Resistance to immunotherapy is due in some instances to the acquired stealth mechanisms of tumor cells that lose expression of MHC class I antigen–presenting molecules or downregulate their class I antigen–presentation pathways. Most dramatically, biallelic β2-microglobulin (B2M) loss leads to complete loss of MHC class I expression and to invisibility to CD8+ T cells. MHC class I expression and antigen presentation are potently upregulated by interferon-γ (IFNγ) in a manner that depends on IFNγ receptor (IFNGR) signaling via JAK1 and JAK2. Mutations in these molecules lead to IFNγ unresponsiveness and mediate loss of recognition and killing by cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Loss of MHC class I augments sensitivity of tumor cells to be killed by natural killer (NK) lymphocytes, and this mechanism could be exploited to revert resistance, for instance, with interleukin-2 (IL-2)-based agents. Moreover, in some experimental models,potent local type I interferon responses, such as those following intratumoral injection of Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) or TLR3 agonists, revert resistance due to mutations of JAKs.

Although recent FDA approvals on ipilimumab and sipuleucel-T represent major milestones, the ultimate success of immunotherapy approaches will likely benefit from appropriate combinations with other immunotherapeutic and/or non-immunotherapeutic approaches. However, implementation of ideal combinations in the clinic may still face formidable challenges in regulatory, drug-availability and intellectual property aspects. The 2011 SITC annual meeting hosted a workshop on combination immunotherapy to discuss: 1) the most promising combinations found in the laboratory; 2) early success of combination immunotherapy in clinical trials; 3) industry perspectives on combination approaches, and 4) relevant regulatory issues. The integrated theme was how to accelerate the implementation of efficacious combined immunotherapies for cancer patients. Rodent animal models are providing many examples of synergistic combinations that typically include more than two agents. However, mouse and human immunology differ in a significant number of mechanisms and hence we might be missing opportunities peculiar to humans. Nonetheless, incisive animal experimentation with deep mechanistic insight remains the best compass that we can use to guide our paths in combinatorial immunotherapy. Combination immunotherapy clinical trials are already in progress and preliminary results are extremely promising. As a key to translate promising combinations into clinic, real and "perceived" business and regulatory hurdles were debated. A formidable step forward would be to be able to test combinations of investigational agents prior to individual approval. Taking together the FDA and the industrial perspective on combinatorial immunotherapy, the audience was left with the clear message that this is by no means an impossible task. The general perception is that the road ahead of us is full of combination clinical trials which hopefully will bring clinical benefit to our cancer patients at a fast pace.

Background

Conventional type 1 dendritic cells (cDC1s) are central to antitumor immunity and their presence in the tumor microenvironment associates with improved outcomes in patients with cancer. DNGR-1 (CLEC9A) is a dead cell-sensing receptor highly restricted to cDC1s. DNGR-1 has been involved in both cross-presentation of dead cell-associated antigens and processes of disease tolerance, but its role in antitumor immunity has not been clarified yet.

Methods

B16 and MC38 tumor cell lines were inoculated subcutaneously into wild-type (WT) and DNGR-1-deficient mice. To overexpress Flt3L systemically, we performed gene therapy through the hydrodynamic injection of an Flt3L-encoding plasmid. To characterize the immune response, we performed flow cytometry and RNA-Seq of tumor-infiltrating cDC1s.

Results

Here, we found that cross-presentation of tumor antigens in the steady state was DNGR-1-independent. However, on Flt3L systemic overexpression, tumor growth was delayed in DNGR-1-deficient mice compared with WT mice. Of note, this protection was recapitulated by anti-DNGR-1-blocking antibodies in mice following Flt3L gene therapy. This improved antitumor immunity was associated with Batf3-dependent enhanced accumulation of CD8⁺ T cells and cDC1s within tumors. Mechanistically, the deficiency in DNGR-1 boosted an Flt3L-induced specific inflammatory gene signature in cDC1s, including Ccl5 expression. Indeed, the increased infiltration of cDC1s within tumors and their protective effect rely on CCL5/CCR5 chemoattraction. Moreover, FLT3LG and CCL5 or CCR5 gene expression signatures correlate with an enhanced cDC1 signature and a favorable overall survival in patients with cancer. Notably, cyclophosphamide elevated serum Flt3L levels and, in combination with the absence of DNGR-1, synergized against tumor growth.

Conclusion

DNGR-1 limits the accumulation of tumor-infiltrating cDC1s promoted by Flt3L. Thus, DNGR-1 blockade may improve antitumor immunity in tumor therapy settings associated to high Flt3L expression.

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have historically had few options and faced extremely poor prognoses if their disease progressed after standard-of-care tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Recently, the standard of care for HCC has been transformed as a combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) atezolizumab plus the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody bevacizumab was shown to offer improved overall survival in the first-line setting. Immunotherapy has demonstrated safety and efficacy in later lines of therapy as well, and ongoing trials are investigating novel combinations of ICIs and TKIs, in addition to interventions earlier in the course of disease or in combination with liver-directed therapies. Because HCC usually develops against a background of cirrhosis, immunotherapy for liver tumors is complex and oncologists need to account for both immunological and hepatological considerations when developing a treatment plan for their patients. To provide guidance to the oncology community on important concerns for the immunotherapeutic care of HCC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew on the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for HCC, including diagnosis and staging, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with HCC.

