Semmaphorin 3 A causes immune suppression by inducing cytoskeletal paralysis in tumour-specific CD8+ T cells.

Semaphorin-3A (SEMA3A) functions as a chemorepulsive signal during development and can affect T cells by altering their filamentous actin (F-actin) cytoskeleton. The exact extent of these effects on tumour-specific T cells are not completely understood. Here we demonstrate that Neuropilin-1 (NRP1) and Plexin-A1 and Plexin-A4 are upregulated on stimulated CD8+ T cells, allowing tumour-derived SEMA3A to inhibit T cell migration and assembly of the immunological synapse. Deletion of NRP1 in both CD4+ and CD8+ T cells enhance CD8+ T-cell infiltration into tumours and restricted tumour growth in animal models. Conversely, over-expression of SEMA3A inhibit CD8+ T-cell infiltration. We further show that SEMA3A affects CD8+ T cell F-actin, leading to inhibition of immune synapse formation and motility. Examining a clear cell renal cell carcinoma patient cohort, we find that SEMA3A expression is associated with reduced survival, and that T-cells appear trapped in SEMA3A rich regions. Our study establishes SEMA3A as an inhibitor of effector CD8+ T cell tumour infiltration, suggesting that blocking NRP1 could improve T cell function in tumours.

ATF4-SLC7A11-GSH axis mediates the acquisition of immunosuppressive properties by activated CD4+ T cells in low arginine condition.

The tumor microenvironment (TME) is restricted in metabolic nutrients including the semi-essential amino acid arginine. While complete arginine deprivation causes T cell dysfunction, it remains unclear how arginine levels fluctuate in the TME to shape T cell fates. Here, we find that the 20-µM low arginine condition, representing the levels found in the plasma of patients with cancers, confers Treg-like immunosuppressive capacities upon activated T cells. In vivo mouse tumor models and human single-cell RNA-sequencing datasets reveal positive correlations between low arginine condition and intratumoral Treg accumulation. Mechanistically, low arginine-activated T cells engage in metabolic and transcriptional reprogramming, using the ATF4-SLC7A11-GSH axis, to preserve their suppressive function. These findings improve our understanding of the role of arginine in human T cell biology with potential applications for immunotherapy strategies.

Untutored training pathway to achieve competence in esophagogastric endoscopic submucosal dissection in a Western center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has a long learning curve. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of an ESD unsupervised training model for experienced endoscopists. METHODS: Stepwise training included a visit to a high-volume center, unsupervised training on an ex vivo porcine model, and in vivo human upper GI cases with anatomic progression. Performance measures included en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse event rates, and operating time. RESULTS: After observation of 30 esophagogastric ESDs and 15 untutored ex vivo ESDs, 5 human cases of distal gastric ESDs were performed, followed by 55 unselected esophagogastric cases. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 93.0% and 80.7%, respectively. Operating time was 14.0 min/cm2 in the stomach and 25.1 min/cm2 in the esophagus, with evidence of a learning curve for esophageal ESDs (first block 30.26 min/cm2 vs second block 14.81 min/cm2, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Untutored training for esophagogastric ESD is feasible and allows endoscopists, experienced in therapeutic endoscopy, to achieve the required standards toward competency.

Lynch syndrome: from detection to treatment.

Lynch syndrome (LS) is an inherited cancer predisposition syndrome associated with high lifetime risk of developing tumours, most notably colorectal and endometrial. It arises in the context of pathogenic germline variants in one of the mismatch repair genes, that are necessary to maintain genomic stability. LS remains underdiagnosed in the population despite national recommendations for empirical testing in all new colorectal and endometrial cancer cases. There are now well-established colorectal cancer surveillance programmes, but the high rate of interval cancers identified, coupled with a paucity of high-quality evidence for extra-colonic cancer surveillance, means there is still much that can be achieved in diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. The widespread adoption of preventative pharmacological measures is on the horizon and there are exciting advances in the role of immunotherapy and anti-cancer vaccines for treatment of these highly immunogenic LS-associated tumours. In this review, we explore the current landscape and future perspectives for the identification, risk stratification and optimised management of LS with a focus on the gastrointestinal system. We highlight the current guidelines on diagnosis, surveillance, prevention and treatment and link molecular disease mechanisms to clinical practice recommendations.

