Search

BackgroundImmunotherapy combinations including ipilimumab and nivolumab are now the standard of care for untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Biomarkers of response are lacking to predict patients who will have a favorable or unfavorable response to immunotherapy. This study aimed to use the OmniSeq transcriptome-based platform to develop biomarkers of response to immunotherapy.MethodsTwo cohorts of patients were retrospectively collected. These included an investigational cohort of patients with mRCC treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy from five institutions, and a subsequent validation cohort of patients with mRCC treated with combination ipilimumab and nivolumab from two institutions (Duke Cancer Institute and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Center). Tissue-based RNA sequencing was performed using the OmniSeq Immune Report Card on banked specimens to identify gene signatures and immune checkpoints associated with differential clinical outcomes. A 5-gene expression panel was developed based on the investigational cohort and was subsequently evaluated in the validation cohort. Clinical outcomes including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were extracted by retrospective chart review. Objective response rate (ORR) was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) V.1.1.ResultsThe initial investigation cohort identified 86 patients with mRCC who received nivolumab (80%, 69/86), ipilimumab/nivolumab (14%, 12/86), or pembrolizumab (6%, 5/86). A gene expression score was created using the top five genes found in responders versus non-responders (FOXP3, CCR4, KLRK1, ITK, TIGIT). The ORR in patients with high gene expression (GEhigh) on the 5-gene panel was 29% (14/48), compared with low gene expression (GElow) 3% (1/38, χ2p=0.001). The validation cohort was comprised of 62 patients who received ipilimumab/nivolumab. There was no difference between GEhighand GElowin terms of ORR (44% vs 38.5%), PFS (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.89), or OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.83). Similarly, no differences in ORR, PFS or OS were observed when patients were stratified by tumor mutational burden (high=top 20%), PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1) expression by immunohistochemistry or RNA expression, or CTLA-4 (cytotoxic T-lymphocytes-associated protein 4) RNA expression. The International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium (IMDC) risk score was prognostic for OS but not PFS.ConclusionA 5-gene panel that was associated with improved ORR in a predominantly nivolumab monotherapy population of patients with mRCC was not predictive for radiographic response, PFS, or OS among patients with mRCC treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab.

Strategies for unlocking immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment have been investigated to overcome resistance to first-generation immune checkpoint blockade with anti- programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/ programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) agents. Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) 1, an enzyme catabolizing tryptophan to kynurenine, creates an immunosuppressive environment in preclinical studies. Early phase clinical trials investigating inhibition of IDO1, especially together with checkpoint blockade, provided promising results. Unfortunately, the phase 3 trial of the IDO1 inhibitor epacadostat combined with the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab did not show clinical benefit when compared with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with advanced malignant melanoma, which dampened enthusiasm for IDO inhibitors. Even so, several molecules, such as the aryl hydrocarbon receptor and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase, were reported as additional potential targets for the modulation of the tryptophan pathway, which might enhance clinical effectiveness. Furthermore, the combination of IDO pathway blockade with agents inhibiting other signals, such as those generated by PIK3CA mutations that may accompany IDO1 upregulation, may be a novel way to enhance activity. Importantly, IDO1 expression level varies by tumor type and among patients with the same tumor type, suggesting that patient selection based on expression levels of IDO1 may be warranted in clinical trials.