Search

Simple Summary: Natural Killer (NK) cells are innate lymphocytes that play an important role in the immune response against cancer. Their activity is controlled by a balance of inhibitory and activating receptors, which in cancer can be skewed to favor their suppression in support of immune escape. It is therefore imperative to find ways to optimize their antitumor functionality. In this review, we explore and discuss how their activity influences, or even mediates, the efficacy of various anti-cancer therapies and, vice versa, how their activity can be affected by these therapies. Knowledge of the mechanisms underlying these observations could provide rationales for combining anti-cancer treatments with strategies enhancing NK cell function in order to improve their therapeutic efficacy. Natural Killer (NK) cells are innate immune cells with the unique ability to recognize and kill virus-infected and cancer cells without prior immune sensitization. Due to their expression of the Fc receptor CD16, effector NK cells can kill tumor cells through antibody-dependent cytotoxicity, making them relevant players in antibody-based cancer therapies. The role of NK cells in other approved and experimental anti-cancer therapies is more elusive. Here, we review the possible role of NK cells in the efficacy of various anti-tumor therapies, including radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and immunotherapy, as well as the impact of these therapies on NK cell function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tumor mutational burden (TMB) is a genomic biomarker that predicts favorable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Here, we set out to assess the predictive value of TMB on long-term survival outcomes in patients undergoing ICIs. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 6 August 2019. We included retrospective studies or clinical trials of ICIs that reported hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and/or progression-free survival (PFS) according to TMB. Data on 5712 patients from 26 studies were included. Among patients who received ICIs, high TMB groups showed better OS (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.67) and PFS (HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.67) compared to low TMB groups. In patients with high TMB, those who received ICIs had a better OS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95) and PFS (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.92) compared to those who received chemotherapy alone, while in patients with low TMB, such ICI benefits of OS or PFS were not statistically significant. In conclusion, TMB may be an effective biomarker to predict survival in patients undergoing ICI treatment. The role of TMB in identifying patient groups who may benefit from ICIs should be determined in future randomized controlled trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We conducted a systematic review for evidence of the clinical efficacy of cancer immunotherapies. We searched PubMed from inception to 14 February 2018 for meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer immunotherapies. Re-analyses were performed to estimate the summary effect size under random-effects, the 95% confidence interval (CI), heterogeneity, and the 95% prediction interval, and we determined the strength of the evidence. We examined publication bias and excess significance bias. 63 articles corresponding to 247 meta-analyses were eligible. Nine meta-analyses were classified to have convincing evidence, and 75 were classified as suggestive evidence. The clinical benefit of immunotherapy was supported by convincing evidence in the following settings: anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy for treating advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the combination of rituximab and chemotherapy for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia and B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, adoptive cell immunotherapy for NSCLC, and the combination of interferon α and chemotherapy for metastatic melanoma. A further meta-analysis of 16 RCTs showed that anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb therapy had a benefit in patients with solid tumors (overall survival; hazard ratio = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.68–0.79; p < 0.001), supported by convincing evidence. In the future, rigorous approaches are needed when interpreting meta-analyses to gain better insight into the true efficacy of cancer immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]