Transcriptomic analysis of GITR and GITR ligand reveals cancer immune heterogeneity with implications for GITR targeting.

Glucocorticoid-induced tumor necrosis factor related protein (GITR) is a transmembrane protein expressed mostly on CD25+CD4+ regulatory T-cells (Tregs) and upregulated on all T-cells upon activation. It is a T-cell co-stimulatory receptor and has demonstrated promising anti-tumor activity in pre-clinical studies. To date, however, the efficacy of GITR agonism has been discouraging in clinical trials. This study explores GITR and GITR ligand (GITR-L) ribonucleic acid (RNA) expression in solid tumors in an attempt to delineate causes for variable responses to GITR agonists. RNA expression levels of 514 patients with a variety of cancer types were normalized to internal housekeeping gene profiles and ranked as percentiles. 99/514 patients (19.3%) had high GITR expression (defined as ≥ 75th percentile). Breast and lung cancer had the highest proportion of patients with high GITR expression (39% and 35%, respectively). The expression of concomitant high GITR and low-moderate GITR-L expression (defined as <75th percentile) was present in 31% and 30% of patients with breast and lung cancer respectively. High GITR expression also showed a significant independent association with high RNA expression of other immune modulator proteins, namely, PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) ≥1 (odds ratio (OR) 2.15, P=0.008), CTLA4 (OR=2.17, P=0.05) and OX40 high RNA expression (OR=2.64, P=0.001). Overall, these results suggest that breast and lung cancer have a high proportion of patients with a GITR and GITR-L RNA expression profile that merits further investigation in GITR agonism studies. The association of high GITR expression with high CTLA4 and OX40 RNA expression, as well as positive PD-L1 IHC, provides a rationale for a combination approach targeting these specific immune modulator proteins in patients whose tumors show such co-expression.

Clinical and Biologic Correlates of ADORA2A Transcriptomic Expression in Cancer.

ADORA2A (adenosine A2a receptor) and ADORA2B propagate immunoregulatory signals, including restricting both innate and adaptive immunity, though recent data also suggest a tumor suppressor effect in certain settings. We evaluated the RNA expression from 514 tumors in a clinical-grade laboratory; 489 patients with advanced/metastatic disease had clinical outcome correlates. Transcript expression was standardized to internal housekeeping genes and ranked (0-100 scale) relative to 735 specimens from 35 different cancer types. Transcript abundance rank values were defined as "low/moderate" (0-74) or "high" (75-100) percentile RNA expression ranks. Overall, 20.8% of tumors had high ADORA2A (≥75 percentile RNA rank). The greatest proportion of high ADORA2A expressors was found in neuroendocrine and breast cancers and sarcomas, whereas the lowest was found in colorectal and ovarian cancers, albeit with patient-to-patient variability. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, there was a significant positive correlation between high ADORA2A RNA expression and a high expression of the immune checkpoint-related molecules PD-1 (p = 0.015), VISTA (p ≤ 0.001), CD38 (p = 0.031), and CD39 (p ≤ 0.001). In 217 immunotherapy-treated patients, high ADORA2A did not correlate significantly with progression-free (p = 0.51) or overall survival (OS) (p = 0.09) from the initiation of the checkpoint blockade. However, high versus not-high ADORA2A transcript expression correlated with longer OS from the time of advanced/metastatic disease (N = 489 patients; (HR 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.95) (p = 0.02)). Therefore, high ADORA2A transcript levels may be a favorable prognostic factor, unrelated to immunotherapy. Importantly, ascertaining co-expression patterns of ADORA2A with PD-1 and VISTA in individual tumors as a basis for the precision co-targeting of ADORA2A and these other checkpoint-related molecules warrants investigation in clinical trials.

KRAS G12C inhibitor combination therapies: current evidence and challenge.

