Explore the vast range of titles available.

Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition, in which the therapy is administered before surgery, is a promising new approach to managing bulky but resectable melanoma, and is also being explored in other cancers. This strategy has a high pathologic response rate, which correlates with survival outcomes. The fact that biopsies are routinely available provides a unique opportunity for understanding the responses to therapy and carrying out reverse translation in which these data are used to select therapies in the clinic or in trials that are more likely to improve patient outcomes. In this Perspective, we discuss the rationale for neoadjuvant immunotherapy in resectable solid tumors based on preclinical and human translational data, summarize the results of recent clinical trials and ongoing research, and focus on future directions for enhancing reverse translation. The emerging success of neoadjuvant therapy is creating opportunities for understanding successful immune responses and improving therapies using this unique pool of knowledge.

Visualizing the state of cancer–immune system interactions may spur personalized therapy The impact of cancer immunotherapy on clinical cancer care is growing rapidly. However, different immunotherapies remedy distinct problems in cancer–immune system interactions. What would be the most effective therapy for an individual patient? Here, a framework is proposed for describing the different interactions between cancer and the immune system in individual cases, with the aim to focus biomarker research and to help guide treatment choice.

Pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival versus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma and is now a standard of care in the first-line setting. However, the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 administration is unknown. We present results from 5 years of follow-up of patients in KEYNOTE-006. KEYNOTE-006 was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study done at 87 academic institutions, hospitals, and cancer centres in 16 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, ipilimumab-naive histologically confirmed advanced melanoma with known BRAFV600 status and up to one previous systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to intravenous pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks or every 3 weeks or four doses of intravenous ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Treatments were assigned using a centralised, computer-generated allocation schedule with blocked randomisation within strata. Exploratory combination of data from the two pembrolizumab dosing regimen groups was not protocol-specified. Pembrolizumab treatment continued for up to 24 months. Eligible patients who discontinued pembrolizumab with stable disease or better after receiving at least 24 months of pembrolizumab or discontinued with complete response after at least 6 months of pembrolizumab and then progressed could receive an additional 17 cycles of pembrolizumab. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Efficacy was analysed in all randomly assigned patients, and safety was analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. Exploratory assessment of efficacy and safety at 5 years' follow-up was not specified in the protocol. Data cutoff for this analysis was Dec 3, 2018. Recruitment is closed; the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01866319. Between Sept 18, 2013, and March 3, 2014, 834 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (every 2 weeks, n=279; every 3 weeks, n=277), or ipilimumab (n=278). After a median follow-up of 57·7 months (IQR 56·7–59·2) in surviving patients, median overall survival was 32·7 months (95% CI 24·5–41·6) in the combined pembrolizumab groups and 15·9 months (13·3–22·0) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·61–0·88, p=0·00049). Median progression-free survival was 8·4 months (95% CI 6·6–11·3) in the combined pembrolizumab groups versus 3·4 months (2·9–4·2) in the ipilimumab group (HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·48–0·67, p<0·0001). Grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 96 (17%) of 555 patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 50 (20%) of 256 patients in the ipilimumab group; the most common of these events were colitis (11 [2%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (ten [2%] vs seven [3%]), and fatigue (four [<1%] vs three [1%]). Any-grade serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 75 (14%) patients in the combined pembrolizumab groups and in 45 (18%) patients in the ipilimumab group. One patient assigned to pembrolizumab died from treatment-related sepsis. Pembrolizumab continued to show superiority over ipilimumab after almost 5 years of follow-up. These results provide further support for use of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced melanoma. Merck Sharp & Dohme.

CMTM6 and CMTM4 bind to and stabilize the inhibitory receptor PD-L1 and regulate PD-L1 levels at the surface of human tumour and immune cells. Regulating immunity evasion PD-1/PD-L1 blocking antibodies are effective in the treatment of various cancers. In this study, Ton Schumacher and colleagues describe a haploid genetic screen to identify molecules and pathways that influence the cell surface expression of PD-L1. They identify chemokine-like factors CMTM6 and CMTM4 as cell endogenous regulators of PD-L1 stability, and suggest that this axis could be targeted therapeutically to improve cancer immunotherapy. Elsewhere in this issue, Mark Dawson and colleagues also identify CMTM6 as a novel regulator of PD-L1 expression, through a genome-wide CRISPR–Cas9 screen. CMTM6 functions to maintain PD-L1 at the plasma membrane by inhibiting its lysosome-mediated degradation and promoting its recycling. The clinical benefit for patients with diverse types of metastatic cancers that has been observed upon blockade of the interaction between PD-1 and PD-L1 has highlighted the importance of this inhibitory axis in the suppression of tumour-specific T-cell responses 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 . Notwithstanding the key role of PD-L1 expression by cells within the tumour micro-environment, our understanding of the regulation of the PD-L1 protein is limited 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 . Here we identify, using a haploid genetic screen, CMTM6, a type-3 transmembrane protein of previously unknown function, as a regulator of the PD-L1 protein. Interference with CMTM6 expression results in impaired PD-L1 protein expression in all human tumour cell types tested and in primary human dendritic cells. Furthermore, through both a haploid genetic modifier screen in CMTM6-deficient cells and genetic complementation experiments, we demonstrate that this function is shared by its closest family member, CMTM4, but not by any of the other CMTM members tested. Notably, CMTM6 increases the PD-L1 protein pool without affecting PD-L1 (also known as CD274 ) transcription levels. Rather, we demonstrate that CMTM6 is present at the cell surface, associates with the PD-L1 protein, reduces its ubiquitination and increases PD-L1 protein half-life. Consistent with its role in PD-L1 protein regulation, CMTM6 enhances the ability of PD-L1-expressing tumour cells to inhibit T cells. Collectively, our data reveal that PD-L1 relies on CMTM6/4 to efficiently carry out its inhibitory function, and suggest potential new avenues to block this pathway.

Dabrafenib, an inhibitor of mutated BRAF, has clinical activity with a manageable safety profile in studies of phase 1 and 2 in patients with BRAFV600-mutated metastatic melanoma. We studied the efficacy of dabrafenib in patients with BRAFV600E-mutated metastatic melanoma. We enrolled patients in this open-label phase 3 trial between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 1, 2011. This report is based on a data cutoff date of Dec 19, 2011. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, stage IV or unresectable stage III BRAFV600E mutation-positive melanoma were randomly assigned (3:1) to receive dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily, orally) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously every 3 weeks). Patients were stratified according to American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (unresectable III+IVM1a+IVM1b vs IVM1c). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival and was analysed by intention to treat; safety was assessed per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227889. Of the 733 patients screened, 250 were randomly assigned to receive either dabrafenib (187 patients) or dacarbazine (63 patients). Median progression-free survival was 5·1 months for dabrafenib and 2·7 months for dacarbazine, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·30 (95% CI 0·18–0·51; p<0·0001). At data cutoff, 107 (57%) patients in the dabrafenib group and 14 (22%) in the dacarbazine group remained on randomised treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (grade 2 or higher) occurred in 100 (53%) of the 187 patients who received dabrafenib and in 26 (44%) of the 59 patients who received dacarbazine. The most common adverse events with dabrafenib were skin-related toxic effects, fever, fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. The most common adverse events with dacarbazine were nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, fatigue, and asthenia. Grade 3–4 adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Dabrafenib significantly improved progression-free survival compared with dacarbazine. GlaxoSmithKline.

The identification of an ERK2–JUNB–FRA1 signalling pathway that drives addiction to therapeutic drugs in cancer cells, and an ERK2-dependent phenotype switch that precedes cell death after drug withdrawal, may help to guide therapies that exploit the addiction phenotype. Exploiting cancer's drug habit Cancer cells can acquire drug resistance through different genetic and non-genetic mechanisms. In some cases, drug-resistant cells become addicted to the treatment and can die upon drug withdrawal. The authors explore the mechanistic basis for this drug addiction in melanoma cells, and identify a phenotype-switch pathway that is triggered by targeted therapy. The findings suggest that alternating therapies could be tailored to exploit the drug-addiction phenotype of therapy-resistant cancer cells. Observations from cultured cells 1 , 2 , 3 , animal models 4 and patients 5 , 6 , 7 raise the possibility that the dependency of tumours on the therapeutic drugs to which they have acquired resistance represents a vulnerability with potential applications in cancer treatment. However, for this drug addiction trait to become of clinical interest, we must first define the mechanism that underlies it. We performed an unbiased CRISPR–Cas9 knockout screen on melanoma cells that were both resistant and addicted to inhibition of the serine/threonine-protein kinase BRAF, in order to functionally mine their genome for ‘addiction genes’. Here we describe a signalling pathway comprising ERK2 kinase and JUNB and FRA1 transcription factors, disruption of which allowed addicted tumour cells to survive on treatment discontinuation. This occurred in both cultured cells and mice and was irrespective of the acquired drug resistance mechanism. In melanoma and lung cancer cells, death induced by drug withdrawal was preceded by a specific ERK2-dependent phenotype switch, alongside transcriptional reprogramming reminiscent of the epithelial–mesenchymal transition. In melanoma cells, this reprogramming caused the shutdown of microphthalmia-associated transcription factor (MITF), a lineage survival oncoprotein; restoring this protein reversed phenotype switching and prevented the lethality associated with drug addiction. In patients with melanoma that had progressed during treatment with a BRAF inhibitor, treatment cessation was followed by increased expression of the receptor tyrosine kinase AXL, which is associated with the phenotype switch. Drug discontinuation synergized with the melanoma chemotherapeutic agent dacarbazine by further suppressing MITF and its prosurvival target, B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2), and by inducing DNA damage in cancer cells. Our results uncover a pathway that underpins drug addiction in cancer cells, which may help to guide the use of alternating therapeutic strategies for enhanced clinical responses in drug-resistant cancers.

Patients with melanoma harbouring Val600 BRAF mutations benefit from treatment with BRAF inhibitors. However, no targeted treatments exist for patients with BRAF wild-type tumours, including those with NRAS mutations. We aimed to assess the use of MEK162, a small-molecule MEK1/2 inhibitor, in patients with NRAS-mutated or Val600 BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma. In our open-label, non-randomised, phase 2 study, we assigned patients with NRAS-mutated or BRAF-mutated advanced melanoma to one of three treatment arms on the basis of mutation status. Patients were enrolled at university hospitals or private cancer centres in Europe and the USA. The three arms were: twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for NRAS-mutated melanoma, twice-daily MEK162 45 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma, and twice-daily MEK162 60 mg for BRAF-mutated melanoma. Previous treatment with BRAF inhibitors was permitted, but previous MEK inhibitor therapy was not allowed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who had an objective response (ie, a complete response or confirmed partial response). We report data for the 45 mg groups. We assessed clinical activity in all patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 and in patients assessable for response (with two available CT scans). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01320085, and is currently recruiting additional patients with NRAS mutations (based on a protocol amendment). Between March 31, 2011, and Jan 17, 2012, we enrolled 71 patients who received at least one dose of MEK162 45 mg. By Feb 29, 2012 (data cutoff), median follow-up was 3·3 months (range 0·6–8·7; IQR 2·2–5·0). No patients had a complete response. Six (20%) of 30 patients with NRAS-mutated melanoma had a partial response (three confirmed) as did eight (20%) of 41 patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma (two confirmed). The most frequent adverse events were acneiform dermatitis (18 [60%] patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and 15 [37%] patients with the BRAF-mutated melanoma), rash (six [20%] and 16 [39%]), peripheral oedema (ten [33%] and 14 [34%]), facial oedema (nine [30%] and seven [17%]), diarrhoea (eight [27%] and 15 [37%]), and creatine phosphokinase increases (11 [37%] and nine [22%]). Increased creatine phosphokinase was the most common grade 3–4 adverse event (seven [23%] and seven [17%]). Four patients had serious adverse events (two per arm), which included diarrhoea, dehydration, acneiform dermatitis, general physical deterioration, irregular heart rate, malaise, and small intestinal perforation. No deaths occurred from treatment-related causes. To our knowledge, MEK162 is the first targeted therapy to show activity in patients with NRAS -mutated melanoma and might offer a new option for a cancer with few effective treatments. Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

Checkpoint inhibitors, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibodies have changed profoundly the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, Hodgkin lymphoma, and bladder cancer. Currently, they are tested in various tumor entities as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapies or targeted therapies. However, only a subgroup of patients benefit from checkpoint blockade (combinations). This raises the question, which all mechanisms inhibit T cell function in the tumor environment, restricting the efficacy of these immunotherapeutic approaches. Serum activity of lactate dehydrogenase, likely reflecting the glycolytic activity of the tumor cells and thus acidity within the tumor microenvironment, turned out to be one of the strongest markers predicting response to checkpoint inhibition. In this review, we discuss the impact of tumor-associated acidity on the efficacy of T cell-mediated cancer immunotherapy and possible approaches to break this barrier.

Melanomas can switch to a dedifferentiated cell state upon exposure to cytotoxic T cells. However, it is unclear whether such tumor cells pre-exist in patients and whether they can be resensitized to immunotherapy. Here, we chronically expose (patient-derived) melanoma cell lines to differentiation antigen-specific cytotoxic T cells and observe strong enrichment of a pre-existing NGFR hi population. These fractions are refractory also to T cells recognizing non-differentiation antigens, as well as to BRAF + MEK inhibitors. NGFR hi cells induce the neurotrophic factor BDNF, which contributes to T cell resistance, as does NGFR. In melanoma patients, a tumor-intrinsic NGFR signature predicts anti-PD-1 therapy resistance, and NGFR hi tumor fractions are associated with immune exclusion. Lastly, pharmacologic NGFR inhibition restores tumor sensitivity to T cell attack in vitro and in melanoma xenografts. These findings demonstrate the existence of a stable and pre-existing NGFR hi multitherapy-refractory melanoma subpopulation, which ought to be eliminated to revert intrinsic resistance to immunotherapeutic intervention. Dedifferentiation state has been associated with therapy resistance in melanoma. Here, the authors uncover a pre-existing NGFR-expressing, targetable subpopulation that is resistant to immunotherapy and other treatments in melanoma cells and preclinical models.

Malignant melanoma accounts for the highest number of deaths from skin cancer, and the prognosis of patients with stage IV disease has historically been poor. Novel insights into both mutations driving tumorigenesis and immune escape mechanisms of these tumors have led to effective treatment options that have revolutionized the treatment of this disease. Targeting the MAPK kinase pathway (with BRAF and MEK inhibitors), as well as targeting checkpoints, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) or programmed death 1 (PD-1), have improved overall survival in patients with late-stage melanoma, and biomarker research for personalized therapy is ongoing for each of these treatment modalities. In this review, we will discuss current first-line treatment options, discuss biomarkers supporting treatment decisions, and give an outlook on (combination) therapies we expect to become relevant in the near future.