Cytosponge-TFF3 Testing can Detect Precancerous Mucosal Changes of the Stomach.

Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and gastric atrophy (GA) are associated with increased risk of gastric cancer and are indications for endoscopic surveillance when affecting the proximal stomach.1 Endoscopic screening is not cost-effective in areas with low-moderate incidence of gastric cancer2; noninvasive methods to detect GIM/GA are currently lacking.3.

Optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using convolutional neural networks.

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard investigation for colorectal cancer screening as it offers the opportunity to both detect and resect pre-malignant and neoplastic polyps. Although technologies for image-enhanced endoscopy are widely available, optical diagnosis has not been incorporated into routine clinical practice, mainly due to significant inter-operator variability. In recent years, there has been a growing number of studies demonstrating the potential of convolutional neural networks (CNN) to enhance optical diagnosis of polyps. Data suggest that the use of CNNs might mitigate the inter-operator variability amongst endoscopists, potentially enabling a "resect and discard" or "leave in" strategy to be adopted in real-time. This would have significant financial benefits for healthcare systems, avoid unnecessary polypectomies of non-neoplastic polyps and improve the efficiency of colonoscopy. Here, we review advances in CNN for the optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps, current limitations and future directions.

Chromatin accessibility governs the differential response of cancer and T cells to arginine starvation.

Depleting the microenvironment of important nutrients such as arginine is a key strategy for immune evasion by cancer cells. Many tumors overexpress arginase, but it is unclear how these cancers, but not T cells, tolerate arginine depletion. In this study, we show that tumor cells synthesize arginine from citrulline by upregulating argininosuccinate synthetase 1 (ASS1). Under arginine starvation, ASS1 transcription is induced by ATF4 and CEBPß binding to an enhancer within ASS1. T cells cannot induce ASS1, despite the presence of active ATF4 and CEBPß, as the gene is repressed. Arginine starvation drives global chromatin compaction and repressive histone methylation, which disrupts ATF4/CEBPß binding and target gene transcription. We find that T cell activation is impaired in arginine-depleted conditions, with significant metabolic perturbation linked to incomplete chromatin remodeling and misregulation of key genes. Our results highlight a T cell behavior mediated by nutritional stress, exploited by cancer cells to enable pathological immune evasion.

Update on the Genetics of and Systemic Therapy Options for Combined Hepatocellular Cholangiocarcinoma.

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-ICC) is an uncommon and aggressive form of primary liver cancer. Currently, there are no international guidelines for optimal management. For localized tumors, radical resection represents the preferred treatment option, whereas for advanced tumors, systemic therapies recommended for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are often selected. Emerging information from comparative cohort studies, genomic and transcriptomic data sets are starting to build a case for rationalized approaches to systemic treatment in the advanced setting specific to cHCC-ICC.

Structural and functional characterization of C0021158, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that inhibits Arginase 2 function via a novel non-competitive mechanism of action.

Arginase 2 (ARG2) is a binuclear manganese metalloenzyme that catalyzes the hydrolysis of L-arginine. The dysregulated expression of ARG2 within specific tumor microenvironments generates an immunosuppressive niche that effectively renders the tumor 'invisible' to the host's immune system. Increased ARG2 expression leads to a concomitant depletion of local L-arginine levels, which in turn leads to suppression of anti-tumor T-cell-mediated immune responses. Here we describe the isolation and characterization of a high affinity antibody (C0021158) that inhibits ARG2 enzymatic function completely, effectively restoring T-cell proliferation in vitro. Enzyme kinetic studies confirmed that C0021158 exhibits a noncompetitive mechanism of action, inhibiting ARG2 independently of L-arginine concentrations. To elucidate C0021158's inhibitory mechanism at a structural level, the co-crystal structure of the Fab in complex with trimeric ARG2 was solved. C0021158's epitope was consequently mapped to an area some distance from the enzyme's substrate binding cleft, indicating an allosteric mechanism was being employed. Following C0021158 binding, distinct regions of ARG2 undergo major conformational changes. Notably, the backbone structure of a surface-exposed loop is completely rearranged, leading to the formation of a new short helix structure at the Fab-ARG2 interface. Moreover, this large-scale structural remodeling at ARG2's epitope translates into more subtle changes within the enzyme's active site. An arginine residue at position 39 is reoriented inwards, sterically impeding the binding of L-arginine. Arg39 is also predicted to alter the pKA of a key catalytic histidine residue at position 160, further attenuating ARG2's enzymatic function. In silico molecular docking simulations predict that L-arginine is unable to bind effectively when antibody is bound, a prediction supported by isothermal calorimetry experiments using an L-arginine mimetic. Specifically, targeting ARG2 in the tumor microenvironment through the application of C0021158, potentially in combination with standard chemotherapy regimens or alternate immunotherapies, represents a potential new strategy to target immune cold tumors.

Aneuploidy in targeted endoscopic biopsies outperforms other tissue biomarkers in the prediction of histologic progression of Barrett's oesophagus: A multi-centre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The cancer risk in Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is difficult to estimate. Histologic dysplasia has strong predictive power, but can be missed by random biopsies. Other clinical parameters have limited utility for risk stratification. We aimed to assess whether a molecular biomarker panel on targeted biopsies can predict neoplastic progression of BO. METHODS: 203 patients with BO were tested at index endoscopy for 9 biomarkers (p53 and cyclin A expression; aneuploidy and tetraploidy; CDKN2A (p16), RUNX3 and HPP1 hypermethylation; 9p and 17p loss of heterozygosity) on autofluorescence-targeted biopsies and followed-up prospectively. Data comparing progressors to non-progressors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses using survival curves, Cox-proportional hazards and logistic regression models. FINDINGS: 127 patients without high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) at index endoscopy were included, of which 42 had evidence of any histologic progression over time. Aneuploidy was the only predictor of progression from non-dysplastic BO (NDBO) to any grade of neoplasia (p = 0.013) and HGD/OAC (p = 0.002). Aberrant p53 expression correlated with risk of short-term progression within 12 months, with an odds ratio of 6.0 (95% CI: 3.1-11.2). A panel comprising aneuploidy and p53 had an area under the receiving operator characteristics curve of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.59-0.77) for prediction of any progression. INTERPRETATION: Aneuploidy is the only biomarker that predicts neoplastic progression of NDBO. Aberrant p53 expression suggests prevalent dysplasia, which might have been missed by random biopsies, and warrants early follow up.

Standard versus simplified radiofrequency ablation protocol for Barrett's esophagus: comparative analysis of the whole treatment pathway.

Background and study aims The standard radiofrequency ablation (RFA) protocol for Barrett's esophagus (BE) encompasses an intermediary cleaning phase between two ablation sessions. A simplified protocol omitting the cleaning phase is less labor-intensive but equally effective in studies based on single ablation procedures. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of the standard and simplified RFA protocols for the whole treatment pathway for BE, including both circumferential and focal devices. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients receiving RFA between January 2007 and August 2017 at two institutions. Outcomes assessed were: 1) complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) at 18 months; and 2) rate of esophageal strictures. Results One hundred forty-five patients were included of whom 73 patients received the standard and 72 patients received the simplified protocol. CR-D was achieved in 94.5 % and 95.8 % of patients receiving the standard and simplified protocol, respectively ( P  = 0.71). CR-IM was achieved in 84.9 % and 77.8 % of patients treated with the standard and simplified protocol, respectively ( P  = 0.27). Strictures were significantly more common among patients who received the simplified protocol (12.5 %) compared to the standard protocol (1.4 %; P  = 0.008). The median number of esophageal dilations was one. Conclusion The simplified RFA protocol is as effective as the standard protocol in eradicating BE but carries a higher risk of strictures. This needs to be taken into account, particularly in patients with higher pretreatment risk of strictures, such as those with esophageal narrowing from previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

Targeted Therapies and Immunotherapies in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancers.

Esophageal cancer (EC) is among the most frequent and deadly cancers around the world. While esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has one of the fastest-growing incidences amongst cancers in the US, it also has one of the lowest survival rates due to the limited effective treatment options. Fortunately, in the past decade, two targeted therapies and an immunotherapy agent have been approved by the FDA for metastatic EAC and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), with several more currently being considered for approval. In terms of immunotherapies, in July 2019, the FDA approved the PD1 inhibitor pembrolizumab for second-line treatment of PDL1-positive, advanced or metastatic ESCC. Two years before, pembrolizumab had been approved for the third-line treatment of PDL1-positive EAC. The PD1 inhibitor nivolumab, which was found in one study to outperform chemotherapy irrespective of PDL1 status, has yet to secure FDA approval. In terms of targeted therapies, although as many as 90% of EC cases show upregulated EGFR, anti-EGFR therapy has not been shown to improve survival. Ramucirumab, an antibody targeting both VEGF and HER2/neu receptors, has been approved for the treatment of refractory EAC, while the anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) trastuzumab has been approved as front-line treatment for HER2-positive cases which account for approximately 20% of ECs. Although these targeted therapies and immunotherapies have resulted in significant improvements in survival for specific patient populations that are positive for certain biomarkers, such as PDL1 and HER2/neu, the survival rates remain low for a large proportion of the metastatic EC patient population, necessitating the development of further targeted treatment options.

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Various approaches have been developed for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (MRCC). The objective was to assess the efficacy of immunotherapeutic approaches. METHODS: We included participants diagnosed with all types of histologically confirmed MRCC, the test intervention was immunotherapy alone or combined with other immunotherapy or targeted therapies, and the study design was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes were overall survival, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. We conducted the last search in March 31, 2018. RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, and we established seven different treatment comparisons according to the type of data. Two RCTs favored nivolumab as monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab on account of all primary outcomes. The efficacy data of all other comparisons were either indifferent or favored the control group. CONCLUSION: The immune checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab as monotherapy or combined with ipilimumab appears to be the only new immunotherapy that may improve overall survival in participants with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Interferon-α alone is unfavorable to targeted therapies with respect to overall survival and adverse events.

Immunotherapies and Targeted Therapies in the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer deaths, and while mortality has largely improved in the developed world, five-year survival for metastatic disease remains dismally low at only 15%. Fortunately, nearly a dozen targeted therapies and immunotherapies have been FDA approved in the past decade for certain patient profiles with metastatic CRC (mCRC), and many others are under development. Checkpoint inhibitors such as pembrolizumab have proven effective at extending survival for mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient and high microsatellite instability (MSI) mCRC patients. In combination with chemotherapy in first- and second-line treatment, antiangiogenic (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VGEF)) agent bevacizumab has been shown to increase mCRC survival. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) agents panitumumab and cetuximab, in combination with chemotherapy, have also prolonged survival among KRAS and all RAS wild-type mCRC patients. Among these patients, anti-EGFR therapy has been found to be more efficacious than bevacizumab. Improved selectivity has allowed small-molecule receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitors to target VEGF and EGFR with greater efficacy and tolerability. Combinations of immunotherapies, RTKs, monoclonal antibodies, and cytotoxic drugs are being investigated to provide broad-spectrum protection against relapse by simultaneously targeting many cancer hallmarks. Lastly, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapy has shown promise for HER2-positive mCRC patients, though larger clinical trials are required to secure FDA approval.

Pulse-Chase Analysis for Studies of MHC Class II Biosynthesis, Maturation, and Peptide Loading.

Pulse-chase analysis is a commonly used technique for studying the synthesis, processing, and transport of proteins. Cultured cells expressing proteins of interest are allowed to take up radioactively labeled amino acids for a brief interval ("pulse"), during which all newly synthesized proteins incorporate the label. The cells are then returned to nonradioactive culture medium for various times ("chase"), during which proteins may undergo conformational changes, trafficking, or degradation. Proteins of interest are isolated (usually by immunoprecipitation) and resolved by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), and the fate of radiolabeled molecules is examined by autoradiography. This chapter describes a pulse-chase protocol suitable for studies of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II biosynthesis and maturation. We discuss how results are affected by the recognition by certain anti-class II antibodies of distinct class II conformations associated with particular biosynthetic states. Our protocol can be adapted to follow the fate of many other endogenously synthesized proteins, including viral or transfected gene products, in cultured cells.

Comparison of a therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy for people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow disorders encompass a group of diseases characterised by reduced production of red cells, white cells, and platelets, or defects in their function, or both. The most common bone marrow disorder is myelodysplastic syndrome. Thrombocytopenia, a low platelet count, commonly occurs in people with bone marrow failure. Platetet transfusions are routinely used in people with thrombocytopenia secondary to bone marrow failure disorders to treat or prevent bleeding. Myelodysplastic syndrome is currently the most common reason for receiving a platelet transfusion in some Western countries. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (transfusion given when patient is bleeding) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (transfusion given to prevent bleeding according to a prespecified platelet threshold) in people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid Embase (from 1974), PubMed (e-publications only), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 12 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs, non-RCTs, and CBAs that involved the transfusion of platelet concentrates (prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis any dose, frequency, or transfusion trigger) and given to treat or prevent bleeding among people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders.We excluded uncontrolled studies, cross-sectional studies, and case-control studies. We excluded cluster-RCTs, non-randomised cluster trials, and CBAs with fewer than two intervention sites and two control sites due to the risk of confounding. We included all people with long-term bone marrow failure disorders that require platelet transfusions, including neonates. We excluded studies of alternatives to platelet transfusion, or studies of people receiving intensive chemotherapy or a stem cell transplant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane. Due to the absence of evidence we were unable to report on any of the review outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one RCT that met the inclusion criteria for this review. The study enrolled only nine adults with MDS over a three-year study duration period. The trial was terminated due to poor recruitment rate (planned recruitment 60 participants over two years). Assessment of the risk of bias was not possible for all domains. The trial was a single-centre, single-blind trial. The clinical and demographic characteristics of the participants were never disclosed. The trial outcomes relevant to this review were bleeding assessments, mortality, quality of life, and length of hospital stay, but no data were available to report on any of these outcomes.We identified no completed non-RCTs or CBAs.We identified no ongoing RCTs, non-RCTs, or CBAs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of therapeutic platelet transfusion compared with prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with long-term bone marrow failure disorders. This review underscores the urgency of prioritising research in this area. People with bone marrow failure depend on long-term platelet transfusion support, but the only trial that assessed a therapeutic strategy was halted. There is a need for good-quality studies comparing a therapeutic platelet transfusion strategy with a prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy; such trials should include outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life, length of hospital admission, and risk of bleeding.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of people with metastatic cutaneous melanoma, a skin cancer, is generally poor. Recently, new classes of drugs (e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs) have significantly improved patient prognosis, which has drastically changed the landscape of melanoma therapeutic management. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to October 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers and the ASCO database in February 2017, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered RCTs of systemic therapies for people with unresectable lymph node metastasis and distant metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to any other treatment. We checked the reference lists of selected articles to identify further references to relevant trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data, and a third review author independently verified extracted data. We implemented a network meta-analysis approach to make indirect comparisons and rank treatments according to their effectiveness (as measured by the impact on survival) and harm (as measured by occurrence of high-grade toxicity). The same two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias of eligible studies according to Cochrane standards and assessed evidence quality based on the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 122 RCTs (28,561 participants). Of these, 83 RCTs, encompassing 21 different comparisons, were included in meta-analyses. Included participants were men and women with a mean age of 57.5 years who were recruited from hospital settings. Twenty-nine studies included people whose cancer had spread to their brains. Interventions were categorised into five groups: conventional chemotherapy (including single agent and polychemotherapy), biochemotherapy (combining chemotherapy with cytokines such as interleukin-2 and interferon-alpha), immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies), small-molecule targeted drugs used for melanomas with specific gene changes (such as BRAF inhibitors and MEK inhibitors), and other agents (such as anti-angiogenic drugs). Most interventions were compared with chemotherapy. In many cases, trials were sponsored by pharmaceutical companies producing the tested drug: this was especially true for new classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and small-molecule targeted drugs.When compared to single agent chemotherapy, the combination of multiple chemotherapeutic agents (polychemotherapy) did not translate into significantly better survival (overall survival: HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, 6 studies, 594 participants; high-quality evidence; progression-free survival: HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.25, 5 studies, 398 participants; high-quality evidence. Those who received combined treatment are probably burdened by higher toxicity rates (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.71, 3 studies, 390 participants; moderate-quality evidence). (We defined toxicity as the occurrence of grade 3 (G3) or higher adverse events according to the World Health Organization scale.)Compared to chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) improved progression-free survival (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, 6 studies, 964 participants; high-quality evidence), but did not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, 7 studies, 1317 participants; high-quality evidence). Biochemotherapy had higher toxicity rates (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61, 2 studies, 631 participants; high-quality evidence).With regard to immune checkpoint inhibitors, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies plus chemotherapy probably increased the chance of progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92, 1 study, 502 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.01, 2 studies, 1157 participants; low-quality evidence). Compared to chemotherapy alone, anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies is likely to be associated with higher toxicity rates (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.42, 2 studies, 1142 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies (immune checkpoint inhibitors) improved overall survival (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.48, 1 study, 418 participants; high-quality evidence) and probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.61, 2 studies, 957 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may also result in less toxicity than chemotherapy (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.97, 3 studies, 1360 participants; low-quality evidence).Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.66, 1 study, 764 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.60, 2 studies, 1465 participants; high-quality evidence). Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies may result in better toxicity outcomes than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.91, 2 studies, 1465 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone, the combination of anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies was associated with better progression-free survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.46, 2 studies, 738 participants; high-quality evidence). There may be no significant difference in toxicity outcomes (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.92, 2 studies, 764 participants; low-quality evidence) (no data for overall survival were available).The class of small-molecule targeted drugs, BRAF inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma), performed better than chemotherapy in terms of overall survival (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.57, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.34, 2 studies, 925 participants; high-quality evidence), and there may be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.33, 2 studies, 408 participants; low-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, MEK inhibitors (which are active exclusively against BRAF-mutated melanoma) may not significantly improve overall survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.25, 3 studies, 496 participants; low-quality evidence), but they probably lead to better progression-free survival (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.80, 3 studies, 496 participants; moderate-quality evidence). However, MEK inhibitors probably have higher toxicity rates (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.41, 1 study, 91 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to BRAF inhibitors, the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.82, 4 studies, 1784 participants; high-quality evidence). BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was also probably better in terms of progression-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.71, 4 studies, 1784 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and there appears likely to be no significant difference in toxicity (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20, 4 studies, 1774 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of chemotherapy plus anti-angiogenic drugs was probably associated with better overall survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81; moderate-quality evidence) and progression-free survival (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in terms of toxicity (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.32; low-quality evidence). All results for this comparison were based on 324 participants from 2 studies.Network meta-analysis focused on chemotherapy as the common comparator and currently approved treatments for which high- to moderate-quality evidence of efficacy (as represented by treatment effect on progression-free survival) was available (based on the above results) for: biochemotherapy (with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2); anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; anti-CTLA4 plus anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; BRAF inhibitors; MEK inhibitors, and BRAF plus MEK inhibitors. Analysis (which included 19 RCTs and 7632 participants) generated 21 indirect comparisons.The best evidence (moderate-quality evidence) for progression-free survival was found for the following indirect comparisons:• both combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.51) and small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.26) probably improved progression-free survival compared to chemotherapy;• both BRAF inhibitors (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.68) and combinations of small-molecule targeted drugs (HR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.39) were probably associated with better progression-free survival compared to anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies;• biochemotherapy (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.76 to 4.51) probably lead to worse progression-free survival compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs probably improved progression-free survival (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies;• both biochemotherapy (HR 5.05, 95% CI 3.01 to 8.45) and MEK inhibitors (HR 3.16, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.65) were probably associated with worse progression-free survival compared to the combination of small-molecule targeted drugs; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.11) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.The best evidence(moderate-quality evidence) for toxicity was found for the following indirect comparisons:• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors (RR 3.49, 95% CI 2.12 to 5.77) probably increased toxicity compared to chemotherapy;• combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.20 to 5.20) compared to BRAF inhibitors;• the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors probably increased toxicity (RR 3.83, 95% CI 2.59 to 5.68) compared to anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; and• biochemotherapy was probably associated with lower toxicity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.71) compared to the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors.Network meta-analysis-based ranking suggested that the combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the most effective strategy in terms of progression-free survival, whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies are associated with the lowest toxicity.Overall, the risk of bias of the included trials can be considered as limited. When considering the 122 trials included in this review and the seven types of bias we assessed, we performed 854 evaluations only seven of which (< 1%) assigned high risk to six trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-quality evidence that many treatments offer better efficacy than chemotherapy, especially recently implemented treatments, such as small-molecule targeted drugs, which are used to treat melanoma with specific gene mutations. Compared with chemotherapy, biochemotherapy (in this case, chemotherapy combined with both interferon-alpha and interleukin-2) and BRAF inhibitors improved progression-free survival; BRAF inhibitors (for BRAF-mutated melanoma) and anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies improved overall survival. However, there was no difference between polychemotherapy and monochemotherapy in terms of achieving progression-free survival and overall survival. Biochemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival and has higher toxicity rates compared with chemotherapy.There was some evidence that combined treatments worked better than single treatments: anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies, alone or with anti-CTLA4, improved progression-free survival compared with anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies alone. Anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies performed better than anti-CTLA4 monoclonal antibodies in terms of overall survival, and a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors was associated with better overall survival for BRAF-mutated melanoma, compared to BRAF inhibitors alone.The combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors (which can only be administered to people with BRAF-mutated melanoma) appeared to be the most effective treatment (based on results for progression-free survival), whereas anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies appeared to be the least toxic, and most acceptable, treatment.Evidence quality was reduced due to imprecision, between-study heterogeneity, and substandard reporting of trials. Future research should ensure that those diminishing influences are addressed. Clinical areas of future investigation should include the longer-term effect of new therapeutic agents (i.e. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies) on overall survival, as well as the combination of drugs used in melanoma treatment; research should also investigate the potential influence of biomarkers.

