Dissecting tumor responsiveness to immunotherapy: the experience of peptide-based melanoma vaccines

Characterization of m6A-Related Genes Landscape in Skin Cutaneous Melanoma to Aid Immunotherapy and Assess Prognosis

Background

Skin cutaneous melanoma (SKCM) is the most malignant tumor among skin cancers. Immunotherapy has shown a great role in the advantageous prognosis of SKCM. However, only a small percentage of people can benefit from immunotherapy. To date, there has been insufficient evidence to reveal the prognostic value of m6A in SKCM and its relationship with the infiltration of immune cells and the efficacy of immunotherapy.

Methods

Here, we synthetically analyzed 23 m6A regulators from SKCM samples collected from the TCGA and GEO databases. We defined three m6A modification patterns and constructed m6A scores using principal component analysis (PCA).

Results

We found significant differences in overall survival (OS) and immune infiltration between different m6A subclusters. Besides, m6A score was positively correlated with regulatory T-cell and helper T-cell content, which may account for the association of high m6A scores with superior prognosis. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the m6A score was an independent prognostic indicator. Moreover, patients with high m6A scores showed a better response to immunotherapy, and this result was further validated in two independent immunotherapy cohorts receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy.

Conclusion

The findings suggested the m6A score can screen suitable candidates for immunotherapy and can predict immunotherapy response. This analysis of different m6A patterns in a large sample of SKCM expanded our understanding of TME and provided new ideas for prognostic assessment and personalized immunotherapy strategies for SKCM patients.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.

Autoantibody to tumor antigen, alpha 2-HS glycoprotein: a novel biomarker of breast cancer screening and diagnosis

We sought to identify a new serum biomarker for breast cancer screening and diagnosis using stepwise proteomic analysis of sera from breast cancer patients to detect the presence of autoantibodies that react with urinary protein. Two-dimensional immunoblotting was done for screening autoimmunogenic tumor antigens in the urine of breast cancer patients. Reactive spots were identified by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Among urinary proteins separated by two-dimensional electrophoresis, 13 spots showed strong reactivity with pooled sera from breast cancer patients or control sera. By mass spectrometry, we identified alpha 2-HS glycoprotein (AHSG) as a tumor antigen. Peripheral blood was obtained from 81 women diagnosed with breast cancer before surgery and 73 female donors without evidence of any malignancy for the individual analysis. In one-dimensional Western blot analysis, AHSG autoantibody was detected in 64 of 81 breast cancer patients (79.1%) and in 7 of 73 controls (9.6%). The sensitivity of this test in breast cancer patients was 79.0%. Our results suggest that AHSG and anti-AHSG autoantibody may be useful serum biomarkers for breast cancer screening and diagnosis.

Tumor immunology

Advances in tumor immunology are supporting the clinical implementation of several immunological approaches to cancer in the clinical setting. However, the alternate success of current immunotherapeutic regimens underscores the fact that the molecular mechanisms underlying immune-mediated tumor rejection are still poorly understood. Given the complexity of the immune system network and the multidimensionality of tumor/host interactions, the comprehension of tumor immunology might greatly benefit from high-throughput microarray analysis, which can portrait the molecular kinetics of immune response on a genome-wide scale, thus accelerating the discovery pace and ultimately catalyzing the development of new hypotheses in cell biology. Although in its infancy, the implementation of microarray technology in tumor immunology studies has already provided investigators with novel data and intriguing new hypotheses on the molecular cascade leading to an effective immune response against cancer. Although the general principles of microarray-based gene profiling have rapidly spread in the scientific community, the need for mastering this technique to produce meaningful data and correctly interpret the enormous output of information generated by this technology is critical and represents a tremendous challenge for investigators, as outlined in the first section of this book. In the present Chapter, we report on some of the most significant results obtained with the application of DNA microarray in this oncology field.

Dendritic cell vaccination in glioblastoma patients induces systemic and intracranial T-cell responses modulated by the local central nervous system tumor microenvironment

PURPOSE

We previously reported that autologous dendritic cells pulsed with acid-eluted tumor peptides can stimulate T cell-mediated antitumor immune responses against brain tumors in animal models. As a next step in vaccine development, a phase I clinical trial was established to evaluate this strategy for its feasibility, safety, and induction of systemic and intracranial T-cell responses in patients with glioblastoma multiforme.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Twelve patients were enrolled into a multicohort dose-escalation study and treated with 1, 5, or 10 million autologous dendritic cells pulsed with constant amounts (100 mug per injection) of acid-eluted autologous tumor peptides. All patients had histologically proven glioblastoma multiforme. Three biweekly intradermal vaccinations were given; and patients were monitored for adverse events, survival, and immune responses. The follow-up period for this trial was almost 5 years.

