Epigenetic remodeling to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy in human glioblastoma: pre-clinical evidence for development of new immunotherapy approaches.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a highly aggressive primary brain tumor, that is refractory to standard treatment and to immunotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Noteworthy, melanoma brain metastases (MM-BM), that share the same niche as GBM, frequently respond to current ICI therapies. Epigenetic modifications regulate GBM cellular proliferation, invasion, and prognosis and may negatively regulate the cross-talk between malignant cells and immune cells in the tumor milieu, likely contributing to limit the efficacy of ICI therapy of GBM. Thus, manipulating the tumor epigenome can be considered a therapeutic opportunity in GBM. METHODS: Microarray transcriptional and methylation profiles, followed by gene set enrichment and IPA analyses, were performed to study the differences in the constitutive expression profiles of GBM vs MM-BM cells, compared to the extracranial MM cells and to investigate the modulatory effects of the DNA hypomethylating agent (DHA) guadecitabine among the different tumor cells. The prognostic relevance of DHA-modulated genes was tested by Cox analysis in a TCGA GBM patients' cohort. RESULTS: The most striking differences between GBM and MM-BM cells were found to be the enrichment of biological processes associated with tumor growth, invasion, and extravasation with the inhibition of MHC class II antigen processing/presentation in GBM cells. Treatment with guadecitabine reduced these biological differences, shaping GBM cells towards a more immunogenic phenotype. Indeed, in GBM cells, promoter hypomethylation by guadecitabine led to the up-regulation of genes mainly associated with activation, proliferation, and migration of T and B cells and with MHC class II antigen processing/presentation. Among DHA-modulated genes in GBM, 7.6% showed a significant prognostic relevance. Moreover, a large set of immune-related upstream-regulators (URs) were commonly modulated by DHA in GBM, MM-BM, and MM cells: DHA-activated URs enriched for biological processes mainly involved in the regulation of cytokines and chemokines production, inflammatory response, and in Type I/II/III IFN-mediated signaling; conversely, DHA-inhibited URs were involved in metabolic and proliferative pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Epigenetic remodeling by guadecitabine represents a promising strategy to increase the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy of GBM, supporting the rationale to develop new epigenetic-based immunotherapeutic approaches for the treatment of this still highly deadly disease.

Improving Influenza Vaccination Coverage in Patients with Cancer: A Position Paper from a Multidisciplinary Expert Group.

Patients with cancer can be immunocompromised because of their disease and/or due to anticancer therapy. In this population, severe influenza virus infections are associated with an elevated risk of morbidity and mortality. Influenza vaccination is therefore highly recommended in cancer patients, including those receiving anticancer therapy. However, vaccination coverage remains far below the recommended target for vulnerable subjects. Six specialists in oncology, hematology, immunology, and public health/vaccinology convened with the objective of developing strategies, based on evidence and clinical experience, for improving influenza vaccination coverage in cancer patients. This viewpoint provides an overview of current influenza vaccination recommendations in cancer patients, discusses barriers to vaccination coverage, and presents strategies for overcoming said barriers. New immunization issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic are also addressed. Future directions include improving public education on influenza vaccination, providing the media with accurate information, improving knowledge among healthcare professionals, improving access to vaccines for cancer patients, co-administration of the influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, increased collaboration between oncologists and other health professionals, increased accessibility of digital vaccination registries to specialists, shared information platforms, and promoting immunization campaigns by healthcare systems with the support of scientific societies.

Immunotherapy in melanoma: Can we predict response to treatment with circulating biomarkers?

Melanoma is the most aggressive form of skin cancer, representing approximately 4% of all cutaneous neoplasms and accounting for up to 80% of deaths. Advanced stages of melanoma involve metastatic processes and are associated with high mortality and morbidity, mainly due to the rapid dissemination and heterogeneous responses to current therapies, including immunotherapy. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are currently used in the treatment of metastatic melanoma (MM) and despite being linked to an increase in patient survival, a high percentage of them still do not benefit from it. Accordingly, the number of therapeutic regimens for MM patients using ICIs either alone or in combination with other therapies has increased, together with the need for reliable biomarkers that can both predict and monitor response to ICIs. In this context, circulating biomarkers, such as DNA, RNA, proteins, and cells, have emerged due to their ability to reflect disease status. Moreover, blood tests are minimally invasive and provide an attractive option to detect biomarkers, avoiding stressful medical procedures. This systematic review aims to evaluate the possibility of a non-invasive biomarker signature that can guide therapeutic decisions. The studies reported here offer valuable insight into how circulating biomarkers can have a role in personalized treatments for melanoma patients receiving ICIs therapy, emphasizing the need for rigorous clinical trials to confirm findings and establish standardized procedures.

Immunotherapy in cutaneous melanoma and biologics in psoriatic disease: similarities and differences from a clinical multidisciplinary perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Immunomodulating therapies harness the power of the immune system to combat disease. In advanced melanoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved survival outcomes by activating the immune system to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. In psoriasis, interleukin inhibitors effectively suppress inflammation and improve disease symptoms. AREAS COVERED: We provide a meta-opinion-based consensus paper on the analogies and differences in treatment mechanisms, duration, frequency between immunotherapy for advanced melanoma and biologics for psoriasis. Combining the current scientific evidence with expert insights, we provide valuable guidance for future research and decision-making processes. EXPERT OPINION: The development of immunological treatments in melanoma and psoriasis has revolutionized dermatology, but the quest for tailored therapies that maximize efficacy continues. Managing cutaneous exacerbations during melanoma immunotherapy in psoriatic patients remains challenging. Similarly, treating oncologic psoriasis patients resistant to traditional therapies requires individualized approaches. Research is needed to identify response predictors in both conditions and address the sustainability of healthcare systems due to the high cost of biologics. Drug delay studies for psoriasis and longer follow-up evaluations after immunotherapy discontinuation in melanoma are essential for optimizing treatment outcomes and resource allocation.

The future of targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein-4: Is there a role?

The 2022 yearly Think Tank Meeting in Siena, Tuscany (Italy), organized by the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy (NIBIT) Foundation, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy and the World Immunotherapy Council, included a focus on the future of integrating and expanding the use of targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). The conference members exchanged their views on the lessons from targeting CTLA-4 and compared the effect to the impact of blocking Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) or its ligand (PDL1). The increasing experience with both therapeutic approaches and their combination suggests that targeting CTLA-4 may lead to more durable responses for a sizeable proportion of patients, though the specific mechanism is not entirely understood. Overcoming toxicity of blocking CTLA-4 is currently being addressed with different doses and dose regimens, especially when combined with PD1/PDL1 blocking antibodies. Novel therapeutics targeting CTLA-4 hold the promise to reduce toxicities and thus allow different combination strategies in the future. On the whole, the consent was that targeting CTLA-4 remains an important strategy to improve the efficacy of cancer immunotherapies.

Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases: 7-year outcomes and quality of life from the multicenter phase III NIBIT-M2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the phase III NIBIT-M2 study showed a 41% 4-year overall survival (OS) of melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases treated with ipilimumab plus nivolumab. METHODS: Here, we report the 7-year efficacy outcomes and the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) analyses of the NIBIT-M2 study. RESULTS: As of May 1, 2023, at a median follow-up of 67 months (mo), the median OS was 8.5 (95% CI: 6.6-10.3), 8.2 (95% CI: 2.1-14.3) and 29.2 (95% CI: 0-69.9) mo for the fotemustine (F) Arm A, ipilimumab plus fotemustine Arm B, and ipilimumab plus nivolumab Arm C, respectively. The 7-year OS rate was 10.0% (95% CI: 0-22.5) in Arm A, 10.3% (95% CI: 0-22.6) in Arm B, and 42.8% (95% CI: 23.4-62.2) in Arm C. HRQoL was preserved in all treatment arms. Most functional scales evaluated from baseline to W12 were preserved, with a lower mean score decrease for EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and an increase for EORTC QLQ-Brain neoplasm (BN20) in patients receiving ipilimumab plus nivolumab. CONCLUSIONS: With the longest follow-up available to date in melanoma patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, the NIBIT-M2 study continues to show persistent therapeutic efficacy of I ipilimumab plus nivolumab while preserving HRQoL.

Randomized, open-label, phase 2 study of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors of high tumor mutational burden.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitor therapy has demonstrated overall survival benefit in multiple tumor types. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a predictive biomarker for response to immunotherapies. This study evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab+ipilimumab in multiple tumor types based on TMB status evaluated using either tumor tissue (tTMB) or circulating tumor DNA in the blood (bTMB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with high (≥10 mutations per megabase) tTMB (tTMB-H) and/or bTMB (bTMB-H) who were refractory to standard therapies were randomized 2:1 to receive nivolumab+ipilimumab or nivolumab monotherapy in an open-label, phase 2 study (CheckMate 848; NCT03668119). tTMB and bTMB were determined by the Foundation Medicine FoundationOne® CDx test and bTMB Clinical Trial Assay, respectively. The dual primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) in patients with tTMB-H and/or bTMB-H tumors treated with nivolumab+ipilimumab. RESULTS: In total, 201 patients refractory to standard therapies were randomized: 135 had tTMB-H and 125 had bTMB-H; 82 patients had dual tTMB-H/bTMB-H. In patients with tTMB-H, ORR was 38.6% (95% CI 28.4% to 49.6%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 29.8% (95% CI 17.3% to 44.9%) with nivolumab monotherapy. In patients with bTMB-H, ORR was 22.5% (95% CI 13.9% to 33.2%) with nivolumab+ipilimumab and 15.6% (95% CI 6.5% to 29.5%) with nivolumab monotherapy. Early and durable responses to treatment with nivolumab+ipilimumab were seen in patients with tTMB-H or bTMB-H. The safety profile of nivolumab+ipilimumab was manageable, with no new safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors with TMB-H, as determined by tissue biopsy or by blood sample when tissue biopsy is unavailable, who have no other treatment options, may benefit from nivolumab+ipilimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03668119.

Immunotherapy of mesothelioma: the evolving change of a long-standing therapeutic dream.

Pleural mesothelioma (PM) is an aggressive and rare disease, characterized by a very poor prognosis. For almost two decades, the world standard treatment regimen for unresectable PM has consisted of a platinum-based drug plus pemetrexed, leading to an overall survival of approximately 12 months. The dramatic therapeutic scenario of PM has recently changed with the entry into the clinic of immune checkpoint inhibition, which has proven to be an effective approach to improve the survival of PM patients. The aim of the present review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the most promising immunotherapeutic-based strategies currently under investigation for advanced PM.

Permanent diabetes insipidus in a patient with mesothelioma treated with immunotherapy

SUMMARY Checkpoint inhibitors have substantially improved the prognosis for patients with advanced malignancy. Treatment with immunomodulants has the ability to reactivate the immune system against tumor cells, but can also trigger the development of immune-related adverse events that reflects a loss of tolerance of the immune system for self-antigens. Regarding the endocrine system, thyroid and pituitary are the most frequent glands involved; in particular hypophysitis is commonly observed with anti-CTLA4 with a variable impaired anterior pituitary dysfunction (mainly ACTH and TSH dysregulation) while a posterior pituitary dysfunction has been rarely described. A 68-year-old man with a diagnosis of metastatic mesothelioma started in September 2016 first-line treatment with tremelimumab and durvalumab. After 3 cycles he presented sudden onset of polydipsia and polyuria without other symptoms. Diagnostic work-up, including a water deprivation test, established a diagnosis of central diabetes insipidus. Patient started sublingual desmopressin 60 mcg three times a day, that was subsequently increased up to 480 mcg/die. At magnetic resonance imaging the posterior lobe of pituitary gland did not show high signal intensity on T1-weighted images. After regression of diabetes insipidus symptoms under desmopressin, patient restarted cancer treatment and received additional 10 doses without worsening of endocrinological toxicity or further treatment-related toxicities, maintaining the same desmopressin dosage. Posterior pituitary dysfunction has been rarely observed in patients treated with immunomodulants. To our knowledge, this is the first observation of permanent central diabetes insipidus in patients treated with combined immune checkpoint inhibitors (tremelimumab and durvalumab).