K (5) Grossmann K (6) Buchbinder E (7) Khushalani NI (8) Eroglu Z (9) Chandra S (10) Doolittle GC (11) Kirkwood JM (12) Ikeguchi A (13) Mihalcioiu C (14) Cowey CL (15) Reddy SA (16) Johnson DB (17) Taylor M (18) Sondak VK (19) Ribas A (20) Patel SP
In an analysis of a multi-center trial involving 628 patients with high-risk melanoma receiving adjuvant pembrolizumab, Othus et al. identified optimal time cut-points for the first infusion of 1:18 pm for recurrence-free survival and 3:48 pm for overall survival (OS). These findings, however, did not reach statistical significance regarding patient outcomes. Furthermore, the lack of threshold robustness was demonstrated when shifting the OS cut-point 30 minutes earlier, which yielded a hazard ratio of 0.98. Average infusion times trended earlier over the year, while appointments were on average later for patients living further from the treatment center.
Contributed by Ute Burkhardt
FLT3L-secreting cDC1 in situ vaccination enhances antitumor immunity and synergizes with PD-1 blockade in murine non-small cell lung cancer Spotlight
(1) Abascal J (2) Dumitras C (3) Tran LM (4) Crosson W (5) Kahangi B (6) Oh M (7) Rennels A (8) Lim RJ (9) Jiang H (10) Reyimjan D (11) Coleman NJ (12) Perez-Reyes E (13) Chin S (14) Krysan K (15) Dubinett SM (16) Liu B (17) Salehi-Rad R
Abascal et al. engineered FLT3L-secreting mouse cDC1s that retained APC and phagocytic ability in vitro. In situ vaccination (ISV) with the cDC1s inhibited s.c. tumor growth in multiple syngeneic murine models, including those with driver mutations common in human NSCLC, and increased trafficking of the autologous cDC1s to TdLN and tumor infiltration of T cells. TCGA analysis showed that FLT3L expression in human NSCLC correlated with profiles of B and T cells, activated DCs and HEV-enriched TLS. ISV increased immature TLS formation in the murine TIME and synergized with anti-PD-1 in a NSCLC model to enhance efficacy and induce immune memory.
Contributed by Paula Hochman
(1) Abascal J (2) Dumitras C (3) Tran LM (4) Crosson W (5) Kahangi B (6) Oh M (7) Rennels A (8) Lim RJ (9) Jiang H (10) Reyimjan D (11) Coleman NJ (12) Perez-Reyes E (13) Chin S (14) Krysan K (15) Dubinett SM (16) Liu B (17) Salehi-Rad R
Abascal et al. engineered FLT3L-secreting mouse cDC1s that retained APC and phagocytic ability in vitro. In situ vaccination (ISV) with the cDC1s inhibited s.c. tumor growth in multiple syngeneic murine models, including those with driver mutations common in human NSCLC, and increased trafficking of the autologous cDC1s to TdLN and tumor infiltration of T cells. TCGA analysis showed that FLT3L expression in human NSCLC correlated with profiles of B and T cells, activated DCs and HEV-enriched TLS. ISV increased immature TLS formation in the murine TIME and synergized with anti-PD-1 in a NSCLC model to enhance efficacy and induce immune memory.
Contributed by Paula Hochman
Author Info: (1) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (2) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA

Author Info: (1) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (2) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (3) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA. (4) Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (5) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (6) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA. (7) Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (8) Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (9) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (10) UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. (11) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (12) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (13) Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (14) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (15) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA. Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA. (16) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA rsalehirad@mednet.ucla.edu bliu@mednet.ucla.edu. (17) Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California, USA rsalehirad@mednet.ucla.edu bliu@mednet.ucla.edu. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Citation: J Immunother Cancer 2026 Jun 25 14: Epub06/25/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42350046
A radiopharmaceutical enhances CAR T cells against radio-sensitive and radio-resistant neuroblastoma by tumor sensitization and TME remodeling Spotlight
(1) Rodriguez C (2) Edinger RS (3) Diehl G (4) Reyes-Gonzlez JM (5) Lee W (6) Buckley J (7) Oh J (8) Nambiar D (9) Baidoo K (10) Okada R (11) Phadke I (12) Schmiechen Z (13) Khan H (14) Sakhalkar Y (15) Cortez AG (16) Josefsson A (17) Nedrow JR (18) White A (19) Citrin DE (20) Zhang X (21) Anderson CJ (22) Escorcia FE (23) Patel RB (24) Nguyen R
Rodriguez and Edinger et al. showed that pre-treatment with VLA-4-targeted, low-dose radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) using [67Cu] Cu-LLP2A enhanced GD2 or B7-H3 CAR T cell efficacy, resulting in significant tumor regression in xenogeneic, preclinical neuroblastoma models. The mechanism of action varied with tumor radiosensitivity. In radiosensitive tumors, RPT was directly tumoricidal and enhanced CAR T cell efficacy via TNF-α, leading to paracrine T cell activation. In radioresistant tumors, RPT remodeled the TIME by decreasing the number of M2-like TAMs and stimulating the formation of enriched cytotoxic CD4+ and CD8+ T cell clusters.
Contributed by Katherine Turner
(1) Rodriguez C (2) Edinger RS (3) Diehl G (4) Reyes-Gonzlez JM (5) Lee W (6) Buckley J (7) Oh J (8) Nambiar D (9) Baidoo K (10) Okada R (11) Phadke I (12) Schmiechen Z (13) Khan H (14) Sakhalkar Y (15) Cortez AG (16) Josefsson A (17) Nedrow JR (18) White A (19) Citrin DE (20) Zhang X (21) Anderson CJ (22) Escorcia FE (23) Patel RB (24) Nguyen R
Rodriguez and Edinger et al. showed that pre-treatment with VLA-4-targeted, low-dose radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) using [67Cu] Cu-LLP2A enhanced GD2 or B7-H3 CAR T cell efficacy, resulting in significant tumor regression in xenogeneic, preclinical neuroblastoma models. The mechanism of action varied with tumor radiosensitivity. In radiosensitive tumors, RPT was directly tumoricidal and enhanced CAR T cell efficacy via TNF-α, leading to paracrine T cell activation. In radioresistant tumors, RPT remodeled the TIME by decreasing the number of M2-like TAMs and stimulating the formation of enriched cytotoxic CD4+ and CD8+ T cell clusters.
Contributed by Katherine Turner
ABSTRACT: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy has limited efficacy against solid tumors such as neuroblastoma (NB). Key obstacles include extensive tumor burden and the presence of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME). We employ targeted radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) using [(67)Cu]Cu-LLP2A and show that it potentiated the anti-tumor activity of CAR T cells in radio-sensitive and radio-resistant NB models via distinct mechanisms. In radio-sensitive NB, RPT is directly tumoricidal while also enhancing CAR T cell efficacy through pro-immune pathways, most notably via the TNF-_ pathway, leading to paracrine activation of T cells. In radio-resistant NB, RPT improves CAR T cells by remodeling the myeloid compartment in the TME and increasing the formation of immunological niches of cytotoxic CD8(+) GZMB(+) and CD4(+) GZMB(+) CAR T cells. While neither treatment modality alone can effectively treat NB, the combination of VLA-4-targeted RPT and GD2 or B7-H3 CAR T cells augments anti-tumor efficacy, resulting in marked tumor regression in preclinical NB models.
Author Info: (1) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (2) Department of Radiation Oncology, Univer

Author Info: (1) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (2) Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. (3) Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. (4) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (5) Molecular Imaging Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (6) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (7) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (8) Molecular Imaging Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (9) Molecular Imaging Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (10) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (11) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (12) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (13) Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. (14) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (15) Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. (16) Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. (17) Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. (18) Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (19) Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. (20) Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. (21) Departments of Chemistry and Radiology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA. (22) Molecular Imaging Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA; Radiation Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: freddy.escorcia@gmail.com. (23) Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Hillman Cancer Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Electronic address: patelr20@upmc.edu. (24) Pediatric Oncology Branch, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. Electronic address: hongharosa.nguyen@nih.gov.

Citation: Cell Rep Med 2026 Jun 23 102884 Epub06/23/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42335901
Tumor suppressor genotype influences the extent and mode of immunosurveillance in lung cancer Spotlight
(1) Adler KM (2) Xu H (3) Gladstein AC (4) Irizarry-Negron VM (5) Robertson MR (6) Doerig KR (7) Petrov DA (8) Winslow MM (9) Feldser DM
Using genetically engineered conditional mouse models and lentiviral-mediated somatic gene inactivation, Adler and Xu et al. developed models that allowed them to quantify immunoediting by evaluating fixed neoantigen expression against genotypic tumor backgrounds defined by common driver mutations and different tumor suppressor genes. While genetic features promoting tumor proliferation generally correlated with increased sensitivity to immunosurveillance, different genotypes differentially affected immune cell recruitment, selection of tumor cells with neoantigen silencing, tumor growth, and mechanisms of immune evasion.
Contributed by Lauren Hitchings
(1) Adler KM (2) Xu H (3) Gladstein AC (4) Irizarry-Negron VM (5) Robertson MR (6) Doerig KR (7) Petrov DA (8) Winslow MM (9) Feldser DM
Using genetically engineered conditional mouse models and lentiviral-mediated somatic gene inactivation, Adler and Xu et al. developed models that allowed them to quantify immunoediting by evaluating fixed neoantigen expression against genotypic tumor backgrounds defined by common driver mutations and different tumor suppressor genes. While genetic features promoting tumor proliferation generally correlated with increased sensitivity to immunosurveillance, different genotypes differentially affected immune cell recruitment, selection of tumor cells with neoantigen silencing, tumor growth, and mechanisms of immune evasion.
Contributed by Lauren Hitchings
ABSTRACT: The impact of cancer driving mutations on immunosurveillance throughout tumor development remains poorly understood. To better understand the contribution of tumor genotype to immunosurveillance, we generated and validated lentiviral-based vectors that create increasingly immunogenic neoantigens. This vector system is compatible with autochthonous Cre-regulated cancer models, CRISPR/Cas9-mediated somatic genome editing, and tumor barcoding. Here, we show that in the context of oncogenic KRAS-driven lung cancer and strong neoantigen expression, tumor suppressor genotype dictates the degree of immune cell recruitment, positive selection of tumors with neoantigen silencing, and tumor outgrowth. By quantifying the impact of 11 commonly inactivated tumor suppressor genes on tumor growth across neoantigenic contexts, we show that the growth-promoting effects of tumor suppressor gene inactivation correlate with increasing sensitivity to immunosurveillance. Importantly, some genotypes also dramatically changed sensitivity to immunosurveillance independently of their growth-promoting effects. We propose a model of immunoediting in which tumor suppressor gene inactivation works in tandem with neoantigen expression to shape tumor immunosurveillance and immunoediting such that the same neoantigens uniquely modulate tumor immunoediting depending on the genetic context.
Author Info: (1) Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, Perelman School of Medi

