| Literature DB >> 33589526 |
Nina M Muñoz1, Malea Williams1, Katherine Dixon1, Crystal Dupuis1, Amanda McWatters1, Rony Avritscher1, Soraya Zorro Manrique2, Kevin McHugh3, Ravi Murthy1,4, Alda Tam1, Aung Naing4, Sapna P Patel2, David Leach5, Jeffrey D Hartgerink5, Simon Young6, Punit Prakash7, Patrick Hwu8, Rahul A Sheth9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intratumoral delivery of immunotherapeutics represents a compelling solution to directly address local barriers to tumor immunity. However, we have previously shown that off-target delivery is a substantial problem during intratumoral injections; this can lead to diminished drug efficacy and systemic toxicities. We have identified three variables that influence intratumoral drug delivery: injection technique, drug formulation and tumor microenvironment. The purpose of this study was to characterize the impact of modifications in each variable on intratumoral drug delivery and immunotherapy efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: drug evaluation; investigational; preclinical; therapies; translational medical research; tumor microenvironment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33589526 PMCID: PMC7887346 DOI: 10.1136/jitc-2020-001800
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunother Cancer ISSN: 2051-1426 Impact factor: 13.751
Figure 1Variables that influence intratumoral immunotherapy. Based on our clinical observations, we have created a heuristic model for factors that affect intratumoral immunotherapy delivery comprising these three variables. For each variable, we have listed potential modifications that could lead to improvements in intratumoral immunotherapy delivery and efficacy.
Figure 2End-hole needle (EHN) versus multiside hole needle (MSHN). In a bilateral flank rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma, simultaneous injection through a MSHN versus EHN was performed. Needles were placed under ultrasound guidance (A). Under live fluoroscopy, iodinated contrast was injected using a dual head contrast injector (B). Digital subtraction angiography (C) during the injection shows increased intravasation with EHN compared with MSHN. A 5 min postinjection image reveals improved intratumoral retention with MSHN compared with EHN (D). This finding was confirmed by CT scan (E), with an approximately threefold improvement using MSHN over EHN (F). In-line interstitial pressure measurements demonstrated a smaller increase in peak pressure during injection with MSHN compared with EHN (G).
Figure 3Single cell RNA sequencing analysis of injection technique. In a rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma, a STING agonist (50 μg ML RR-S2 CDA) was injected using an endhole or multiside hole needle. Tissue samples were harvested at 24 hours, and single cell RNA sequencing was performed on the intratumoral CD45+ population. Unsupervised cluster analysis (tSNE) identified multiple discrete immune populations (A). Myeloid TAMs and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (mDCs and pDCs) were then analyzed (B), and cluster characterization was performed using individual gene expression feature plots (C). Gene set enrichment analysis revealed a significant increase in type I interferon gene expression and ‘inflammatory’ DC gene signatures in tumors that underwent STING injection compared with control (D, E). Violin plots of Z-scores for the STING injection samples showed were significantly greater compared with control (D). Moreover, compared with endhole needles, there was a cluster of DCs with a significant increase both of these gene signatures when STING injections were performed with a multiside hole needle based on violin plot of Z-sores (F) and scatter plots of Z-scores (G). ***P<0.001; ****p<0.0001. TAMs, tumor-associated macrophages.
Figure 4Multidomain peptide (MDP) hydrogel-based intratumoral delivery. In a flank rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma, intratumoral MDP hydrogel containing iohexol demonstrates excellent retention within the target tumor on real-time fluoroscopic imaging (A) and CT imaging (B, blue asterisk) compared with free iohexol (B, red asterisk), with a greater than fourfold improvement in intratumoral delivery (C). Histological evaluation at 48 hours following intratumoral injection of saline (D), free aqueous phase STING agonist (E), MDP hydrogel only (F) and MDP-STING agonist (G) demonstrate geographic areas of necrosis corresponding to the sites of MDP deposition. Tumor necrosis was seen with MDP hydrogel alone, in addition to free STING and MDP-STING injections (H). Flow cytometry of intratumoral CD45+ cells at 48 hours (I) and 96 hours (J) after treatment demonstrate an increase in CD8+ T cells in all three treatment arms at both time points. CD3 subsets were gated on CD45+ cells, and the CD4/CD8 subsets were gated on CD3+ cells. There was a similar increase in both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells after intratumoral delivery of free STING and MDP-STING (K). *P<0.05;**p<0.01. ns, not significant.
Figure 5Influence of tumor microenvironment on intratumoral drug delivery. Intratumoral injections of an iodinated contrast agent were performed in B16 melanoma and MC38 colorectal cancer subcutaneous tumors in mice (tumors circumscribed by red ovals). Immediate postinjection microCT imaging (A–C) revealed significantly improved retention within B16 tumors relative to MC38 tumors, with substantial extracapsular leakage noted in the latter.