The fourth "Melanoma Bridge Meeting" took place in Naples, December 3-6th, 2014. The four topics discussed at this meeting were: Molecular and Immunological Advances, Combination Therapies, News in Immunotherapy, and Tumor Microenvironment and Biomarkers. Until recently systemic therapy for metastatic melanoma patients was ineffective, but recent advances in tumor biology and immunology have led to the development of new targeted and immunotherapeutic agents that prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). New therapies, such as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway inhibitors as well as other signaling pathway inhibitors, are being tested in patients with metastatic melanoma either as monotherapy or in combination, and all have yielded promising results. These include inhibitors of receptor tyrosine kinases (BRAF, MEK, and VEGFR), the phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K) pathway [PI3K, AKT, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)], activators of apoptotic pathway, and the cell cycle inhibitors (CDK4/6). Various locoregional interventions including radiotherapy and surgery are still valid approaches in treatment of advanced melanoma that can be integrated with novel therapies. Intrinsic, adaptive and acquired resistance occur with targeted therapy such as BRAF inhibitors, where most responses are short-lived. Given that the reactivation of the MAPK pathway through several distinct mechanisms is responsible for the majority of acquired resistance, it is logical to combine BRAF inhibitors with inhibitors of targets downstream in the MAPK pathway. For example, combination of BRAF/MEK inhibitors (e.g., dabrafenib/trametinib) have been demonstrated to improve survival compared to monotherapy. Application of novel technologies such sequencing have proven useful as a tool for identification of MAPK pathway-alternative resistance mechanism and designing other combinatorial therapies such as those between BRAF and AKT inhibitors. Improved survival rates have also been observed with immune-targeted therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma. Immune-modulating antibodies came to the forefront with anti-CTLA-4, programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) pathway blocking antibodies that result in durable responses in a subset of melanoma patients. Agents targeting other immune inhibitory (e.g., Tim-3) or immune stimulating (e.g., CD137) receptors and other approaches such as adoptive cell transfer demonstrate clinical benefit in patients with melanoma as well. These agents are being studied in combination with targeted therapies in attempt to produce longer-term responses than those more typically seen with targeted therapy. Other combinations with cytotoxic chemotherapy and inhibitors of angiogenesis are changing the evolving landscape of therapeutic options and are being evaluated to prevent or delay resistance and to further improve survival rates for this patient population. This meeting's specific focus was on advances in combination of targeted therapy and immunotherapy. Both combination targeted therapy approaches and different immunotherapies were discussed. Similarly to the previous meetings, the importance of biomarkers for clinical application as markers for diagnosis, prognosis and prediction of treatment response was an integral part of the meeting. The overall emphasis on biomarkers supports novel concepts toward integrating biomarkers into contemporary clinical management of patients with melanoma across the entire spectrum of disease stage. Translation of the knowledge gained from the biology of tumor microenvironment across different tumors represents a bridge to impact on prognosis and response to therapy in melanoma.

The fourth "Melanoma Bridge Meeting" took place in Naples, December 5 to 8th, 2013. The four topics discussed at this meeting were: Diagnosis and New Procedures, Molecular Advances and Combination Therapies, News in Immunotherapy, and Tumor Microenvironment and Biomarkers.

The efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 targeted therapies in addition to anti-CTLA-4 solidifies immunotherapy as a modality to add to the anticancer arsenal. Despite raising the bar of clinical efficacy, immunologically targeted agents raise new challenges to conventional drug development paradigms by highlighting the limited relevance of assessing standard pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD). Specifically, systemic and intratumoral immune effects have not consistently correlated with standard relationships between systemic dose, toxicity, and efficacy for cytotoxic therapies. Hence, PK and PD paradigms remain inadequate to guide the selection of doses and schedules, both starting and recommended Phase 2 for immunotherapies. The promise of harnessing the immune response against cancer must also be considered in light of unique and potentially serious toxicities. Refining immune endpoints to better inform clinical trial design represents a high priority challenge. The Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network investigators review the immunodynamic effects of specific classes of immunotherapeutic agents to focus immune assessment modalities and sites, both systemic and importantly intratumoral, which are critical to the success of the rapidly growing field of immuno-oncology.

Whereas preclinical investigations and clinical studies have established that CD8⁺ T cells can profoundly affect cancer progression, the underlying mechanisms are still elusive. Challenging the prevalent view that the beneficial effect of CD8⁺ T cells in cancer is solely attributable to their cytotoxic activity, several reports have indicated that the ability of CD8⁺ T cells to promote tumor regression is dependent on their cytokine secretion profile and their ability to self-renew. Evidence has also shown that the tumor microenvironment can disarm CD8⁺ T cell immunity, leading to the emergence of dysfunctional CD8⁺ T cells. The existence of different types of CD8⁺ T cells in cancer calls for a more precise definition of the CD8⁺ T cell immune phenotypes in cancer and the abandonment of the generic terms "pro-tumor" and "antitumor." Based on recent studies investigating the functions of CD8⁺ T cells in cancer, we here propose some guidelines to precisely define the functional states of CD8⁺ T cells in cancer.

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 if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer.