Human IL6 is a cytokine produced by many cell types that has pleiotropic effects. In agreement, anti-IL6 therapy reduces inflammation, hepatic acute phase proteins, and anemia and has antiangiogenic effects. Blocking IL6 has demonstrated therapeutic efficacy with drug registration in Castleman disease and inflammatory diseases (rheumatoid arthritis) without major toxicity. Interestingly, the inhibition of C-reactive protein (CRP) production is a trustworthy surrogate marker of anti-IL6 therapy efficacy. Clinically registered IL6 inhibitors include siltuximab, an anti-IL6 mAb, and tocilizumab, an anti-IL6R mAb. In various cancers, in particular plasma cell cancers, large randomized trials showed no efficacy of IL6 inhibitors, despite a full inhibition of CRP production in treated patients in vivo, the numerous data showing an involvement of IL6 in these diseases, and initial short-term treatments demonstrating a dramatic inhibition of cancer cell proliferation in vivo. A likely explanation is the plasticity of cancer cells, with the presence of various subclones, making the outgrowth of cancer subclones possible using growth factors other than IL6. In addition, current therapeutic strategies used in these cancers already target IL6 activity. Thus, anti-IL6 therapeutics are able to neutralize IL6 production in vivo and are safe and useful in inflammatory diseases and Castleman disease. Clin Cancer Res; 21(6); 1248–57. ©2015 AACR.

Normal or “good” inflammation process starts from a local cellular response against injury or any infectious agent, with the activation of neutrophils, macrophages, Langerhans cells, dendritic cells, and innate immune cells. Cytokines and chemokines are produced to amplify the local inflammatory process followed by the migration of immune cells to the regional lymph nodes where adaptive immune response is initiated. Systemic inflammation enhances the biological response to mobilize additional cells from central and peripheral immune/hematopoietic system. Local mechanisms to limit inflammation are initiated and lead to healing. During the normal inflammatory process, there is a balance between the production of inflammatory chemokines/cytokines such as Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-1 and the production of compounds that limit inflammation and have an immune suppressive effect, such as IL-10 and Transforming Factor (TGF) β. IL-6 and IL-6/soluble IL-6 Receptor (R) complex stimulate liver cells to produce inflammatory proteins, which represents the systemic inflammation response. The magnitude and the duration of the systemic inflammatory response are linked to the cause, under genetic and epigenetic control. Significant inflammation as seen in septic shock, in severe forms of infections or in certain active cancers, represents the “bad inflammation”, correlated with a poor prognosis. In addition, the persistence of a chronic smoldering inflammation may lead to pathological situations which are observed in the majority of inflammatory, degenerative, dysmetabolic, or dysimmune diseases and cancer. Chronic smoldering inflammation is a cross between different pathological situations possibly linked. In addition, within the tumor microenvironment, inflammatory process results from different cellular mechanisms modulated by metabolic and vascular changes. On the contrary, a limited and balanced inflammation initiates the normal immune response, including the adaptive response which amplifies any immunotherapy, including vaccines. Immune checkpoint inhibitors and chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are associated with cytokine release syndrome, a clinical risk leading to the use of anti-cytokine drugs. Nowadays, it is time to monitor the dynamic inflammatory process for a better immune precision medicine in both infections and cancer.

Cancer cell growth is associated with immune surveillance failure. Nowadays, restoring the desired immune response against cancer cells remains a major therapeutic strategy. Due to the recent advances in biological knowledge, efficient therapeutic tools have been developed to support the best bio‐clinical approaches for immune precision therapy. One of the most important successes in immune therapy is represented by the applicational use of monoclonal antibodies, particularly the use of rituximab for B‐cell lymphoproliferative disorders. More recently, other monoclonal antibodies have been developed, to inhibit immune checkpoints within the tumor microenvironment that limit immune suppression, or to enhance some immune functions with immune adjuvants through different targets such as Toll‐receptor agonists. The aim is to inhibit cancer proliferation by the diminishing/elimination of cancer residual cells and clinically improving the response duration with no or few adverse effects. This effect is supported by enhancing the number, functions, and activity of the immune effector cells, including the natural killer (NK) lymphocytes, NKT‐lymphocytes, γδ T‐lymphocytes, cytotoxic T‐lymphocytes, directly or indirectly through vaccines particularly with neoantigens, and by lowering the functions of the immune suppressive cells. Beyond these new therapeutics and their personalized usage, new considerations have to be taken into account, such as epigenetic regulation particularly from microbiota, evaluation of transversal functions, particularly cellular metabolism, and consideration to the clinical consequences at the body level. The aim of this review is to discuss some practical aspects of immune therapy, giving to clinicians the concept of immune effector cells balancing between control and tolerance. Immunological precision medicine is a combination of modern biological knowledge and clinical therapeutic decisions in a global vision of the patient.

Both gallium nitrate and pamidronate are highly effective for acute control of cancer-related hypercalcemia. However, the proportion of patients who actually achieve normocalcemia has varied in published reports. Therefore, we conducted an exploratory, randomized, double-blind trial that compared the efficacy and safety of gallium nitrate and pamidronate in hospitalized patients with cancer-related hypercalcemia. Eligible patients with hypercalcemia, defined as albumin-adjusted serum calcium ≥ 12.0 mg/dL after intravenous hydration, were stratified on the basis of tumor histology (i.e., epidermoid or nonepidermoid) and by study site. Patients were then randomly assigned to receive intravenous gallium nitrate 200 mg/m2 daily for 5 days or intravenous pamidronate 60 mg (increased during the study to 90 mg for patients with initial serum calcium ≥ 13.5 mg/dL) followed by placebo infusions for 4 days. The primary endpoint of the study was comparison of the proportion of patients who achieved normocalcemia. Sixty-four patients were randomized, and all patients were evaluable for efficacy and safety. Normocalcemia was achieved in 22 of 32 (69%) patients treated with gallium nitrate compared with 18 of 32 patients (56%) treated with pamidronate. Patients randomized to pamidronate with initial serum calcium ≥ 13.5 mg/dL did not respond better to 90 mg (3 of 6; 50%) than to 60 mg (7 of 13; 54%), or compared with the response to gallium nitrate in this subset (15 of 21; 71%). Response to pamidronate was also lower in patients with epidermoid cancers (33%, vs 68% for gallium nitrate). Duration of normocalcemia was examined using both an intent-to-treat analysis irrespective of response and an analysis that examined only responding patients. By intent-to-treat analysis, the median duration of normocalcemia was 1 day for the pamidronate group and 7 days for the gallium nitrate group. Estimated normocalcemic duration in respon-ders was 10 days for the pamidronate group and 14 days for the gallium nitrate group. Both drugs were well tolerated, and clinically significant nephrotoxicity was not observed in either treatment group. Gallium nitrate appears to be at least as effective as pamidronate for acute control of cancer-related hypercalcemia. Results from this trial suggest that gallium nitrate may be particularly useful in patients with epidermoid cancers or severe hypercalcemia at baseline, and in patients who have previously exhibited a poor response to bisphos-phonates.

Background: Dysregulated interleukin (IL)-6 production can be characterised by the levels present, the kinetics of its rise and its inappropriate location. Rapid, excessive IL-6 production can exacerbate tissue damage in vital organs. In this situation, therapy with an anti-IL-6 or anti-IL-6 receptor (IL-6R) monoclonal antibody, if inappropriately dosed, may be insufficient to fully block IL-6 signalling and normalise the immune response.Methods: We analysed inhibition of C-reactive protein (CRP) – a biomarker for IL-6 activity – in patients with COVID-19 or idiopathic multicentric Castleman disease (iMCD) treated with tocilizumab (anti-IL-6R) or siltuximab (anti-IL-6), respectively. We used mathematical modelling to analyse how to optimise anti-IL-6 or anti-IL-6R blockade for the high levels of IL-6 observed in these diseases.Results: IL-6 signalling was insufficiently inhibited in patients with COVID-19 or iMCD treated with standard doses of anti-IL-6 therapy. Patients whose disease worsened throughout therapy had only partial inhibition of CRP production. Our model demonstrated that, in a scenario representative of iMCD with persistent high IL-6 production not controlled by a single dose of anti-IL-6 therapy, repeated administration more effectively inhibited IL-6 activity. In a situation with rapid, high, dysregulated IL-6 production, such as severe COVID-19 or a cytokine storm, repeated daily administration of an anti-IL-6/anti-IL-6R agent, or alternating daily doses of anti-IL-6 and anti-IL-6R therapies, could neutralise IL-6 activity.Conclusion: In clinical practice, IL-6 inhibition should be individualised based on pathophysiology to achieve full blockade of CRP production.Funding: EUSA Pharma funded medical writing assistance and provided access to the phase II clinical data of siltuximab for analysis.