Although KRAS G12C inhibitors have proven that KRAS is a "druggable" target of cancer, KRAS G12C inhibitor monotherapies have demonstrated limited clinical efficacy due to primary and acquired resistance mechanisms. Multiple combinations of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other targeted therapies, such as RTK, SHP2, and MEK inhibitors, have been investigated in clinical trials to overcome the resistance. They have demonstrated promising efficacy especially by combining KRAS G12C and EGFR inhibitors for KRAS G12C-mutated colorectal cancer. Many clinical trials of combinations of KRAS G12C inhibitors with other targeted therapies, such as SOS1, ERK, CDK4/6, and wild-type RAS, are ongoing. Furthermore, preclinical data have suggested additional promising KRAS G12C combinations with YAP/TAZ-TEAD inhibitors, FAK inhibitors, and farnesyltransferase inhibitors. The combinations of KRAS G12C inhibitors with immunotherapies and chemotherapies have also been investigated, and the preliminary results were reported. More recently, KRAS-targeted therapies not limited to KRAS G12C are being developed, potentially broadening the treatment landscape of KRAS-mutated cancers. Rationally combining KRAS inhibitors with other therapeutics is likely to play a significant role in future treatment for KRAS-mutated solid tumors.

Reverse repurposing: Potential utility of cancer drugs in nonmalignant illnesses.

Growth and immune process dysregulation can result in both cancer and nonmalignant disease (hereditary or acquired, with and without predisposition to malignancy). Moreover, perhaps unexpectedly, many nonmalignant illnesses harbor genomic alterations indistinguishable from druggable oncogenic drivers. Therefore, targeted compounds used successfully to treat cancer may have therapeutic potential for nonmalignant conditions harboring the same target. MEK, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), and NRG1/ERBB pathway genes have all been implicated in both cancer and noncancerous conditions, and several cognate antagonists, as well as Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, and CD20-directed antibodies, have established or theoretical therapeutic potential to bridge cancer and benign diseases. Intriguingly, pharmacologically tractable cancer drivers characterize a wide spectrum of disorders without malignant potential, including but not limited to Alzheimer's disease and a variety of other neurodegenerative conditions, rheumatoid arthritis, achondroplastic dwarfism, and endometriosis. Expanded repositioning of oncology agents in order to benefit benign but serious medical illnesses is warranted.

High indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase transcript levels predict better outcome after front-line cancer immunotherapy.

Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1), which catabolizes tryptophan, is a potential target to unlock the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Correlations between IDO1 and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) efficacy remain unclear. Herein, we investigated IDO1 transcript expression across cancers and clinical outcome correlations. High IDO1 transcripts were more frequent in uterine (54.2%) and ovarian cancer (37.2%) but varied between and within malignancies. High IDO1 RNA expression was associated with high expression of PD-L1 (immune checkpoint ligand), CXCL10 (an effector T cell recruitment chemokine), and STAT1 (a component of the JAK-STAT pathway) (all multivariable p < 0.05). PIK3CA and CTCF alterations were more frequent in the high IDO1 group. High IDO1 expression was an independent predictor of progression-free survival (adjusted HR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.20-0.99, p = 0.049) and overall survival (adjusted HR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.87, p = 0.026) after front-line ICIs. IDO1 expression warrants further exploration as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy. Moreover, co-expressed immunoregulatory molecules merit exploration for co-targeting.

A Phase I Study of KIN-3248, an Irreversible Small-molecule Pan-FGFR Inhibitor, in Patients with Advanced FGFR2/3-driven Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Despite efficacy of approved FGFR inhibitors, emergence of polyclonal secondary mutations in the FGFR kinase domain leads to acquired resistance. KIN-3248 is a selective, irreversible, orally bioavailable, small-molecule inhibitor of FGFR1-4 that blocks both primary oncogenic and secondary kinase domain resistance FGFR alterations. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A first-in-human, phase I study of KIN-3248 was conducted in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring FGFR2 and/or FGFR3 gene alterations (NCT05242822). The primary objective was determination of MTD/recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary and exploratory objectives included antitumor activity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and molecular response by circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) clearance. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients received doses ranging from 5 to 50 mg orally daily across six cohorts. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (48.1%), gastric (9.3%), and urothelial (7.4%) were the most common tumors. Tumors harbored FGFR2 (68.5%) or FGFR3 (31.5%) alterations-23 (42.6%) received prior FGFR inhibitors. One dose-limiting toxicity (hypersensitivity) occurred in cohort 1 (5 mg). Treatment-related, adverse events included hyperphosphatemia, diarrhea, and stomatitis. The MTD/RP2D was not established. Exposure was dose proportional and concordant with hyperphosphatemia. Five partial responses were observed; 4 in FGFR inhibitor naïve and 1 in FGFR pretreated patients. Pretreatment ctDNA profiling confirmed FGFR2/3 alterations in 63.3% of cases and clearance at cycle 2 associated with radiographic response. CONCLUSION: The trial was terminated early for commercial considerations; therefore, RP2D was not established. Preliminary clinical data suggest that KIN-3248 is a safe, oral FGFR1-4 inhibitor with favorable pharmacokinetic parameters, though further dose escalation was required to nominate the MTD/RP2D. SIGNIFICANCE: KIN-3248 was a rationally designed, next generation selective FGFR inhibitor, that was effective in interfering with both FGFR wild-type and mutant signaling. Clinical data indicate that KIN-3248 is safe with a signal of antitumor activity. Translational science support the mechanism of action in that serum phosphate was proportional with exposure, paired biopsies suggested phospho-ERK inhibition (a downstream target of FGFR2/3), and ctDNA clearance may act as a RECIST response surrogate.