RESULTS

Dendritic cell vaccinations were not associated with any evidence of dose-limiting toxicity or serious adverse effects. One patient had an objective clinical response documented by magnetic resonance imaging. Six patients developed measurable systemic antitumor CTL responses. However, the induction of systemic effector cells did not necessarily translate into objective clinical responses or increased survival, particularly for patients with actively progressing tumors and/or those with tumors expressing high levels of transforming growth factor beta(2) (TGF-beta(2)). Increased intratumoral infiltration by cytotoxic T cells was detected in four of eight patients who underwent reoperation after vaccination. The magnitude of the T-cell infiltration was inversely correlated with TGF-beta(2) expression within the tumors and positively correlated with clinical survival (P = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Together, our results suggest that the absence of bulky, actively progressing tumor, coupled with low TGF-beta(2) expression, may identify a subgroup of glioma patients to target as potential responders in future clinical investigations of dendritic cell-based vaccines.

DNA array-based gene profiling in tumor immunology

Recent advances in tumor immunology have fostered the clinical implementation of different immunotherapy modalities. However, the alternate success of such regimens underscores the fact that the molecular mechanisms underlying tumor immune rejection are still poorly understood. Given the complexity of the immune system network and the multidimensionality of tumor-host interactions, the comprehension of tumor immunology might greatly benefit from high-throughput DNA array analysis, which can portray the molecular kinetics of immune response on a genome-wide scale, thus accelerating the accumulation of knowledge and ultimately catalyzing the development of new hypotheses in cell biology. Although in its infancy, the implementation of DNA array technology in tumor immunology studies has already provided investigators with novel data and intriguing hypotheses on the cascade of molecular events leading to an effective immune response against cancer. Although the principles of DNA array-based gene profiling techniques have become common knowledge, the need for mastering this technique to produce meaningful data and correctly interpret this enormous output of information is critical and represents a tremendous challenge for investigators. In the present work, we summarize the main technical features and critical issues characterizing this powerful laboratory tool and review its applications in the fascinating field of cancer immunogenomics.

Part I: Vaccines for solid tumours

Active specific immunotherapy holds great potential in the search for new therapeutic approaches for patients with cancer. Much preclinical and clinical evidence has shown that the immune system can be polarised against malignant cells by several vaccination strategies. Although no anticancer vaccine can be recommended outside clinical trials at present, tumour response and immunological findings in animals and humans should prompt researchers to investigate further the potential of this biotherapy. We summarise strategies for cancer vaccines so far implemented in the clinical setting, report the results of more than 200 clinical trials published over the past two decades, and discuss insights into preclinical tumour immunology that might aid the design of the next generation of cancer vaccines.

Colorectal cancer vaccines: principles, results, and perspectives

In the search for novel therapeutic approaches to treat patients with colorectal carcinoma, anticancer vaccination holds promise. A large body of preclinical and clinical evidence has demonstrated that the immune system can be polarized against malignant cells by means of several active specific immunotherapy strategies. Although no vaccination regimen can be currently recommended outside clinical trials, tumor response and immunologic findings observed in animal models and humans prompt researchers to explore further the antitumor potential of such biotherapy in an effort to reproduce in a larger set of patients the cascade of molecular events that characterizes the successful tumor immune rejection currently observed in a minority of vaccinated subjects. In this work, we summarize the principles and the main results of cancer vaccine strategies so far implemented for the treatment of patients with colorectal carcinoma. We also discuss the most recent preclinical tumor immunology insights that might change the way to design the next generation of cancer vaccines, hopefully improving the effectiveness of such a biotherapeutic approach.

Cancer vaccine development: on the way to break immune tolerance to malignant cells

Exploiting a naturally occurring defense system, the immunotherapeutic approach embodies an ideal nontoxic treatment for cancer. Despite the evidence that immune effectors can play a significant role in controlling tumor growth either in natural conditions or in response to therapeutic manipulation, the cascade of molecular events leading to tumor rejection by the immune system remains to be fully elucidated. Nevertheless, some recent tumor immunology advancements might drastically change the way to design the next generation of cancer vaccines, hopefully improving the effectiveness of this therapeutic approach. In the present work, we will focus on three main areas of particular interest for the development of novel vaccination strategies: (a) cellular or molecular mechanisms of immune tolerance to malignant cells; (b) synergism between innate and adaptive immune response; (c) tumor-immune system interactions within the tumor microenvironment.

The multifaceted relationship between IL-10 and adaptive immunity: putting together the pieces of a puzzle

Interleukin-10 (IL-10) is a pleiotropic cytokine that modulates the function of several adaptive immunity-related cells. Although generally considered an immunosuppressive molecule, IL-10 possesses immunostimulatory properties in several in vitro and in vivo models. These very different outcomes are believed to depend upon experimental conditions, the dominant immune effector mediating a given immune response, the timing of IL-10 production/administration, and IL-10 dose and/or location of expression. In the present work, we review the current knowledge regarding IL-10 activity on adaptive immunity related cells, emphasize new insights on IL-10 molecular/cellular targets, and summarize the available data on the relationship between IL-10 and some pathological conditions (e.g. infectious diseases, autoimmunity, allergy, cancer and transplantation) involving adaptive immunity.