Background: Adenosine receptor type 2 (A2AR) inhibitor, AZD4635, has been shown to reduce immunosuppressive adenosine effects within the tumor microenvironment (TME) and to enhance the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors across various syngeneic models. This study aims at investigating anti-tumor activity of AZD4635 alone and in combination with an anti-PD-L1-specific antibody (anti-PD-L1 mAb) across various TME conditions and at identifying, via mathematical quantitative modeling, a therapeutic combination strategy to further improve treatment efficacy. Methods: The model is represented by a set of ordinary differential equations capturing: 1) antigen-dependent T cell migration into the tumor, with subsequent proliferation and differentiation into effector T cells (Teff), leading to tumor cell lysis; 2) downregulation of processes mediated by A2AR or PD-L1, as well as other immunosuppressive mechanisms; 3) A2AR and PD-L1 inhibition by, respectively, AZD4635 and anti-PD-L1 mAb. Tumor size dynamics data from CT26, MC38, and MCA205 syngeneic mice treated with vehicle, anti-PD-L1 mAb, AZD4635, or their combination were used to inform model parameters. Between-animal and between-study variabilities (BAV, BSV) in treatment efficacy were quantified using a non-linear mixed-effects methodology. Results: The model reproduced individual and cohort trends in tumor size dynamics for all considered treatment regimens and experiments. BSV and BAV were explained by variability in T cell-to-immunosuppressive cell (ISC) ratio; BSV was additionally driven by differences in intratumoral adenosine content across the syngeneic models. Model sensitivity analysis and model-based preclinical study simulations revealed therapeutic options enabling a potential increase in AZD4635-driven efficacy; e.g., adoptive cell transfer or treatments affecting adenosine-independent immunosuppressive pathways. Conclusions: The proposed integrative modeling framework quantitatively characterized the mechanistic activity of AZD4635 and its potential added efficacy in therapy combinations, across various immune conditions prevailing in the TME. Such a model may enable further investigations, via simulations, of mechanisms of tumor resistance to treatment and of AZD4635 combination optimization strategies.
Background: Adenosine receptor type 2 (A2AR) inhibitor, AZD4635, has been shown to reduce immunosuppressive adenosine effects within the tumor microenvironment (TME) and to enhance the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors across various syngeneic models. This study aims at investigating anti-tumor activity of AZD4635 alone and in combination with an anti-PD-L1-specific antibody (anti-PD-L1 mAb) across various TME conditions and at identifying, via mathematical quantitative modeling, a therapeutic combination strategy to further improve treatment efficacy. Methods: The model is represented by a set of ordinary differential equations capturing: 1) antigen-dependent T cell migration into the tumor, with subsequent proliferation and differentiation into effector T cells (Teff), leading to tumor cell lysis; 2) downregulation of processes mediated by A2AR or PD-L1, as well as other immunosuppressive mechanisms; 3) A2AR and PD-L1 inhibition by, respectively, AZD4635 and anti-PD-L1 mAb. Tumor size dynamics data from CT26, MC38, and MCA205 syngeneic mice treated with vehicle, anti-PD-L1 mAb, AZD4635, or their combination were used to inform model parameters. Between-animal and between-study variabilities (BAV, BSV) in treatment efficacy were quantified using a non-linear mixed-effects methodology. Results: The model reproduced individual and cohort trends in tumor size dynamics for all considered treatment regimens and experiments. BSV and BAV were explained by variability in T cell-to-immunosuppressive cell (ISC) ratio; BSV was additionally driven by differences in intratumoral adenosine content across the syngeneic models. Model sensitivity analysis and model-based preclinical study simulations revealed therapeutic options enabling a potential increase in AZD4635-driven efficacy; e.g., adoptive cell transfer or treatments affecting adenosine-independent immunosuppressive pathways. Conclusions: The proposed integrative modeling framework quantitatively characterized the mechanistic activity of AZD4635 and its potential added efficacy in therapy combinations, across various immune conditions prevailing in the TME. Such a model may enable further investigations, via simulations, of mechanisms of tumor resistance to treatment and of AZD4635 combination optimization strategies.
