Explore the vast range of titles available.

Only 20 percent of renal and bladder cancer patients will show a significant response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, and no test currently available accurately predicts ICI response. We developed an \"immunotumoroid\" cell model system that recapitulates the tumor, its microenvironment, and necessary immune system components in patient-derived spheroids to enable ex vivo assessment of tumor response to ICI therapy. Immunotumoroids were developed from surgically resected renal cell carcinomas and bladder carcinomas selected for high tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and survived more than a month without media exchange. Immunohistochemistry was used to detect immune and non-immune cells in cryopreserved source tumors and the resulting immunotumoroids. Immunotumoroid response to ICIs (nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and durvalumab) and chemotherapy (cisplatin, gemcitabine, and paclitaxel) was monitored in real-time with Cytotox Red staining in an Incucyte device, and the immunotumoroid response was compared to retrospective clinical drug responses. Six of the 13 cases tested grew viable immunotumoroid models, with failed cases attributed to extensive tumor tissue necrosis or excess lymphocytes preventing spheroid formation. One successfully cultured case was excluded from the study due to low TIL infiltration (<5%) in the primary tumor sample. The five remaining models contained immune cells (CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, and macrophages), non-immune cells (fibroblasts), and tumor cells. Chemotherapy and ICI drugs were tested in immunotumoroids from 5 cases and compared to clinical outcomes where data was available. Four/five models showed cell killing in response to chemotherapy and two/five showed sensitivity to ICI. In three cases, the immunotumoroid model accurately predicted the patient's clinical response or non-response to ICIs or chemotherapy. Our immunotumoroid model replicated the multicellular nature of the tumor microenvironment sufficiently for preclinical ICI screening. This model could enable valuable insights into the complex interactions between cancer cells, the immune system, and the microenvironment. This is a feasibility study on a small number of cases, and additional studies with larger case numbers are required including correlation with clinical response.

Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) provides information regarding cancer-related genetic aberrations. However, its clinical utility in recurrent/metastatic head and neck cancer (R/M HNC) remains unknown. Additionally, predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) should be fully elucidated because of their low response rate. Here, we analyzed the clinical utility of CGP and identified predictive biomarkers that respond to ICIs in R/M HNC. We evaluated over 1100 cases of HNC using the nationwide genetic clinical database established by the Center for Cancer Genomics and Advanced Therapeutics (C-CAT) and 54 cases in an institution-based study. The C-CAT database revealed that 23% of the cases were candidates for clinical trials, and 5% received biomarker-matched therapy, including NTRK fusion. Our institution-based study showed that 9% of SCC cases and 25% of salivary gland cancer cases received targeted agents. In SCC cases, the tumor mutational burden (TMB) high (≥10 Mut/Mb) group showed long-term survival (>2 years) in response to ICI therapy, whereas the PD-L1 combined positive score showed no significant difference in progression-free survival. In multivariate analysis, CCND1 amplification was associated with a lower response to ICIs. Our results indicate that CGP may be useful in identifying prognostic biomarkers for immunotherapy in patients with HNC.

Anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or anti-PD-ligand (L) 1 drugs, as classic immune checkpoint inhibitors, are considered promising treatment strategies for tumors. In clinical practice, some cancer patients experience drug resistance and disease progression in the process of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) play key roles in regulating PD-1/PD-L1 immunosuppression by inhibiting the recruitment and function of T cells through cytokines, superficial immune checkpoint ligands, and exosomes. There are several therapies available to recover the anticancer efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors by targeting TAMs, including the inhibition of TAM differentiation and re-education of TAM activation. In this review, we will summarize the roles and mechanisms of TAMs in PD-1/PD-L1 blocker resistance. Furthermore, we will discuss the therapies that were designed to deplete TAMs, re-educate TAMs, and intervene with chemokines secreted by TAMs and exosomes from M1 macrophages, providing more potential options to improve the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) either alone or in combination with chemotherapy have expanded our choice of agents for the palliative treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Unfortunately, not all patients will experience favorable response to treatment with ICI and may even suffer from severe side effects. Therefore, prognostic and predictive markers, beyond programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression status, are of utmost importance for decision making in the palliative treatment. This review focuses on clinical, laboratory and genetic markers, most of them easily to obtain in the daily clinical practice. Results Recently, a number of prognostic and predictive factors in association to palliative ICI therapy have been described in NSCLC. Besides biometric parameters and clinical characteristics of the tumor, there are useful markers from routine blood sampling as well as innovative soluble genetic markers which can be determined before and during ICI treatment. Additionally, the level of evidence is noted. Conclusions These factors can be helpful to predict patients’ outcome and tumor response to ICI. They should be implemented prospectively in ICI based clinical trials to develop reliable algorithms for palliative NSCLC treatment.

