Immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) can provide durable clinical responses and improve overall survival. However, only subsets of patients with specific tumor types respond to ICT. Thus, significant challenges remain, including understanding pathways of resistance, optimizing patient selection, improving management of immune-related adverse events, and identifying rational therapeutic combinations. These challenges will need a focused approach encompassing both clinical and basic research, with the integration of reverse translational studies. This integrated approach will lead to identification of potential targets for subsequent clinical trials, which will guide decisions as we develop novel combination strategies to maximize efficacy and minimize toxicities for patients.Significance: ICTs induce durable antitumor responses for subsets of patients with cancer. Recent evidence suggests that rational combinatorial strategies can improve response by overcoming primary and adaptive resistance mechanisms, although these may carry an increased risk of immune-mediated toxicities. This review surveys the current understanding of mechanisms of response and resistance to ICTs and active areas of investigation, and proposes a path forward to improving efficacy and minimizing toxicities through better patient selection and rational combinations.

Background Immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) has low response rates in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), in part due to few T cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) promotes intratumoral T cell infiltration but induces upregulation of PD-1 and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) within the prostate TME. Combined anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 can partly overcome this adaptive resistance and was recently shown to augment responses in patients with mCRPC with measurable disease. Although bone is the most common site of metastasis in prostate cancer, patients with bone-predominant disease are frequently excluded from trials because they lack measurable disease, which limits assessment of disease progression and tissue sampling. We therefore designed this study to investigate combined ICT in mCRPC to bone. Hypothesis Combined anti-CTLA-4 (tremelimumab) plus anti-PD-L1 (durvalumab) is safe and well tolerated in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC to bone. Patients and methods In this single-arm pilot study, men with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC to bone received tremelimumab (75 mg intravenous) plus durvalumab (1500 mg intravenous) every 4 weeks (up to four doses), followed by durvalumab (1500 mg intravenous) maintenance every 4 weeks (up to nine doses). The primary endpoint was incidence of adverse events. Secondary endpoints included serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic PFS (rPFS), and maximal PSA decline. Results Twenty-six patients were treated between August 8, 2017 and March 28, 2019. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 11 patients (42%), with no grade 4 or 5 events. TRAEs leading to discontinuation occurred in three patients (12%). PSA decline ≥50% occurred in three patients (12%). Six patients (24%) achieved stable disease for >6 months. At a median follow-up of 43.6 months, median rPFS was 3.7 months (95% CI: 1.9 to 5.7), and median overall survival was 28.1 months (95% CI: 14.5 to 37.3). Post-treatment evaluation of the bone microenvironment revealed transcriptional upregulation in myeloid and neutrophil immune subset signatures and increased expression of inhibitory immune checkpoints. Conclusions Tremelimumab plus durvalumab was safe and well tolerated in patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC to bone, with potential activity in a small number of patients as measured by rPFS. Combination of CTLA-4 and PD-L1 blockade with therapies targeting the myeloid compartment or other inhibitory immune receptors may be necessary to overcome mechanisms of resistance within prostate bone microenvironment. Trial registration number NCT03204812.

Purpose: Neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC) is an aggressive form of prostate cancer with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. As NEPC aberrantly expresses delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3), the activity of tarlatamab, a bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE®) that directs cytotoxic T cells to DLL3‑positive (DLL3+) cells, was evaluated in the DeLLpro-300 study (NCT04702737). Patients and methods: This was a phase 1b, open-label study evaluating tarlatamab monotherapy in patients with metastatic de novo or treatment-emergent NEPC defined by histologic, genomic, or immunohistochemistry (IHC) criteria. Tarlatamab was administered intravenously every 2 weeks at a dose of 100 mg with a 1-mg step dose. The primary objective was safety, and a secondary objective was objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v.1.1; DLL3 expression was retrospectively assessed by IHC. Results: Forty patients were enrolled (DLL3+ tumors, n=18; DLL3- tumors, n=14; DLL3 unknown tumors, n=8). The most common treatment-related adverse events were cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 82.5%), dysgeusia (42.5%), and decreased appetite (40.0%). CRS was predominantly low grade (grade 1/2/3/4+, 62.5%/15%/5%/0%), occurred exclusively in cycle 1, and was transient in duration (median duration, 3 days). ORR was 10.5% (95% CI, 2.9–24.8); the median duration of response was 7.3 months in the overall cohort. Patients with DLL3+ tumors (vs patients with DLL3-/DLL3 unknown tumors) acheived a higher ORR (22.2% [95% CI, 6.4–47.6] vs 0% [95% CI, 0–15.4]) and radiographic progression-free survival rate at 6 months (27.7% [95% CI, 8.7–50.9] vs 0%). Conclusions: The DeLLpro-300 study provides preliminary evidence for the safety and antitumor activity of tarlatamab in DLL3+ NEPC.

Background: The prostate tumor microenvironment (TME) is immunosuppressive, with few effector T cells and enrichment of inhibitory immune populations, leading to limited responses to treatments such as immune checkpoint therapies (ICTs). The immune composition of the prostate TME differs across soft tissue and bone, the most common site of treatment-refractory metastasis. Understanding immunosuppressive mechanisms specific to prostate TMEs will enable rational immunotherapy strategies to generate effective antitumor immune responses. Daratumumab (anti-CD38 antibody) and edicotinib (colony-stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF-1R) inhibitor) may alter the balance within the prostate TME to promote antitumor immune responses. Hypothesis: Daratumumab or edicotinib will be safe and will alter the immune TME, leading to antitumor responses in localized prostate cancer. Patients and methods: In this presurgical study, patients with localized prostate cancer received 4 weekly doses of daratumumab or 4 weeks of daily edicotinib prior to radical prostatectomy (RP). Treated and untreated control (Gleason score ≥8 in prostate biopsy) prostatectomy specimens and patient-matched pre- and post-treatment peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and bone marrow samples were evaluated. The primary endpoint was incidence of adverse events (AEs). The secondary endpoint was pathologic complete remission (pCR) rate. Results: Twenty-five patients were treated (daratumumab, n=15; edicotinib, n=10). All patients underwent RP without delays. Grade 3 treatment-related AEs with daratumumab occurred in 3 patients (12%), and no ≥grade 3 treatment-related AEs occurred with edicotinib. No changes in serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels or pCRs were observed. Daratumumab led to a decreased frequency of CD38⁺ T cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid cells in prostate tumors, bone marrow, and PBMCs. There were no consistent changes in CSF-1R⁺ immune cells in prostate, bone marrow, or PBMCs with edicotinib. Neither treatment induced T cell infiltration into the prostate TME. Conclusions: Daratumumab and edicotinib treatment was safe and well-tolerated in patients with localized prostate cancer but did not induce pCRs. Decreases in CD38⁺ immune cells were observed in prostate tumors, bone marrow, and PBMCs with daratumumab, but changes in CSF-1R⁺ immune cells were not consistently observed with edicotinib. Neither myeloid-targeted agent alone was sufficient to generate antitumor responses in prostate cancer; thus, combinations with agents to induce T cell infiltration (eg, ICTs) will be needed to overcome the immunosuppressive prostate TME.

Although genetic changes may be pivotal in the origin of cancer, cellular context is paramount. This is particularly relevant in a progenitor germ cell tumor and its differentiated mature teratoma counterpart when it concerns tumor heterogeneity and cancer dormancy in subsequent second malignancies (subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMNs)). From our tumor registry database, we identified 655 testicular germ cell tumor (TGCT) patients who developed SMNs between January 1990 and September 2018. Of the 113 solid organ SMNs, 42 had sufficient tumor tissue available for fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis of isochromosome 12p [i(12p)]. We identified seven additional patients for targeted DNA and RNA sequencing of teratomas and adjacent somatic transformation. Finally, we established cell lines from freshly resected post-chemotherapy teratomas and evaluated the cells for stemness expression by flow cytometry and by the formation of teratomas in a xenograft model. In our cohort, SMNs comprising non-germ cell tumors occurred about 18 years after a diagnosis of TGCT. Of the 42 SMNs examined, 5 (12%) contained i(12p) and 16 (38%) had 12p gain. When comparing a teratoma and adjacent somatic transformation, targeted DNA and RNA sequencing demonstrated high concordance. Studies of post-chemotherapy teratoma-derived cell lines revealed cancer-initiating cells expressing multipotency as well as early differentiation markers. For the first time, we demonstrated the prevalence of i(12p) in SMNs and the presence of progenitor cells embedded within mature teratomas after chemotherapy. Our findings suggest a progenitor stem-like cell of origin in SMN and TGCT and highlight the importance of cellular context in this disease.

Background: Immune checkpoint therapy (ICT) prolongs survival in subsets of patients with cancer but can also trigger immune-related adverse events (irAEs) requiring treatment discontinuation. Recent studies have investigated safety of ICT rechallenge after irAEs, and evidence suggests that rechallenge may be associated with improved antitumor responses. However, data are limited on response duration after ICT rechallenge, particularly after severe irAEs. Objective: To evaluate safety and efficacy of ICT rechallenge after moderate-to-severe irAEs in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC), urothelial carcinoma (UC), and prostate cancer. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, medical records from September 25, 2013, to June 1, 2020, for patients with genitourinary (GU) cancers at MD Anderson Cancer Center who were rechallenged with the same or different ICT following irAEs were reviewed. Demographics, ICT exposure, irAEs (grade and treatment), ICT discontinuation or rechallenge, rates of subsequent irAEs (new or recurrent) and antitumor activity (objective response rates and response duration) were reviewed. Results: Sixty-one patients with RCC, UC, and prostate cancer were rechallenged with ICT after experiencing 105 total irAEs. Objective response rates after rechallenge, that is, upgrade in response, were 14% in RCC (4/28), 21% in UC (3/14), and 0% in prostate cancer. All seven patients who achieved upgrade in response had initial grade 2 or 3 irAEs. Responses were durable among these seven patients, with median radiographic progression-free survival not reached (range: 3.7–66.4 months) as of the March 8, 2021, data cut-off (median follow-up 40.9 months (95% CI 35.3 to 46.5)). All achieved complete response except one patient who was lost to follow-up. The rate of subsequent grade 3 or 4 irAEs after rechallenge was 30%, with no fatal irAEs. The rate of recrudescence of the same irAE was 26% (16/61). 54% of patients received corticosteroids (33/61), and 21% received targeted immunosuppression (13/61) for the initial irAEs. Conclusions and relevance: ICT rechallenge after moderate-to-severe irAEs was associated with deep and durable responses in a subset of patients with RCC and UC, with acceptable safety and no fatal events. Strategies to enable ICT resumption after moderate-to-severe irAEs, such targeted immunosuppression, warrant further study.