Although clinical studies have shown promise for targeting PD1/PDL1 signaling in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the regulation of PDL1 expression is poorly understood. Here, we show that PDL1 is regulated by p53 via miR-34. p53 wild-type and p53-deficient cell lines (p53^–/– and p53^+/+ HCT116, p53-inducible H1299, and p53-knockdown H460) were used to determine if p53 regulates PDL1 via miR-34. PDL1 and miR-34a expression were analyzed in samples from patients with NSCLC and mutated p53 vs wild-type p53 tumors from The Cancer Genome Atlas for Lung Adenocarcinoma (TCGA LUAD). We confirmed that PDL1 is a direct target of miR-34 with western blotting and luciferase assays and used a p53^R172HΔg/+K-ras^LA1/+ syngeneic mouse model (n = 12) to deliver miR-34a–loaded liposomes (MRX34) plus radiotherapy (XRT) and assessed PDL1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). A two-sided t test was applied to compare the mean between different treatments. We found that p53 regulates PDL1 via miR-34, which directly binds to the PDL1 3’ untranslated region in models of NSCLC (fold-change luciferase activity to control group, mean for miR-34a = 0.50, SD = 0.2, P < .001; mean for miR-34b = 0.52, SD = 0.2, P = .006; and mean for miR-34c = 0.59, SD = 0.14, and P = .006). Therapeutic delivery of MRX34, currently the subject of a phase I clinical trial, promoted TILs (mean of CD8 expression percentage of control group = 22.5%, SD = 1.9%; mean of CD8 expression percentage of MRX34 = 30.1%, SD = 3.7%, P = .016, n = 4) and reduced CD8⁺PD1⁺ cells in vivo (mean of CD8/PD1 expression percentage of control group = 40.2%, SD = 6.2%; mean of CD8/PD1 expression percentage of MRX34 = 20.3%, SD = 5.1%, P = .001, n = 4). Further, MRX34 plus XRT increased CD8⁺ cell numbers more than either therapy alone (mean of CD8 expression percentage of MRX34 plus XRT to control group = 44.2%, SD = 8.7%, P = .004, n = 4). Finally, miR-34a delivery reduced the numbers of radiation-induced macrophages (mean of F4-80 expression percentage of control group = 52.4%, SD = 1.7%; mean of F4-80 expression percentage of MRX34 = 40.1%, SD = 3.5%, P = .008, n = 4) and T-regulatory cells. We identified a novel mechanism by which tumor immune evasion is regulated by p53/miR-34/PDL1 axis. Our results suggest that delivery of miRNAs with standard therapies, such as XRT, may represent a novel therapeutic approach for lung cancer.

Purpose: Brain metastasis (BM) is a leading cause of death from non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Reasoning that activation of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) contributes to radiation resistance, we undertook a phase II trial of the EGFR inhibitor erlotinib with whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) in an attempt to extend survival time for patients with BM from NSCLC. Additional end points were radiologic response and safety. Patients and Methods: Eligible patients had BM from NSCLC, regardless of EGFR status. Erlotinib was given at 150 mg orally once per day for 1 week, then concurrently with WBRT (2.5 Gy per day 5 days per week, to 35 Gy), followed by maintenance. EGFR mutation status was tested by DNA sequencing at an accredited core facility. Results: Forty patients were enrolled and completed erlotinib plus WBRT (median age, 59 years; median diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment score, 1.5). The overall response rate was 86% (n = 36). No increase in neurotoxicity was detected, and no patient experienced grade ≥ 4 toxicity, but three patients required dose reduction for grade 3 rash. At a median follow-up of 28.5 months (for living patients), median survival time was 11.8 months (95% CI, 7.4 to 19.1 months). Of 17 patients with known EGFR status, median survival time was 9.3 months for those with wild-type EGFR and 19.1 months for those with EGFR mutations. Conclusion: Erlotinib was well tolerated in combination with WBRT, with a favorable objective response rate. The higher-than-expected rate of EGFR mutations in these unselected patients raises the possibility that EGFR-mutated tumors are prone to brain dissemination.