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Since the mid-2000s, the field of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has experienced a paradigm shift from non-specific therapy with broad-acting cytokines to specific regimens, which directly target the cancer, the tumour microenvironment, or both.Current guidelines recommend targeted therapies with agents such as sunitinib, pazopanib or temsirolimus (for people with poor prognosis) as the standard of care for first-line treatment of people with mRCC and mention non-specific cytokines as an alternative option for selected patients.In November 2015, nivolumab, a checkpoint inhibitor directed against programmed death-1 (PD-1), was approved as the first specific immunotherapeutic agent as second-line therapy in previously treated mRCC patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of immunotherapies either alone or in combination with standard targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma and their efficacy to maximize patient benefit. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science and registers of ongoing clinical trials in November 2016 without language restrictions. We scanned reference lists and contacted experts in the field to obtain further information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with or without blinding involving people with mRCC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected and analyzed studies according to the published protocol. Summary statistics for the primary endpoints were risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We rated the quality of evidence using GRADE methodology and summarized the quality and magnitude of relative and absolute effects for each primary outcome in our 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight studies with 4732 eligible participants and an additional 13 ongoing studies. We categorized studies into comparisons, all against standard therapy accordingly as first-line (five comparisons) or second-line therapy (one comparison) for mRCC.Interferon (IFN)-α monotherapy probably increases one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapies with temsirolimus or sunitinib (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.51; 2 studies; 1166 participants; moderate-quality evidence), may lead to similar quality of life (QoL) (e.g. MD -5.58 points, 95% CI -7.25 to -3.91 for Functional Assessment of Cancer - General (FACT-G); 1 study; 730 participants; low-quality evidence) and may slightly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade 3 or greater (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; 1 study; 408 participants; low-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between IFN-α plus temsirolimus and temsirolimus alone for one-year overall mortality (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; 1 study; 419 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but the incidence of AEs of 3 or greater may be increased (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.45; 1 study; 416 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no information on QoL.IFN-α alone may slightly increase one-year overall mortality compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.36; 2 studies; 1381 participants; low-quality evidence). This effect is probably accompanied by a lower incidence of AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.84; 2 studies; 1350 participants; moderate-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with IFN-α plus bevacizumab or standard targeted therapy (sunitinib) may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.08; 1 study; 83 participants; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.62; 1 study; 82 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.Treatment with vaccines (e.g. MVA-5T4 or IMA901) or standard therapy may lead to similar one-year overall mortality (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.32; low-quality evidence) and AEs of grade 3 or greater (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.39; 2 studies; 1065 participants; low-quality evidence). QoL could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.In previously treated patients, targeted immunotherapy (nivolumab) probably reduces one-year overall mortality compared to standard targeted therapy with everolimus (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 1 study; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), probably improves QoL (e.g. RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.78 for clinically relevant improvement of the FACT-Kidney Symptom Index Disease Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS); 1 study, 704 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and probably reduces the incidence of AEs grade 3 or greater (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.65; 1 study; 803 participants; moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of moderate quality demonstrates that IFN-α monotherapy increases mortality compared to standard targeted therapies alone, whereas there is no difference if IFN is combined with standard targeted therapies. Evidence of low quality demonstrates that QoL is worse with IFN alone and that severe AEs are increased with IFN alone or in combination. There is low-quality evidence that IFN-α alone increases mortality but moderate-quality evidence on decreased AEs compared to IFN-α plus bevacizumab. Low-quality evidence shows no difference for IFN-α plus bevacizumab compared to sunitinib with respect to mortality and severe AEs. Low-quality evidence demonstrates no difference of vaccine treatment compared to standard targeted therapies in mortality and AEs, whereas there is moderate-quality evidence that targeted immunotherapies reduce mortality and AEs and improve QoL.

Modulation of cancer-specific immune responses by amino acid degrading enzymes.

To evade immune destruction, tumors exploit a wide range of immune escape mechanisms, including the induction of an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. This is mediated, in part, by amino acid degrading enzymes indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase, arginase 1 and arginase 2, which have emerged as key players in the regulation of tumor-induced immune tolerance. Here we describe how the expression of tryptophan- and arginine-degrading enzymes by tumor and tumor-infiltrating cells can hamper cancer-specific immune responses, and discuss how this knowledge is being exploited to develop new strategies for cancer immunotherapy.