Authors: Franck Pagès; Bernhard Mlecnik; Florence Marliot; Gabriela Bindea; Fang-Shu Ou; Carlo Bifulco; Alessandro Lugli; Inti Zlobec; Tilman T Rau; Martin D Berger; Iris D Nagtegaal; Elisa Vink-Börger; Arndt Hartmann; Carol Geppert; Julie Kolwelter; Susanne Merkel; Robert Grützmann; Marc Van den Eynde; Anne Jouret-Mourin; Alex Kartheuser; Daniel Léonard; Christophe Remue; Julia Y Wang; Prashant Bavi; Michael H A Roehrl; Pamela S Ohashi; Linh T Nguyen; SeongJun Han; Heather L MacGregor; Sara Hafezi-Bakhtiari; Bradly G Wouters; Giuseppe V Masucci; Emilia K Andersson; Eva Zavadova; Michal Vocka; Jan Spacek; Lubos Petruzelka; Bohuslav Konopasek; Pavel Dundr; Helena Skalova; Kristyna Nemejcova; Gerardo Botti; Fabiana Tatangelo; Paolo Delrio; Gennaro Ciliberto; Michele Maio; Luigi Laghi; Fabio Grizzi; Tessa Fredriksen; Bénédicte Buttard; Mihaela Angelova; Angela Vasaturo; Pauline Maby; Sarah E Church; Helen K Angell; Lucie Lafontaine; Daniela Bruni; Carine El Sissy; Nacilla Haicheur; Amos Kirilovsky; Anne Berger; Christine Lagorce; Jeffrey P Meyers; Christopher Paustian; Zipei Feng; Carmen Ballesteros-Merino; Jeroen Dijkstra; Carlijn van de Water; Shannon van Lent-van Vliet; Nikki Knijn; Ana-Maria Mușină; Dragos-Viorel Scripcariu; Boryana Popivanova; Mingli Xu; Tomonobu Fujita; Shoichi Hazama; Nobuaki Suzuki; Hiroaki Nagano; Kiyotaka Okuno; Toshihiko Torigoe; Noriyuki Sato; Tomohisa Furuhata; Ichiro Takemasa; Kyogo Itoh; Prabhu S Patel; Hemangini H Vora; Birva Shah; Jayendrakumar B Patel; Kruti N Rajvik; Shashank J Pandya; Shilin N Shukla; Yili Wang; Guanjun Zhang; Yutaka Kawakami; Francesco M Marincola; Paolo A Ascierto; Daniel J Sargent; Bernard A Fox; Jérôme Galon Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William K Decker; Rodrigo F da Silva; Mayra H Sanabria; Laura S Angelo; Fernando Guimarães; Bryan M Burt; Farrah Kheradmand; Silke Paust Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: T H T Nguyen; M-S Mouksassi; N Holford; N Al-Huniti; I Freedman; A C Hooker; J John; M O Karlsson; D R Mould; J J Pérez Ruixo; E L Plan; R Savic; J G C van Hasselt; B Weber; C Zhou; E Comets; F Mentré Journal: CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol Date: 2017-02-10
Authors: Jong W Yu; Sabyasachi Bhattacharya; Niranjan Yanamandra; David Kilian; Hong Shi; Sapna Yadavilli; Yuliya Katlinskaya; Heather Kaczynski; Michael Conner; William Benson; Ashleigh Hahn; Laura Seestaller-Wehr; Meixia Bi; Nicholas J Vitali; Lyuben Tsvetkov; Wendy Halsey; Ashley Hughes; Christopher Traini; Hui Zhou; Junping Jing; Tae Lee; David J Figueroa; Sara Brett; Christopher B Hopson; James F Smothers; Axel Hoos; Roopa Srinivasan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240