Purpose: Little prospective data are available on clinical outcomes and immune correlates from combination radiation and immunotherapy. We conducted a phase I trial (NCT02239900) testing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with ipilimumab.Experimental Design: SABR was given either concurrently (1 day after the first dose) or sequentially (1 week after the second dose) with ipilimumab (3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 4 doses) to five treatment groups: concurrent 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to liver; sequential 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to liver; concurrent 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to lung; sequential 50 Gy (in 4 fractions) to lung; and sequential 60 Gy (in 10 fractions) to lung or liver. MTD was determined with a 3 + 3 dose de-escalation design. Immune marker expression was assessed by flow cytometry.Results: Among 35 patients who initiated ipilimumab, 2 experienced dose-limiting toxicity and 12 (34%) grade 3 toxicity. Response outside the radiation field was assessable in 31 patients. Three patients (10%) exhibited partial response and 7 (23%) experienced clinical benefit (defined as partial response or stable disease lasting ≥6 months). Clinical benefit was associated with increases in peripheral CD8+ T cells, CD8+/CD4+ T-cell ratio, and proportion of CD8+ T cells expressing 4-1BB and PD1. Liver (vs. lung) irradiation produced greater T-cell activation, reflected as increases in the proportions of peripheral T cells expressing ICOS, GITR, and 4-1BB.Conclusions: Combining SABR and ipilimumab was safe with signs of efficacy, peripheral T-cell markers may predict clinical benefit, and systemic immune activation was greater after liver irradiation. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1388–96. ©2016 AACR.

Background In this phase I/II trial, we evaluated the safety and effectiveness of pembrolizumab, with or without concurrent radiotherapy (RT), for lung and liver lesions from metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC). Methods Patients with lung or liver lesions amenable to RT plus at least one additional non-contiguous lesion were included regardless of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Pembrolizumab was given at 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 32 cycles with or without concurrent RT. Metastatic lesions were treated with stereotactic body RT (SBRT; 50 Gy in 4 fractions) if clinically feasible or with traditionally fractionated RT (45 Gy in 15 fractions) if not. The primary end point was the best out-of-field lesion response, and a key secondary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results The median follow-up time was 20.4 months. One hundred patients (20 phase I, 80 phase II) were evaluable for toxicity, and 72 phase II patients were evaluable for treatment response. No patients in the phase I group experienced grade 4–5 events; in the phase II group, two had grade 4 events and nine had grade 3 events. The ORR in the combined-modality cohort (irrespective of RT schema) was 22%, vs 25% in the pembrolizumab group (irrespective of receipt of salvage RT) (p=0.99). In the concurrent pembrolizumab+RT groups, the out-of-field ORRs were 38% in the pembrolizumab+SBRT group and 10% in the pembrolizumab+traditional RT group. When examining the pembrolizumab-alone patients, the out-of-field ORRs were 33% in those designated to receive salvage SBRT (if required) and 17% for salvage traditional RT. In all patients, the median PFS for pembrolizumab alone was 5.1 months (95% CI 3.4 to 12.7 months), and pembrolizumab/RT (regardless of schema) was 9.1 months (95% CI 3.6 to 18.4 months) (p=0.52). An exploratory analysis revealed that for patients with low PD-L1 expression, the median PFS was 4.6 vs 20.8 months for pembrolizumab with and without RT, respectively (p=0.004). Conclusions Concurrent immunoradiotherapy for mNSCLC is safe, although larger trials are required to address which patients benefit most from RT. Trial registration number NCT02444741.

With the recent success of checkpoint inhibitors and other immunomodulating agents, there has been renewed interest in the combination of such agents with radiation. The biologic premise behind such a strategy is that the tumor-antigen release achieved by localized radiation will promote specific tumor targeting by the adaptive immune system, which can be augmented further by systemic immune-stimulating agents. In this manner, clinicians hope to induce a phenomenon known as the abscopal effect, whereby localized radiation results in immune-mediated tumor regression in disease sites well outside of the radiation field. Herein, we present a comprehensive overview of the early clinical and preclinical evidence behind this approach. Cancer Immunol Res; 2(9); 831–8. ©2014 AACR.