Author Info: (1) Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (2) Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. Department of Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. (3) Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (4) Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (5) Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (6) Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (7) Department of Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. (8) Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. mwinslow@stanford.edu. Department of Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. mwinslow@stanford.edu. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. mwinslow@stanford.edu. (9) Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. dfeldser@upenn.edu. Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. dfeldser@upenn.edu. Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. dfeldser@upenn.edu.

Citation: Nat Commun 2026 Jun 15 Epub06/15/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42297823
An ICAM1-targeting chimeric costimulatory receptor mimics the immune synapse and enhances tumor-specific T cell function Spotlight
(1) Min IM (2) Yang Y (3) Stefanova D (4) Vedvyas Y (5) Babu DS (6) Lee DH (7) Alcaina Y (8) Riascos MC (9) Puc J (10) Chen KJ (11) Gonzalez-Valdivieso J (12) Thaiparambil J (13) Bilal M (14) He B (15) Burnett AC (16) Zarnegar R (17) Fahey TJ (18) Jin MM
Min et al. developed an ICAM1-specific 4-1BB fusion protein. Engagement of this chimeric costimulatory receptor (ICCR) enhanced tumor cell conjugation and force-dependent immune synapse stability, triggered NF-κB-signaling, and amplified TCR-driven functional activation of engineered T cells, particularly against targets with lower antigen density. In a patient-derived orthotropic xenograft model of aggressive, incurable thyroid cancer, autologous ICCR+ T cells showed selective expansion and prolongation of survival. ICCR+ T cells exhibited reduced TCR diversity, and upregulation of cytotoxicity, TCR signaling, costimulation, and exhaustion genes.
Contributed by Ute Burkhardt
(1) Min IM (2) Yang Y (3) Stefanova D (4) Vedvyas Y (5) Babu DS (6) Lee DH (7) Alcaina Y (8) Riascos MC (9) Puc J (10) Chen KJ (11) Gonzalez-Valdivieso J (12) Thaiparambil J (13) Bilal M (14) He B (15) Burnett AC (16) Zarnegar R (17) Fahey TJ (18) Jin MM
Min et al. developed an ICAM1-specific 4-1BB fusion protein. Engagement of this chimeric costimulatory receptor (ICCR) enhanced tumor cell conjugation and force-dependent immune synapse stability, triggered NF-κB-signaling, and amplified TCR-driven functional activation of engineered T cells, particularly against targets with lower antigen density. In a patient-derived orthotropic xenograft model of aggressive, incurable thyroid cancer, autologous ICCR+ T cells showed selective expansion and prolongation of survival. ICCR+ T cells exhibited reduced TCR diversity, and upregulation of cytotoxicity, TCR signaling, costimulation, and exhaustion genes.
Contributed by Ute Burkhardt
ABSTRACT: Engineered T cell therapies, such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) and T cell receptor (TCR)-based approaches, have transformed outcomes in hematological malignancies, yet their efficacy in solid tumors remains limited by tumor antigen escape, immunosuppressive microenvironments, and insufficient activation of CAR or TCR signaling. To overcome these barriers, we developed an intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM1)-specific chimeric costimulatory receptor (ICCR) engineered for expression in T cells to augment their activation. ICAM1 is broadly expressed across solid tumors and is further upregulated by IFN_ released during early T cell engagement, creating a feed-forward loop that reinforces tumor recognition. ICCR engagement with ICAM1 triggered NF_B signaling independently of TCR-p/MHC engagement; however, full T cell activation and cytotoxic function remained dependent on intact TCR signaling. In primary T cells, ICCR increased proliferation, cytokine production, and cytotoxicity, resulting in improved tumor control in two anaplastic thyroid cancer xenograft models treated with allogeneic or autologous ICCR-T cells. Mechanistically, ICCR strengthened tumor cell engagement, promoted selection and expansion of tumor-specific TCR clonotypes, and amplified downstream signaling pathways. These findings identify ICCR as a strategy that leverages an immune synapse-mimetic mechanism to enhance the function of low-activity tumor-specific TCRs and improve T cell responses in solid tumor microenvironments.
Author Info: (1) Houston Methodist Houston, TX United States. ROR: https://ror.org/027zt9171 (2) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (3) Weill Corn

