Search

Background: The immune status of a patient's tumor microenvironment (TME) may guide therapeutic interventions with cancer immunotherapy and help identify potential resistance mechanisms. Currently, patients' immune status is mostly classified based on CD8+tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. An unmet need exists for comparable and reliable precision immunophenotyping tools that would facilitate clinical treatment-relevant decision-making and the understanding of how to overcome resistance mechanisms., Methods: We systematically analyzed the CD8 immunophenotype of 2023 patients from 14 phase I-III clinical trials using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and additionally profiled gene expression by RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq). CD8 immunophenotypes were classified by pathologists into CD8-desert, CD8-excluded or CD8-inflamed tumors using CD8 IHC staining in epithelial and stromal areas of the tumor. Using regularized logistic regression, we developed an RNA-seq-based classifier as a surrogate to the IHC-based spatial classification of CD8+tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in the TME., Results: The CD8 immunophenotype and associated gene expression patterns varied across indications as well as across primary and metastatic lesions. Melanoma and kidney cancers were among the strongest inflamed indications, while CD8-desert phenotypes were most abundant in liver metastases across all tumor types. A good correspondence between the transcriptome and the IHC-based evaluation enabled us to develop a 92-gene classifier that accurately predicted the IHC-based CD8 immunophenotype in primary and metastatic samples (area under the curve inflamed=0.846; excluded=0.712; desert=0.855). The newly developed classifier was prognostic in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data and predictive in lung cancer: patients with predicted CD8-inflamed tumors showed prolonged overall survival (OS) versus patients with CD8-desert tumors (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97) across TCGA, and longer OS on immune checkpoint inhibitor administration (phase III OAK study) in non-small-cell lung cancer (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.97)., Conclusions: We provide a new precision immunophenotyping tool based on gene expression that reflects the spatial infiltration patterns of CD8+ lymphocytes in tumors. The classifier enables multiplex analyses and is easy to apply for retrospective, reverse translation approaches as well as for prospective patient enrichment to optimize the response to cancer immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AR, IID, PCS, MLS-S, NS, AV and KK are employees of F. Hoffmann-La Roche. AH, CSF, GD and MAC are employees of Roche Diagnostics. IK was an employee of Roche Diagnostics at the time of the study. AH, AR, IID, PCS, MLS-S, NS, CSF, AV, KK and MAC are shareholders of F. Hoffmann-La Roche., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Despite the clinical validation and unequivocal benefit to patients, the development of cancer immunotherapies is facing some key challenges and the attrition rate in early phases of development remains high. Identifying the appropriate patient population that would benefit most from the drug is on the critical path for successful clinical development. We believe that a systematic implementation of patient enrichment strategies early in the drug development process and trial design, is the basis for an innovative, more efficient, and leaner clinical development to achieve earlier a clear proof of concept or proof of failure. In this position article, we will describe and propose key considerations for the implementation of patient enrichment strategies as an opportunity to provide decision-enabling data earlier in the drug development process. We introduce an innovative multidimensional tool for immuno-oncology drug development that focuses on facilitating the identification and prioritization of enrichment-relevant biomarkers, based on the drug mechanism of action. To illustrate its utility, we discuss patient enrichment examples and use a case in the field of cancer immunotherapy, together with technical and regulatory considerations. Overall, we propose to implement fit for purpose enrichment strategies for all investigational drugs as early as possible in the development process. We believe that this will increase the success rate of immuno-oncology clinical trials, and eventually bring new and better medicines to patients faster., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: The clinical development of immune checkpoint-targeted immunotherapies has been disappointing so far in paediatric solid tumours. However, as opposed to adults, very little is known about the immune contexture of paediatric malignancies., Methods: We investigated by gene expression and immunohistochemistry (IHC) the immune microenvironment of five major paediatric cancers: Ewing sarcoma (ES), osteosarcoma (OS), rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), medulloblastoma (MB) and neuroblastoma (NB; 20 cases each; n = 100 samples total), and correlated them with overall survival., Results: NB and RMS tumours had high immune cell gene expression values and high T-cell counts but were low for antigen processing cell (APC) genes. OS and ES tumours showed low levels of T-cells but the highest levels of APC genes. OS had the highest levels of macrophages (CSF1R, CD163 and CD68), whereas ES had the lowest. MB appeared as immune deserts. Tregs (FOXP3 staining) were higher in both RMS and OS. Most tumours scored negative for PD-L1 in tumour and immune cells, with only 11 of 100 samples positive for PD-L1 staining. PD-L1 and OX40 levels were generally low across all five indications. Interestingly, NB had comparable levels of CD8 by IHC and by gene expression to adult tumours. However, by gene expression, these tumours were low for T-cell cytotoxic molecules GZMB, GZMA and