Dataset Information

The Resistance Mechanisms of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Tumors.

ABSTRACT: The emergence of cancer immunotherapy has already shown some remarkable results, having changed the treatment strategy in clinical practice for solid tumors. Despite these promising long-term responses, patients seem to lack the ability to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors, thus demonstrating a primary resistance to immunotherapy. Moreover, a significant number of patients who initially respond to treatment eventually acquire resistance to immunotherapy. Both resistance mechanisms are a result of a complex interaction among different molecules, pathways, and cellular processes. Several resistance mechanisms, such as tumor microenvironment modification, autophagy, genetic and epigenetic alterations, tumor mutational burden, neo-antigens, and modulation of gut microbiota have already been identified, while more continue to be uncovered. In this review, we discuss the latest milestones in the field of immunotherapy, resistance mechanisms against this type of therapy as well as putative therapeutic strategies to overcome resistance in solid tumors.

SUBMITTER: Koustas E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7277892 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Resistance Mechanisms of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Tumors.

Koustas Evangelos E Sarantis Panagiotis P Papavassiliou Athanasios G AG Karamouzis Michalis V MV

Biomolecules 20200425 5

The emergence of cancer immunotherapy has already shown some remarkable results, having changed the treatment strategy in clinical practice for solid tumors. Despite these promising long-term responses, patients seem to lack the ability to respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors, thus demonstrating a primary resistance to immunotherapy. Moreover, a significant number of patients who initially respond to treatment eventually acquire resistance to immunotherapy. Both resistance mechanisms are a re ...[more]

PMID: 32344837

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA large proportion of patients eventually experience disease progression despite treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but subsequent treatment options are limited for this population. Retreatment with the same or different types of ICIs is a possible strategy, but the clinical efficacy and safety data are limited. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ICIs retreatment in patients with solid tumors after disease progression to previous ICIs.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and major meeting libraries for prospective studies. The primary outcomes included the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median overall survival (mOS), and the incidence of grade ⩾3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs).ResultsWe identified 22 prospective studies including 1865 patients. For disease progression after CTLA-4 inhibitors, three studies evaluated anti-CTLA-4 retreatment. The ORR was 12-23%, the DCR was 48.4-67.7%, and the mOS was 12 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was 5.9-25%. Four studies evaluated anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) retreatment. The ORR was 22-36%, the DCR was 40-64%, and the mOS was 13.4-20.6 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was <10%. For disease progression after PD-(L)1 inhibitors, 13 studies evaluated anti-PD-(L)1 retreatment. The ORR was 5-53%, the DCR was 38-83%, and the mOS was 13.9 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was 0-15% for patients retreated with single anti-PD-(L)1 agent, but was higher (0-64%) for those retreated with ICIs combined with other agents. Two studies evaluated anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) retreatment. The ORR was 0-22.4%, the DCR was 50-72%, and the mOS was 4-21 months. The incidence of grade ⩾3 irAEs was 26-61%.ConclusionRetreatment with ICIs is feasible for cancer patients considering its encouraging efficacy and tolerable safety. Further prospective trials are needed to explore more promising strategies and identify suitable populations for retreatment.

Project description:Importance:As the third most frequently mutated gene in cancers, the association between MUC16 mutation and response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in solid tumors remains unclear. Objective:To examine whether MUC16 mutation is associated with genomic factors in ICI response in solid tumors and with outcomes in ICI-treated patients. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cohort study used multidimensional genomic data of 10?195 patients from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) across 30 solid tumor types, 56 patients from a non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort, and 145 patients from a melanoma cohort. Genomic factors associated with ICI response covered tumor mutational burden, neoantigens, immune-related gene signatures, and tumor immune microenvironment. Both NSCLC and melanoma cohorts included ICI-treated patients. The TCGA cohort was used to examine the association of MUC16 mutation with genomic factors. Two ICI-treated cohorts were used to explore the significance of outcomes associated with MUC16 mutation, using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models with adjusting for potential confounders. Gene set enrichment analysis was used to identify MUC16 mutation-associated biological processes. Data were obtained from October 1 through October 10, 2019, and were analyzed from October 11 through December 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures:Genomic factors associated with ICI response, overall survival, and clinical response. Results:Of the 10?195 patients, 4821 (47.6%) were men (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 60 [50-70] years). MUC16 was mutated in 2006 of 10?195 patients (19.68%). In this pan-cancer data set, patients with MUC16 mutation had higher tumor mutational burden (median [IQR], 230 [93-595] mutations vs 48 [25-92] mutations; difference, 182 mutations; 95% CI, 164-199 mutations; P?<?.001) and neoantigen load (median [IQR], 179 [74-394.5] neoantigens vs 48 [24-89] neoantigens; difference, 131 antigens; 95% CI, 116.5-145 neoantigens; P?<?.001) than those without mutations. The tumor immune microenvironment with dual-positive CD8A and PD-L1 was overrepresented in MUC16-mutated tumors compared with wild-type ones (43.8% vs 32.4%; odds ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.46-1.80; P?<?.001). Of the 40 immune-related genes, 37 (92.5%) exhibited differential expression between 2 states. MUC16 mutation was associated with improved overall survival in both the NSCLC (hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.99; P?=?.04) and melanoma (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.90; P?=?.02) cohorts. The improvement persisted after adjusting for age, sex, and dominant mutational signatures in the melanoma cohort (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33-0.96; P?=?.04). MUC16 mutation was associated with greater response rates in the NSCLC cohort (odds ratio, 4.03; 95% CI, 1.06-16.43; P?=?.03) and the melanoma cohort (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.07-14.25; P?=?.03). Gene set enrichment analysis revealed that gene sets regarding cell proliferation and immune response were enriched in MUC16-mutated tumors (false discovery rate, <.001). Conclusions and Relevance:MUC16 mutation appears to be associated with reported genomic factors associated with response to and improved outcomes for ICI treatment in solid tumors. It may hold promise as a marker for guiding immunotherapeutic responsiveness.

Dataset Information

The Resistance Mechanisms of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Tumors.

Publications

The Resistance Mechanisms of Checkpoint Inhibitors in Solid Tumors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets