Explore the vast range of titles available.

Therapeutic irradiation of the tumor microenvironment causes differential activation of pro-survival and pro-death pathways in malignant, stromal, endothelial and immune cells, hence causing a profound cellular and biological reconfiguration via multiple, non-redundant mechanisms. Such mechanisms include the selective elimination of particularly radiosensitive cell types and consequent loss of specific cellular functions, the local release of cytokines and danger signals by dying radiosensitive cells, and altered cytokine secretion by surviving radioresistant cells. Altogether, these processes create chemotactic and immunomodulatory cues for incoming and resident immune cells. Here we discuss how cytoprotective and cytotoxic signaling modules activated by radiation in specific cell populations reshape the immunological tumor microenvironment. Radiation therapy has for decades been a standard form of treatment for many cancers. A Review by Galluzzi and colleagues explores the effects of radiation therapy in the context of the immune response.

The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is revolutionizing the way we think about cancer treatment. Even so, for most types of cancer, only a minority of patients currently benefit from ICI therapies. Intrinsic and acquired resistance to ICIs has focused research towards new combination therapy approaches that seek to increase response rates, the depth of remission and the durability of benefit. In this Review, we describe how radiotherapy, through its immunomodulating effects, represents a promising combination partner with ICIs. We describe how recent research on DNA damage response (DDR) inhibitors in combination with radiotherapy may be used to augment this approach. Radiotherapy can kill cancer cells while simultaneously triggering the release of pro-inflammatory mediators and increasing tumour-infiltrating immune cells – phenomena often described colloquially as turning immunologically ‘cold’ tumours ‘hot’. Here, we focus on new developments illustrating the key role of tumour cell-autonomous signalling after radiotherapy. Radiotherapy-induced tumour cell micronuclei activate cytosolic nucleic acid sensor pathways, such as cyclic GMP–AMP synthase (cGAS)–stimulator of interferon genes (STING), and propagation of the resulting inflammatory signals remodels the immune contexture of the tumour microenvironment. In parallel, radiation can impact immunosurveillance by modulating neoantigen expression. Finally, we highlight how tumour cell-autonomous mechanisms might be exploited by combining DDR inhibitors, ICIs and radiotherapy.This Review focuses on the role of tumour cell-autonomous signalling after radiotherapy. It describes how radiotherapy, through its immunomodulating effects, might be combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapies and how DNA damage response inhibitors in combination with radiotherapy may be used to further augment this approach.

In the wake of the success of modern immunotherapy, oncolytic viruses (OVs) are currently seen as a potential therapeutic option for patients with cancer who do not respond or fail to achieve durable responses following treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors. OVs offer a multifaceted therapeutic platform because they preferentially replicate in tumour cells, can be engineered to express transgenes that augment their cytotoxic and immunostimulatory activities, and modulate the tumour microenvironment to optimize immune-mediated tumour eradication, both at locoregional and systemic sites of disease. Lysis of tumour cells releases tumour-specific antigens that trigger both the innate and adaptive immune systems. OVs also represent attractive combination partners with other systemically delivered agents by virtue of their highly favourable safety profiles. Rational combinations of OVs with different immune modifiers and/or antitumour agents, based on mechanisms of tumour resistance to immune-mediated attack, may benefit the large, currently underserved, population of patients who respond poorly to immune checkpoint inhibition.

Key Points Radiotherapy is a common treatment option for cancer patients. However, many aspects of the tumour microenvironment (TME) can render a tumour resistant to radiotherapy de novo or can lead it to recur with a worse prognosis following therapy. Normal tissue toxicity limits the dose of radiotherapy that can be safely delivered. Combination strategies are required in order to achieve better tumour control. Radiotherapy-mediated immunogenic cell death (ICD) can elicit an immune response, but antitumour immunity may be limited owing to the presence of radioresistant suppressor cell types in the TME. Combining radiotherapy and immunomodulatory treatments may overcome adaptive immune suppression and holds great promise both locally in the primary tumour and abscopally. Hypoxia has a crucial role in radioresistance owing to reduced oxygen-mediated fixation of DNA damage and hypoxia induced factor 1α (HIF1α)-mediated cell survival. Attempts to increase oxygen delivery, normalize tumour vessels, inhibit HIF1α and prevent the recruitment of bone marrow-derived cells (BMDCs) required for vasculogenesis are all being tested to reduce tumour hypoxia, improve radiotherapy responses and prevent tumour recurrence after therapy. Tumour irradiation induces a wound healing response that is characterized by inflammation, cancer-associated fibroblast (CAF) modulation and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodelling, which may facilitate tumour recurrence. Targeting the initial inflammatory response may counteract attempts to boost the immune-mediated antitumour response following radiotherapy. Therefore, reducing ECM remodelling by inhibiting growth factors, receptor kinases or matrix enzymes may be more effective in preventing the post-irradiation stiffening of the TME that could facilitate tumour spread. Careful scheduling of tumour reoxygenation strategies with radiotherapy will be required to maximize tumour control. Subsequent inclusion of immunomodulatory and anti-fibrotic treatments should be considered to maximize therapeutic benefits and to prevent post-irradiation tumour recurrence and metastasis. In this Review, Barker and colleagues describe the mechanisms of radioresistance that are mediated by the tumour stroma and explore how these mechanisms can be targeted to improve radiotherapy responses. Radiotherapy plays a central part in curing cancer. For decades, most research on improving treatment outcomes has focused on modulating radiation-induced biological effects on cancer cells. Recently, we have better understood that components within the tumour microenvironment have pivotal roles in determining treatment outcomes. In this Review, we describe vascular, stromal and immunological changes that are induced in the tumour microenvironment by irradiation and discuss how these changes may promote radioresistance and tumour recurrence. We also highlight how this knowledge is guiding the development of new treatment paradigms in which biologically targeted agents will be combined with radiotherapy.

Cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) perform diverse roles and can modulate therapy responses1. The inflammatory environment within tumours also influences responses to many therapies, including the efficacy of oncolytic viruses2; however, the role of CAFs in this context remains unclear. Furthermore, little is known about the cell signalling triggered by heterotypic cancer cell–fibroblast contacts and about what activates fibroblasts to express inflammatory mediators1,3. Here, we show that direct contact between cancer cells and CAFs triggers the expression of a wide range of inflammatory modulators by fibroblasts. This is initiated following transcytosis of cytoplasm from cancer cells into fibroblasts, leading to the activation of STING and IRF3-mediated expression of interferon-β1 and other cytokines. Interferon-β1 then drives interferon-stimulated transcriptional programs in both cancer cells and stromal fibroblasts and ultimately undermines the efficacy of oncolytic viruses, both in vitro and in vivo. Further, targeting IRF3 solely in stromal fibroblasts restores oncolytic herpes simplex virus function.Tumour fibroblasts influence oncolytic viral therapy. Arwert et al. show that transcytosis of cancer cells into fibroblasts activates STING and IRF3 to upregulate interferon-β1, eliciting a transcriptional program to reduce the effectiveness of oncolytic viral therapy.

Background Talimogene laherparepvec is an oncolytic immunotherapy approved in the US, Europe, Australia and Switzerland. We report the final planned analysis of OPTiM, a randomized open-label phase III trial in patients with unresectable stage IIIB–IVM1c melanoma. Methods Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive intratumoral talimogene laherparepvec or subcutaneous recombinant GM-CSF. In addition to overall survival (OS), durable response rate (DRR), objective response rate (ORR), complete responses (CR), and safety are also reported. All final analyses are considered to be descriptive and treatment responses were assessed by the investigators. Results Of 436 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 295 were allocated to talimogene laherparepvec and 141 to GM-CSF. Median follow-up in the final OS analysis was 49 months. Median OS was 23.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 19.5–29.6) and 18.9 months (95% CI, 16.0–23.7) in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively (unstratified hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62–1.00; p  = 0.0494 [descriptive]). DRR was 19.0 and 1.4% (unadjusted odds ratio, 16.6; 95% CI, 4.0–69.2; p  < 0.0001); ORR was 31.5 and 6.4%. Fifty (16.9%) and 1 (0.7%) patient in the talimogene laherparepvec and GM-CSF arms, respectively, achieved CR. In talimogene laherparepvec-treated patients, median time to CR was 8.6 months; median CR duration was not reached. Among patients with a CR, 88.5% were estimated to survive at a 5-year landmark analysis. Talimogene laherparepvec efficacy was more pronounced in stage IIIB–IVM1a melanoma as already described in the primary analysis. The safety reporting was consistent with the primary OPTiM analysis. Conclusions In this final planned OPTiM analysis, talimogene laherparepvec continued to result in improved longer-term efficacy versus GM-CSF and remained well tolerated. The final analysis also confirms that talimogene laherparepvec was associated with durable CRs that were associated with prolonged survival. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00769704 .

In a phase 3 trial, the addition of neoadjuvant and adjuvant pembrolizumab to standard care improved event-free survival among participants with locally advanced head and neck cancer without affecting surgical outcomes.

Head and neck cancers, including those of the lip and oral cavity, nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, oropharynx, larynx and nasopharynx represent nearly 700,000 new cases and 380,000 deaths worldwide per annum, and account for over 10,000 annual deaths in the United States alone. Improvement in outcomes are needed for patients with recurrent and or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC). In 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted the first immunotherapeutic approvals – the anti-PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab – for the treatment of patients with recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) that is refractory to platinum-based regimens. The European Commission followed in 2017 with approval of nivolumab for treatment of the same patient population, and shortly thereafter with approval of pembrolizumab monotherapy for the treatment of recurrent or metastatic HNSCC in adults whose tumors express PD-L1 with a ≥ 50% tumor proportion score and have progressed on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Then in 2019, the FDA granted approval for PD-1 inhibition as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic or unresectable, recurrent HNSCC, approving pembrolizumab in combination with platinum and fluorouracil for all patients with HNSCC and pembrolizumab as a single agent for patients with HNSCC whose tumors express a PD-L1 combined positive score ≥ 1. These approvals marked the first new therapies for these patients since 2006, as well as the first immunotherapeutic approvals in this disease. In light of the introduction of these novel therapies for the treatment of patients with head and neck cancer, The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) formed an expert committee tasked with generating consensus recommendations for emerging immunotherapies, including appropriate patient selection, therapy sequence, response monitoring, adverse event management, and biomarker testing. These consensus guidelines serve as a foundation to assist clinicians’ understanding of the role of immunotherapies in this disease setting, and to standardize utilization across the field for patient benefit. Due to country-specific variances in approvals, availability and regulations regarding the discussed agents, this panel focused solely on FDA-approved drugs for the treatment of patients in the U.S.

Xerostomia is the most common late side-effect of radiotherapy to the head and neck. Compared with conventional radiotherapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) can reduce irradiation of the parotid glands. We assessed the hypothesis that parotid-sparing IMRT reduces the incidence of severe xerostomia. We undertook a randomised controlled trial between Jan 21, 2003, and Dec 7, 2007, that compared conventional radiotherapy (control) with parotid-sparing IMRT. We randomly assigned patients with histologically confirmed pharyngeal squamous-cell carcinoma (T1–4, N0–3, M0) at six UK radiotherapy centres between the two radiotherapy techniques (1:1 ratio). A dose of 60 or 65 Gy was prescribed in 30 daily fractions given Monday to Friday. Treatment was not masked. Randomisation was by computer-generated permuted blocks and was stratified by centre and tumour site. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months, as assessed by the Late Effects of Normal Tissue (LENT SOMA) scale. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, with all patients who had assessments included. Long-term follow-up of patients is ongoing. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, number ISRCTN48243537. 47 patients were assigned to each treatment arm. Median follow-up was 44·0 months (IQR 30·0–59·7). Six patients from each group died before 12 months and seven patients from the conventional radiotherapy and two from the IMRT group were not assessed at 12 months. At 12 months xerostomia side-effects were reported in 73 of 82 alive patients; grade 2 or worse xerostomia at 12 months was significantly lower in the IMRT group than in the conventional radiotherapy group (25 [74%; 95% CI 56–87] of 34 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 15 [38%; 23–55] of 39 given IMRT, p=0·0027). The only recorded acute adverse event of grade 2 or worse that differed significantly between the treatment groups was fatigue, which was more prevalent in the IMRT group (18 [41%; 99% CI 23–61] of 44 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs 35 [74%; 55–89] of 47 given IMRT, p=0·0015). At 24 months, grade 2 or worse xerostomia was significantly less common with IMRT than with conventional radiotherapy (20 [83%; 95% CI 63–95] of 24 patients given conventional radiotherapy vs nine [29%; 14–48] of 31 given IMRT; p<0·0001). At 12 and 24 months, significant benefits were seen in recovery of saliva secretion with IMRT compared with conventional radiotherapy, as were clinically significant improvements in dry-mouth-specific and global quality of life scores. At 24 months, no significant differences were seen between randomised groups in non-xerostomia late toxicities, locoregional control, or overall survival. Sparing the parotid glands with IMRT significantly reduces the incidence of xerostomia and leads to recovery of saliva secretion and improvements in associated quality of life, and thus strongly supports a role for IMRT in squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Research UK (CRUK/03/005).