ESMO 2017: A pool of predictive biomarkers for response to immunotherapy could soon be available to select responsive patients

  • Oncology Conference Roundups
Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals. Access to the full content of this site is available only to registered healthcare professionals.

Where we are

  • The use of immunotherapy in cancer is growing rapidly, with many new indications.
  • Patients response can vary widely even in the presence of similar clinical and genomic biomarkers.
  • In the absence of useful predictive tools for response, the clinical use of immunotherapy can be compromised.
  • Cancer-immune system interactions are based on a number of largely unrelated parameters such as intratumoral inhibition of tumour-specific T cells or the level of “foreignness” of the tumour in order to elicit a clinically relevant T cell response.
  • The effect of these parameters can differ greatly between patients.
  • Because of the multifactorial nature of those interactions, we need validated combinations of biomarker assays.

Take home messages

  • The introduction of an evolving “cancer immunogram” is a useful clinical tool to select patients that are suitable for immunotherapy.
  • New categories of biomarkers will be added in the next months/years. Nonetheless, even an immunogram based on present-day knowledge does make it possible to assess the cancer-immune interactions in individual patients.

New perspectives

  • Prof. Christian Blank from the Netherlands Cancer Institute proposed and discussed a pool of biomarkers (cancer immunogram), to be used in clinic to assess the cancer-immune system interaction in individual patients.

1. Tumour foreignness: data suggest that it may be determined in large part by the expression of neoantigens derived from viral or mutated gene products.

  • The presence of neoantigens is probabilistic: tumour foreignness can be guaranteed only for tumours with very high mutational loads, and can only be inferred for tumours with an intermediate or low mutational load; more sophisticated readouts are required.

2. General immune status: a decrease in lymphocyte counts has been associated with poor outcome upon cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 blockade in patients with melanoma cohorts.

  • Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio has been correlated with poor patient outcome after immunotherapy, as myeloid-derived suppressor cell count in circulating blood is a negative predictor.
  • Elevated eosinophil counts may be associated with improved outcome in patients with melanoma treated with anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody.

3. Immune cell infiltration: absence of T cell infiltration may reflect a defect at the level of T cell priming, a mechanical barrier due to cancer-associated fibrosis.

4. Absence of checkpoints: the expression profile of both T cell checkpoints and their ligands is likely to be a valuable biomarker because it is related to the presence of specific therapeutic targets.

5. Absence of soluble inhibitors: tumour-promoting effects of     inflammation can be mediated through suppression of T cell reactivity.

  • Increase in inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate) is associated with poor outcome in anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 antibody treatment; the presence of an interferon gene signature in tumours was associated with improved outcome upon programmed cell death 1 blockade.

6. Absence of inhibitor tumour metabolism: high serum lactate dehydrogenase concentrations correlate strongly with poor outcome in cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed cell death 1 blockade (phase 3 clinical trial data).

  • Lactic acid and low local pH can impair crucial T cell functions, such as cytokine production, proliferation, and lytic activity.
  • Intratumoral hypoxia and glucose depletion also deserve attention as potential biomarkers in this class (mouse model data).

7. Tumour sensitivity to immune effectors: analysis of immunotherapy resistance at the level of tumour cell sensitivity to immune effectors will be useful to identify patients who are less likely to respond to T cell-activating therapies.

8. Microbiome: gut microbiome is an emerging biomarker for immunotherapy response.

  • Faecal transplants from human non-responder patients to responder mice and subsequent resistance to immunotherapy in the animal model demonstrate the immunomodulating properties of microbiome. Further studies are needed.