Vaccines and immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

An overview of potential novel mechanisms of action underlying Tumor Treating Fields-induced cancer cell death and their clinical implications

Traditional cancer therapy choices for clinicians are surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and immune therapy which are used either standalone therapies or in various combinations. Other physical modalities beyond ionizing radiation include photodynamic therapy and heating and the more recent approach referred to as Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields). TTFields are intermediate frequency, low-intensity, alternating electric fields that are applied to tumor regions and cells using noninvasive arrays. TTFields have revolutionized the treatment of newly diagnosed and recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) and unresectable and locally advanced malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM). TTFields are thought to kill tumor cells predominantly by disrupting mitosis; however it has been shown that TTFields increase efficacy of different classes of drugs, which directly target mitosis, replication stress and DNA damage pathways. Hence, a detailed understanding of TTFields' mechanisms of action is needed to use this therapy effectively in the clinic. Recent findings implicate TTFields' role in different important pathways such as DNA damage response and replication stress, ER stress, membrane permeability, autophagy, and immune response. This review focuses on potentially novel mechanisms of TTFields anti-tumor action and their implications in completed and ongoing clinical trials and pre-clinical studies. Moreover, the review discusses advantages and strategies using chemotherapy agents and radiation therapy in combination with TTFields for future clinical use.

Tumor-treating fields elicit a conditional vulnerability to ionizing radiation via the downregulation of BRCA1 signaling and reduced DNA double-strand break repair capacity in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines

The use of tumor-treating fields (TTFields) has revolutionized the treatment of recurrent and newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). TTFields are low-intensity, intermediate frequency, alternating electric fields that are applied to tumor regions and cells using non-invasive arrays. The predominant mechanism by which TTFields are thought to kill tumor cells is the disruption of mitosis. Using five non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cell lines we found that there is a variable response in cell proliferation and cell killing between these NSCLC cell lines that was independent of p53 status. TTFields treatment increased the G2/M population, with a concomitant reduction in S-phase cells followed by the appearance of a sub-G1 population indicative of apoptosis. Temporal changes in gene expression during TTFields exposure was evaluated to identify molecular signaling changes underlying the differential TTFields response. The most differentially expressed genes were associated with the cell cycle and cell proliferation pathways. However, the expression of genes found within the BRCA1 DNA-damage response were significantly downregulated (P<0.05) during TTFields treatment. DNA double-strand break (DSB) repair foci increased when cells were exposed to TTFields as did the appearance of chromatid-type aberrations, suggesting an interphase mechanism responsible for cell death involving DNA repair. Exposing cells to TTFields immediately following ionizing radiation resulted in increased chromatid aberrations and a reduced capacity to repair DNA DSBs, which were likely responsible for at least a portion of the enhanced cell killing seen with the combination. These findings suggest that TTFields induce a state of ‘BRCAness' leading to a conditional susceptibility resulting in enhanced sensitivity to ionizing radiation and provides a strong rationale for the use of TTFields as a combined modality therapy with radiation or other DNA-damaging agents.

Tumour islet Foxp3+ T-cell infiltration predicts poor outcome in nonsmall cell lung cancer

The impact of host immunity on outcome in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial. We examined the relationship between lymphoid infiltration patterns in NSCLC and prognosis.

Tumour- and stroma-infiltrating CD3+, CD8+ and forkhead box P3 (Foxp3)+ T-lymphocytes were identified using immunohistochemistry and a novel image analysis algorithm to assess total, cytotoxic and regulatory T-lymphocyte counts, respectively, in 196 NSCLC cases. The median cell count was selected as a cut-point to define patient subgroups and the ratio of the corresponding tumour islet:stroma (TI/S) counts was determined.

There was a positive association between overall survival and increased CD8+ TI/S ratio (hazard ratio (HR) for death 0.44, p<0.001) but an inverse relationship between Foxp3+ TI/S ratio and overall survival (HR 4.86, p<0.001). Patients with high CD8+ islet (HR 0.48, p<0.001) and Foxp3+ stromal (HR 0.23, p<0.001) counts had better survival, whereas high CD3+ and CD8+ stromal counts and high Foxp3+ islet infiltration conferred a worse survival (HR 1.55, 2.19 and 3.14, respectively). By multivariate analysis, a high CD8+ TI/S ratio conferred an improved survival (HR 0.48, p=0.002) but a high Foxp3+ TI/S ratio was associated with worse survival (HR 3.91, p<0.001).

Microlocalisation of infiltrating T-lymphocytes is a powerful predictor of outcome in resected NSCLC.

Ipilimumab: its potential in non-small cell lung cancer

Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that enhances antitumor immunity by way of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 blockade. It has already been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and is being investigated for treating other solid tumors such as renal cell, prostate and lung cancers. This review details the potential of ipilimumab in the management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In particular, ipilimumab showed promising results in a first-line NSCLC phase II study combining carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy with concurrent or phased ipilimumab. The median immune-related progression-free survival was 5.68 months for the phased ipilimumab arm versus 4.63 months for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.68, p = 0.026) and 5.52 months for the concurrent ipilimumab arm versus 4.63 months for chemotherapy alone (HR = 0.77, p = 0.094). The main adverse events were immune related, such as hypophysitis, enterocolitis, and hyperthyroidism. These adverse events may be improved with high-dose glucocorticoids and may be correlated with tumor response. Phase III studies are ongoing. Future studies may investigate ipilimumab in the management of early stage lung cancer. Strategies for potential translational research studies are also discussed to identify prognostic and predictive biomarkers for the use of ipilimumab in the treatment of patients with NSCLC.

Strengths and weaknesses of immunotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials

Background

Lung cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death worldwide. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately 85% of all lung cancers. Immunotherapy has yielded no consistent benefit to date for those patients. Assessing the objective efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients will help to instruct the future development of immunotherapeutic drugs.

Methodology and Principal Findings

We performed a meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials including 3134 patients (1570 patients in the immunotherapy group and 1564 patients in the control group) with histologically confirmed stage IIIA, IIIB, or IV NSCLC. The analysis was executed with efficacy end points regarding overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and total effective rate. Overall unstratified OS, PFS, PR, and total effective rate were significantly improved in advanced NSCLC patients in the immunotherapy group (P = 0.0007, 0.0004, 0.002, 0.003, respectively), whereas CR was not improved (P = 0.97). Subgroup analysis showed that monoclonal antibody (mAb) immunotherapy significantly improved the PFS, PR, and total effective rate and showed a trend of improving OS of advanced NSCLC patients compared with the control group, with one kind of adverse event being significantly dominant. Compared with the control group, the vaccine subgroup showed no significant difference with regard to serious adverse events, whereas cytokine immunotherapy significantly induced three kinds of serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Immunotherapy works efficiently on advanced NSCLC patients. Of several immunotherapies, mAb therapy may be a potential immunotherapy for advanced NSCLC patients, and become a standard complementary therapeutic approach in the future if the issues concerning toxicity and allergenicity of mAbs have been overcome.