OX40/OX40 ligand and its role in precision immune oncology.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have changed the treatment landscape for various malignancies; however, their benefit is limited to a subset of patients. The immune machinery includes both mediators of suppression/immune evasion, such as PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4, and LAG-3, all of which can be inhibited by specific antibodies, and immune-stimulatory molecules, such as T-cell co-stimulatory receptors that belong to the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily (TNFRSF), including OX40 receptor (CD134; TNFRSF4), 4-1BB (CD137; TNFRSF9), and glucocorticoid-induced TNFR-related (GITR) protein (CD357; TNFRSF18). In particular, OX40 and its binding ligand OX40L (CD134L; TNFSF4; CD252) are critical for immunoregulation. When OX40 on activated T cells binds OX40L on antigen-presenting cells, T-cell activation and immune stimulation are initiated via enhanced T-cell survival, proliferation and cytotoxicity, memory T-cell formation, and abrogation of regulatory T cell (Treg) immunosuppressive functions. OX40 agonists are in clinical trials both as monotherapy and in combination with other immunotherapy agents, in particular specific checkpoint inhibitors, for cancer treatment. To date, however, only a minority of patients respond. Transcriptomic profiling reveals that OX40 and OX40L expression vary between and within tumor types, and that only ~ 17% of cancer patients have high OX40 and low OX40L, one of the expression patterns that might be theoretically amenable to OX40 agonist enhancement. Taken together, the data suggest that the OX40/OX40L machinery is a critical part of the immune stimulatory system and that understanding endogenous expression patterns of these molecules and co-existing checkpoints merits further investigation in the context of a precision immunotherapy strategy for cancer therapy.

If it's a target, it's a pan-cancer target: Tissue is not the issue.

Cancer is traditionally diagnosed and treated on the basis of its organ of origin (e.g., lung or colon cancer). However, organ-of-origin diagnostics does not reveal the underlying oncogenic drivers. Fortunately, molecular diagnostics have advanced at a breathtaking pace, and it is increasingly apparent that cancer is a disease of the genome. Hence, we now have multiple genomic biomarker-based, tissue-agnostic Food and Drug Administration approvals for both gene- and immune-targeted therapies (larotrectinib/entrectinib, for NTRK fusions; selpercatinib, RET fusions; dabrafenib plus trametinib, BRAFV600E mutations; pembrolizumab/dostarlimab, microsatellite instability; and pembrolizumab for high tumor mutational burden; pemigatinib is also approved for FGFR1-rearranged myeloid/lymphoid neoplasms). There are emerging targets as well, including but not limited to ALK, BRCA and/or homologous repair deficiency, ERBB2 (HER2), IDH1/2, KIT, KRASG12C, NRG1, and VHL. Many tissue-agnostic approvals center on rare/ultra-rare biomarkers (often < 1 % of cancers), necessitating screening hundreds of tumors to find a single one harboring the cognate molecular alteration. Approval has generally been based on small single-arm studies (<30-100 patients) with high response rates (>30 % to > 75 %) of remarkable durability. Because of biomarker rarity, single-gene testing is not practical; next generation sequencing of hundreds of genes must be performed to obtain timely answers. Resistance to biomarker-driven therapeutics is often due to secondary mutations or co-driver gene defects; studies are now addressing the need for customized drug combinations matched to the complex molecular alteration portfolio in each tumor. Future investigation should expand tissue-agnostic therapeutics to encompass both hematologic and solid malignancies and include biomarkers beyond those that are DNA-based.

Neuregulin-1 and ALS19 (ERBB4): at the crossroads of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neuregulin-1 (NRG1) is implicated in both cancer and neurologic diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS); however, to date, there has been little cross-field discussion between neurology and oncology in regard to these genes and their functions. MAIN BODY: Approximately 0.15-0.5% of cancers harbor NRG1 fusions that upregulate NRG1 activity and hence that of the cognate ERBB3/ERBB4 (HER3/HER4) receptors; abrogating this activity with small molecule inhibitors/antibodies shows preliminary tissue-agnostic anti-cancer activity. Notably, ERBB/HER pharmacologic suppression is devoid of neurologic toxicity. Even so, in ALS, attenuated ERBB4/HER4 receptor activity (due to loss-of-function germline mutations or other mechanisms in sporadic disease) is implicated; indeed, ERBB4/HER4 is designated ALS19. Further, secreted-type NRG1 isoforms may be upregulated (perhaps via a feedback loop) and could contribute to ALS pathogenesis through aberrant glial cell stimulation via enhanced activity of other (e.g., ERBB1-3/HER1-3) receptors and downstream pathways. Hence, pan-ERBB inhibitors, already in use for cancer, may be agents worthy of testing in ALS. CONCLUSION: Common signaling cascades between cancer and ALS may represent novel therapeutic targets for both diseases.

Evolution of Precision Oncology, Personalized Medicine, and Molecular Tumor Boards.

With multiple molecular targeted therapies available for patients with cancer that correspond to a specific genetic alteration, the selection of the best treatment is essential to ensure therapeutic efficacy. Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) play a key role in this process to deliver personalized medicine to patients with cancer in a multidisciplinary manner. Historically, personalized medicine has been offered to patients with advanced cancer, but the incorporation of molecular targeted therapies and immunotherapy into the perioperative setting requires clinicians to understand the role of the MTB. Evidence is accumulating to support feasibility and survival benefit in patients treated with matched therapy.

LAG-3 transcriptomic expression correlates linearly with other checkpoints, but not with clinical outcomes.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the treatment landscape for patients with cancer. Multi-omics, including next-generation DNA and RNA sequencing, have enabled the identification of exploitable targets and the evaluation of immune mediator expression. There is one FDA-approved LAG-3 inhibitor and multiple in clinical trials for numerous cancers. We analyzed LAG-3 transcriptomic expression among 514 patients with diverse cancers, including 489 patients with clinical annotation for their advanced malignancies. Transcriptomic LAG-3 expression was highly variable between histologies/cancer types and within the same histology/cancer type. LAG-3 RNA levels correlated linearly, albeit weakly, with high RNA levels of other checkpoints, including PD-L1 (Pearson's R2 = 0.21 (P < 0.001)), PD-1 (R2 = 0.24 (P < 0.001)) and CTLA-4 (R2 = 0.19 (P < 0.001)); when examined for Spearman correlation, significance did not change. LAG-3 expression (dichotomized at ≥ 75th (high) versus < 75th (moderate/low) RNA percentile level) was not a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) in 272 immunotherapy-naïve patients with advanced/metastatic disease (Kaplan Meier analysis; P = 0.54). High LAG-3 levels correlated with longer OS after anti-PD-1/PD-L1-based checkpoint blockade (univariate (P = 0.003), but not multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval = 0.80 (0.46-1.40) (P = 0.44))); correlation with longer progression-free survival showed a weak univariate trend (P = 0.13). Taken together, these results suggest that high LAG-3 levels in and of themselves do not predict resistance to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 checkpoint blockade. Even so, since LAG-3 is often co-expressed with PD-1, PD-L1 and/or CTLA-4, selecting patients for combinations of checkpoint blockade based on immunomic co-expression patterns is a strategy that merits exploration.

High CTLA-4 transcriptomic expression correlates with high expression of other checkpoints and with immunotherapy outcome.