PRF1. Surprisingly, the lower the level of tumour infiltrative CD8 T-cells, the better the prognosis was in NB, RMS and ES. Gene expression analyses showed that MYCN-amplified NB have higher amounts of immune suppressive cells such as macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells and Tregs, whereas the non-MYCN-amplified tumours were more infiltrated and had higher expression levels of Teff., Conclusions: Our results describe the quality and quantity of immune cells across five major paediatric cancers and provide some key features differentiating these tumours from adult tumour types. These findings explain why anti-PD(L)1 might not have had single agent success in paediatric cancers. These results provides the rationale for the development of biologically stratified and personalised immunotherapy strategies in children with relapsing/refractory cancers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Co-authors M.D.T., C.J.F., L.B., J.B.V., R.T., K.K., H.K., J.Z., G.B. and M.A.C. are or have been co-employees of Roche or Genentech. Roche and Genentech develop clinical cancer immunotherapies, including for paediatric cancers. Over the last 5 years, A.M. has provided consulting services and participated in scientific advisory boards including cancer immunotherapies for paediatric cancers and including for Roche/Genentech as a company. The other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This phase 1b study (NCT02323191) evaluated the safety, antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor-blocking monoclonal antibody (mAb) emactuzumab in combination with the programmed cell death-1 ligand (PD-L1)-blocking mAb atezolizumab in patients with advanced solid tumors naïve or experienced for immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs)., Methods: Emactuzumab (500-1350 mg flat) and atezolizumab (1200 mg flat) were administered intravenously every 3 weeks. Dose escalation of emactuzumab was conducted using the 3+3 design up to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or optimal biological dose (OBD). Extension cohorts to evaluate pharmacodynamics and clinical activity were conducted in metastatic ICB-naive urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) and ICB-pretreated melanoma (MEL), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and UBC patients., Results: Overall, 221 patients were treated. No MTD was reached and the OBD was determined at 1000 mg of emactuzumab in combination with 1200 mg of atezolizumab. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 25 (11.3%) patients of which fatigue and rash were the most common (14 patients (6.3%) each). The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was 9.8% for ICB-naïve UBC, 12.5% for ICB-experienced NSCLC, 8.3% for ICB-experienced UBC and 5.6% for ICB-experienced MEL patients, respectively. Tumor biopsy analyses demonstrated increased activated CD8 +tumor infiltrating T lymphocytes (TILs) associated with clinical benefit in ICB-naïve UBC patients and less tumor-associated macrophage (TAM) reduction in ICB-experienced compared with ICB-naïve patients., Conclusion: Emactuzumab in combination with atezolizumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile with increased fatigue and skin rash over usual atezolizumab monotherapy. A considerable ORR was particularly seen in ICB-experienced NSCLC patients. Increase ofCD8 +TILs under therapy appeared to be associated with persistence of a TAM subpopulation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CG-R: Invited Speaker: BMS, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, Roche/Genentech; Coordinating PI: BMS; Steering Committee Member: BMS; Local PI: Foundation Medicine; Steering Committee Member: Genentech; Research Grant: Roche/Genentech; AM: Stock ownership Pegascy, Hifibio Therapeutics, Shattuck Labs, Centessa Pharmaceuticals; Honoraria: BMS, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Oncovir; Consulting and advisory activities: Lytix Biopharma, Eisai, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Servier, Roche, Redx Pharma, Sotio, Innate Pharma, ImCheck Therapeutics, MSD, OSE Immunotherapeutics, HIFIBIO Therapeutics, MedinCell, Centessa Pharmaceuticals; Speaker’s bureau: BMS; Research funding: BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Transgene, MSD; Travel expenses: MSD, AstraZeneca; SC: Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, EISAI, Janssen, MSD, Novartis and Roche; Principal Investigator of Clinical Trials for: Amgen, MSD, Sanofi Aventis, Transgene; Advisory Board: Alderaan Biotechnology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Oncovita, Seagen, Ultrahuman; Travel and congress: AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche; Principal/sub-investigator of clinical trials for: Abbvie, Adaptimmune, Adlai Nortye USA Inc, Aduro Biotech, Agios Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Argen-X Bvba, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Astra Zeneca Ab, Aveo, Basilea Pharmaceutica International Ltd, Bayer Healthcare Ag, Bbb Technologies Bv, Beigene, BicycleTx Ltd, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ca, Celgene Corporation, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co, Clovis Oncology, Cullinan-Apollo, Curevac, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eisai, Eisai Limited, Eli Lilly, Exelixis, Faron Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Forma Tharapeutics, Gamamabs, Genentech, Glaxosmithkline, H3 Biomedicine, Hoffmann La Roche Ag, Imcheck Therapeutics, Innate Pharma, Institut De Recherche Pierre Fabre, Iris Servier, Iteos Belgium SA, Janssen Cilag, Janssen Research Foundation, Kura Oncology, Kyowa Kirin Pharm. Dev, Lilly France, Loxo Oncology, Lytix Biopharma As, Medimmune, Menarini Ricerche, Merck Sharp & Dohme Chibret, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Merus, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Molecular Partners Ag, Nanobiotix, Nektar Therapeutics, Novartis Pharma, Octimet Oncology