Radiation Therapy Combined With Checkpoint Blockade Immunotherapy for Metastatic Undifferentiated Pleomorphic Sarcoma of the Maxillary Sinus With a Complete Response

Background: Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) of the maxillary sinus is an extremely rare malignancy of the head and neck. Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for UPS; however, proximity to vital structures makes it challenging to achieve negative surgical margins. Adjuvant therapy including radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy is generally indicated. Despite advances in multimodality treatment, objective response rates to available therapies and prognosis of metastatic UPS remain dismal. Immunotherapy has become a fourth cornerstone of cancer therapy and checkpoint blockade immunotherapy is a standard of care for recurrent or metastatic cisplatin-refractory head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Checkpoint blockade immunotherapy is being studied in metastatic sarcoma, including UPS, and while initial results are promising, objective response rates remain below 20%. However, adding radiation therapy to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy has been shown, in both preclinical and retrospective clinical studies, to have combinatorial effects on both local and metastatic disease. Thus, further investigation into the effects of radiation therapy combined with immunotherapy in head and neck sarcomas is warranted.Case Presentation: We present a case of metastatic, chemotherapy-refractory, UPS of the maxillary sinus in a 55-year-old male treated with checkpoint blockade immunotherapy combined with radiation, which resulted in a complete response.Conclusions: This is the first report to our knowledge of metastatic UPS treated with a combination of radiation and dual agent checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Further investigation is warranted to study the effects of this combination in patients with metastatic UPS that fail to respond to currently available therapies

A Threshold Model for T-Cell Activation in the Era of Checkpoint Blockade Immunotherapy

Continued discoveries of negative regulators of inflammatory signaling provide detailed molecular insights into peripheral tolerance and anti-tumor immunity. Accumulating evidence indicates that peripheral tolerance is maintained at multiple levels of immune responses by negative regulators of proinflammatory signaling, soluble anti-inflammatory factors, inhibitory surface receptors & ligands, and regulatory cell subsets. This review provides a global overview of these regulatory machineries that work in concert to maintain peripheral tolerance at cellular and host levels, focusing on the direct and indirect regulation of T cells. The recent success of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) has initiated a dramatic shift in the paradigm of cancer treatment. Unprecedented responses to CBI have highlighted the central role of T cells in both anti-tumor immunity and peripheral tolerance and underscored the importance of T cell exhaustion in cancer. We discuss the therapeutic implications of modulating the negative regulators of T cell function for tumor immunotherapy with an emphasis on inhibitory surface receptors & ligands—central players in T cell exhaustion and targets of checkpoint blockade immunotherapies. We then introduce a Threshold Model for Immune Activation—the concept that these regulatory mechanisms contribute to defining a set threshold of immunogenic (proinflammatory) signaling required to elicit an anti-tumor or autoimmune response. We demonstrate the value of the Threshold Model in understanding clinical responses and immune related adverse events in the context of peripheral tolerance, tumor immunity, and the era of Checkpoint Blockade Immunotherapy

Adaptive replanning using cone beam CT for deformation of original CT simulation

BackgroundDuring a course of radiation therapy, anatomical changes such as a decrease in tumour size or weight loss can trigger the need for repeating a computed tomography (CT) simulation scan in order to generate a new treatment plan. This adaptive approach requires a separate appointment for an additional CT scan which generates additional burden, cost, and radiation exposure for patients.Case presentationHere, we present a case of a head and neck cancer patient who required palliative radiation for a large neck mass. During treatment, he had a remarkable response which required a replan due to rapid tumour downsizing. In this case, we used a novel technique to avoid repeating the planning CT simulation by using a mid-treatment high-quality cone beam CT (CBCT) to deform the secondary image (plan CT) of the original planning CT and generate a new adapted treatment plan.ConclusionThis is the first report to our knowledge using a Halcyon CBCT to deform the original planning CT in order to generate a new radiation treatment plan, and this novel technique represents a new potential method of adaptive replanning for select patients

Human papillomavirus E5 suppresses immunity via inhibition of the immunoproteasome and STING pathway.