Background: CTLA-4 impedes the immune system's antitumor response. There are two Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-CTLA-4 agents - ipilimumab and tremelimumab - both used together with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 agents. Objective: To assess the prognostic implications and immunologic correlates of high CTLA-4 in tumors of patients on immunotherapy and those on non-immunotherapy treatments. Design/methods: We evaluated RNA expression levels in a clinical-grade laboratory and clinical correlates of CTLA-4 and other immune checkpoints in 514 tumors, including 489 patients with advanced/metastatic cancers and full outcome annotation. A reference population (735 tumors; 35 histologies) was used to normalize and rank transcript abundance (0-100 percentile) to internal housekeeping gene profiles. Results: The most common tumor types were colorectal (140/514, 27%), pancreatic (55/514, 11%), breast (49/514, 10%), and ovarian cancers (43/514, 8%). Overall, 87 of 514 tumors (16.9%) had high CTLA-4 transcript expression (⩾75th percentile rank). Cancers with the largest proportion of high CTLA-4 transcripts were cervical cancer (80% of patients), small intestine cancer (33.3%), and melanoma (33.3%). High CTLA-4 RNA independently/significantly correlated with high PD-1, PD- L2, and LAG3 RNA levels (and with high PD-L1 in univariate analysis). High CTLA-4 RNA expression was not correlated with survival from the time of metastatic disease [N = 272 patients who never received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)]. However, in 217 patients treated with ICIs (mostly anti-PD-1/anti-PD- L1), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly longer among patients with high versus non-high CTLA-4 expression [hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval: 0.6 (0.4-0.9) p = 0.008; and 0.5 (0.3-0.8) p = 0.002, respectively]; results were unchanged when 18 patients who received anti-CTLA-4 were omitted. Patients whose tumors had high CTLA-4 and high PD-L1 did best; those with high PD-L1 but non-high CTLA-4 and/or other expression patterns had poorer outcomes for PFS (p = 0.004) and OS (p = 0.009) after immunotherapy. Conclusion: High CTLA-4, especially when combined with high PD-L1 transcript expression, was a significant positive predictive biomarker for better outcomes (PFS and OS) in patients on immunotherapy.

High CTLA-4 expression and immunotherapy outcome High CTLA-4 expression was not a prognostic factor for survival in patients not receiving ICIs but was a significant positive predictive biomarker for better outcome (PFS and OS) in patients on immunotherapy, perhaps because it correlated with expression of other checkpoints such as PD-1 and PD-L2.

Pan-cancer analysis of TIM-3 transcriptomic expression reveals high levels in pancreatic cancer and interpatient heterogeneity.

BACKGROUND: T-cell immunoglobulin and mucin domain-containing protein 3 (TIM-3), an immune checkpoint receptor, dampens immune function. TIM-3 antagonists have entered the clinic. METHODS: We analyzed TIM-3 transcriptomic expression in 514 diverse cancers. Transcript abundance was normalized to internal housekeeping genes and ranked (0-100 percentile) to a reference population (735 tumors; 35 histologies [high≥75 percentile rank]). Ninety tumors (17.5%) demonstrated high TIM-3 expression. RESULTS: TIM-3 expression varied between and within tumor types. However, high TIM-3 expression was more common in pancreatic cancer (20/55 tumors, 36.4%; odds ratio, 95% confidence interval (pancreatic vs. other tumors) = 3.176 (1.733-5.818; p < 0.001, multivariate]). High TIM-3 also significantly and independently correlated with high PD-L1 (p = 0.014) and high CTLA-4 (p < 0.001) transcriptomic expression (multivariate). CONCLUSIONS: These observations indicate that TIM-3 RNA expression is heterogeneous, but more common in pancreatic cancer and in tumors exploiting PD-L1 and CTLA-4 checkpoints. Clinical trials with patient selection for matched immune-targeted combinations may be warranted.

At the right dose: personalised (N-of-1) dosing for precision oncology.

The objective of oncology therapeutics, especially in the age of precision medicine, is to give the right drug(s) to the right patient at the right time. Yet, a major challenge is finding the right dose for each patient. Determining safe and efficacious doses of oncology treatments, especially for novel combination therapies, can be challenging. Moreover, traditionally, dosing cancer drugs is based on giving each patient the same dose (a flat dose) or a dose based on surface area/weight. But patients' ability to tolerate drugs is influenced by additional factors including, but not limited to age, gender, race, comorbidities, organ function, and metabolism. Herein, we present evidence that, in the era of targeted drugs, individualised drug dosing determined by starting at reduced doses and using intrapatient dose escalation can yield safe and effective personalised dosing of novel combinations of approved drugs that have not previously undergone formal phase I trials and can also optimise dosing of tested drug regimens.