Nv, Oncoethix, Oncopeptides, Orion Pharma, Ose Pharma, Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Pierre Fabre, Medicament, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Seattle Genetics, Sotio A.S, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharma, Tesaro, Turning Point Therapeutics, Xencor; Research Grants from: Astrazeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, GSK, INCA, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SanofiNon-financial support (drug supplied) from Astrazeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boringher Ingelheim, GSK, Medimmune, Merck, NH TherAGuiX, Pfizer, Roche; SA: Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and BMSAdvisory board: Sanofi; PC: Honoraria: Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Merck Serono; Research Funding: Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, lueprint Medicines, Bayer, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Plexxikon, Abbvie, BMS, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Toray Industries, Transgene, Loxo, GSK, Innate Pharma, Janssen; Travel expenses: Roche, Amgen, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Netris Pharma, Bayer, Merck Serono; DZ: Reports research support from: Roche, Astra Zeneca, and Plexxikon; Personal/consultancy fees from Synlogic Therapeutics, GSK, Roche, Xencor, Memgen, Immunos, Celldex, Calidi, and Agenus; J-PM: Advisory board member or speaker with honoraria: Pfizer, Roche, Astra/Zeneca, Bayer, Innate, Merck Serono, Boerhinger, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, Incyte, Cue Biopharma, ALX Oncology, iTEOS, eTheRNATravel expenses: Amgen, BMS, Pfizer, MSDData safety monitoring board with honoraria: Debio, Nanobiotix, Psioxus; Uncompensated advisory role: MSD; JLPG; Research grants and support: Roche, BMS, MSD, Seattle Genetics. Speakers bureau and advisory boards: Roche, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Seattle Genetics. Travel support: Roche, MSD, BMS; FSH: Consulting: BMS, Merck, EMD Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, Psioxus Therapeutics, Pieris Pharmacutical, Corner Therapeutics, Eisai, Idera, Takeda, Genentech/Roche; Advisory Board: Compass Therapeutics, Apricity Scientific, Pionyr, Torque, Rheos, Bicara, Checkpoint Therapeutics, Bioentre, Gossamer, Iovance; ATG: Personal fees from: Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, MSD, Roche, Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Tesaro-GSK and non-financial support from Boehringer-Ingelheim, Lilly and RocheMaria Martinez Garcia; Research grants and support: Roche, BMS, MSD, Seattle Genetics; Speakers bureau and advisory boards: Roche, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Seattle Genetics; Travel support: Roche, MSD, BMS; VB: Consulting or Advisory Role: Puma Biotechnology; Ideaya Biosciences; Loxo Therapeutics, CytomX Therapeutics; Guidepoint; Oncoart; Amunix; Institutional financial support for clinical trials from: Abbvie, ACEO, Adaptaimmune, Amcure, AMGEN, AstraZeneca, BMS, Cytomx, GSK, Genentech/Roche, H3, Incyte, Janssen, Kura, Lilly, Loxo, Nektar, Macrogenics, Menarini, Merck, Merus, Nanobiotix, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Principia, PUMA, Sanofi, Taiho, Tesaro, BeiGene, Transgene, Takeda, Incyte, Innovio, MSD, PsiOxus, Seattle Genetics, Mersana, GSK, Daiichi, Nektar, Astellas, ORCA, Boston Therapeutics, Dynavax, DebioPharm, Boehringen Ingelheim, Regeneron, Millenium, Synthon, Spectrum, Rigontec, Zenith; JPE: The author declares no potential conflicts of interest. NH: The author declares no potential conflicts of interest. RS: Consultant/advisory boards: Asana Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Iovance, Merck, Novartis, OncoSec, Pfizer, Replimune; Research funding: Amgen, Merck; DM: Consulting and honoraria: BMS, Pfizer, Merck, Alkermes Inc., EMD Serono, Eli Lilly and Company, Iovance, Eisai Inc., Werewolf Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences; Research support: BMS, Merck, Genentech, Pfizer, Exelixis, X4 Pharma, Alkermes Inc; MAC: Sponsor employee and sponsor stock ownership; A-MJ: Former sponsor employee and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab; WJ: Sponsor employee and sponsor stock ownership; CR: Former Roche employee and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab. Consultant for Verseau Therapeutics, Ridgeline Discovery, iOmx Therapeutics AG; KK: Sponsor employee and Roche stocks; GB: Sponsor employee; FM: Sponsor employee; RC: Sponsor employee and Roche stocks; CW: Sponsor consultantGeorgina Meneses-LorenteSponsor employee; MW: Sponsor employee, stock options, and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab; DR: Sponsor employee, sponsor stock ownership and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab; J-PD: Consulting/Advisory: Novartis, Roche/Genentech, BMS, MSD; Research funding: Genentech, BMS, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Transgene; CT: Research funding GSK, travel expenses Mundipharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Today, there is a huge effort to develop cancer immunotherapeutics capable of combating cancer cells as well as the biological environment in which they can grow, adapt, and survive. For such treatments to benefit more patients, there is a great need to dissect the complex interplays between tumor cells and the host's immune system. Monitoring mechanisms of resistance to immunotherapeutics can delineate the evolution of key players capable of driving an efficacious antitumor immune response. In doing so, simultaneous and systematic interrogation of multiple biomarkers beyond single biomarker approaches needs to be undertaken. Zooming into cell-to-cell interactions using technological advancements with unprecedented cellular resolution such as single-cell spatial transcriptomics, advanced tissue histology approaches, and new molecular immune profiling tools promises to provide a unique level of molecular granularity of the tumor environment and may support better