Conflicts of Interest Statement D.L. reports funding by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancers which is funded in part by an educational grant from Bristol-Meyers Squibb (BMS). BMS has had no input into the conception, conduct, or reporting of the submitted work. D.C. has received consulting (GSK, Lilly, Boston Pharmaceuticals) and travel/speaking (Merck) support, outside the scope of the present work. G.M.B. had sponsored research agreements with Takeda Oncology, Palleon Pharmaceuticals, Olink Proteomics, which were not used to support this work. She served as a speaker for Novartis and on scientific advisory boards for Nektar Therapeutics and Novartis and consults for Merck, all of which are outside the scope of this work. P.K.B has consulted
Melanoma-derived brain metastases (MBM) represent an unmet clinical need because central nervous system (CNS) progression is frequently an end-stage of the disease. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) provide a clinical opportunity against MBM; however, the MBM tumor microenvironment (TME) has not been fully elucidated in the context of ICI. To dissect unique elements of the MBM TME and correlates of MBM response to ICI, we collected 32 fresh MBM and performed single-cell RNA sequencing of the MBM TME and T-cell receptor clonotyping on T cells from MBM and matched blood and extracranial lesions. We observed myeloid phenotypic heterogeneity in the MBM TME, most notably multiple distinct neutrophil states, including an IL8-expressing population that correlated with malignant cell epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Additionally, we observed significant relationships between intracranial T-cell phenotypes and the distribution of T-cell clonotypes intracranially and peripherally. We found that the phenotype, clonotype, and overall number of MBM-infiltrating T cells were associated with response to ICI, suggesting that ICI-responsive MBMs interact with peripheral blood in a manner similar to extracranial lesions. These data identify unique features of the MBM TME that may represent potential targets to improve clinical outcomes for patients with MBM.
Background Immune checkpoint blockade has systemic efficacy in patients with metastatic melanoma, including those with brain metastases (MBMs). However, immunotherapy‐induced intracranial tumoral inflammation can lead to neurologic compromise, requiring steroids, which abrogate the systemic efficacy of this approach. We investigated whether upfront neurosurgical resection of MBM is associated with a therapeutic advantage when performed prior to initiation of immunotherapy. Material and Methods An institutional review board‐approved, retrospective study identified 142 patients with MBM treated with immune checkpoint blockade between 2010 and 2016 at Massachusetts General Hospital, of whom 79 received surgery. Patients were classified based on the temporal relationship between immunotherapy, surgery, and development of central nervous system metastases. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from the date of diagnosis of MBM until death from any cause. Multivariate model building included a prognostic Cox model of OS, the effect of immunotherapy and surgical sequencing on OS, and the effect of immunotherapy and radiation sequencing on OS. Results The 2‐year overall survival for patients treated with cytotoxic T‐lymphocyte antigen 4, programmed death 1, or combinatorial blockade was 19%, 54%, and 57%, respectively. Among immunotherapy‐naïve melanoma brain metastases, surgery followed by immunotherapy had a median survival of 22.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6–39.2) compared with 10.8 months for patients treated with immunotherapy alone (95% CI, 7.8–16.3) and 9.4 months for patients treated with immunotherapy followed by surgery (95% CI, 4.1 to ∞; p = .12). On multivariate analysis, immunotherapy‐naïve brain metastases treated with immunotherapy alone were associated with increased risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.00–2.99) compared with immunotherapy‐naïve brain metastases treated with surgery followed by immunotherapy. Conclusion In treatment‐naïve patients, early surgical resection for local control should be considered prior to commencing immunotherapy. A prospective, randomized trial comparing the sequence of surgery and immunotherapy for treatment‐naïve melanoma brain metastases is warranted. Implications for Practice In this retrospective study of 142 patients with melanoma brain metastases treated with immune checkpoint blockade, the development of melanoma brain metastases following immunotherapy was associated with decreased survival compared with diagnosis of immunotherapy‐naïve brain metastases. The benefit of surgical intervention was seen in immunotherapy‐naïve brain metastases in contrast to brain metastases that developed on immunotherapy. These results suggest that upfront local control with surgery for immunotherapy‐naïve melanoma brain metastasis may provide a bridge toward immunotherapy‐mediated systemic control.
