Tumor monocyte content predicts immunochemotherapy outcomes in esophageal adenocarcinoma.

For inoperable esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), identifying patients likely to benefit from recently approved immunochemotherapy (ICI+CTX) treatments remains a key challenge. We address this using a uniquely designed window-of-opportunity trial (LUD2015-005), in which 35 inoperable EAC patients received first-line immune checkpoint inhibitors for four weeks (ICI-4W), followed by ICI+CTX. Comprehensive biomarker profiling, including generation of a 65,000-cell single-cell RNA-sequencing atlas of esophageal cancer, as well as multi-timepoint transcriptomic profiling of EAC during ICI-4W, reveals a novel T cell inflammation signature (INCITE) whose upregulation correlates with ICI-induced tumor shrinkage. Deconvolution of pre-treatment gastro-esophageal cancer transcriptomes using our single-cell atlas identifies high tumor monocyte content (TMC) as an unexpected ICI+CTX-specific predictor of greater overall survival (OS) in LUD2015-005 patients and of ICI response in prevalent gastric cancer subtypes from independent cohorts. Tumor mutational burden is an additional independent and additive predictor of LUD2015-005 OS. TMC can improve patient selection for emerging ICI+CTX therapies in gastro-esophageal cancer.

A phase 1 safety and bioimaging trial of antibody DS-8895a against EphA2 in patients with advanced or metastatic EphA2 positive cancers.

Ephrin type-A 2 (EphA2) is a transmembrane receptor expressed in epithelial cancers. We report on a phase I dose escalation and biodistribution study of DS-8895a, an anti-EphA2 antibody, in patients with advanced EphA2 positive cancers. DS-8895a was administered at 1, 3, 10 or 20 mg/kg every 2 weeks to determine safety, pharmacokinetics and anti-tumor efficacy. All patients underwent 89Zr trace-labelled infusion of DS-8895a (89Zr-DS-8995a) positron emission tomography imaging to determine the biodistribution of DS-8895a, and correlate findings with EphA2 expression, receptor saturation and response. Nine patients were enrolled on study. Of patients enrolled, seven patients received at least one infusion of DS-8895a: four patients received 1 mg/kg dose (Cohort 1) and three patients received 3 mg/kg dose (Cohort 2). Median age was 67.0 years (range 52-81), majority male (71%), and median number of prior systemic therapies was three (range 0-8). The primary cancer diagnosis was colorectal cancer (two patients) and one patient each had gastric, head and neck, high-grade serous adenocarcinoma, lung, and pancreatic cancers. No dose-limiting toxicities or treatment-related adverse events reported. The best response for the patients in Cohort 1 was stable disease and in Cohort 2 was progressive disease. 89Zr-DS-8895a demonstrated no normal tissue uptake and specific low-grade uptake in most tumours. DS-8895a had limited therapeutic efficacy at doses evaluated and 89Zr-DS-8895a demonstrated low tumour uptake. The biodistribution data from this study were key in halting further development of DS-8895a, highlighting the importance of biodistribution studies in drug development. (Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02252211).

Circulating Immune Cell and Outcome Analysis from the Phase II Study of PD-L1 Blockade with Durvalumab for Newly Diagnosed and Recurrent Glioblastoma.

PURPOSE: PD-L1 is upregulated in glioblastoma and supports immunosuppression. We evaluated PD-L1 blockade with durvalumab among glioblastoma cohorts and investigated potential biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MGMT unmethylated newly diagnosed patients received radiotherapy plus durvalumab (cohort A; n = 40). Bevacizumab-naïve, recurrent patients received durvalumab alone (cohort B; n = 31) or in combination with standard bevacizumab (cohort B2; n = 33) or low-dose bevacizumab (cohort B3; n = 33). Bevacizumab-refractory patients received durvalumab plus bevacizumab (cohort C; n = 22). Primary endpoints were: OS-12 (A), PFS-6 (B, B2, B3), and OS-6 (C). Exploratory biomarkers included: a systematic, quantitative, and phenotypic evaluation of circulating immune cells; tumor mutational burden (TMB); and tumor immune activation signature (IAS). RESULTS: No cohort achieved the primary efficacy endpoint. Outcome was comparable among recurrent, bevacizumab-naïve cohorts. No unexpected toxicities were observed. A widespread reduction of effector immune cell subsets was noted among recurrent patients compared with newly diagnosed patients that was partially due to dexamethasone use. A trend of increased CD8+Ki67+ T cells at day 15 was noted among patients who achieved the primary endpoint and were not on dexamethasone. Neither TMB nor IAS predicted outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recurrent glioblastoma have markedly lower baseline levels of multiple circulating immune cell subsets compared with newly diagnosed patients. An early increase in systemic Ki67+CD8+ cells may warrant further evaluation as a potential biomarker of therapeutic benefit among patients with glioblastoma undergoing checkpoint therapy. Dexamethasone decreased immune cell subsets. PD-L1 blockade and combination with standard or reduced dose bevacizumab was ineffective.