decision-making during drug development. This review will focus on how such technological tools are applied in clinical settings, to inform the underlying tumor-immune biology of patients and offer a deeper understanding of cancer immune responsiveness to immuno-oncology treatments., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The development of strongly predictive validated biomarkers is essential for the field of immuno-oncology (IO) to advance. The highly complex, multifactorial data sets required to develop these biomarkers necessitate effective, responsible data-sharing efforts in order to maximize the scientific knowledge and utility gained from their collection. While the sharing of clinical- and safety-related trial data has already been streamlined to a large extent, the sharing of biomarker-aimed clinical trial derived data and data sets has been met with a number of hurdles that have impaired the progression of biomarkers from hypothesis to clinical use. These hurdles include technical challenges associated with the infrastructure, technology, workforce, and sustainability required for clinical biomarker data sharing. To provide guidance and assist in the navigation of these challenges, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Biomarkers Committee convened to outline the challenges that researchers currently face, both at the conceptual level (Volume I) and at the technical level (Volume II). The committee also suggests possible solutions to these problems in the form of professional standards and harmonized requirements for data sharing, assisting in continued progress toward effective, clinically relevant biomarkers in the IO setting., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC—Employee: ESSA Pharma; Consulting fees: Refuge Bio, Arch Oncology, Qognit, Nanostring. MAC—Employee: Roche Diagnostic GMBH; Stakeholder: Roche; Patent: 10878NDR. SG—Consultancy/advisory fees: Merck, NeonTherapeutics, OncoMed; Research funding: Agenus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Immune Design, Janssen R&D, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda. BG—Employee: Hoffmann La Roche; Stockholder: Roche. VK—Employee: Hoffmann La Roche; Stockholder: Roche; Patent: EP3221355A1. JMK—Grant funding: Prometheus, Merck; Personal fees: Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche; Grants and personal fees: Immunocore. EM—Director/shareholder: CancerProbe Pty Ltd. AN—Consulting fees: CytomX Therapeutics, Novartis, Kymab, Genome; Contracted research: National Cancer Institute, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Healios Onc. Nutrition, Atterocor, Amplimmune, ARMO Biosciences, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, CytomX Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, TopAlliance Biosciences, Kymab, PsiOxus; Travel accommodation: ARMO Biosciences; Partner contracted research: Immune Deficiency Foundation. DKW—Scientific co-founder, equity holder, and paid advisor: Immunai. TLW—Employee/stockholder: Biolojic Design. JG, MK, BK, GVM, AM, SR, VT, NT, and EW—Nothing to disclose. SITC Staff: AK, BL, LL, and SMW—Nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The sharing of clinical trial data and biomarker data sets among the scientific community, whether the data originates from pharmaceutical companies or academic institutions, is of critical importance to enable the development of new and improved cancer immunotherapy modalities. Through data sharing, a better understanding of current therapies in terms of their efficacy, safety and biomarker data profiles can be achieved. However, the sharing of these data sets involves a number of stakeholder groups including patients, researchers, private industry, scientific journals and professional societies. Each of these stakeholder groups has differing interests in the use and sharing of clinical trial and biomarker data, and the conflicts caused by these differing interests represent significant obstacles to effective, widespread sharing of data. Thus, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Biomarkers Committee convened to identify the current barriers to biomarker data sharing in immuno-oncology (IO) and to help in establishing professional standards for the responsible sharing of clinical trial data. The conclusions of the committee are described in two position papers: Volume I-conceptual challenges and Volume II-practical challenges, the first of which is presented in this manuscript. Additionally, the committee suggests actions by key stakeholders in the field (including organizations and professional societies) as the best path forward, encouraging the cultural shift needed to ensure responsible data sharing in the IO research setting., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AC—Employee: ESSA Pharma; Consulting fees: Refuge Bio, Arch Oncology, Qognit, Nanostring. BG—Employee: Hoffmann La Roche; Stockholder: Roche. MAC—Employee: Roche Diagnostic GMBH; Stakeholder: Roche; Patent: 10878NDR. SG—Consultancy/Advisory Fees: Merck, Neon Therapeutics, OncoMed; Research Funding: Agenus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Immune Design, Janssen R&D, Pfizer, Regeneron, Takeda. JMK—Grant Funding: Prometheus, Merck; Personal Fees: Array Biopharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche; Grants and Personal Fees: Immunocore. EM—Director/Shareholder: CancerProbe Pty Ltd. VK—Employee: Hoffmann La Roche; Stockholder: Roche; Patent: EP3221355A1. AN—Consulting Fees: CytomX Therapeutics, Novartis, Kymab, Genome; Contracted Research: National Cancer Institute, EMD Serono, MedImmune, Healios Onc. Nutrition, Atterocor, Amplimmune, ARMO Biosciences, Eli Lilly, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Novartis, Regeneron, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, CytomX Therapeutics, Neon Therapeutics, Calithera Biosciences, TopAlliance Biosciences, Kymab, PsiOxus; Travel Accommodation: ARMO Biosciences; Partner Contracted Research: Immune Deficiency Foundation. TLW—Employee/Stockholder: Biolojic Design. DKW is a scientific co-founder, equity holder and paid advisor to Immunai. SR, JG, BK, MK, AM, GVM, VT, NT, and EW have nothing to disclose. SITC Staff: AK, BL, LL, and SMW have nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: This phase Ib study evaluated the safety, clinical activity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics (PD) of emactuzumab (anti-colony stimulating factor 1 receptor monoclonal antibody (mAb)) in combination with selicrelumab (agonistic cluster of differentiation 40 mAb) in patients with advanced solid tumors., Methods: Both emactuzumab and selicrelumab were administered intravenously every 3 weeks and doses were concomitantly escalated (emactuzumab: 500 to 1000 mg flat; selicrelumab: 2 to 16 mg flat). Dose escalation was conducted using the product of independent beta probabilities dose-escalation design. PD analyzes were performed on peripheral blood samples and tumor/skin biopsies at baseline and on treatment. Clinical activity was evaluated using investigator-based and Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors V.1.1-based tumor assessments., Results: Three dose-limiting toxicities (all infusion-related reactions (IRRs)) were observed at 8, 12 and 16 mg of selicrelumab together with 1000 mg of emactuzumab. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached at the predefined top doses of emactuzumab (1000 mg) and selicrelumab (16 mg). The most common adverse events were IRRs (75.7%), fatigue (54.1%), facial edema (37.8%), and increase in aspartate aminotransferase and creatinine phosphokinase (35.1% both). PD analyzes demonstrated an increase of Ki67 + -activated CD8 + T cells accompanied by a decrease of B cells and the reduction of CD14 Dim CD16 bright monocytes in peripheral blood. The best objective clinical response was stable disease in 40.5% of patients., Conclusion: Emactuzumab in combination with selicrelumab demonstrated a manageable safety profile and evidence of PD activity but did not translate into objective clinical responses., Trialregistration Number: NCT02760797., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Jean-Pascal Machiels: Advisory board consulting for Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Innate, Merck Serono, Boerhinger, BMS, Novartis, Janssen, Incyte, Cue Biopharma and ALX Oncology; travel expenses from Amgen, BMS, Pfizer, MSD; data safety monitoring board support for Debio, Nanobiotix and PsiOxus. Carlos Gomez-Roca: Consultancy for AstraZeneca and BMS; travel grant from Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi Aventis; honoraria from BMS, Pierre Fabre and Roche; Jean-Marie Michot: Consultancy from Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and Janssen; travel grant and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Novartis, Gilead, Celgene and Bristol Myers Squibb; Dmitriy Zamarin: Consultancy fees from Merck, Synlogic Therapeutics, Biomed Valley Discoveries, Trieza Therapeutics, Tesaro, and Agenus; Tara Mitchell: Advisory board consulting for Merck, BMS and Array; Gaetan Catala: Travel grants from Roche, Pharmamar, MSD and AstraZeneca; advisory role for MSD. Lauriane Eberst: None. Wolfgang Jacob: Sponsor employee and sponsor stock ownership. Anna-Maria Jegg: Former sponsor employee and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab. Michael A Cannarile: Sponsor employee and sponsor stock ownership. Carl Watson: Sponsor consultant. Galina Babitzki: Sponsor employee. Konstanty Korski: Sponsor employee. Irina Klaman: Sponsor employee. Priscila C Teixeira: Sponsor employee. Sabine Hoves: Sponsor employee, sponsor stock ownership and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab. Carola Ries: Former sponsor employee and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab. Georgina Meneses-Lorente: Sponsor employee. Francesca Michielin: Sponsor employee. Randolph Christen: Sponsor employee and sponsor stock ownership. Dominik Rüttinger: Sponsor employee, sponsor stock ownership and has patent issued in the use of emactuzumab. Martin Weisser: Sponsor employee and sponsor stock ownership. Jean-Pierre Delord: Consulting or advisory role for Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology; research funding from Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD Oncology. Philippe Cassier: Honoraria from Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Blueprint Medicines, Amgen and AstraZeneca; research funding from Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Eli Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Plexxikon, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Toray Industries, Transgene, Loxo, GlaxoSmithKline, Innatre Pharma and Janssen; travel grants from Roche, Amgen, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Netris Pharma., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Emactuzumab is a monoclonal antibody against the colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor and targets tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). This study assessed the safety, clinical activity, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of emactuzumab, as monotherapy and in combination with paclitaxel, in patients with advanced solid tumors., Patients and Methods: This open-label, phase Ia/b study comprised two parts (dose escalation and dose expansion), each containing two arms (emactuzumab, every 2 or 3 weeks, as monotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly). The dose-escalation part explored the maximum tolerated dose and optimal biological dose (OBD). The dose-expansion part extended the safety assessment and investigated the objective response rate. A PK/PD analysis of serial blood, skin and tumor biopsies was used to explore proof of mechanism and confirm the OBD., Results: No maximum tolerated dose was reached in either study arm, and the safety profile of emactuzumab alone and in combination does not appear to preclude its use. No patients receiving emactuzumab monotherapy showed an objective response; the objective response rate for emactuzumab in combination with paclitaxel was 7% across all doses. Skin macrophages rather than peripheral blood monocytes or circulating colony-stimulating factor-1 were identified as an optimal surrogate PD marker to select the OBD. Emactuzumab treatment alone and in combination with paclitaxel resulted in a plateau of immunosuppressive TAM reduction at the OBD of 1000 mg administered every 2 weeks., Conclusions: Emactuzumab showed specific reduction of immunosuppressive TAMs at the OBD in both treatment arms but did not result in clinically relevant antitumor activity alone or in combination with paclitaxel. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01494688)., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been a breakthrough in cancer research, but only some patients with cancer derive substantial benefit. Although mechanisms underlying sensitivity and resistance to checkpoint inhibitors are being elucidated, the importance of organ-specific regulation of immunity is currently underappreciated. Here, we call for a greater understanding of tissue-specific immunoregulation, namely, "tissue-specific immunostats," to make advances in treatments for cancer. A better understanding of how individual organs at baseline regulate the immune system could enable an improved precision medicine approach to cancer immunotherapy. Cancer Discov; 8(4); 395-402. ©2018 AACR ., (©2018 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Depletion of immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) or reprogramming toward a proinflammatory activation state represent different strategies to therapeutically target this abundant myeloid population. In this study, we report that inhibition of colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) signaling sensitizes TAMs to profound and rapid reprogramming in the presence of a CD40 agonist before their depletion. Despite the short-lived nature of macrophage hyperactivation, combined CSF-1R+CD40 stimulation of macrophages is sufficient to create a proinflammatory tumor milieu that reinvigorates an effective T cell response in transplanted tumors that are either responsive or insensitive to immune checkpoint blockade. The central role of macrophages in regulating preexisting immunity is substantiated by depletion experiments, transcriptome analysis of ex vivo sorted TAMs, and gene expression profiling of whole tumor lysates at an early treatment time point. This approach enabled the identification of specific combination-induced changes among the pleiotropic activation spectrum of the CD40 agonist. In patients, CD40 expression on human TAMs was detected in mesothelioma and colorectal adenocarcinoma., (© 2018 Roche Diagnostics GmbH.)

The tumor-permissive and immunosuppressive characteristics of tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) have fueled interest in therapeutically targeting these cells. In this context, the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1)/colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) axis has gained the most attention, and various approaches targeting either the ligands or the receptor are currently in clinical development. Emerging data on the tolerability of CSF1/CSF1R-targeting agents suggest a favorable safety profile, making them attractive combination partners for both standard treatment modalities and immunotherapeutic agents. The specificity of these agents and their potent blocking activity has been substantiated by impressive response rates in diffuse-type tenosynovial giant cell tumors, a benign connective tissue disorder driven by CSF1 in an autocrine fashion. In the malignant disease setting, data on the clinical activity of immunotherapy combinations with CSF1/CSF1R-targeting agents are pending. As our knowledge of macrophage biology expands, it becomes apparent that the complex phenotypic and functional properties of macrophages are heavily influenced by a continuum of survival, differentiation, recruitment, and polarization signals within their specific tissue environment. Thus, the role of macrophages in regulating tumorigenesis and the impact of depleting and/or reprogramming TAM as therapeutic approaches for cancer patients may vary greatly depending on organ-specific characteristics of these cells. We review the currently available clinical safety and efficacy data with CSF1/CSF1R-targeting agents and provide a comprehensive overview of ongoing clinical studies. Furthermore, we discuss the local tissue macrophage and tumor-type specificities and their potential impact on CSF1/CSF1R-targeting treatment strategies for the future.

Cancer immunotherapies are showing promising clinical results in a variety of malignancies. Monitoring the immune as well as the tumor response following these therapies has led to significant advancements in the field. Moreover, the identification and assessment of both predictive and prognostic biomarkers has become a key component to advancing these therapies. Thus, it is critical to develop systematic approaches to monitor the immune response and to interpret the data obtained from these assays. In order to address these issues and make recommendations to the field, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer reconvened the Immune Biomarkers Task Force. As a part of this Task Force, Working Group 3 (WG3) consisting of multidisciplinary experts from industry, academia, and government focused on the systematic assessment of immune regulation and modulation. In this review, the tumor microenvironment, microbiome, bone marrow, and adoptively transferred T cells will be used as examples to discuss the type and timing of sample collection. In addition, potential types of measurements, assays, and analyses will be discussed for each sample. Specifically, these recommendations will focus on the unique collection and assay requirements for the analysis of various samples as well as the high-throughput assays to evaluate potential biomarkers.

Blockade of colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) enables the therapeutic targeting of tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) in cancer patients. Various CSF-1R inhibitors, mAbs, and tyrosine kinase inhibitors are currently evaluated in early clinical trials. Presence of an alternative survival signal, such as GM-CSF, rescues human monocyte-derived macrophages from CSF-1R inhibitor-induced apoptosis. In this study, we sought to identify additional factors that mediate resistance to CSF-1R-blocking antibody RG7155 (emactuzumab). We investigated the impact of hypoxia, macrophage-polarizing cytokines IL4 and IL10, and genetic alterations within the CSF1R locus and mitochondrial DNA. Among all investigated factors, only IL4 completely rescued viability of RG7155-treated macrophages in vitro This RG7155-resistant population was characterized by a substantially increased mannose receptor-1 (CD206) expression. Analysis of CD206 and the hemoglobin scavenger receptor CD163 expression on normal tissue allowed for discrimination of distinct macrophage populations according to localization and frequency. In emactuzumab-treated cancer patients, we found a significant reduction of CSF-1R, CD204, and CD163 mRNA levels in contrast to a less pronounced decrease of CD206 expression by transcriptome analysis of tumor biopsies. However, we detected in normal skin tissue, which shows lower IL4 mRNA expression compared with melanoma tissue, significant reduction of CD206 + dermal macrophages in RG7155-treated skin biopsies. These results suggest that in cancers where the cytokines IL4 and GM-CSF are sufficiently expressed to induce very high CD206 expression on macrophages, CSF-1R inhibition may not deplete CD206 hi TAM. This observation can help to identify those patients most likely to benefit from CSF-1R-targeting agents. Mol Cancer Ther; 15(12); 3077-86. ©2016 AACR., (©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Transmembrane glycoprotein CD44 is overexpressed in various malignancies. Interactions between CD44 and hyaluronic acid are associated with poor prognosis, making CD44 an attractive therapeutic target. We report results from a first-in-human phase I trial of RG7356, a recombinant anti-CD44 immunoglobulin G1 humanized monoclonal antibody, in patients with advanced CD44-expressing solid malignancies.Sixty-five heavily pretreated patients not amenable to standard therapy were enrolled and received RG7356 intravenously biweekly (q2w) or weekly (qw) in escalating doses from 100 mg to 2,250 mg. RG7356 was well tolerated. Most frequent adverse events were fever, headache and fatigue. Dose-limiting toxicities included headache (1,500 mg q2w and 1,350 mg qw) and febrile neutropenia (2,250 mg q2w). The maximum tolerated dose with q2w dosing was 1,500 mg, but was not defined for qw dosing due to early study termination. Clinical efficacy was modest; 13/61 patients (21%) experienced disease stabilization lasting a median of 12 (range, 6-35) weeks. No apparent dose- or dose schedule-dependent changes in biological activity were reported from blood or tissue analyses. Tumor-targeting by positron emission tomography (PET) using 89Zr-labeled RG7356 was observed for doses ≥200 mg (q2w) warranting further investigation of this agent in combination regimens.

Macrophage infiltration has been identified as an independent poor prognostic factor for several cancer entities. In mouse tumor models macrophages orchestrate various tumor-promoting processes. This observation sparked an interest to therapeutically target these plastic innate immune cells. To date, blockade of colony stimulating factor-1 or its receptor represents the only truly selective approach to manipulate macrophages in cancer patients. Here, we discuss the currently available information on efficacy and safety of various CSF-1/CSF-1R inhibitors in cancer patients and highlight potential combination partners emerging from preclinical studies while considering the differences between mouse and human macrophage biology., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diffuse-type tenosynovial giant cell tumour (dt-GCT) of the soft tissue (alternatively known as pigmented villonodular synovitis), an orphan disease with unmet medical need, is characterised by an overexpression of colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1), and is usually caused by a chromosomal translocation involving CSF1. CSF1 receptor (CSF1R) activation leads to the recruitment of CSF1R-expressing cells of the mononuclear phagocyte lineage that constitute the tumor mass in dt-GCT. Emactuzumab (RG7155) is a novel monoclonal antibody that inhibits CSF1R activation. We have assessed the safety, tolerability and activity of emactuzumab in patients with Dt-GCT of the soft tissue., Methods: In this phase 1, first-in-human dose-escalation and dose-expansion study, eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with dt-GCT of the soft tissue with locally advanced disease or resectable tumours requiring extensive surgery, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, measurable disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1, and adequate end-organ function. Patients with GCT of the bone were not eligible. Patients received intravenous emactuzumab at 900 mg, 1350 mg, or 2000 mg every 2 weeks in the dose-escalation phase and at the optimal biological dose in a dose-expansion phase. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of emactuzumab, and to determine the maximum tolerated dose or optimal biological dose. All treated patients were included in the analyses. Expansion cohorts are currently ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01494688., Findings: Between July 26, 2012, and Oct 21, 2013, 12 patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation phase. No dose-limiting toxicities were noted in the dose-escalation cohort; on the basis of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and safety information, we chose a dose of 1000 mg every 2 week for the dose-expansion cohort, into which 17 patients were enrolled. Owing to different cutoff dates for safety and efficacy readouts, the safety population comprised 25 patients. Common adverse events after emactuzumab treatment were facial oedema (16 [64%] of 25 patients), asthenia (14 [56%]), and pruritus (14 [56%]). Five serious adverse events (periorbital oedema, lupus erythematosus [occurring twice], erythema, and dermohypodermitis all experienced by one [4%] patient each) were reported in five patients. Three of the five serious adverse events-periorbital oedema (one [4%]), lupus erythematosus (one [4%]), and dermohypodermitis (one [4%])-were assessed as grade 3. Two other grade 3 events were reported: mucositis (one [4%]) and fatigue (one [4%]). 24 (86%) of 28 patients achieved an objective response; two (7%) patients achieved a complete response., Interpretation: Further study of dt-GCT is warranted and different possibilities, such as an international collaboration with cooperative groups to assure appropriate recruitment in this rare disease, are currently being assessed., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Macrophage infiltration has been identified as an independent, poor prognostic factor for patients afflicted with various cancer entities. However, the characterization of tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) prior to and following cancer patient treatment has been limited. Our study analyzed tumor biopsies before and after anti-CSF-1R antibody treatment unraveling the nature of TAMs and providing novel insights into their phenotypic and functional characteristics in cancer.

Macrophage infiltration has been identified as an independent poor prognostic factor in several cancer types. The major survival factor for these macrophages is macrophage colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF-1). We generated a monoclonal antibody (RG7155) that inhibits CSF-1 receptor (CSF-1R) activation. In vitro RG7155 treatment results in cell death of CSF-1-differentiated macrophages. In animal models, CSF-1R inhibition strongly reduces F4/80(+) tumor-associated macrophages accompanied by an increase of the CD8(+)/CD4(+) T cell ratio. Administration of RG7155 to patients led to striking reductions of CSF-1R(+)CD163(+) macrophages in tumor tissues, which translated into clinical objective responses in diffuse-type giant cell tumor (Dt-GCT) patients., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To develop cytolytic effector functions, CD8(+) T lymphocytes need to recognize specific Ag/MHC class I complexes in the context of costimuli on Ag-presenting DC. Thereafter they differentiate into effector and memory CTL able to confer protection against pathogen infection. Using transgenic mice with DC-selective MHC class I expression and DC-specific versus ubiquitous vaccination regimen, we found that DC are sufficient to prime CTL responses. However, Ag recognition on parenchymal non-professional APC negatively affected CD8(+) T-cell responses in mice by inducing expression of the pro-apoptotic bcl2-family member bim in CTL. This unexpected induction of apoptosis in the early phase of effector CTL accumulation lead to suboptimal clonal burst size and diminished long-term memory. Thus, our data demonstrate that effector CTL differentiation and apoptosis are regulated independently. Moreover, Ag distribution on cells other than DC critically reduces CTL responses.

Natural killer T cells expressing an invariant T-cell receptor (iNKT) regulate activation of both innate and adaptive immunity in many contexts. iNKT cells accumulate in the liver and rapidly produce prodigious amounts of numerous cytokines upon activation, impacting the immune response to viral infection, immunosurveillance for malignant cells, and liver regeneration. However, little is known about the factors controlling iNKT homeostasis, survival and hepatic localization. Here, we report that the absence of the transcriptional regulator Id2 resulted in a severe, intrinsic defect in the accumulation of hepatic iNKT cells. Id2-deficient iNKT cells showed increased cell death in the liver, although migration and functional activity were not impaired in comparison to Id2-expressing iNKT cells. Id2-deficient iNKT cells exhibited diminished expression of CXCR6, a critical determinant of iNKT cell accumulation in the liver, and of the anti-apoptotic molecules bcl-2 and bcl-X(L), compared to Id2-sufficient iNKT cells. Furthermore, survival and accumulation of iNKT cells lacking Id2 expression was rescued by deficiency in bim, a key pro-apoptotic molecule. Thus, Id2 was necessary to establish a hepatic iNKT cell population, defining a role for Id2 and implicating the Id targets, E protein transcription factors, in the regulation of iNKT cell homeostasis.

Transcriptional programs that initiate and sustain the proliferation, differentiation and survival of CD8(+) T cells during immune responses are not completely understood. Here we show that inhibitor of DNA binding 2 (Id2), an antagonist of E protein transcription factors, was upregulated in CD8(+) T cells during infection and that expression of Id2 was maintained in memory CD8(+) T cells. Although Id2-deficient naive CD8(+) T cells recognized antigen and proliferated normally early after infection, effector CD8(+) T cells did not accumulate because the cells were highly susceptible to apoptosis. Id2-deficient CD8(+) T cells responding to infection had changes in the expression of genes that influence survival and had altered memory formation. Our data emphasize the importance of Id2 in regulating gene expression by CD8(+) T cells and the magnitude of effector responses, suggesting a mechanism involving Id protein- and E protein-mediated survival and differentiation of mature T cells.

T cell development is determined by positive and negative selection events. An intriguing question is how signals through the TCR can induce thymocyte survival and maturation in some and programmed cell death in other thymocytes. This paradox can be explained by the hypothesis that different thymic cell types expressing self-MHC/peptide ligands mediate either positive or negative selection events. Using transgenic mice that express MHC class I (MHC-I) selectively on DC, we demonstrate a compartmentalization of thymic functions and reveal that DC induce CTL tolerance to MHC-I-positive hemopoietic targets in vivo. However, in normal and bone marrow chimeric mice, MHC-I+ DC are sufficient to positively select neither MHC-Ib (H2-M3)- nor MHC-Ia (H2-K)-restricted CD8+ T cells. Thus, thymic DC are specialized in tolerance induction, but cannot positively select the vast majority of MHC-I-restricted CD8+ T cells.