Benjamin M Larimer1, Eric Wehrenberg-Klee1, Alexander Caraballo1, Umar Mahmood2. 1. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts umahmood@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have made rapid advances, resulting in multiple Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutics that have markedly improved survival. However, these benefits are limited to a minority subpopulation that achieves a response. Predicting which patients are most likely to benefit would be valuable for individual therapy optimization. T-cell markers such as CD3-by examining active recruitment of the T cells responsible for cancer-cell death-represent a more direct approach to monitoring tumor immune response than pretreatment biopsy or genetic screening. This approach could be especially effective as numerous different therapeutic strategies emerge, decreasing the need for drug-specific biomarkers and instead focusing on T-cell infiltration, which has been previously correlated with treatment response. METHODS: A CD3 PET imaging agent targeting T cells was synthesized to test the role of such imaging as a predictive marker. The 89Zr-p-isothiocyanatobenzyl-deferoxamine-CD3 PET probe was assessed in a murine tumor xenograft model of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) immunotherapy of colon cancer. RESULTS: Imaging on day 14 revealed 2 distinct groups of mice stratified by PET signal intensity. Although there was no significant difference in tumor volume on the day of imaging, in the high-uptake group subsequent measurements revealed significantly smaller tumors than in either the low-uptake group or the untreated controls. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the size of tumors between the low-uptake and untreated control mice. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that high CD3 PET uptake in the anti-CTLA-4-treated mice correlated with subsequent reduced tumor volume and was a predictive biomarker of response.
Immune checkpoint inhibitors have made rapid advances, resulting in multiple Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutics that have markedly improved survival. However, these benefits are limited to a minority subpopulation that achieves a response. Predicting which patients are most likely to benefit would be valuable for individual therapy optimization. T-cell markers such as CD3-by examining active recruitment of the T cells responsible for cancer-cell death-represent a more direct approach to monitoring tumor immune response than pretreatment biopsy or genetic screening. This approach could be especially effective as numerous different therapeutic strategies emerge, decreasing the need for drug-specific biomarkers and instead focusing on T-cell infiltration, which has been previously correlated with treatment response. METHODS: A CD3 PET imaging agent targeting T cells was synthesized to test the role of such imaging as a predictive marker. The 89Zr-p-isothiocyanatobenzyl-deferoxamine-CD3 PET probe was assessed in a murinetumor xenograft model of anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) immunotherapy of colon cancer. RESULTS: Imaging on day 14 revealed 2 distinct groups of mice stratified by PET signal intensity. Although there was no significant difference in tumor volume on the day of imaging, in the high-uptake group subsequent measurements revealed significantly smaller tumors than in either the low-uptake group or the untreated controls. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the size of tumors between the low-uptake and untreated control mice. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that high CD3 PET uptake in the anti-CTLA-4-treated mice correlated with subsequent reduced tumor volume and was a predictive biomarker of response.
Authors: Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Joseph A O'Donoghue; Volkan Beylergil; Serge Lyashchenko; Shutian Ruan; Stephen B Solomon; Jeremy C Durack; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Robert A Lefkowitz; Mithat Gonen; Jason S Lewis; Jason P Holland; Sarah M Cheal; Victor E Reuter; Joseph R Osborne; Massimo F Loda; Peter M Smith-Jones; Wolfgang A Weber; Neil H Bander; Howard I Scher; Michael J Morris; Steven M Larson Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Maria J W D Vosjan; Lars R Perk; Gerard W M Visser; Marianne Budde; Paul Jurek; Garry E Kiefer; Guus A M S van Dongen Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2010-03-25 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Michael A Postow; Jason Chesney; Anna C Pavlick; Caroline Robert; Kenneth Grossmann; David McDermott; Gerald P Linette; Nicolas Meyer; Jeffrey K Giguere; Sanjiv S Agarwala; Montaser Shaheen; Marc S Ernstoff; David Minor; April K Salama; Matthew Taylor; Patrick A Ott; Linda M Rollin; Christine Horak; Paul Gagnier; Jedd D Wolchok; F Stephen Hodi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Naiyer A Rizvi; Matthew D Hellmann; Alexandra Snyder; Pia Kvistborg; Vladimir Makarov; Jonathan J Havel; William Lee; Jianda Yuan; Phillip Wong; Teresa S Ho; Martin L Miller; Natasha Rekhtman; Andre L Moreira; Fawzia Ibrahim; Cameron Bruggeman; Billel Gasmi; Roberta Zappasodi; Yuka Maeda; Chris Sander; Edward B Garon; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Ton N Schumacher; Timothy A Chan Journal: Science Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Richard Tavaré; Helena Escuin-Ordinas; Stephen Mok; Melissa N McCracken; Kirstin A Zettlitz; Felix B Salazar; Owen N Witte; Antoni Ribas; Anna M Wu Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Axel Hoos; Steven O'Day; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Michael Binder; Oliver Bohnsack; Geoffrey Nichol; Rachel Humphrey; F Stephen Hodi Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-11-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Hossein Borghaei; Luis Paz-Ares; Leora Horn; David R Spigel; Martin Steins; Neal E Ready; Laura Q Chow; Everett E Vokes; Enriqueta Felip; Esther Holgado; Fabrice Barlesi; Martin Kohlhäufl; Oscar Arrieta; Marco Angelo Burgio; Jérôme Fayette; Hervé Lena; Elena Poddubskaya; David E Gerber; Scott N Gettinger; Charles M Rudin; Naiyer Rizvi; Lucio Crinò; George R Blumenschein; Scott J Antonia; Cécile Dorange; Christopher T Harbison; Friedrich Graf Finckenstein; Julie R Brahmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-09-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul C Tumeh; Christina L Harview; Jennifer H Yearley; I Peter Shintaku; Emma J M Taylor; Lidia Robert; Bartosz Chmielowski; Marko Spasic; Gina Henry; Voicu Ciobanu; Alisha N West; Manuel Carmona; Christine Kivork; Elizabeth Seja; Grace Cherry; Antonio J Gutierrez; Tristan R Grogan; Christine Mateus; Gorana Tomasic; John A Glaspy; Ryan O Emerson; Harlan Robins; Robert H Pierce; David A Elashoff; Caroline Robert; Antoni Ribas Journal: Nature Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Benjamin M Larimer; Emily Bloch; Sarah Nesti; Emily E Austin; Eric Wehrenberg-Klee; Genevieve Boland; Umar Mahmood Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Heather M Gibson; Brooke N McKnight; Agnes Malysa; Greg Dyson; Wendy N Wiesend; Claire E McCarthy; Joyce Reyes; Wei-Zen Wei; Nerissa T Viola-Villegas Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Benjamin M Larimer; Eric Wehrenberg-Klee; Frank Dubois; Anila Mehta; Taylor Kalomeris; Keith Flaherty; Genevieve Boland; Umar Mahmood Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701