Integrative Analyses of Tumor and Peripheral Biomarkers in the Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

The phase III JAVELIN Renal 101 trial demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (N = 886) with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with first-line avelumab + axitinib (A+Ax) versus sunitinib. We report novel findings from integrated analyses of longitudinal blood samples and baseline tumor tissue. PFS was associated with elevated lymphocyte levels in the sunitinib arm and an abundance of innate immune subsets in the A+Ax arm. Treatment with A+Ax led to greater T-cell repertoire modulation and less change in T-cell numbers versus sunitinib. In the A+Ax arm, patients with tumors harboring mutations in ≥2 of 10 previously identified PFS-associated genes (double mutants) had distinct circulating and tumor-infiltrating immunologic profiles versus those with wild-type or single-mutant tumors, suggesting a role for non-T-cell-mediated and non-natural killer cell-mediated mechanisms in double-mutant tumors. We provide evidence for different immunomodulatory mechanisms based on treatment (A+Ax vs. sunitinib) and tumor molecular subtypes. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings provide novel insights into the different immunomodulatory mechanisms governing responses in patients treated with avelumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) + axitinib or sunitinib (both VEGF inhibitors), highlighting the contribution of tumor biology to the complexity of the roles and interactions of infiltrating immune cells in response to these treatment regimens. This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 384.

Hallmarks of Resistance to Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), although revolutionary in improving long-term survival outcomes, are mostly effective in patients with immune-responsive tumors. Most patients with cancer either do not respond to ICIs at all or experience disease progression after an initial period of response. Treatment resistance to ICIs remains a major challenge and defines the biggest unmet medical need in oncology worldwide. In a collaborative workshop, thought leaders from academic, biopharma, and nonprofit sectors convened to outline a resistance framework to support and guide future immune-resistance research. Here, we explore the initial part of our effort by collating seminal discoveries through the lens of known biological processes. We highlight eight biological processes and refer to them as immune resistance nodes. We examine the seminal discoveries that define each immune resistance node and pose critical questions, which, if answered, would greatly expand our notion of immune resistance. Ultimately, the expansion and application of this work calls for the integration of multiomic high-dimensional analyses from patient-level data to produce a map of resistance phenotypes that can be utilized to guide effective drug development and improved patient outcomes.

Association of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio with Efficacy of First-Line Avelumab plus Axitinib vs. Sunitinib in Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Enrolled in the Phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 Trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Adult patients with untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) with a clear-cell component, ≥1 measurable lesions, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, fresh or archival tumor specimen, and adequate renal, cardiac, and hepatic function were included. Retrospective analyses of the association between baseline NLR and progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms were performed using the first interim analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (NCT02684006). Multivariate Cox regression analyses of PFS and OS were conducted. Translational data were assessed to elucidate the underlying biology associated with differences in NLR. RESULTS: Patients with below-median NLR had longer observed PFS with avelumab plus axitinib [stratified HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.634-1.153] or sunitinib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.415-0.745). In the avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib arms, respectively, median PFS was 13.8 and 11.2 months in patients with below-median NLR, and 13.3 and 5.6 months in patients with median-or-higher NLR. Below-median NLR was also associated with longer observed OS in the avelumab plus axitinib (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.300-0.871) and sunitinib arms (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.174-0.511). Tumor analyses showed an association between NLR and key biological characteristics, suggesting a role of NLR in underlying mechanisms influencing clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Current data support NLR as a prognostic biomarker in patients with advanced RCC receiving avelumab plus axitinib or sunitinib.

HLA-A*03 and response to immune checkpoint blockade in cancer: an epidemiological biomarker study.

BACKGROUND: Predictive biomarkers could allow more precise use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in treating advanced cancers. Given the central role of HLA molecules in immunity, variation at the HLA loci could differentially affect the response to ICIs. The aim of this epidemiological study was to determine the effect of HLA-A*03 as a biomarker for predicting response to immunotherapy. METHODS: In this epidemiological study, we investigated the clinical outcomes (overall survival, progression free survival, and objective response rate) after treatment for advanced cancer in eight cohorts of patients: three observational cohorts of patients with various types of advanced tumours (the Memorial Sloan Kettering Integrated Mutation Profiling of Actionable Cancer Targets [MSK-IMPACT] cohort, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute [DFCI] Profile cohort, and The Cancer Genome Atlas) and five clinical trials of patients with advanced bladder cancer (JAVELIN Solid Tumour) or renal cell carcinoma (CheckMate-009, CheckMate-010, CheckMate-025, and JAVELIN Renal 101). In total, these cohorts included 3335 patients treated with various ICI agents (anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-CTLA-4 inhibitors) and 10 917 patients treated with non-ICI cancer-directed therapeutic approaches. We initially modelled the association of HLA amino-acid variation with overall survival in the MSK-IMPACT discovery cohort, followed by a detailed analysis of the association between HLA-A*03 and clinical outcomes in MSK-IMPACT, with replication in the additional cohorts (two further observational cohorts and five clinical trials). FINDINGS: HLA-A*03 was associated in an additive manner with reduced overall survival after ICI treatment in the MSK-IMPACT cohort (HR 1·48 per HLA-A*03 allele [95% CI 1·20-1·82], p=0·00022), the validation DFCI Profile cohort (HR 1·22 per HLA-A*03 allele, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0097), and in the JAVELIN Solid Tumour clinical trial for bladder cancer (HR 1·36 per HLA-A*03 allele, 1·01-1·85; p=0·047). The HLA-A*03 effect was observed across ICI agents and tumour types, but not in patients treated with alternative therapies. Patients with HLA-A*03 had shorter progression-free survival in the pooled patient population from the three CheckMate clinical trials of nivolumab for renal cell carcinoma (HR 1·31, 1·01-1·71; p=0·044), but not in those receiving control (everolimus) therapies. Objective responses were observed in none of eight HLA-A*03 homozygotes in the ICI group (compared with 59 [26·6%] of 222 HLA-A*03 non-carriers and 13 (17·1%) of 76 HLA-A*03 heterozygotes). HLA-A*03 was associated with shorter progression-free survival in patients receiving ICI in the JAVELIN Renal 101 randomised clinical trial for renal cell carcinoma (avelumab plus axitinib; HR 1·59 per HLA-A*03 allele, 1·16-2·16; p=0·0036), but not in those receiving control (sunitinib) therapy. Objective responses were recorded in one (12·5%) of eight HLA-A*03 homozygotes in the ICI group (compared with 162 [63·8%] of 254 HLA-A*03 non-carriers and 40 [55·6%] of 72 HLA-A*03 heterozygotes). HLA-A*03 was associated with impaired outcome in meta-analysis of all 3335 patients treated with ICI at genome-wide significance (p=2·01 × 10-8) with no evidence of heterogeneity in effect (I2 0%, 95% CI 0-0·76) INTERPRETATION: HLA-A*03 is a predictive biomarker of poor response to ICI. Further evaluation of HLA-A*03 is warranted in randomised trials. HLA-A*03 carriage could be considered in decisions to initiate ICI in patients with cancer. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, Merck KGaA, and Pfizer.

Avelumab in Combination with Axitinib as First-Line Treatment in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results from the Phase 1b VEGF Liver 100 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Combining an immune checkpoint inhibitor with a targeted antiangiogenic agent may leverage complementary mechanisms of action for the treatment of advanced/metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Avelumab is a human anti-PD-L1 IgG1 antibody with clinical activity in various tumor types; axitinib is a selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3. We report the final analysis from VEGF Liver 100 (NCT03289533), a phase 1b study evaluating safety and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib in treatment-naive patients with aHCC. METHODS: Eligible patients had confirmed aHCC, no prior systemic therapy, ≥1 measurable lesion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1, and Child-Pugh class A disease. Patients received avelumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg orally twice daily until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Endpoints included safety and investigator-assessed objective response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for HCC. RESULTS: Twenty-two Japanese patients were enrolled and treated with avelumab plus axitinib. The minimum follow-up was 18 months as of October 25, 2019 (data cutoff). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 16 patients (72.7%); the most common (≥3 patients) were hypertension (n = 11 [50.0%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (n = 5 [22.7%]), and decreased appetite (n = 3 [13.6%]). No grade 4 TRAEs or treatment-related deaths occurred. Ten patients (45.5%) had an immune-related AE (irAE) of any grade; 3 patients (13.6%) had an infusion-related reaction (IRR) of any grade, and no grade ≥3 irAE and IRR were observed. The objective response rate was 13.6% (95% CI: 2.9-34.9%) per RECIST 1.1 and 31.8% (95% CI: 13.9-54.9%) per mRECIST for HCC. CONCLUSION: Treatment with avelumab plus axitinib was associated with a manageable toxicity profile and showed antitumor activity in patients with aHCC.

Avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma: biomarker analysis of the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial.

We report on molecular analyses of baseline tumor samples from the phase 3 JAVELIN Renal 101 trial (n = 886; NCT02684006 ), which demonstrated significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line avelumab + axitinib versus sunitinib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We found that neither expression of the commonly assessed biomarker programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) nor tumor mutational burden differentiated PFS in either study arm. Similarly, the presence of FcɣR single nucleotide polymorphisms was unimpactful. We identified important biological features associated with differential PFS between the treatment arms, including new immunomodulatory and angiogenesis gene expression signatures (GESs), previously undescribed mutational profiles and their corresponding GESs, and several HLA types. These findings provide insight into the determinants of response to combined PD-1/PD-L1 and angiogenic pathway inhibition and may aid in the development of strategies for improved patient care in aRCC.

Avelumab plus Axitinib versus Sunitinib for Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

Safety and efficacy of durvalumab in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: results from a phase I/II expansion cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Durvalumab selectively blocks programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) binding to programmed cell death-1. Encouraging clinical activity and manageable safety were reported in urothelial carcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HC) and small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in a multicenter phase I/II study. Safety and clinical activity in recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) were evaluated in the expansion phase. METHODS: Patients received 10 mg/kg of durvalumab intravenously every 2 weeks for 12 months or until confirmed progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was safety; clinical activity was a secondary objective. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were enrolled and evaluable (received first dose ≥24 weeks before data cutoff). Median age was 57 years; 40.3% were human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive; 32.3% had tumour cell PD-L1 expression ≥25%, and 62.9% were current/former smokers. They had a median of 2 prior systemic treatments (range, 1-13). All-causality adverse events (AEs) occurred in 98.4%; drug-related AEs occurred in 59.7% and were grade III-IV in 9.7%. There were no drug-related discontinuations or deaths. Objective response rate (blinded independent central review) was 6.5% (15.0% for PD-L1 ≥25%, 2.6% for <25%). Median time to response was 2.7 months (range, 1.2-5.5); median duration was 12.4 months (range, 3.5-20.5+). Median progression-free survival was 1.4 months; median overall survival (OS) was 8.4 months. OS rate was 62% at 6 months and 38% at 12 months (42% for PD-L1 ≥25%, 36% for <25%). CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab safety in HNSCC was manageable and consistent with other cohorts of the study. Early, durable responses in these heavily pretreated patients warrant further investigation; phase III monotherapy and combination therapy studies are ongoing. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01693562; MedImmune study 1108.

Preliminary results for avelumab plus axitinib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma (JAVELIN Renal 100): an open-label, dose-finding and dose-expansion, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor and a VEGF pathway inhibitor to treat patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma might increase the clinical benefit of these drugs compared with their use alone. Here, we report preliminary results for the combination of avelumab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody against the programmed cell death protein ligand PD-L1, and axitinib, a VEGF receptor inhibitor approved for second-line treatment of advanced renal-cell carcinoma, in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. METHODS: The JAVELIN Renal 100 study is an ongoing open-label, multicentre, dose-finding, and dose-expansion, phase 1b study, done in 14 centres in the USA, UK, and Japan. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) and had histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced renal-cell carcinoma with clear-cell component, life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, received no previous systemic treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma, and had a resected primary tumour. Patients enrolled into the dose-finding phase received 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily for 7 days, followed by combination therapy with 10 mg/kg avelumab intravenously every 2 weeks and 5 mg axitinib orally twice daily. Based on the pharmacokinetic data from the dose-finding phase, ten additional patients were enrolled into the dose-expansion phase and assigned to this regimen. The other patients in the dose-expansion phase started taking combination therapy directly. The primary endpoint was dose-limiting toxicities in the first 4 weeks (two cycles) of treatment with avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and antitumour activity analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02493751. FINDINGS: Between Oct 30, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, we enrolled six patients into the dose-finding phase and 49 into the dose-expansion phase of the study. One dose-limiting toxicity of grade 3 proteinuria due to axitinib was reported among the six patients treated during the dose-finding phase. At the cutoff date (April 13, 2017), six (100%, 95% CI 54-100) of six patients in the dose-finding phase and 26 (53%, 38-68) of 49 patients in the dose-expansion phase had confirmed objective responses (32 [58%, 44-71] of all 55 patients). 32 (58%) of 55 patients had grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events, the most frequent being hypertension in 16 (29%) patients and increased concentrations of alanine aminotransferase, amylase, and lipase, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome in four (7%) patients each. Six (11%) of 55 patients died before data cutoff, five (9%) due to disease progression and one (2%) due to treatment-related autoimmune myocarditis. At the end of the dose-finding phase, the maximum tolerated dose established for the combination was avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks and axitinib 5 mg twice daily. INTERPRETATION: The safety profile of the combination avelumab plus axitinib in treatment-naive patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma seemed to be manageable and consistent with that of each drug alone, and the preliminary data on antitumour activity are encouraging. A phase 3 trial is assessing avelumab and axitinib compared with sunitinib monotherapy. FUNDING: Pfizer and Merck.

Expression of PD-L1 and other immunotherapeutic targets in thymic epithelial tumors.

INTRODUCTION: The thymus is a critical organ for the development of the adaptive immune system and thymic epithelial tumors (TETs; thymomas and thymic carcinomas) are often associated with auto-immune paraneoplastic conditions. However, the immunobiology of TETs is not well described. An evaluation of the tumor microenvironment, with particular focus on expression of immunotherapeutic targets, may facilitate and prioritize development of immunotherapy strategies for patients with TETs. METHODS: Tumor tissues from 23 patients with WHO Type B2/B3 thymoma (n = 12) and thymic carcinoma (n = 11) were identified and clinical outcomes were annotated. The expression of membranous PD-L1 on tumor cells, CD3+ and CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), co-stimulatory (CD137, GITR, ICOS), and co-inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules (PD-1, CTLA-4, TIM-3) were assessed semi-quantitatively using immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: PD-L1 positivity (≥ 25% of tumor membrane expression) was frequent in TETs (15/23, 65%), more common in thymomas compared to thymic carcinomas (p<0.01), and was associated with longer overall survival (p = 0.02). TIM-3 and GITR were expressed in all TETs, including 18/23 and 12/23 with at least moderate/high expression, respectively. Moderate/high CD137 expression correlated with CD8+ (p = 0.01) and moderate/high GITR expression co-associated with PD-1 (p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: TETs are characterized by frequent PD-L1 expression and PD-L1 is associated with improved survival, suggesting PD-L1 signaling may be biologically important in TETs. Robust expression of markers of immune activation and immunotherapeutic target molecules in TETs emphasizes the potential for development of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies.

Validation of biomarkers to predict response to immunotherapy in cancer: Volume II - clinical validation and regulatory considerations.

There is growing recognition that immunotherapy is likely to significantly improve health outcomes for cancer patients in the coming years. Currently, while a subset of patients experience substantial clinical benefit in response to different immunotherapeutic approaches, the majority of patients do not but are still exposed to the significant drug toxicities. Therefore, a growing need for the development and clinical use of predictive biomarkers exists in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Predictive cancer biomarkers can be used to identify the patients who are or who are not likely to derive benefit from specific therapeutic approaches. In order to be applicable in a clinical setting, predictive biomarkers must be carefully shepherded through a step-wise, highly regulated developmental process. Volume I of this two-volume document focused on the pre-analytical and analytical phases of the biomarker development process, by providing background, examples and "good practice" recommendations. In the current Volume II, the focus is on the clinical validation, validation of clinical utility and regulatory considerations for biomarker development. Together, this two volume series is meant to provide guidance on the entire biomarker development process, with a particular focus on the unique aspects of developing immune-based biomarkers. Specifically, knowledge about the challenges to clinical validation of predictive biomarkers, which has been gained from numerous successes and failures in other contexts, will be reviewed together with statistical methodological issues related to bias and overfitting. The different trial designs used for the clinical validation of biomarkers will also be discussed, as the selection of clinical metrics and endpoints becomes critical to establish the clinical utility of the biomarker during the clinical validation phase of the biomarker development. Finally, the regulatory aspects of submission of biomarker assays to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as well as regulatory considerations in the European Union will be covered.

Validation of biomarkers to predict response to immunotherapy in cancer: Volume I - pre-analytical and analytical validation.

Immunotherapies have emerged as one of the most promising approaches to treat patients with cancer. Recently, there have been many clinical successes using checkpoint receptor blockade, including T cell inhibitory receptors such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1). Despite demonstrated successes in a variety of malignancies, responses only typically occur in a minority of patients in any given histology. Additionally, treatment is associated with inflammatory toxicity and high cost. Therefore, determining which patients would derive clinical benefit from immunotherapy is a compelling clinical question. Although numerous candidate biomarkers have been described, there are currently three FDA-approved assays based on PD-1 ligand expression (PD-L1) that have been clinically validated to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from a single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Because of the complexity of the immune response and tumor biology, it is unlikely that a single biomarker will be sufficient to predict clinical outcomes in response to immune-targeted therapy. Rather, the integration of multiple tumor and immune response parameters, such as protein expression, genomics, and transcriptomics, may be necessary for accurate prediction of clinical benefit. Before a candidate biomarker and/or new technology can be used in a clinical setting, several steps are necessary to demonstrate its clinical validity. Although regulatory guidelines provide general roadmaps for the validation process, their applicability to biomarkers in the cancer immunotherapy field is somewhat limited. Thus, Working Group 1 (WG1) of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Immune Biomarkers Task Force convened to address this need. In this two volume series, we discuss pre-analytical and analytical (Volume I) as well as clinical and regulatory (Volume II) aspects of the validation process as applied to predictive biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy. To illustrate the requirements for validation, we discuss examples of biomarker assays that have shown preliminary evidence of an association with clinical benefit from immunotherapeutic interventions. The scope includes only those assays and technologies that have established a certain level of validation for clinical use (fit-for-purpose). Recommendations to meet challenges and strategies to guide the choice of analytical and clinical validation design for specific assays are also provided.

Development of a programmed cell death ligand-1 immunohistochemical assay validated for analysis of non-small cell lung cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A high-quality programmed cell-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) diagnostic assay may help predict which patients are more likely to respond to anti-programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/PD-L1 antibody-based cancer therapy. Here we describe a PD-L1 immunohistochemical (IHC) staining protocol developed by Ventana Medical Systems Inc. and key analytical parameters of its use in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: An anti-human PD-L1 rabbit monoclonal antibody (SP263) was optimized for use with the VENTANA OptiView DAB IHC Detection Kit on the automated VENTANA BenchMark ULTRA platform. The VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay was validated for use with FFPE NSCLC and HNSCC tissue samples in a series of studies addressing sensitivity, specificity, robustness, and precision. Samples from a subset of 181 patients from a Phase 1/2 study of durvalumab (NCT01693562) were analyzed to determine the optimal PD-L1 staining cut-off for enriching the probability of responses to treatment. The scoring algorithm was defined using statistical analysis of clinical response data from this clinical trial and PD-L1 staining parameters in HNSCC and NSCLC tissue. Inter-reader agreement was established by three pathologists who evaluated 81 NSCLC and 100 HNSCC samples across the range of PD-L1 expression levels. RESULTS: The VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay met all pre-defined acceptance criteria. For both cancer types, a cut-off of 25 % of tumor cells with PD-L1 membrane staining of any intensity best discriminated responders from nonresponders. Samples with staining above this value were deemed to have high PD-L1 expression, and those with staining below it were deemed to have low or no PD-L1 expression. Inter-reader agreement on PD-L1 status was 97 and 92 % for NSCLC and HNSCC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the robustness and reproducibility of the VENTANA PD-L1 (SP263) Assay and support its suitability for use in the evaluation of NSCLC and HNSCC FFPE tumor samples using the devised ≥25 % tumor cell staining cut-off in a clinical setting. The clinical utility of the PD-L1 diagnostic assay as a predictive biomarker will be further validated in ongoing durvalumab studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01693562.

Use of human tissue to assess the oncogenic activity of melanoma-associated mutations.

Multiple genetic alterations occur in melanoma, a lethal skin malignancy of increasing incidence. These include mutations that activate Ras and two of its effector cascades, Raf and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K). Induction of Ras and Raf can be caused by active N-Ras and B-Raf mutants as well as by gene amplification. Activation of PI3K pathway components occurs by PTEN loss and by AKT3 amplification. Melanomas also commonly show impairment of the p16(INK4A)-CDK4-Rb and ARF-HDM2-p53 tumor suppressor pathways. CDKN2A mutations can produce p16(INK4A) and ARF protein loss. Rb bypass can also occur through activating CDK4 mutations as well as by CDK4 amplification. In addition to ARF deletion, p53 pathway disruption can result from dominant negative TP53 mutations. TERT amplification also occurs in melanoma. The extent to which these mutations can induce human melanocytic neoplasia is unknown. Here we characterize pathways sufficient to generate human melanocytic neoplasia and show that genetically altered human tissue facilitates functional analysis of mutations observed in human tumors.