The role that human papillomavirus (HPV) oncogenes play in suppressing responses to immunotherapy in cancer deserves further investigation. In particular, the effects of HPV E5 remain poorly understood relative to E6 and E7. Here, we demonstrate that HPV E5 is a negative regulator of anti-viral interferon (IFN) response pathways, antigen processing, and antigen presentation. Using head and neck cancer as a model, we identify that E5 decreases expression and function of the immunoproteasome and that the immunoproteasome, but not the constitutive proteasome, is associated with improved overall survival in patients. Moreover, immunopeptidome analysis reveals that HPV E5 restricts the repertoire of antigens presented on the cell surface, likely contributing to immune escape. Mechanistically, we discover a direct interaction between E5 and stimulator of interferon genes (STING), which suppresses downstream IFN signaling. Taken together, these findings identify a powerful molecular mechanism by which HPV E5 limits immune detection and mediates resistance to immunotherapy

A Threshold Model for T-Cell Activation in the Era of Checkpoint Blockade Immunotherapy.

Continued discoveries of negative regulators of inflammatory signaling provide detailed molecular insights into peripheral tolerance and anti-tumor immunity. Accumulating evidence indicates that peripheral tolerance is maintained at multiple levels of immune responses by negative regulators of proinflammatory signaling, soluble anti-inflammatory factors, inhibitory surface receptors & ligands, and regulatory cell subsets. This review provides a global overview of these regulatory machineries that work in concert to maintain peripheral tolerance at cellular and host levels, focusing on the direct and indirect regulation of T cells. The recent success of checkpoint blockade immunotherapy (CBI) has initiated a dramatic shift in the paradigm of cancer treatment. Unprecedented responses to CBI have highlighted the central role of T cells in both anti-tumor immunity and peripheral tolerance and underscored the importance of T cell exhaustion in cancer. We discuss the therapeutic implications of modulating the negative regulators of T cell function for tumor immunotherapy with an emphasis on inhibitory surface receptors & ligands-central players in T cell exhaustion and targets of checkpoint blockade immunotherapies. We then introduce a Threshold Model for Immune Activation-the concept that these regulatory mechanisms contribute to defining a set threshold of immunogenic (proinflammatory) signaling required to elicit an anti-tumor or autoimmune response. We demonstrate the value of the Threshold Model in understanding clinical responses and immune related adverse events in the context of peripheral tolerance, tumor immunity, and the era of Checkpoint Blockade Immunotherapy

Prognostic Value of the Intermediate-risk Feature in Men with Favorable Intermediate-risk Prostate Cancer: Implications for Active Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that active surveillance (AS) may be considered for select patients with favorable intermediate-risk (fIR) prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes between fIR prostate cancer patients included by Gleason score (GS) or prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Most patients are classified with fIR disease due to either a 3 + 4 = 7 GS (fIR-GS) or a PSA level of 10-20 ng/ml (fIR-PSA). Previous research suggests that inclusion by GS 7 may be associated with worse outcomes. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of US veterans diagnosed with fIR prostate cancer from 2001 to 2015. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We compared the incidence of metastatic disease, prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM), all-cause mortality (ACM), and receipt of definitive treatment between fIR-PSA and fIR-GS patients managed with AS. Outcomes were compared with those of a previously published cohort of patients with unfavorable intermediate-risk disease using cumulative incidence function and Grays test for statistical significance. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The cohort included 663 men; 404 had fIR-GS (61%) and 249 fIR-PSA (39%). There was no evidence of difference in the incidence of metastatic disease (8.6% vs 5.8%, p = 0.77), receipt of definitive treatment (77.6% vs 81.5%, p = 0.43), PCSM (5.7% vs 2.5%, p = 0.274), and ACM (16.8% vs 19.1%, p = 0.14) between the fIR-PSA and fIR-GS groups at 10 yr. On multivariate regression, unfavorable intermediate-risk disease was associated with higher rates of metastatic disease, PCSM, and ACM. Limitations included varying surveillance protocols. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of difference in oncological and survival outcomes between men with fIR-PSA and fIR-GS prostate cancer undergoing AS. Thus, presence of GS 7 disease alone should not exclude patients from consideration of AS. Shared decision-making should be utilized to optimize management for each patient. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we compared the outcomes of men with favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer in the Veterans Health Administration. We found no significant difference between survival and oncological outcomes