Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Aquaporins in the Colon as a New Therapeutic Target in Diarrhea and Constipation
Next Article in Special Issue
Targeting the Tumor Microenvironment: The Protumor Effects of IL-17 Related to Cancer Type
Previous Article in Journal
Leptin Receptor Metabolism Disorder in Primary Chondrocytes from Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Girls
Previous Article in Special Issue
Immunogenic Human Papillomavirus Pseudovirus-Mediated Suicide-Gene Therapy for Bladder Cancer
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 17
Issue 7
10.3390/ijms17071169
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A New Opportunity in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer?

by
Gloria Mittica
1,2,†,
Sofia Genta
1,2,†,
Massimo Aglietta
1,2 and
Giorgio Valabrega
1,2,*
1
Candiolo Cancer Institute-FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin 10060, Italy
2
Department of Oncology, University of Torino, Turin 10060, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to the work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17(7), 1169; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071169
Submission received: 20 June 2016 / Revised: 8 July 2016 / Accepted: 14 July 2016 / Published: 20 July 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cancer Immunology with a Focus on Understudied Cancers as Targets for Immunotherapy)
Browse Figures
Graphical abstract
"> Figure 1
<p>Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and PD-1/L1 checkpoint blockade. MHC, major histocompatibility complex; TCR, T cell receptor; PD-1, programmed cell death-1; PD-L1, programmed cell death ligand-1; +, B7 receptor expressed; −, B7 receptor not expressed.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the leading cause of death for gynecological cancer. The standard treatment for advanced stage is the combination of optimal debulking surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Nevertheless, recurrence is frequent (around 70%) and prognosis is globally poor. New therapeutic agents are needed to improve survival. Since EOC is strongly immunogenic, immune checkpoint inhibitors are under evaluation for their capacity to contrast the “turn off” signals expressed by the tumor to escape the immune system and usually responsible for self-tolerance maintenance. This article reviews the literature on anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-PD-L2 antibodies in EOC and highlights their possible lines of development. Further studies are needed to better define the prognostic role of the immune checkpoint inhibitors, to identify predictors of response and the optimal clinical setting in EOC.

Graphical Abstract">

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the first cause of death among gynecological neoplasms and the fifth cancer-related cause of death for women in advanced countries [1]. Cytoreductive surgery integrated with platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard treatment for advanced EOC. Despite this combined approach, most patients recur and eventually die, with prognosis significantly depending on the platinum-free interval. Usually, platinum-sensitive disease benefits from platinum-based re-challenging, while platinum-resistant disease is usually treated with single-agent chemotherapy (e.g., pegylated liposomal doxorubicin [2,3], paclitaxel [4], gemcitabine [2,3], etoposide [5], topotecan [6,7], or docetaxel [8]).
Several drugs have been recently added to the already available armament, such as bevacizumab and olaparib, for BRCA-mutated EOCs. Unfortunately, their contribution to survival improvement of patients with relapsed EOC, is, at best, marginal and, overall, prognosis remains globally severe [9,10,11].
New effective therapeutic strategies are needed to overcome drug resistances, preventing spreading and progression of the tumor.
In this review, we will focus on the current clinical evidence and future perspectives offered by immune checkpoint inhibitors in EOC. To identify ongoing clinical trials with these molecules, we operated a search on clinicaltrials.gov with the keywords “ovarian cancer” and the name of each checkpoint inhibitor discussed in the article.

2. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Prognostic Value and Rationale for Clinical Use

In recent years there is an increasing interest related to the role played by adaptive and innate immunity in cancer progression control. It has been demonstrated that immune cells, through the recognition of tumor-associated antigens (TAAs) and tumor-specific antigens (TSA), are able to identify and kill neoplastic cells [12]. Ovarian cancer is known to be an immunogenic tumor. In 2003 Zhang and colleagues [13] observed that the presence of CD3+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is correlated with improved survival in EOC patients. Two years later, Sato and colleagues [14] reported an improved survival in patients with intraepithelial CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and a high CD8+/regulatory T cell ratio. While the presence of CD8+ infiltrating lymphocytes seems to be a good predictor of prognosis, the presence of CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ T regulatory cells (Tregs) and the existence of a natural killer (NK) and B cell infiltration seems to be correlated with a worse prognosis [15,16].
In the physiological immune response, after TAA recognition by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, processed into small peptide and presented by antigen-presenting cells (APCs) through major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II, two positive signals are required for activation. The first one is the connection between the T cell receptor (TCR) and MHC molecules; the second necessary step is the interaction between B7 on APCs and CD28 on T cells. The CD28 has a competitive receptor for B7 ligand, the cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), which delivers an inhibitory signal. While this negative feedback is mainly used in secondary lymphoid organ, other inhibitory pathways are present within the tumor microenvironment [17,18]. The most important peripheral regulatory pathway is the interaction between the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor, expressed on T cells, and the programmed cell death ligand-1 and 2 (PD-L1 and PD-L2) on the tumor cells surface.
The binding between PD-1 and PD-L1 causes the inhibition of T-cells proliferation, the cytokine’s secretion, and the increase of Treg, ensuring the maintenance of self-tolerance [19,20]. A similar immunosuppressive effect is determined by the binding between PD-1 and the second ligand called PD-L2 (Figure 1) [21]. This control mechanism, usually used by epithelial cells and leukocytes, and induced by interferon-γ (IFN-γ) secretion, is necessary to prevent the development of autoimmune reactions.
Tumor cells are able to evade immune surveillance through different mechanisms and one of these is the exposure of PD-L1 [22,23]. A high expression of PD-L1 seems to be correlated with a worse prognosis in several type of tumors, such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [24,25], kidney cancer [26,27,28,29,30,31], and bladder cancer [32], while in other neoplasms, like melanoma [33], seems to be a good prognosis predictor.
In ovarian cancer, Hamanishi and colleagues [34] observed a significant inverse correlation between the intraepithelial CD8+ T lymphocyte count and the expression of PD-L1 in tumor cells. Moreover, they reported a significantly worse prognosis for patients with higher levels of PD-L1 in tumor cells. More recently, other authors have investigated the role of PD-L1 expression as a prognostic factor in EOC. In 2013 Maine and colleagues [35] observed a correlation of PD-1 expression with malignant tumors versus benign/borderline, and they also found that PD-L1 expression on monocytes in ascites and blood of malignant EOC patients is higher than those with benign/borderline disease. Not all studies agree in attributing the role of negative prognostic factors to the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1. Darb-Esfahani and colleagues [36] reported a significantly increased progression free survival (PFS) in patients with higher PD-1 and PD-L1 expression in cancer cells, CD3+, PD-1+, and PD-L1+ TILs densities, as well as PD-1 and PD-L1 mRNA levels. PD-L1 expression has, also, significant impact on overall survival (OS) (p = 0.045), while for PD-1 expression only a positive trend was seen for OS (p = 0.059) [36]. These data has been confirmed in a recent article published by Webb and colleagues [37]. Probably, discordant results may reflect different techniques for PD-L1 and PD-1 assessment.
Independently from the prognostic significance of PD-L1 expression, PD-L1/PD-1 receptor B7/CTLA-4 interactions are important immune escape mechanisms, allowing tumor progression.
In order to prevent the activation of the immune-inhibitory pathways, several monoclonal antibodies are under development. Currently, various antibodies targeting PD1, PD-L1, PD-L2, and CTLA-4 have shown activity in several cancer other than EOC, such as melanoma [38,39,40,41], lung cancer [42,43,44], head cancer, and renal cell carcinoma [45]. In melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved.

3. CTLA-4 and PD-1/PD-L1 Blockade in Ovarian Cancer: Clinical Evidence

Ipilimumab is a fully human immunoglobulin class G1 (IgG1) antibody targeting CTLA-4 and it is currently approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma [46]. Between 2003 and 2008 Hodi et al. [46], in a two-steps study, administered ipilimumab to eleven stage IV ovarian cancer patients, previously vaccinated with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) modified irradiated autologous tumor cells (e.g., GVAX). One out of nine patients of the second group obtained a durable disease control (over 4 years), while three patients had a disease stabilization. Tumor regression was correlated with CD8+/Treg ratio suggesting a potential synergistic role of the association of anti-CTLA-4 with the Treg depleting therapies. The safety profile was favorable and only two patients experienced grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicities [47,48].
The other anti CTLA-4 antibody in an advanced stage of development is tremelimumab. For this fully-human IgG2 antibody no clinical evidence is yet available for EOC, but several studies are ongoing (see the next section). The first anti-PD-1 tested in EOC was nivolumab, a fully-humanized IgG4, which prevents the binding between PD-1 and its ligands.
In a phase II trial published by Hamanishi and colleagues [49], nivolumab was administered in two cohorts of patients at a dose of 1 or 3 mg/kg. All of the women included in the study had platinum-resistant EOC and they had already received at least two chemotherapy lines. Two complete responses (CRs) were observed in the 3 mg/kg arm and one partial response occurred in the 1 mg/kg arm. Considering both cohorts, overall response rate (ORR), was 15%, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 45% [49]. One of the two CRs occurred in a patient with a clear cell carcinoma (CCC), usually resistant to chemotherapy [50]. Most tumor specimens (80%) showed high expression of PD-L1, but no significant correlated with response was observed. Eight out of 20 patients enrolled (40%) developed grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events. The most common were hypothyroidism, lymphocytopenia, fever, transaminitis, rash, fatigue, anemia, arthralgia, and arrhythmia [49].
Varga and colleagues [51] presented the interim first results of a phase Ib trial, evaluating safety and antitumor activity of pembrolizumab (formerly known as lambrolizumab), another anti-PD-1 antibody, in patients with PD-L1-positive advanced solid tumors (PD-L1 expression ≥1%). One out of the 26 patients with advanced EOC obtained a complete response, while two patients experienced a partial response. The best overall response rate was 11.5% and most common adverse events reported were fatigue, anemia, and decreased appetite.
In 2012 Brahmer et al. [52] treated 207 patients with advanced solid tumors, including 17 women with ovarian cancer, with BMS-936559, a fully-human IgG4 antibody targeting PD-L1. One patient had a partial response and three had a stable disease. Most common toxicities were fatigue, infusion reaction, diarrhea, arthralgia, rash, rash, pruritus, and headache.
In a phase Ib trial, Disis and colleagues treated 124 women affected by recurrent or refractory EOC with avelumab, a fully-humanized anti-PD-L1 IgG1 antibody, at the dose of 10 mg/kg. ORR was 9.7% and 12 partial responses have been reported. Fifty five patients experienced a stable disease (44.4%) and the disease control rate (DCR) was 54%. Immune-related adverse events have been reported in 66.1%, with 6.5% grade ≥3 (increased lipase and elevated creatine kinase and autoimmune myositis that led to interruption of treatment). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, nausea, and diarrhea [53].

4. Ongoing Studies

In all published trials, immune checkpoint inhibitors were tested as single agents in relapsed platinum resistant EOC with ORRs not exceeding 15% and only a few patients showing long-lasting disease control. In order to improve these results, the combination with other agents, first of all chemotherapy, is under investigation. Interestingly, Grabosch et al. [54], in a preclinical model, reported that chemotherapy exposure with platinum and taxane upregulates PD-L1. Moreover, combination of high-dose PD-L1 inhibitor and cisplatin in vivo is able to control and reduce tumor burden (p = 0.029), even if optimal timing and dosage are not yet defined [54,55,56].
Following evidence derived from metastatic melanoma, several trials are also investigating associations between different checkpoint inhibitors.
However, probably the most promising strategy, in the subgroup of BRCA-mutated/Homologous recombination deficient (HRD) + EOC is the association of immune checkpoint inhibitors with poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP)-inhibitors (see Table 1). Preclinical data indicate that BRCA-deficient ovarian cancers express more frequently immune response genes than wild-type tumors [57]. On these bases, in a murine ovarian cancer model Higuchi and colleagues [58] demonstrated that the CTLA-4 antibody, but not the inhibition of the PD-1/PD-L1 pathway, synergize with PARP-inhibitors increasing long term survival in the majority of mice (p < 0.0001). Possibly, long-term results are due to a T-cell mediated response and to the development of a protective immune memory.

5. Discussion and Future Perspectives

The treatment of advanced/relapsed EOC is clearly an unmet need. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may improve clinical outcome, but before adding them to our therapeutic options several questions need to be addressed:
(1)
Do we have reliable predictors of response in EOC?
(2)
Are there subgroups more likely to benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors?
(3)
Is there an optimal clinical setting?
(4)
Is it better to use checkpoint inhibitors alone or in association with other agents?
(5)
Is there a possible role for PD-L1/L2 in early detection of ovarian cancer?
(1) The most important point is the lack of validated predictive biomarkers of response. Unfortunately, the expression of PD-L1 on tumor cells does not seem to be a reliable predictor of benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors since its role is not consistent across different studies in different cancers probably due heterogeneous techniques in the measurement of PD-L1 and different timing of assessments (e.g., before chemotherapy, after chemotherapy, or during chemotherapy) [59]. Moreover, it has to be taken into account that, other non-neoplastic cells in the tumor microenvironment expressing PD-L1 may be relevant in response to checkpoint inhibitors. For example, Webb and colleagues have shown, in ovarian cancer, that tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) frequently express PD-L1 [37].
Considering predictors less “PD-1/PD-L1 and PD-L2centric” and more easily applicable to clinical practice, there are a few interesting reports on correlations between the anti CTLA-4 ipilimumab and response in metastatic melanoma that may future relevance also in EOC The most interesting are the increased number of peripheral blood absolute lymphocyte count [60] and the low ratio value of absolute neutrophils and lymphocyte count (N/L) [61].
(2) A peculiar subset of EOC patients is represented by somatic and germline BRCA mutation carriers. It is known that EOCs developed in BRCA carriers are characterized by a higher mutational load and there is some evidence that this determines changes in the tumor microenvironment due to the greater number of neoantigens that favor recruitment of an increased number of TILs, as for other hypermutated tumors [62,63]. In fact, BRCA-mutated EOCs seem to be associated with increased CD3+ and CD8+ TIL counts and high levels of PD-1 and PD-L1 [64,65]. These data suggest that BRCA-mutated patients may represent a particularly favorable subset for immunotherapy in general and, in particular, for immune checkpoint inhibitors, alone or, even more likely, in association with PARP inhibitors or platinum-based chemotherapy. Additionally, rare histologies, which are known to be poorly sensitive to chemotherapy, may represent a favorable subset for immune therapy [66].
In particular, clear cell ovarian cancer (CCC) is characterized by an intrinsic chemoresistance. At American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2016 it was shown that CCCs are frequently associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) leading to a higher number of CD3+TILs and PD-1+TILs in comparison with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) [67]. Moreover, CCCs have a gene expression profile similar to renal cancer and it is known that a high rate of alterations in the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway characterizes this histological type [68]. Interestingly, preclinical data from NSCLC suggest that the activation of this pathway correlates with an increased expression of PD-L1 in tumor cells [69].
These considerations support the clinical observation of a complete response (CR) obtained with nivolumab, reported in a CCC by Hamanishi and colleagues [49,70].
(3) Another important point that needs that to be discussed is the optimal clinical setting for the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors: from the few clinical trials available, platinum-resistant EOCs, which are characterized by unfavorable prognosis and general chemoresistance, seem a reasonable target. However, lower tumor burden, which usually identifies platinum-sensitive disease, may be more favorable in terms of arming immune system against cancer, as observed in a recently published multi-cohort trial in patients with melanoma [71].
(4) As reflected by ongoing studies and summarized in Table 1, one of the strategies to increase clinical benefit is to combine checkpoint inhibitors with other systemic therapy. If it is already known that platinum-derived compounds are able to increase the release of TAAs and stimulate the immune response, this does not improve survival, probably due to a cytokine release syndrome. In order to overcome these mechanism of resistance, the addition of celecoxib to cisplatin and PD-L1 blockade has been proposed [54]. More recent studies demonstrated a potential role for the combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and the DNA methyltransferase inhibitors, now commonly used in treatment of hematologic neoplasm [72]. In fact 5-azacytidine, in preclinical melanoma and NSCLC models, sensitizes cells to the check point inhibitors through an upregulation of immunoregulatory pathways [73,74]. In ovarian cancer, preclinical studies have shown that immune gene demethylation and expression after 5-azacytidine exposure is higher than other cell lines, such as breast and colorectal cancers [74]. Ovarian cancer is known to have an angiogenic phenotype [13]. From the preclinical evidence currently available, and currently under clinical evaluation, the association between checkpoint inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs (Table 1) also appears reasonable. Indeed, it has been established that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) has an immune suppressive effect on T cells activation and inversely correlates with TILs infiltration [13,15], Moreover, VEGR receptor 2 (VEGFR2) is selectively expressed in Treg CD4+FoxP3+ cells and in response to VEGF, immature dendritic cells acquire a pro-angiogenic phenotype and contribute to ovarian cancer progression [75,76,77,78].
(5) Interestingly, Chen and colleagues have shown that a soluble isoform of PD-L1 (sPD-L1) is detectable in sera from healthy humans with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test. It is, therefore, likely that, in the presence of PD-L1 expressing cancer cells an increase of sPD-L1 may be possible. Considering that delayed diagnosis influence prognosis of ovarian cancer, it could be useful to assess a possible correlation between sPD-L1 levels and early detection of ovarian cancer [79].
In conclusion, ovarian cancer is an immunogenic disease and currently available data suggest a potential activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors. There are still some points to be addressed, such as the identification of reliable predictors of response, optimal clinical setting and finally, we need to understand whether these drugs give their best alone or in combination with other agents. To significantly move forward with immune therapy in EOC, it be will crucial to design smart clinical trials with appropriate endpoint selection and biomarker assessment.

