Addition of interleukin-2 overcomes resistance to neoadjuvant CTLA4 and PD1 blockade in ex vivo patient tumors.

Neoadjuvant immunotherapy with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4) + anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) monoclonal antibodies has demonstrated remarkable pathological responses and relapse-free survival in ~80% of patients with clinically detectable stage III melanoma. However, about 20% of the treated patients do not respond. In pretreatment biopsies of patients with melanoma, we found that resistance to neoadjuvant CTLA4 + PD1 blockade was associated with a low CD4/interleukin-2 (IL-2) gene signature. Ex vivo, addition of IL-2 to CTLA4 + PD1 blockade induced T cell activation and deep immunological responses in anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD1-resistant human tumor specimens. In the 4T1.2 breast cancer mouse model of neoadjuvant immunotherapy, triple combination of anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD1 + IL-2 cured almost twice as many mice as compared with dual checkpoint inhibitor therapy. This improved efficacy was due to the expansion of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells and improved proinflammatory cytokine polyfunctionality of both CD4+ and CD8+ T effector cells and regulatory T cells. Depletion studies suggested that CD4+ T cells were critical for priming of CD8+ T cell immunity against 4T1.2 and helped in the expansion of tumor-specific CD8+ T cells early after neoadjuvant triple immunotherapy. Our results suggest that the addition of IL-2 can overcome resistance to neoadjuvant anti-CTLA4 + anti-PD1, providing the rationale for testing this combination as a neoadjuvant therapy in patients with early-stage cancer.

Concomitant or delayed anti-TNF differentially impact on immune-related adverse events and antitumor efficacy after anti-CD40 therapy.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant tumor necrosis factor (TNF) neutralization in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) reduces clinical immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and appears to improve antitumor efficacy in preclinical tumor models. Agonistic antibodies targeting costimulatory receptors such as CD40 represent an additional strategy to boost antitumor immune response and potentiate the activity of ICIs. However, the dose-limiting toxicities observed in anti-CD40-treated cancer patients have hindered its clinical development. METHODS: We previously described a mouse model to assess both antitumor activity and irAEs induced by various effective combination immunotherapies. Using the BALB/c and C57BL/6 strains of FoxP3-GFP-DTR (FoxP3DTR) mice, transient depletion of T regulatory cells (Tregs) prior to immunotherapy with additional immunomodulatory antibodies, lowered immune self-tolerance, resulting in the development of a spectrum of physical and biochemical irAEs similar to that reported clinically. In MC38 and 4T1.2 tumor models, following transient Treg depletion, we evaluated the impact of anti-CD40 on antitumor efficacy and the development of irAEs and the impact of concomitant or delayed TNF blockade on both these parameters. Physical irAEs were scored and biochemical irAEs were measured in the serum (ALT and cytokine levels). Histopathological liver and colon tissue analysis were performed to assess immune cell infiltration and tissue damage. RESULTS: Similar to early clinical trials of CD40 agonists, in our tumor models we observed liver toxicities and rapid release of proinflammatory cytokines (TNF, interleukin 6, interferon-γ). In the BALB/c strain, anti-CD40 induced severe physical and biochemical irAEs. Concomitant anti-TNF treatment abrogated weight loss, liver damage and colitis, which consequently resulted in an improved clinical score. However, concomitant anti-TNF impaired antitumor response in a proportion of anti-CD40-treated C57BL/6 FoxP3DTR mice. Delaying TNF blockade in these mice reduced biochemical but not physical irAEs while preserving antitumor efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest concomitant rather than delayed anti-TNF is most effective in reducing biochemical and physical irAEs induced by anti-CD40, although it had the potential to negatively impact antitumor efficacy. Furthermore, our findings highlight the utility of our mouse model to assess the severity of irAEs induced by novel immunotherapeutic agents and evaluate whether their toxicity and antitumor efficacy can be uncoupled.

Clinical Insignficance of Monoclonal T-Cell Populations and Duodenal Intraepithelial T-Cell Phenotypes in Celiac and Nonceliac Patients.

Refractory celiac disease (RCD) is a rare condition, usually managed at specialized centers. However, gastroenterologists and pathologists in general practices are often the first to consider a diagnosis of RCD in celiac patients with persistent symptoms. The distinction between type I and type II RCD is crucial as patients with RCD II have a shortened life expectancy. The diagnosis of RCD II requires the demonstration of abnormal intraepithelial lymphocytes and/or monoclonal T-cell populations in duodenal biopsies, typically assessed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. We investigated the clinical significance of T-cell receptor gene rearrangements and CD3/CD8 staining in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded biopsies from 32 patients with RCD I (4), RCD II (3), newly diagnosed celiac disease (CD) (10), established CD patients with follow-up biopsies (10), and Helicobacter pylori-associated lymphocytosis (5). Clonal T-cell populations were present in all lymphocytosis groups but not in normal controls. No difference in the frequency of clonal populations or persistence of identical clones was found between RCD I and II patients. The degree of villous blunting did not correlate with clonal status in any group. No difference in the number of CD3/CD8-positive intraepithelial lymphocytes per 100 enterocytes was found between groups. We suggest that clonal evaluation of T cells should not be employed routinely in the evaluation of CD patients with persistent symptoms until common causes of "apparent refractoriness" have been excluded. In addition, lymphocyte phenotyping and T-cell clonal analysis appear to be insufficient as stand-alone tests to reliably distinguish RCD I and II.