Patterns of Response and Progression to Immunotherapy

Pathologic response after modern radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), pathologic complete response (pCR) following radiotherapy treatment has been shown to be an independent prognostic factor for long-term survival, progression-free survival and locoregional control. PCR is considered a surrogate to therapeutic efficacy, years before survival data are available, and therefore can be used to guide treatment plans and additional therapeutic interventions post-surgical resection. Given the extensive fibrotic changes induced by radiotherapy in the lung, radiological assessment of response can potentially misrepresent pathologic response. The optimal timing for assessment of pathologic response after conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) remains poorly understood. In this review, we summarize recent literature on pathologic response after radiotherapy for early stage and locally advanced NSCLC, we discuss current controversies around radiobiological considerations, and we present upcoming trials that will provide insight into current knowledge gaps.

Biomarkers of hyperprogression and pseudoprogression with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy

Hyperprogression and pseudoprogression are two atypical responses to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy that affect therapeutic decisions and prognosis. Identification of predictive biomarkers for atypical responses either before or during treatment remains a huge unmet need in cancer immunotherapy. Many studies have looked at potential biomarkers, including clinical factors and laboratory findings (e.g., peripheral blood counts, circulating tumor DNA, cytokine levels). The results of these studies have been inconsistent, possibly due to small sample sizes, different tumor types and heterogeneity of the definition of these atypical responses.

Pseudoprogression during treatment with pembrolizumab followed by rechallenge with chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A case report

Disease progression during immunotherapy in colorectal cancer does not always indicate treatment failure. A case argues that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) may serve as an early marker to distinguish between pseudoprogression and real progression. Presentation of results from reintroduction of chemotherapy after progression on immunotherapy that suggest increased efficiency.

CD163+ immune cell infiltrates and presence of CD54+ microvessels are prognostic markers for patients with embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma

Rhabdomyosarcomas (RMS) are rare and often lethal diseases. It is assumed that the tumor microenvironment (TME) of RMS exerts an immunosuppressive function, but there is currently no systematic analysis of the immune cells infiltrating sarcoma tissue. Focusing on two common types of RMS (alveolar [RMA] and embryonal [RME]), we performed a comprehensive immunohistochemical analysis of tumor-infiltrating immune cells in the TME. We performed a qualitative estimation of infiltrating immune cells in the tumor microenvironment by an experienced pathologist as well as a quantitative digital pathology analysis. We found that (1) manual and automatic quantification of tumor-infiltrating immune cells were consistent; (2) RME tumors showed a higher degree of immune cell infiltration than RMA tumors but (3) the number of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes was low compared to other solid tumor types; (4) microvascular density correlated with immune cell infiltration and (5) CD163 positive macrophages as well as CD54 positive microvessels were more often detected in RME than in RMA and correlated with patient overall and event free survival. Our systematic analysis provides a comprehensive view of the immune landscape of RMS which needs to be taken into account for developing immunotherapies for this rare type of cancer.

Adaptive Responses to Monotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer: Interventions for Rationale-Based Therapeutic Combinations

Most Phase II and III clinical trials in head and neck cancer (HNC) combine two or more treatment modalities, which are based, in part, on knowledge of the molecular mechanisms of innate and acquired resistance to monotherapy. In this review, we describe the range of tumor-cell autonomously derived (intrinsic) and tumor-microenvironment-derived (extrinsic) acquired-resistance mechanisms to various FDA-approved monotherapies for HNC. Specifically, we describe how tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment (TME) respond to radiation, chemotherapy, targeted therapy (cetuximab), and immunotherapies [programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors] and adapt to the selective pressure of these monotherapies. Due to the diversity of adaptive responses to monotherapy, monitoring the response to treatment in patients is critical to understand the path that leads to resistance and to guide the optimal therapeutic drug combinations in the clinical setting. We envisage that applying such a rationale-based therapeutic strategy will improve treatment efficacy in HNC patients.

Immunotherapy Mythbusters in Head and Neck Cancer: The Abscopal Effect and Pseudoprogression

Atypical patterns of response to immunotherapy have been observed, including the abscopal effect and pseudoprogression. Although both are infrequent in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, the synergism between radiation and checkpoint blockade therapy has generated excitement for exploitation of the abscopal effect. However, robust abscopal tumor regression observed in preclinical models has not translated to clinical experience. The optimal sequencing of radiotherapy with immunotherapy and dosage of radiation to target lesions to elicit this effect is being explored in clinical trials. Predictive markers of efficacy must be studied further to identify patients who may benefit from an abscopal effect and continued checkpoint inhibitor blockade beyond initial signs of radiologic progression. Given the rarity of pseudoprogression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, patients should be carefully selected to continue on immunotherapy, despite early radiologic signs of progression, given the risk of aggressive true progression and clinical deterioration that may result in missed opportunities for alternate treatments.