The TGFβ signaling pathway has pleiotropic functions regulating cell growth, differentiation, apoptosis, motility and invasion, extracellular matrix production, angiogenesis, and immune response. TGFβ signaling deregulation is frequent in tumors and has crucial roles in tumor initiation, development and metastasis. TGFβ signaling inhibition is an emerging strategy for cancer therapy. The role of the TGFβ pathway as a tumor-promoter or suppressor at the cancer cell level is still a matter of debate, due to its differential effects at the early and late stages of carcinogenesis. In contrast, at the microenvironment level, the TGFβ pathway contributes to generate a favorable microenvironment for tumor growth and metastasis throughout all the steps of carcinogenesis. Then, targeting the TGFβ pathway in cancer may be considered primarily as a microenvironment-targeted strategy. In this review, we focus on the TGFβ pathway as a target for cancer therapy. In the first part, we provide a comprehensive overview of the roles played by this pathway and its deregulation in cancer, at the cancer cell and microenvironment levels. We go on to describe the preclinical and clinical results of pharmacological strategies to target the TGFβ pathway, with a highlight on the effects on tumor microenvironment. We then explore the perspectives to optimize TGFβ inhibition therapy in different tumor settings.

PURPOSE: In patients with resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, surgery plus perioperative platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care. Perioperative chemotherapy remains debatable for gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)/microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NEONIPIGA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04006262 ) phase II study evaluated neoadjuvant nivolumab 240 mg once every two weeks ×6 and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every six weeks ×2, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg once every four weeks (nine injections) in patients with locally advanced resectable dMMR/MSI-H, clinical (c) tumor (T)2-T4 node (N)x metastasis (M)0 gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and June 2021, 32 patients with dMMR/MSI-H gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were enrolled. The median age was 65.5 years (range, 40-80). Clinical stages were cT2-T3N0 (n = 9), cT2-T3N1 (n = 22), and cT3N1M1 (n = 1, wrongly included). With a median follow-up of 14.9 months (95% CI, 10.6 to 17.6), 32 patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy (27 patients completed all cycles). Neoadjuvant therapy-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in six patients (19%). Twenty-nine patients underwent surgery; three did not have surgery and had complete endoscopic response with tumor-free biopsies and a normal computed tomography scan (two refused surgery and one had metastasis at inclusion). The rate of surgical morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification) was 55% (one postoperative death occurred). All 29 patients had an R0 resection, and 17 (58.6%; 90% CI, 41.8 to 74.1) had pCR (pathological T0N0). Becker tumor regression grades 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 were observed in 17 patients, three (including two pathological T0N1), two, and seven patients, respectively. Of the 29 patients with surgery, 23 received adjuvant nivolumab. At database lock, no patient had relapse and one died without relapse. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab and ipilimumab-based neoadjuvant therapy is feasible and associated with no unexpected toxicity and a high pCR rate in patients with dMMR/MSI-H resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Importance Primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors is observed in 10% to 40% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) displaying microsatellite instability (MSI) or defective mismatch repair (dMMR). Objective To investigate possible mechanisms underlying primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors of mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR. Design, Setting, and Participants This post hoc analysis of a single-center, prospective cohort included 38 patients with mCRC diagnosed as MSI or dMMR by local laboratories and entered into trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. The accuracy of MSI or dMMR status was also assessed in a retrospective cohort comprising 93 cases of mCRC that were diagnosed as MSI or dMMR between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2016, in 6 French hospitals. Primary resistance of mCRC was defined as progressive disease according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, 6 to 8 weeks after initiation of immune checkpoint inhibitors, without pseudo-progression. All tumor samples were reassessed for dMMR status using immunohistochemistry with antibodies directed against MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, and for MSI using polymerase chain reaction with pentaplex markers and with theHSP110T17 (HT17) repeat. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was positive predictive value. Results Among the 38 patients (15 women and 23 men; mean [SD] age, 55.6 [13.7] years) in the study with mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR, primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors was observed in 5 individuals (13%). Reassessment of the status of MSI or dMMR revealed that 3 (60%) of these 5 resistant tumors were microsatellite stable or displayed proficient mismatch repair. The positive predictive value of MSI or dMMR status assessed by local laboratories was therefore 92.1% (95% CI, 78.5%-98.0%). In the retrospective cohort of 93 patients (44 women and 49 men; mean [SD] age, 56.8 [18.3] years) without immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment, misdiagnosis of the MSI or dMMR status by local assessment was 10% (n = 9), with a positive predictive value of 90.3% (95% CI, 82.4%-95.0%). Testing for MSI with the HT17 assay confirmed the MSI or dMMR status in 2 of 4 cases showing discrepant results between immunohistochemistry and pentaplex polymerase chain reaction (ie, dMMR but microsatellite stable). Conclusions and Relevance Primary resistance of mCRC displaying MSI or dMMR to immune checkpoint inhibitors is due mainly to misdiagnosis of their MSI or dMMR status. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings. Microsatellite instability or dMMR status should be tested routinely using both immunohistochemistry and polymerase chain reaction methods prior to treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

PURPOSE: In patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) whose tumors demonstrate microsatellite instability (MSI), the efficacy of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine (FP) with or without oxaliplatin has not been clearly demonstrated and the prognostic value of MSI remains uncertain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from the ACCENT database were used to evaluate the effect of FP with or without oxaliplatin on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) among patients with MSI stage III CC and the prognostic value of MSI in patients treated with FP plus oxaliplatin, by stratified Cox models adjusted for demographic and clinicopathological factors. RESULTS: MSI status was available for 5,457 patients (609 MSI, 11.2%; 4848 microsatellite stable [MSS], 88.8%) from 12 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Oxaliplatin significantly improved OS of MSI patients from the two RCTs testing FP with or without oxaliplatin (n = 185; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.93). Among the 4,250 patients treated with FP plus oxaliplatin (461 MSI and 3789 MSS), MSI was associated with better OS in the N1 group compared with MSS (aHR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.95) but similar survival in the N2 population (aHR = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.48; P interaction = .029). The main independent prognosticators of MSI patients treated with FP plus oxaliplatin were T stage (aHR = 2.09; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.38) and N stage (aHR = 3.57; 95% CI, 2.32 to 5.48). Similar results were observed for DFS in all analyses. CONCLUSION: Adding oxaliplatin to FP improves OS and DFS in patients with MSI stage III CC. Compared with MSS, MSI patients experienced better outcomes in the N1 group but similar survival in the N2 group.

Background Despite unprecedented benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with mismatch repair deficient (dMMR)/microsatellite instability high (MSI-H) advanced gastrointestinal cancers, a relevant proportion of patients shows primary resistance or short-term disease control. Since malignant effusions represent an immune-suppressed niche, we investigated whether peritoneal involvement with or without ascites is a poor prognostic factor in patients with dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and gastric cancer (mGC) receiving ICIs. Methods We conducted a global multicohort study at Tertiary Cancer Centers and collected clinic-pathological data from a cohort of patients with dMMR/MSI-H mCRC treated with anti-PD-(L)1 ±anti-CTLA-4 agents at 12 institutions (developing set). A cohort of patients with dMMR/MSI-high mGC treated with anti-PD-1 agents±chemotherapy at five institutions was used as validating dataset. Results The mCRC cohort included 502 patients. After a median follow-up of 31.2 months, patients without peritoneal metastases and those with peritoneal metastases and no ascites had similar outcomes (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.56 for progression-free survival (PFS); aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.42 for overall survival (OS)), whereas inferior outcomes were observed in patients with peritoneal metastases and ascites (aHR 2.90, 95% CI 1.70 to 4.94; aHR 3.33, 95% CI 1.88 to 5.91) compared with patients without peritoneal involvement. The mGC cohort included 59 patients. After a median follow-up of 17.4 months, inferior PFS and OS were reported in patients with peritoneal metastases and ascites (aHR 3.83, 95% CI 1.68 to 8.72; aHR 3.44, 95% CI 1.39 to 8.53, respectively), but not in patients with only peritoneal metastases (aHR 1.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 5.46; aHR 2.15, 95% CI 0.64 to 7.27) when compared with patients without peritoneal involvement. Conclusions Patients with dMMR/MSI-H gastrointestinal cancers with peritoneal metastases and ascites should be considered as a peculiar subgroup with highly unfavorable outcomes to current ICI-based therapies. Novel strategies to target the immune-suppressive niche in malignant effusions should be investigated, as well as next-generation ICIs or intraperitoneal approaches.