Immunotherapy, with an increasing number of therapeutic dimensions, is becoming an important mode of treatment for cancer patients. The inhibition of immune checkpoints, which are the source of immune escape for various cancers, is one such immunotherapeutic dimension. It has mainly been aimed at T cells in the past, but NK cells are a newly emerging target. Simultaneously, the number of checkpoints identified has been increasing in recent times. In addition to the classical NK cell receptors KIRs, LIRs, and NKG2A, several other immune checkpoints have also been shown to cause dysfunction of NK cells in various cancers and chronic infections. These checkpoints include the revolutionized CTLA-4, PD-1, and recently identified B7-H3, as well as LAG-3, TIGIT & CD96, TIM-3, and the most recently acknowledged checkpoint-members of the Siglecs family (Siglec-7/9), CD200 and CD47. An interesting dimension of immune checkpoints is their candidacy for dual-checkpoint inhibition, resulting in therapeutic synergism. Furthermore, the combination of immune checkpoint inhibition with other NK cell cytotoxicity restoration strategies could also strengthen its efficacy as an antitumor therapy. Here, we have undertaken a comprehensive review of the literature to date regarding NK cell-based immune checkpoints.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized colon cancer treatment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown clinical benefits for colon cancer patients, especially those with high microsatellite instability (MSI-H). In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved ICI pembrolizumab as the first-line treatment for metastatic MSI-H colon cancer patients. Additionally, neoadjuvant immunotherapy has presented efficacy in treating early-stage colon cancer patients. Although MSI has been thought of as an effective predictive biomarker for colon cancer immunotherapy, only a small proportion of colon cancer patients were MSI-H, and certain colon cancer patients with MSI-H presented intrinsic or acquired resistance to immunotherapy. Thus, further search for predictive biomarkers to stratify patients is meaningful in colon cancer immunotherapy. Except for MSI, other biomarkers, such as PD-L1 expression level, tumor mutation burden (TMB), tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), certain gut microbiota, ctDNA, and circulating immune cells were also proposed to be correlated with patient survival and ICI efficacy in some colon cancer clinical studies. Moreover, developing new diagnostic techniques helps identify accurate predictive biomarkers for colon cancer immunotherapy. In this review, we outline the reported predictive biomarkers in colon cancer immunotherapy and further discuss the prospects of technological changes for biomarker development in colon cancer immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) block inhibitory molecules, such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), or its ligand, programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1) and enhance antitumor T-cell activity. ICIs provide clinical benefits in a percentage of patients with advanced cancers, but they are usually associated with a remarkable spectrum of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (e.g., rash, colitis, hepatitis, pneumonitis, endocrine, cardiac and musculoskeletal dysfunctions). Particularly patients on combination therapy (e.g., anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1/PD-L1) experience some form of irAEs. Different mechanisms have been postulated to explain these adverse events. Host factors such as genotype, gut microbiome and pre-existing autoimmune disorders may affect the risk of adverse events. Fatal ICI-related irAEs are due to myocarditis, colitis or pneumonitis. irAEs usually occur within the first months after ICI initiation but can develop as early as after the first dose to years after ICI initiation. Most irAEs resolve pharmacologically, but some appear to be persistent. Glucocorticoids represent the mainstay of management of irAEs, but other immunosuppressive drugs can be used to mitigate refractory irAEs. In the absence of specific trials, several guidelines, based on data from retrospective studies and expert consensus, have been published to guide the management of ICI-related irAEs.

