Defining the Critical Hurdles in Cancer Immunotherapy

ABSTRACT: Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators, others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet be overcome to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Classification of current anticancer immunotherapies

During the past decades, anticancer immunotherapy has evolved from a promising therapeutic option to a robust clinical reality. Many immunotherapeutic regimens are now approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for use in cancer patients, and many others are being investigated as standalone therapeutic interventions or combined with conventional treatments in clinical studies. Immunotherapies may be subdivided into “passive” and “active” based on their ability to engage the host immune system against cancer. Since the anticancer activity of most passive immunotherapeutics (including tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies) also relies on the host immune system, this classification does not properly reflect the complexity of the drug-host-tumor interaction. Alternatively, anticancer immunotherapeutics can be classified according to their antigen specificity. While some immunotherapies specifically target one (or a few) defined tumor-associated antigen(s), others operate in a relatively non-specific manner and boost natural or therapy-elicited anticancer immune responses of unknown and often broad specificity. Here, we propose a critical, integrated classification of anticancer immunotherapies and discuss the clinical relevance of these approaches

The New Era of Cancer Immunotherapy: Manipulating T-Cell Activity to Overcome Malignancy

Using the immune system to control cancer has been investigated for over a century. Yet it is only over the last several years that therapeutic agents acting directly on the immune system have demonstrated improved overall survival for cancer patients in phase III clinical trials. Furthermore, it appears that some patients treated with such agents have been cured of metastatic cancer. This has led to increased interest and acceleration in the rate of progress in cancer immunotherapy. Most of the current immunotherapeutic success in cancer treatment is based on the use of immune-modulating antibodies targeting critical checkpoints (CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1). Several other immune-modulating molecules targeting inhibitory or stimulatory pathways are being developed. The combined use of these medicines is the subject of intense investigation and holds important promise. Combination regimens include those that incorporate targeted therapies that act on growth signaling pathways, as well as standard chemotherapy and radiation therapy. In fact, these standard therapies have intrinsic immune-modulating properties that can support antitumor immunity. In the years ahead, adoptive T-cell therapy will also be an important part of treatment for some cancer patients. Other areas which are regaining interest are the use of oncolytic viruses that immunize patients against their own tumors and the use of vaccines against tumor antigens. Immunotherapy has demonstrated unprecedented durability in controlling multiple types of cancer and we expect its use to continue expanding rapidly.SCOPUS: ar.kinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Conserved interferon-g signaling drives clinical response to immune checkpoint blockade therapy in melanoma

We analyze the transcriptome of baseline and on-therapy tumor biopsies from 101 patients with advanced melanoma treated with nivolumab (anti-PD-1) alone or combined with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4). We find that T cell infiltration and interferon-γ (IFN-γ) signaling signatures correspond most highly with clinical response to therapy, with a reciprocal decrease in cell-cycle and WNT signaling pathways in responding biopsies. We model the interaction in 58 human cell lines, where IFN-γ in vitro exposure leads to a conserved transcriptome response unless cells have IFN-γ receptor alterations. This conserved IFN-γ transcriptome response in melanoma cells serves to amplify the antitumor immune response. Therefore, the magnitude of the antitumor T cell response and the corresponding downstream IFN-γ signaling are the main drivers of clinical response or resistance to immune checkpoint blockade therapy