ALK fusions in the pan-cancer setting: another tumor-agnostic target?

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) alterations (activating mutations, amplifications, and fusions/rearrangements) occur in ~3.3% of cancers. ALK fusions/rearrangements are discerned in >50% of inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors (IMTs) and anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs), but only in ~0.2% of other cancers outside of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a rate that may be below the viability threshold of even large-scale treatment trials. Five ALK inhibitors -alectinib, brigatinib, ceritinb, crizotinib, and lorlatinib-are FDA approved for ALK-aberrant NSCLCs, and crizotinib is also approved for ALK-aberrant IMTs and ALCL, including in children. Herein, we review the pharmacologic tractability of ALK alterations, focusing beyond NSCLC. Importantly, the hallmark of approved indications is the presence of ALK fusions/rearrangements, and response rates of ~50-85%. Moreover, there are numerous reports of ALK inhibitor activity in multiple solid and hematologic tumors (e.g., histiocytosis, leiomyosarcoma, lymphoma, myeloma, and colorectal, neuroendocrine, ovarian, pancreatic, renal, and thyroid cancer) bearing ALK fusions/rearrangements. Many reports used crizotinib or alectinib, but each of the approved ALK inhibitors have shown activity. ALK inhibitor activity is also seen in neuroblastoma, which bear ALK mutations (rather than fusions/rearrangements), but response rates are lower (~10-20%). Current data suggests that ALK inhibitors have tissue-agnostic activity in neoplasms bearing ALK fusions/rearrangements.

Challenges and prospects of CSF1R targeting for advanced malignancies.

CSF1R expression modulates tumor-associated macrophages, making CSF1R blockade an appealing immune-modulating therapeutic target. We evaluated the correlation between CSF1R tumor RNA expression and outcome (pan-cancer setting). RNA expression was ranked as a percentile (0-100) using a standardized internal reference population (735 tumors; 35 histologies). Among 514 patients, there was no difference in survival from biopsy between high and low CSF1R expressors (< 50 percentile versus ≥ 50 percentile rank). There was also no significant difference in median progression-free or overall survival (from treatment) based on CSF1R expression in 21 patients who received CSF1R inhibitors (all p values ≥ 0.08). Concurrent upregulation of ≥ 2 additional immune checkpoint markers (e.g. PD-L1, BTLA, CTLA4, LAG3, TIM3) was observed in all tumor samples with CSF1R expression ≥ 50th percentile. Pending further large prospective studies, patients with high tumor CSF1R expression may need treatment that co-targets the specific immune checkpoint pathways activated in order to impact outcome.

Cancer-Immunity Marker RNA Expression Levels across Gynecologic Cancers: Implications for Immunotherapy.

Our objective was to characterize cancer-immunity marker expression in gynecologic cancers and compare immune landscapes between gynecologic tumor subtypes and with nongynecologic solid tumors. RNA expression levels of 51 cancer-immunity markers were analyzed in patients with gynecologic cancers versus nongynecologic cancers, and normalized to a reference population of 735 control cancers, ranked from 0 to 100, and categorized as low (0-24), moderate (25-74), or high (75-100) percentile rank. Of the 72 patients studied, 43 (60%) had ovarian, 24 (33%) uterine, and 5 (7%) cervical cancer. No two immune profiles were identical according to expression rank (0-100) or rank level (low, moderate, or high). Patients with cervical cancer had significantly higher expression level ranks of immune activating, proinflammatory, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte markers, and checkpoints than patients with uterine or ovarian cancer (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). However, there were no significant differences in immune marker expression between uterine and ovarian cancers. Tumors with PD-L1 tumor proportional score (TPS) ≥1% versus 0% had significantly higher expression levels of proinflammatory markers (58 vs. 49%, P = 0.0004). Compared to patients with nongynecologic cancers, more patients with gynecologic cancers express high levels of IDO-1 (44 vs. 13%, P < 0.001), LAG3 (35 vs. 21%, P = 0.008), and IL10 (31 vs. 15%, P = 0.002.) Patients with gynecologic cancers have complex and heterogeneous immune landscapes that are distinct from patient to patient and from other solid tumors. High levels of IDO1 and LAG3 suggest that clinical trials with IDO1 inhibitors or LAG3 inhibitors, respectively, may be warranted in gynecologic cancers.

T-cell priming transcriptomic markers: implications of immunome heterogeneity for precision immunotherapy.

Immune checkpoint blockade is effective for only a subset of cancers. Targeting T-cell priming markers (TPMs) may enhance activity, but proper application of these agents in the clinic is challenging due to immune complexity and heterogeneity. We interrogated transcriptomics of 15 TPMs (CD137, CD27, CD28, CD80, CD86, CD40, CD40LG, GITR, ICOS, ICOSLG, OX40, OX40LG, GZMB, IFNG, and TBX21) in a pan-cancer cohort (N = 514 patients, 30 types of cancer). TPM expression was analyzed for correlation with histological type, microsatellite instability high (MSI-H), tumor mutational burden (TMB), and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. Among 514 patients, the most common histological types were colorectal (27%), pancreatic (11%), and breast cancer (10%). No statistically significant association between histological type and TPM expression was seen. In contrast, expression of GZMB (granzyme B, a serine protease stored in activated T and NK cells that induces cancer cell apoptosis) and IFNG (activates cytotoxic T cells) were significantly higher in tumors with MSI-H, TMB ≥ 10 mutations/mb and PD-L1 ≥ 1%. PD-L1 ≥ 1% was also associated with significantly higher CD137, GITR, and ICOS expression. Patients' tumors were classified into "Hot", "Mixed", or "Cold" clusters based on TPM expression using hierarchical clustering. The cold cluster showed a significantly lower proportion of tumors with PD-L1 ≥ 1%. Overall, 502 patients (98%) had individually distinct patterns of TPM expression. Diverse expression patterns of TPMs independent of histological type but correlating with other immunotherapy biomarkers (PD-L1 ≥ 1%, MSI-H and TMB ≥ 10 mutations/mb) were observed. Individualized selection of patients based on TPM immunomic profiles may potentially help with immunotherapy optimization.

Comprehensive Analysis of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Through DNA, mRNA, and Protein in Diverse Malignancies.

PURPOSE: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression (protein immunohistochemistry [IHC] or gene amplification [copy-number variation, CNV]) predicts anti-HER2 therapy responsiveness, although recently it was shown that even low HER2-expressing breast cancers benefit from trastuzumab-deruxtecan. Little is known about HER2 transcriptomic (mRNA) expression, and comparisons between genomic, mRNA, and protein HER2 assays. METHODS: HER2 status was evaluated using clinical-grade IHC (protein), quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (mRNA), and next-generation sequencing (NGS; amplifications). RESULTS: Multi-institutional HER2 testing was performed on 5,305 diverse cancers including non-small-cell lung (n = 1,175), breast (n = 1,040), and colon cancers (n = 566; N = 3,926 tested for CNV; N = 1,848, mRNA; N = 2,533, IHC). Overall, 4.1% (161/3,926) had NGS HER2 amplification; 33.3% (615/1,848) had mRNA overexpression; and 9.3% (236/2,533) were IHC-positive. In 723 patients with all three tests (CNV/mRNA/IHC), various amplification/expression patterns occurred: 7.5% (54/723) had all three HER2 tests positive; 62.8% (454/723) had all three tests negative. Discrepant patterns between amplification and overexpression emerged. For instance, 20% (144/723) of patients had mRNA overexpression alone with negative CNV and IHC. A range in values for only mRNA+ cases occurred in different tumor types (eg, 16.9%, breast; 5%, hepatobiliary). There were 53 patients with various tumors from our institution who had all three assays attempted; 22 tested positive for HER2, and seven received anti-HER2 therapy: two patients achieved response: one (esophageal cancer), complete response (≥42 months); one (cholangiocarcinoma), who only had HER2 mRNA positivity (tissue was inadequate for IHC and CNV assessment), partial response (≥24 months) on HER2-based regimens. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate variability of HER2 (protein and mRNA) expression and amplification using comprehensive assays (CNV, mRNA, and IHC) among diverse cancers. As HER2-targeted therapy indications expand, the relative importance of these modalities merits further evaluation.