IntroductionImmune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are associated with unique immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Immune-related thrombocytopenia (irTCP) is an understudied and poorly understood toxicity; little data are available regarding either risk of irTCP or the effect of irTCP on clinical outcomes of patients treated with ICI.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of sequential cancer patients treated with ICI between 2011 and 2017 at our institution. All patients who received ICI alone or in combination with other systemic therapy in any line of treatment were included; those with thrombocytopenia ≥ grade 3 at baseline were excluded. We calculated the incidence of ≥ grade 3 irTCP and overall survival (OS). Patient factors associated with irTCP were assessed.ResultsWe identified 1,038 patients that met eligibility criteria. Overall, 89 (8.6%) patients developed grade ≥ 3 thrombocytopenia; eighteen were attributed to ICI (1.73% overall). Patients who developed grade ≥ 3 irTCP had worse overall survival compared to those whose thrombocytopenia was unrelated to ICI (4.17 vs. 10.8 month; HR. 1.94, 95% CI 1.13, 3.33; log-rank p = 0.0164). Patients with grade ≥ 3 irTCP also had worse survival compared to those without thrombocytopenia (4.17 vs. 13.31 months; HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.36, 3.62; log-rank p = 0.001). The incidence of irTCP appeared lowest among those treated with PD-1/L1 monotherapy (p = 0.059) and was not associated with cancer type, smoking status, age, gender, race, or line of therapy.ConclusionsUnlike other irAEs, we found that irTCP was associated with worse overall survival. The incidence of irTCP appeared lowest among those treated with PD-1/L1 monotherapy.

Ovarian cancer is the most lethal gynecologic malignancy. Surgery and chemotherapy are the primary treatments for ovarian cancer; however, patients often succumb to recurrence with chemotherapeutic resistance within several years after the initial treatment. In the past two decades, immunotherapy has rapidly developed, and has revolutionized the treatment of various types of cancer. Despite the fact that immunotherapy response rates among ovarian cancer patients remain modest, treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)- and TCR-engineered T cells is rapidly developing. Therapeutic efficiency could be improved significantly if immunotherapy is included as an adjuvant therapy, in combination with chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and the use of anti-angiogenesis drugs, and poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors (PARPi). Newly developed technologies that identify therapeutic targets, predict treatment efficacy, rapidly screen potential immunotherapy drugs, provide neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and utilize nanomedicine technology provide new opportunities for the treatment of ovarian cancer, and have the potential to prolong patient survival. However, important issues that may hinder the efficacy of such approaches, including hyperprogressive disease (HPD), immunotherapy-resistance, and toxicity of the treatments, including neurotoxicity, must be taken into account and addressed for these therapies to be effective.

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are increasingly being explored in multiple solid tumors, conventionally delivered as multi-cycle preoperative regimens or as part of perioperative strategies that include postoperative therapy. However, directly adopting these approaches presents distinct challenges in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the Asia-Pacific region, curative surgery remains feasible even for patients with a large tumor burden. These patients may derive the greatest benefit from neoadjuvant immunotherapy due to their high risk of recurrence, yet they also face the narrowest surgical window. Disease progression during prolonged neoadjuvant treatment period can easily hinder resectability. Additionally, intensive neoadjuvant treatment-related adverse events, especially hepatotoxicity, may delay surgery. A HCC-specific approach that prioritizes surgical feasibility while preserving benefit of immunotherapy is needed. Recent pharmacodynamic and clinical evidence indicates that a single dose of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) or its ligand (PD-L1) antibody can rapidly achieve near-complete receptor occupancy and early T-cell activation. Receptor occupancy can be sustained in the early postoperative period. This provides a strong scientific rationale for a single-dose, non-waiting neoadjuvant strategy, in which anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 is administered shortly before surgery without delaying resection. Such an approach may allow early antitumor immune activation while minimizing treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), preserving surgical feasibility and reducing logistical complexity. It may enhance acceptance among patients and surgeons. Future neoadjuvant trials in HCC should consider adopting this \"less is more\" paradigm to investigate whether abbreviated neoadjuvant immunotherapy can safely translate immunologic activation into meaningful clinical benefit, as measured by event-free survival.