A phase 1 study of NY-ESO-1 vaccine + anti-CTLA4 antibody Ipilimumab (IPI) in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma.

Ipilimumab (IPI) can enhance immunity to the cancer-testis antigen NY-ESO-1. A clinical trial was designed to assess safety, immunogenicity, and clinical responses with IPI + NY-ESO-1 vaccines and effects on the tumor microenvironment (TME). Patients with measurable NY-ESO-1+ tumors were enrolled among three arms: A) IPI + NY-ESO-1 protein + poly-ICLC (pICLC) + incomplete Freund's adjuvant (IFA); B) IPI + NY-ESO-1 overlapping long peptides (OLP) + pICLC + IFA; and C) IPI + NY-ESO-1 OLP + pICLC. Clinical responses were assessed by irRC. T cell and Ab responses were assessed by ex vivo IFN-gamma ELIspot and ELISA. Tumor biopsies pre- and post-treatment were evaluated for immune infiltrates. Eight patients were enrolled: 5, 2, and 1 in Arms A-C, respectively. There were no DLTs. Best clinical responses were SD (4) and PD (4). T-cell and antibody (Ab) responses to NY-ESO-1 were detected in 6 (75%) and 7 (88%) patients, respectively, and were associated with SD. The breadth of Ab responses was greater for patients with SD than PD (p = .036). For five patients evaluable in the TME, treatment was associated with increases in proliferating (Ki67+) CD8+ T cells and decreases in RORγt+ CD4+ T cells. T cell densities increased for those with SD. Detection of T cell responses to NY-ESO-1 ex vivo in most patients suggests that IPI may have enhanced those responses. Proliferating intratumoral CD8+ T cells increased after vaccination plus IPI suggesting favorable impact of IPI plus NY-ESO-1 vaccines on the TME. List of Abbreviations: Ab = antibody; CTCAE = NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; DHFR/DHRP = dihydrofolate reductase; DLT = Dose-limiting toxicity; ELISA = enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; IFA = incomplete Freund's adjuvant (Montanide ISA-51); IFNγ = Interferon gamma; IPI = Ipilimumab; irRC = immune-related response criteria; mIFH = multispectral immunofluorescence histology; OLP = NY-ESO-1 overlapping long peptides; PBMC = peripheral blood mononuclear cells; PD = Progressive disease; pICLC = poly-ICLC (Hiltonol), a TLR3/MDA-5 agonist; RLT = Regimen-limiting Toxicity; ROI = regions of interest; RT = room temperature; SAE = serious adverse event; SD = stable disease; TEAE = treatment-emergent adverse events; TLR = toll-like receptor; TME = tumor microenvironment; TRAE = treatment-related adverse events.

A Prospective, Phase 1 Trial of Nivolumab, Ipilimumab, and Radiotherapy in Patients with Advanced Melanoma.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data suggest that radiotherapy (RT) is beneficial in combination with immune checkpoint blockade. Clinical trials have explored RT with single-agent immune checkpoint blockade, but no trials have reported RT with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a phase 1 study of patients with stage IV melanoma receiving nivolumab and ipilimumab with two different dose-fractionation schemes of RT. Patients had at least one melanoma metastasis that would benefit from palliative RT and one metastasis that would not be irradiated. Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg and extracranial RT with a dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions was administered in Cohort A, and then 27 Gy in 3 fractions was administered in Cohort B. The primary outcome was safety. RESULTS: Twenty patients were treated (10 in each cohort). The rates of treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events in Cohort A and B were 40% and 30%, respectively. There were no grade ≥3 adverse events attributed to RT. Patients responded to treatment outside of the irradiated volume (Cohort A 5/10; Cohort B 1/9). No evaluable patients had progression of irradiated metastases. Immunologic changes were seen in the peripheral blood with increases in T-cell receptor diversity in some responding patients. CONCLUSIONS: RT with nivolumab and ipilimumab was safe compared with historical data of nivolumab and ipilimumab alone. Immunologic effects were observed in the peripheral blood. Randomized studies are ongoing to assess whether RT increases the efficacy of nivolumab and ipilimumab.