Author Info: (1) Houston Methodist Houston, TX United States. ROR: https://ror.org/027zt9171 (2) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (3) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (4) Houston Methodist Houston, TX United States. ROR: https://ror.org/027zt9171 (5) Houston Methodist Houston, TX United States. ROR: https://ror.org/027zt9171 (6) Houston Methodist Houston, TX United States. ROR: https://ror.org/027zt9171 (7) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (8) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (9) AffyImmune Therapeutics, Inc. Natick, MA United States. (10) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (11) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, NY United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (12) Houston Methodist Research Institute Houston, TX United States. (13) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, New York United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (14) Weill Cornell Medicine New York, New York United States. ROR: https://ror.org/02r109517 (15) Houston Methodist Houston, TX United States. ROR: https://ror.org/027zt9171 (16) New York Presbyterian Hospital - Weill Cornell Medical College New York, NY United States. (17) Weill Cornell New York, NY United States. (18) Houston Methodist Houston, TX United States. ROR: https://ror.org/027zt9171

Citation: Cancer Immunol Res 2026 Apr 27 Epub04/27/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42043451
Cuproptosis-immunity crosstalk informs strategy to overcome immunotherapy resistance Spotlight
(1) Lei G (2) Lu Z (3) Xu Z (4) Braun C (5) Huo D (6) Gao J (7) Tan L (8) Hong T (9) Wu S (10) Sun M (11) Zhao X (12) Li Q (13) Chen X (14) Yan Y (15) Lee H (16) Mao C (17) Zhuang L (18) Ku LT (19) Puebla N (20) Barsoumian H (21) Yao J (22) Hong L (23) Zhang J (24) Tran H (25) Lee JJ (26) Gibbons D (27) Vaporciyan A (28) Heymach J (29) Lin C (30) Gottlieb E (31) You MJ (32) Welsh JW (33) Lin SH (34) Zang X (35) Li Z (36) Gan B
Lei, Lu, and Xu et al. showed that cuproptosis induced immunogenic cell death, releasing DAMPs that drove DC maturation, DC-dependent cross-priming, and M1-like TAM and effector CD8+ T cell remodeling, with enhanced tumor suppression in immunocompetent hosts. CD8+ T cell-derived IFNγ activated STAT1–IRF1 signaling to upregulate mitochondrial FDX1 in tumor cells, increasing protein lipoylation and sensitization to cuproptosis. In breast, lung, and pancreatic tumor models, combining cuproptosis inducers with anti-PD-L1 amplified tumoral cuproptosis, increased intratumoral CD8+ T cell functions, and overcame intrinsic and acquired ICB resistance.
Contributed by Shishir Pant
(1) Lei G (2) Lu Z (3) Xu Z (4) Braun C (5) Huo D (6) Gao J (7) Tan L (8) Hong T (9) Wu S (10) Sun M (11) Zhao X (12) Li Q (13) Chen X (14) Yan Y (15) Lee H (16) Mao C (17) Zhuang L (18) Ku LT (19) Puebla N (20) Barsoumian H (21) Yao J (22) Hong L (23) Zhang J (24) Tran H (25) Lee JJ (26) Gibbons D (27) Vaporciyan A (28) Heymach J (29) Lin C (30) Gottlieb E (31) You MJ (32) Welsh JW (33) Lin SH (34) Zang X (35) Li Z (36) Gan B
Lei, Lu, and Xu et al. showed that cuproptosis induced immunogenic cell death, releasing DAMPs that drove DC maturation, DC-dependent cross-priming, and M1-like TAM and effector CD8+ T cell remodeling, with enhanced tumor suppression in immunocompetent hosts. CD8+ T cell-derived IFNγ activated STAT1–IRF1 signaling to upregulate mitochondrial FDX1 in tumor cells, increasing protein lipoylation and sensitization to cuproptosis. In breast, lung, and pancreatic tumor models, combining cuproptosis inducers with anti-PD-L1 amplified tumoral cuproptosis, increased intratumoral CD8+ T cell functions, and overcame intrinsic and acquired ICB resistance.
Contributed by Shishir Pant
ABSTRACT: Cuproptosis is a recently identified form of copper-dependent cell death that depends on ferredoxin 1 (FDX1)-mediated protein lipoylation. Here, we reveal that CD8(+) T cell-mediated antitumor immunity enhances tumor cell susceptibility to cuproptosis, leading to a more potent tumor-suppressive effect of cuproptosis inducers in immunocompetent hosts compared with immunodeficient ones. Mechanistically, cuproptotic tumor cells act as a form of immunogenic cell death, releasing damage-associated molecular patterns that activate dendritic cells and enhance antitumor immunity. Reciprocally, CD8(+) T cell-derived interferon (IFN)-_ enhances FDX1 transcription in tumor cells by activating the signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1)-IFN regulatory factor-1 (IRF1) signaling axis, resulting in heightened tumor cell sensitivity to cuproptosis. Consequently, combining a cuproptosis inducer with anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy amplifies tumoral cuproptosis and demonstrates efficacy in overcoming PD-L1 therapy resistance across multiple preclinical models. Our findings unveil a previously unrecognized connection between antitumor immunity and cuproptosis and highlight a potential therapeutic approach to counteract tumor immunotherapy resistance by targeting this unique cell death pathway.
Author Info: (1) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: guanglei_csu@163.com. (2) Departme

