Nick van Dijk1, Samuel A Funt2, Christian U Blank1, Thomas Powles3, Jonathan E Rosenberg2, Michiel S van der Heijden4. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Genitourinary Oncology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Barts Cancer Institute, London, UK. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: ms.vd.heijden@nki.nl.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The abysmal outlook of urothelial cancer (UC) has changed with the introduction of immunotherapy. Still, many patients do not respond and distinctive biomarkers are currently lacking. The rise of this novel armamentarium of immunotherapy treatments, in combination with the complex biology of an immunological tumor response, warrants the development of a comprehensive framework that can provide an overview of important immunological processes at play in individual patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop a comprehensive framework based on tumor- and host-specific parameters to understand immunotherapy response in UC. This framework can inform rational, biology-driven clinical trials and ultimately guide us toward individualized patient treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was conducted on UC immunotherapy, clinical trial data, and biomarkers of response to checkpoint inhibition. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Here, we propose a UC immunogram, based on currently available clinical and translational data. The UC immunogram describes several tumor- and host-specific parameters that are required for successful immunotherapy treatment. These seven parameters are tumor foreignness, immune cell infiltration, absence of inhibitory checkpoints, general performance and immune status, absence of soluble inhibitors, absence of inhibitory tumor metabolism, and tumor sensitivity to immune effectors. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal integration of individual patient parameters may ultimately lead to personalized and dynamic immunotherapy, to adjust to the Darwinian forces that drive tumor evolution. Incorporating multiparameter biomarkers into quantitative predictive models will be a key challenge to integrate the immunogram into daily clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: Here, we propose the urothelial cancer immunogram, a novel way of describing important immunological characteristics of urothelial cancer patients and their tumors. Seven characteristics determine the chance of having an immunological tumor response. Using this immunogram, we aim to better understand why some patients respond to immunotherapy and some do not, to ultimately improve anticancer therapy.
CONTEXT: The abysmal outlook of urothelial cancer (UC) has changed with the introduction of immunotherapy. Still, many patients do not respond and distinctive biomarkers are currently lacking. The rise of this novel armamentarium of immunotherapy treatments, in combination with the complex biology of an immunological tumor response, warrants the development of a comprehensive framework that can provide an overview of important immunological processes at play in individual patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop a comprehensive framework based on tumor- and host-specific parameters to understand immunotherapy response in UC. This framework can inform rational, biology-driven clinical trials and ultimately guide us toward individualized patient treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was conducted on UC immunotherapy, clinical trial data, and biomarkers of response to checkpoint inhibition. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Here, we propose a UC immunogram, based on currently available clinical and translational data. The UC immunogram describes several tumor- and host-specific parameters that are required for successful immunotherapy treatment. These seven parameters are tumor foreignness, immune cell infiltration, absence of inhibitory checkpoints, general performance and immune status, absence of soluble inhibitors, absence of inhibitory tumor metabolism, and tumor sensitivity to immune effectors. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal integration of individual patient parameters may ultimately lead to personalized and dynamic immunotherapy, to adjust to the Darwinian forces that drive tumor evolution. Incorporating multiparameter biomarkers into quantitative predictive models will be a key challenge to integrate the immunogram into daily clinical practice. PATIENT SUMMARY: Here, we propose the urothelial cancer immunogram, a novel way of describing important immunological characteristics of urothelial cancerpatients and their tumors. Seven characteristics determine the chance of having an immunological tumor response. Using this immunogram, we aim to better understand why some patients respond to immunotherapy and some do not, to ultimately improve anticancer therapy.
Keywords:
Biomarkers; Cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated protein 4; Immune checkpoint inhibitors; Immunotherapy; Programmed cell death 1; Programmed cell death receptor ligand 1; Urothelial cell cancer
Authors: Padmanee Sharma; Yu Shen; Sijin Wen; Sachiko Yamada; Achim A Jungbluth; Sacha Gnjatic; Dean F Bajorin; Victor E Reuter; Harry Herr; Lloyd J Old; Eiichi Sato Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: S F Shariat; J H Kim; B Andrews; M W Kattan; T M Wheeler; I Y Kim; S P Lerner; K M Slawin Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-12-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hong Zhang; David M Conrad; Jared J Butler; Chuanli Zhao; Jonathan Blay; David W Hoskin Journal: J Immunol Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Jose María Romero; Pilar Jiménez; Teresa Cabrera; José Manuel Cózar; Susana Pedrinaci; Miguel Tallada; Federico Garrido; Francisco Ruiz-Cabello Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2005-02-10 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Joseph F Grosso; Cristin C Kelleher; Timothy J Harris; Charles H Maris; Edward L Hipkiss; Angelo De Marzo; Robert Anders; George Netto; Derese Getnet; Tullia C Bruno; Monica V Goldberg; Drew M Pardoll; Charles G Drake Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Abdel Saci; Matthew D Galsky; Peter M Szabo; G Celine Han; Gary Grossfeld; Sandra Collette; Arlene Siefker-Radtke; Andrea Necchi; Padmanee Sharma Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Thomas Powles; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Guru P Sonpavde; Yohann Loriot; Ignacio Durán; Jae-Lyun Lee; Nobuaki Matsubara; Christof Vulsteke; Daniel Castellano; Chunzhang Wu; Mary Campbell; Maria Matsangou; Daniel P Petrylak Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jose Mauricio Mota; Min Yuen Teo; Karissa Whiting; Han A Li; Ashely M Regazzi; Chung-Han Lee; Samuel A Funt; Dean Bajorin; Irina Ostrovnaya; Gopa Iyer; Jonathan E Rosenberg Journal: J Immunother Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.912
Authors: Ali Raza Khaki; Ang Li; Leonidas N Diamantopoulos; Natalie J Miller; Lucia Carril-Ajuria; Daniel Castellano; Ivan De Kouchkovsky; Vadim Koshkin; Joseph Park; Ajjai Alva; Mehmet A Bilen; Tyler Stewart; Victor Santos; Neeraj Agarwal; Jayanshu Jain; Yousef Zakharia; Rafael Morales-Barrera; Michael Devitt; Ariel Nelson; Christopher J Hoimes; Evan Shreck; Benjamin A Gartrell; Alex Sankin; Abhishek Tripathi; Roubini Zakopoulou; Aristotelis Bamias; Alejo Rodriguez-Vida; Alexandra Drakaki; Sandy Liu; Vivek Kumar; Mark P Lythgoe; David J Pinato; Jure Murgic; Ana Fröbe; Monika Joshi; Pedro Isaacsson Velho; Noah Hahn; Lucia Alonso Buznego; Ignacio Duran; Marcus Moses; Pedro Barata; Matthew D Galsky; Guru Sonpavde; Evan Y Yu; Veena Shankaran; Gary H Lyman; Petros Grivas Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2021-01-07