Clocking cancer immunotherapy responses.

Two recent papers document that responses to immunotherapy are circadian and peak at the end of resting phase (evening) of mice with syngeneic and genetic models of cancers. The circadian effect is attributed to diurnal T cell trafficking through the endothelium on the one hand, and to the circadian expression of PD-L1 on myeloid suppressors on the other. Overall, it appears that tumor immunity as a system, including dendritic cell function, behaves in a circadian manner that is also observed in patients in cancer immunotherapy clinical trials. Importantly, these observations uncover time-of-day as an unforeseen variable for cancer immunotherapy responses. This insight on the immune circadian clock should be further explored to enhance immunotherapy responses in the clinic.

Time-of-day specificity of anticancer drugs may be mediated by circadian regulation of the cell cycle.

Circadian rhythms are an integral part of physiology, underscoring their relevance for the treatment of disease. We conducted cell-based high-throughput screening to investigate time-of-day influences on the activity of known antitumor agents and found that many compounds exhibit daily rhythms of cytotoxicity concomitant with previously reported oscillations of target genes. Rhythmic action of HSP90 inhibitors was mediated by specific isoforms of HSP90, genetic perturbation of which affected the cell cycle. Furthermore, clock mutants affected the cell cycle in parallel with abrogating rhythms of cytotoxicity, and pharmacological inhibition of the cell cycle also eliminated rhythmic drug effects. An HSP90 inhibitor reduced growth rate of a mouse melanoma in a time-of-day-specific manner, but efficacy was impaired in clock-deficient tumors. These results provide a powerful rationale for appropriate daily timing of anticancer drugs and suggest circadian regulation of the cell cycle within the tumor as an underlying mechanism.

Convergence of Cancer Metabolism and Immunity: an Overview.

Cancer metabolism as a field of research was founded almost 100 years ago by Otto Warburg, who described the propensity for cancers to convert glucose to lactate despite the presence of oxygen, which in yeast diminishes glycolytic metabolism known as the Pasteur effect. In the past 20 years, the resurgence of interest in cancer metabolism provided significant insights into processes involved in maintenance metabolism of non-proliferating cells and proliferative metabolism, which is regulated by proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressors in normal proliferating cells. In cancer cells, depending on the driving oncogenic event, metabolism is re-wired for nutrient import, redox homeostasis, protein quality control, and biosynthesis to support cell growth and division. In general, resting cells rely on oxidative metabolism, while proliferating cells rewire metabolism toward glycolysis, which favors many biosynthetic pathways for proliferation. Oncogenes such as MYC, BRAF, KRAS, and PI3K have been documented to rewire metabolism in favor of proliferation. These cell intrinsic mechanisms, however, are insufficient to drive tumorigenesis because immune surveillance continuously seeks to destroy neo-antigenic tumor cells. In this regard, evasion of cancer cells from immunity involves checkpoints that blunt cytotoxic T cells, which are also attenuated by the metabolic tumor microenvironment, which is rich in immuno-modulating metabolites such as lactate, 2-hydroxyglutarate, kynurenine, and the proton (low pH). As such, a full understanding of tumor metabolism requires an appreciation of the convergence of cancer cell intrinsic metabolism and that of the tumor microenvironment including stromal and immune cells.

Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

We are in the midst of a technological revolution that is providing new insights into human biology and cancer. In this era of big data, we are amassing large amounts of information that is transforming how we approach cancer treatment and prevention. Enactment of the Cancer Moonshot within the 21st Century Cures Act in the USA arrived at a propitious moment in the advancement of knowledge, providing nearly US$2 billion of funding for cancer research and precision medicine. In 2016, the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) set out a roadmap of recommendations designed to exploit new advances in cancer diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Those recommendations provided a high-level view of how to accelerate the conversion of new scientific discoveries into effective treatments and prevention for cancer. The US National Cancer Institute is already implementing some of those recommendations. As experts in the priority areas identified by the BRP, we bolster those recommendations to implement this important scientific roadmap. In this Commission, we examine the BRP recommendations in greater detail and expand the discussion to include additional priority areas, including surgical oncology, radiation oncology, imaging, health systems and health disparities, regulation and financing, population science, and oncopolicy. We prioritise areas of research in the USA that we believe would accelerate efforts to benefit patients with cancer. Finally, we hope the recommendations in this report will facilitate new international collaborations to further enhance global efforts in cancer control.

Mixed outcomes for computational predictions.

Experimental efforts to validate the output of a computational model that predicts new uses for existing drugs highlights the inherently complex nature of cancer biology.