Leptomeningeal disease (LMD) is a devastating complication of solid tumor malignancies, with dire prognosis and no effective systemic treatment options. Over the past decade, the incidence of LMD has steadily increased due to therapeutics that have extended the survival of cancer patients, highlighting the need for new interventions. To examine the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in patients with LMD, we completed two phase II clinical trials. Here, we investigate the cellular and molecular features underpinning observed patient trajectories in these trials by applying single-cell RNA and cell-free DNA profiling to longitudinal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) draws from enrolled patients. We recover immune and malignant cell types in the CSF, characterize cell behavior changes following ICI, and identify genomic features associated with relevant clinical phenomena. Overall, our study describes the liquid LMD tumor microenvironment prior to and following ICI treatment and demonstrates clinical utility of cell-free and single-cell genomic measurements for LMD research.
Key Points Question Can cell-free DNA analysis of cerebrospinal fluid provide additional diagnostic utility beyond cytologic assessment? Findings In this diagnostic study of 43 cerebrospinal fluid samples from 22 patients with leptomeningeal disease confirmed by cytologic assessment who did not have parenchymal tumors abutting their cerebrospinal fluid, tumor-derived cell-free DNA was detected in the cerebrospinal fluid of 40 (93%) samples, whereas 31 (72%) of the samples were positive for malignant neoplasm as determined by cytologic analysis, a significant difference. Meaning These findings suggest that cerebrospinal fluid cell-free DNA analysis may be more sensitive than cytologic analysis for diagnosing leptomeningeal disease.
Up to 75% of patients with melanoma develop brain metastases. While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting PD-1 and CTLA4 have revolutionized the treatment of metastatic melanoma, responses within the immune-specialized microenvironment of the brain are not well understood and there is a paucity of animal models to investigate the effect of ICI intracranially. We characterized responses to checkpoint inhibitors in a syngeneic mouse model of melanoma brain metastasis with concurrent intracranial and subcutaneous melanoma. D3UV3 cells (obtained from David Fisher’s laboratory) were derived using UVB irradiation from D4M.3A melanoma cell line and implanted into the striatum using stereotactic injection or subcutaneously injected into the flank of C57BL/6 mice. Mice were then treated with anti-PD-1 antibody, anti-CTLA4 antibody, a combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4, or isotype controls. While mice with intracranial melanoma alone had no response to monotherapy with anti-PD-1 or anti-CTLA4 antibody (p=1 and 0.1, respectively), and only a slight response to combination therapy (p=0.049), mice with concurrent subcutaneous tumors had significantly improved responses to anti-PD-1, anti-CTLA4 and combination treatment (p=0.002, 0.01 and 0.01 respectively compared to mice with intracranial tumors alone with equivalent treatment). These results demonstrate that the presence of an extracranial tumor influences response to ICI in pre-clinical mouse models of melanoma brain metastasis. We have therefore established a pre-clinical model with concurrent intracranial and extracranial tumors to better recapitulate the clinically observed context of melanoma brain metastases and lead to a better understanding of the setting in which ICI are effective for patients with this devastating complication.
Melanoma-derived brain metastases (MBM) represent an unmet clinical need due to central nervous system (CNS) progression as a frequent, end-stage site of disease. Immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) represents a clinical opportunity against MBM; however, the MBM tumor microenvironment (TME) has not been fully elucidated in the context of ICI. To dissect unique MBM-TME elements and correlates of MBM-ICI response, we collected 32 fresh MBM and performed single cell RNA sequencing of the MBM-TME and T cell receptor clonotyping on T cells from MBM and matched blood and extracranial lesions. We observed myeloid phenotypic heterogeneity, most notably multiple distinct neutrophil states including an IL-8 expressing population that correlated with malignant cell epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. Additionally, we observe significant relationships between intracranial T cell phenotypes and the distribution of T cell clonotypes intracranially and peripherally. We found that the phenotype, clonotype, and overall number of MBM-infiltrating T cells were associated with response to ICI, suggesting that ICI-responsive MBMs interact with peripheral blood in a manner similar to extracranial lesions. These data demonstrate unique features of the MBM-TME, which may represent potential targets to improve clinical outcomes for patients with MBM.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.