Author Info: (1) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: guanglei_csu@163.com. (2) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (3) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (4) Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (5) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (6) Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, Division of Basic Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (7) Metabolomics Core Facility, Department of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (8) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (9) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (10) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (11) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (12) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (13) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (14) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (15) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (16) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (17) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (18) Department of Biostatistics, Division of Discovery Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (19) Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (20) Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (21) Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, Division of Basic Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (22) Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (23) Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (24) Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (25) Department of Biostatistics, Division of Discovery Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (26) Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (27) Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (28) Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (29) Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, Division of Basic Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (30) Department of Cancer Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (31) Department of Hematopathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (32) Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (33) Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (34) Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY 10461, USA. (35) Department of Biostatistics, Division of Discovery Science, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA. (36) Department of Experimental Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77030, USA; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, TX 77030, USA. Electronic address: bgan@mdanderson.org.

Citation: Cell 2026 Jun 22 Epub06/22/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42330950
The critical role of the endogenous immune compartment after CAR T cell therapy in recurrent GBM Spotlight
(1) Freeburg NF (2) Chafamo D (3) Konanur Gopikrishna G (4) Murphy RM (5) Peng JJ (6) Parthasarathy S (7) Dumont S (8) Estrada EG (9) Logun MT (10) Sun Y (11) Wang X (12) Grover P (13) Rodriguez JL (14) Zhang DL (15) Park K (16) Fu Y (17) Ben Hamouda N (18) Hernandez-Verdin I (19) Lamrani L (20) Hicks KA (21) Cooper NA (22) Ekwegbara C (23) Bawden EG (24) Waterfall JJ (25) Fuentealba J (26) Alcantara M (27) Seykora JT (28) Prouty SM (29) Barrett D (30) Banerjee E (31) Cox A (32) Assenmacher CA (33) Macia C (34) Yin M (35) Carpenter EL (36) Ming GL (37) Sauts-Fridman C (38) Fridman WH (39) Tartour E (40) Wherry EJ (41) Amigorena S (42) Fraietta JA (43) Nasrallah MP (44) Song H (45) Miller TE (46) Bagley SJ (47) O'Rourke DM (48) Binder ZA (49) Alanio C (50) Silverbush D
Freeburg and Chafamo et al. performed longitudinal single-cell profiling of CSF and tumors from 18 patients with recurrent GBM treated with a single intracerebroventricular dose of bivalent EGFR-IL13Rα2 CAR T cells. CAR T cells peaked at 7 days and showed increased cytotoxicity and exhaustion in CSF. Endogenous cytotoxic NK cells, Tregs, and “scavenger” myeloid cells also increased dose-dependently. Responses correlated with increased CD56dimCD16+ NK cells, while Treg expansion and a high baseline number of immunosuppressive myeloid cells correlated with non-response, emphasizing the endogenous immune system’s role in CAR T cell efficacy.
Contributed by Katherine Turner
(1) Freeburg NF (2) Chafamo D (3) Konanur Gopikrishna G (4) Murphy RM (5) Peng JJ (6) Parthasarathy S (7) Dumont S (8) Estrada EG (9) Logun MT (10) Sun Y (11) Wang X (12) Grover P (13) Rodriguez JL (14) Zhang DL (15) Park K (16) Fu Y (17) Ben Hamouda N (18) Hernandez-Verdin I (19) Lamrani L (20) Hicks KA (21) Cooper NA (22) Ekwegbara C (23) Bawden EG (24) Waterfall JJ (25) Fuentealba J (26) Alcantara M (27) Seykora JT (28) Prouty SM (29) Barrett D (30) Banerjee E (31) Cox A (32) Assenmacher CA (33) Macia C (34) Yin M (35) Carpenter EL (36) Ming GL (37) Sauts-Fridman C (38) Fridman WH (39) Tartour E (40) Wherry EJ (41) Amigorena S (42) Fraietta JA (43) Nasrallah MP (44) Song H (45) Miller TE (46) Bagley SJ (47) O'Rourke DM (48) Binder ZA (49) Alanio C (50) Silverbush D
Freeburg and Chafamo et al. performed longitudinal single-cell profiling of CSF and tumors from 18 patients with recurrent GBM treated with a single intracerebroventricular dose of bivalent EGFR-IL13Rα2 CAR T cells. CAR T cells peaked at 7 days and showed increased cytotoxicity and exhaustion in CSF. Endogenous cytotoxic NK cells, Tregs, and “scavenger” myeloid cells also increased dose-dependently. Responses correlated with increased CD56dimCD16+ NK cells, while Treg expansion and a high baseline number of immunosuppressive myeloid cells correlated with non-response, emphasizing the endogenous immune system’s role in CAR T cell efficacy.
Contributed by Katherine Turner
ABSTRACT: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary malignant brain tumor in adults, with a median survival of under 15 months and no effective treatment after recurrence. A recent phase 1 trial of intracerebroventricular bivalent chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in recurrent GBM, registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05168423), showed promising responses, including tumor reduction and prolonged survival. However, relapse remains common. We performed in-depth profiling of longitudinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and tumor samples from responders and non-responders to characterize immune dynamics following infusion. Our study reveals that, although CAR T cells activate post infusion across all patients, outcomes were defined by divergent remodeling of the endogenous immune landscape. Cytotoxic natural killer cell expansion characterized responders, whereas regulatory T cell expansion and abundant baseline immunosuppressive scavenger myeloid cells characterized non-responders. These findings indicate that host immune cells play a critical role in CAR T cell therapy for GBM, suggesting that combinatorial strategies modulating the endogenous immune compartment could improve next-generation treatments.
Author Info: (1) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (2) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicin

Author Info: (1) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (2) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (3) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (4) Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. (5) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (6) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (7) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Cell and Molecular Biology Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (8) Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. (9) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (10) Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (11) Department of Neuroscience and Mahoney Institute for Neurosciences, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (12) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (13) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (14) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (15) Neuroscience Graduate Group, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (16) Department of Biology, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (17) Universit Paris Cit, INSERM, PARCC, Paris, France; Department of Immunology, APHP, Hpital Europen Georges Pompidou (HEGP)-Hpital Necker, Paris, France. (18) Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Universit, INSERM, Universit Paris Cit, 75006 Paris, France. (19) CellAction, Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, INSERM U932, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France. (20) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (21) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (22) Clinical Immunology Laboratory, Institut Curie, Paris, France. (23) Institut Curie, PSL University, INSERM U932, Immunity and Cancer, 75005 Paris, France. (24) Department of Translational Research, PSL University, Institut Curie, Paris, France; INSERM U1330, PSL University, Institut Curie Research Center, Paris, France. (25) CellAction, Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, INSERM U932, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France. (26) CellAction, Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, INSERM U932, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France; Clinical Hematology Unit, Institut Curie, Saint-Cloud, France. (27) Departments of Dermatology and Pathology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (28) Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. (29) Kite, a Gilead Company, Santa Monica, CA, USA. (30) Comparative Pathology Core, Department of Pathobiology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (31) Comparative Pathology Core, Department of Pathobiology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (32) Comparative Pathology Core, Department of Pathobiology, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (33) Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (34) Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (35) Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (36) Department of Neuroscience and Mahoney Institute for Neurosciences, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Cell and Developmental Biology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (37) Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Universit, INSERM, Universit Paris Cit, 75006 Paris, France; quipe labellise Ligue Contre le Cancer, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, 15 rue de l'cole de mdecine, 75006 Paris, France. (38) Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Sorbonne Universit, INSERM, Universit Paris Cit, 75006 Paris, France; quipe labellise Ligue Contre le Cancer, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, 15 rue de l'cole de mdecine, 75006 Paris, France. (39) Universit Paris Cit, INSERM, PARCC, Paris, France; Department of Immunology, APHP, Hpital Europen Georges Pompidou (HEGP)-Hpital Necker, Paris, France. (40) Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Institute for Immunology and Immune Health, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (41) Institut Curie, PSL University, INSERM U932, Immunity and Cancer, 75005 Paris, France. (42) Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Microbiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (43) GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (44) Department of Neuroscience and Mahoney Institute for Neurosciences, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Institute for Regenerative Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Epigenetics Institute, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (45) Department of Pathology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, OH, USA; Department of Pathology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. (46) GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (47) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. (48) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; GBM Translational Center of Excellence, Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Electronic address: binderz@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. (49) Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Universit Paris Cit, INSERM, PARCC, Paris, France; Clinical Laboratory, Hpital Foch, Suresnes, France. Electronic address: c.alanio@hopital-foch.com. (50) Cancer Biology Department, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; Center for Cellular Immunotherapies, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. Electronic address: dana.silverbush@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.

Citation: Cell 2026 Jun 15 Epub06/15/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42296961
FAP-CD40 and PD1-IL2v combination therapy reprograms immunologically cold tumors through de novo intratumoral T cell-dendritic cell clusters Spotlight
(1) Nguyen TT (2) Gómez H (3) Lutge M (4) Yángüez E (5) Hüsser T (6) Nassiri S (7) Trumpfheller C (8) Colombetti S (9) Codarri Deak L (10) Umaña P (11) Tugues S (12) Grazina de Matos I (13) Kunz L
In a KPC tumor model, Nguyen et al. combined a FAP-targeted CD40 agonist (FAP-CD40; localizes CD40 stimulation to the TME) and PD1–IL-2v (targets a mutated IL-2 to PD-1+ T cells and not Tregs). FAP-CD40 alone activated TME cDC1s, which migrated to tdLNs. Combination therapy expanded TME T cells and increased CD4+/CD8+/cDC1 clustering and therapeutic efficacy (dependent on both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells) compared to monotherapies. FTY720 blockade of LN egress did not preclude clustering or efficacy, suggesting activation of TME T cells. Combination therapy boosted TME T cell Th1 gene expression, TNFα/IFNγ production, and Nur77 promoter activity.
Contributed by Alex Najibi
(1) Nguyen TT (2) Gómez H (3) Lutge M (4) Yángüez E (5) Hüsser T (6) Nassiri S (7) Trumpfheller C (8) Colombetti S (9) Codarri Deak L (10) Umaña P (11) Tugues S (12) Grazina de Matos I (13) Kunz L
In a KPC tumor model, Nguyen et al. combined a FAP-targeted CD40 agonist (FAP-CD40; localizes CD40 stimulation to the TME) and PD1–IL-2v (targets a mutated IL-2 to PD-1+ T cells and not Tregs). FAP-CD40 alone activated TME cDC1s, which migrated to tdLNs. Combination therapy expanded TME T cells and increased CD4+/CD8+/cDC1 clustering and therapeutic efficacy (dependent on both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells) compared to monotherapies. FTY720 blockade of LN egress did not preclude clustering or efficacy, suggesting activation of TME T cells. Combination therapy boosted TME T cell Th1 gene expression, TNFα/IFNγ production, and Nur77 promoter activity.
Contributed by Alex Najibi
Author Info: (1) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (2) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Ba

Author Info: (1) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (2) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, Basel, Switzerland. (3) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (4) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (5) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (6) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, Basel, Switzerland. (7) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (8) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, Basel, Switzerland. (9) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (10) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (11) Institute of Experimental Immunology, Universitt Zrich, Zrich, Switzerland. Department of Immunology, Heidelberg University Medical Faculty Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany. (12) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Zurich, Schlieren, Switzerland. (13) Roche Pharma Research and Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, Basel, Switzerland leo.kunz@roche.com.

Citation: J Immunother Cancer 2026 May 28 14: Epub05/28/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42208978
Pembrolizumab plus high-dose IL-2 in advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma: six-year survival outcomes and molecular signatures from a phase 2 trial Spotlight
(1) Johnson JS (2) Miller JW (3) Hatoum F (4) Schell MJ (5) Yu X (6) Roman Souza G (7) Mizelle S (8) Gullapalli K (9) Fazili A (10) Jain R (11) Chatzkel J (12) Cen L (13) Dhillon J (14) Cubitt C (15) Yao J (16) Whiting J (17) Li J (18) Swank J (19) Jameel G (20) Zhang J (21) Wang X (22) Spiess PE (23) Fishman M (24) Chahoud J
In a phase 2 clinical trial of a short-course regimen (median 7 months) of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) plus high-dose IL-2 in patients with advanced ccRCC, Johnson et al. reported that at a median follow-up of over 6 years, the ORR was 73%, with 42% CRs and a 92% DCR. Median OS was over 84 months, and median PFS was 19.3 months. Patients were able to remain off treatment for a median of 23.8 months, with 42% of patients off treatment at 5 years. Potential biomarkers for durable clinical benefit included elevated CD16+ NK cells, enhanced innate immunity, reduced PD-1+ T cells, and patterns of IL-2-induced immune remodeling.
Contributed by Lauren Hitchings
(1) Johnson JS (2) Miller JW (3) Hatoum F (4) Schell MJ (5) Yu X (6) Roman Souza G (7) Mizelle S (8) Gullapalli K (9) Fazili A (10) Jain R (11) Chatzkel J (12) Cen L (13) Dhillon J (14) Cubitt C (15) Yao J (16) Whiting J (17) Li J (18) Swank J (19) Jameel G (20) Zhang J (21) Wang X (22) Spiess PE (23) Fishman M (24) Chahoud J
In a phase 2 clinical trial of a short-course regimen (median 7 months) of pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) plus high-dose IL-2 in patients with advanced ccRCC, Johnson et al. reported that at a median follow-up of over 6 years, the ORR was 73%, with 42% CRs and a 92% DCR. Median OS was over 84 months, and median PFS was 19.3 months. Patients were able to remain off treatment for a median of 23.8 months, with 42% of patients off treatment at 5 years. Potential biomarkers for durable clinical benefit included elevated CD16+ NK cells, enhanced innate immunity, reduced PD-1+ T cells, and patterns of IL-2-induced immune remodeling.
Contributed by Lauren Hitchings
ABSTRACT: Prolonged or indefinite systemic therapy remains standard for advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), often resulting in cumulative toxicities and treatment burden. We conducted a single-arm phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02964078) of a fixed-duration regimen of anti-PD1 pembrolizumab plus high-dose interleukin-2 in treatment-naive advanced ccRCC. Primary objectives of safety and response were previously reported. The study met its primary endpoint with an overall response rate exceeding the pre-specified threshold of 45%. Here we report long-term follow-up (median follow-up of 76.4 months) including overall response, progression-free survival, treatment-free interval, and correlative analysis. Among 26 patients treated, the objective response rate was 73%, with complete responses in 42% of patients. Median overall survival was >84 months with a 5-year restricted mean survival time of 48.6 months. Median progression-free survival was 19.3 months, and median treatment-free interval was 23.8 months. 42% of patients remained treatment-free at the 5-year timepoint. No grade 5 adverse events occurred, and no patients with durable disease control experienced persistent grade ≥2 toxicities. Correlative analyses identified exploratory immune patterns associated with durable benefit, including enrichment of CD16⁺ natural killer cells, suppression of PD-1⁺ T-cell frequencies, and coordinated chemokine, complement, and PKC/TGF-β pathway activation.
Author Info: (1) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (2) USF Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA. (3) Department of Genitourinary

Author Info: (1) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (2) USF Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA. (3) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (4) Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (5) Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (6) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (7) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (8) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (9) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (10) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. (11) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (12) Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (13) Department of Anatomic Pathology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (14) Immune Monitoring Core, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (15) Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (16) Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (17) Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (18) Department of Pharmacy, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (19) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (20) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (21) Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (22) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA. (23) USF Health Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA. Tampa General Hospital Cancer Institute, Tampa, FL, USA. (24) Department of Genitourinary Oncology, Orlando Health Cancer Institute, Orlando, FL, USA. Jad.Chahoud@orlandohealth.com.

Citation: Nat Commun 2026 May 25 Epub05/25/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42185255
Reprogramming CAR with cytokine signaling increases the efficacy of CAR-T cell therapy in solid tumour treatment and confers sustained immune memory Spotlight
(1) Sun R (2) Liu S (3) Yang X (4) Che C (5) Zhang Z (6) Zhang C (7) Wang Y (8) Yang Y (9) Li X (10) Wang J (11) Zheng H (12) Guo M (13) Yin H
To improve CAR T cell efficacy for solid tumors, Sun and Liu et al. designed a series of CARs that enabled antigen-dependent “cytokine” co-activation, while preserving second-generation CAR structure. Incorporating compact IL-2/IL-15 receptor (IL2RB)-derived STAT5 docking motifs (Y392 and Y510) within the CD3ζITAM2/3 regions resulted in antigen-specific co-activation upon CAR engagement. The best candidate S71 CAR exhibited superior efficacy and dose-dependent memory in multiple xenograft tumor models (EDB-fibronectin, CD19, and CLDN), improved mitochondrial function, and supported durable and persistent T cell activity, with less exhaustion.
Contributed by Katherine Turner
(1) Sun R (2) Liu S (3) Yang X (4) Che C (5) Zhang Z (6) Zhang C (7) Wang Y (8) Yang Y (9) Li X (10) Wang J (11) Zheng H (12) Guo M (13) Yin H
To improve CAR T cell efficacy for solid tumors, Sun and Liu et al. designed a series of CARs that enabled antigen-dependent “cytokine” co-activation, while preserving second-generation CAR structure. Incorporating compact IL-2/IL-15 receptor (IL2RB)-derived STAT5 docking motifs (Y392 and Y510) within the CD3ζITAM2/3 regions resulted in antigen-specific co-activation upon CAR engagement. The best candidate S71 CAR exhibited superior efficacy and dose-dependent memory in multiple xenograft tumor models (EDB-fibronectin, CD19, and CLDN), improved mitochondrial function, and supported durable and persistent T cell activity, with less exhaustion.
Contributed by Katherine Turner
ABSTRACT: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown remarkable efficacy in hematologic malignancies but remains limited in solid tumors because of the immunosuppressive microenvironment, tumor heterogeneity, poor immune-cell infiltration, and progressive T-cell dysfunction. Because cytokine costimulation is critical for maintaining T-cell fitness, we developed a modular engineering strategy, distinct from previous approaches based on direct insertion of large cytokine receptor fragments, in which the intracellular CAR signaling domain was reconstructed to incorporate compact IL-2/IL-15 receptor-derived activation motifs, thereby enabling antigen-dependent coactivation while preserving the overall architecture of the parental CAR. Through systematic screening, we identified S71 as the optimal construct, with significantly greater antitumor activity than other mutants across multiple solid and hematologic tumor targets. Mechanistically, S71 rewired CAR signaling and reprogrammed tumor-induced metabolic responses through a self-sustaining mechanism, improving mitochondrial function and supporting durable T-cell activity. Functionally, S71 promoted enhanced persistence and robust immune memory responses against solid tumors. These findings demonstrate that modular integration of cytokine signaling motifs into CAR intracellular domains can improve CAR T-cell fitness and antitumor efficacy, and they establish S71 as a promising strategy for overcoming barriers to CAR T-cell therapy in solid tumors.
Author Info: (1) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (2) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (3) China Pharma

Author Info: (1) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (2) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (3) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (4) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (5) China Pharmaceutical University China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (6) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (7) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (8) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (9) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (10) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (11) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (12) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718 (13) China Pharmaceutical University Nanjing China. ROR: https://ror.org/01sfm2718

Citation: Cancer Immunol Res 2026 May 15 Epub05/15/2026
Link to PUBMED: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/42139378