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the following grant: VALG_RIC_ LOC_14_01 to Giorgio Valabrega.

Author Contributions

Giorgio Valabrega conceived edited and reviewed the manuscript; Gloria Mittica and Sofia Genta performed a comprehensive and systematic review of the literature, designed the table, analyzed ongoing clinical trials registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov and wrote the manuscript. Massimo Aglietta reviewed the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Siegel, R.L.; Miller, K.D.; Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015, 65, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mutch, D.G.; Orlando, M.; Goss, T.; Teneriello, M.G.; Gordon, A.N.; McMeekin, S.D.; Wang, Y.; Scribner, D.R.; Marciniack, M.; Naumann, R.W.; et al. Randomized phase III trial of gemcitabine compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007, 25, 2811–2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ferrandina, G.; Ludovisi, M.; Lorusso, D.; Pignata, S.; Breda, E.; Savarese, A.; del Medico, P.; Scaltriti, L.; Katsaros, D.; Priolo, D.; et al. Phase III trial of gemcitabine compared with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in progressive or recurrent ovarian cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2008, 26, 890–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Markman, M.; Blessing, J.; Rubin, S.C.; Connor, J.; Hanjani, P.; Waggoner, S.; Group, G.O. Phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2) in platinum and paclitaxel-resistant ovarian and primary peritoneal cancers: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2006, 101, 436–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rose, P.G.; Blessing, J.A.; Mayer, A.R.; Homesley, H.D. Prolonged oral etoposide as second-line therapy for platinum-resistant and platinum-sensitive ovarian carcinoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. J. Clin. Oncol. 1998, 16, 405–410. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Sehouli, J.; Stengel, D.; Harter, P.; Kurzeder, C.; Belau, A.; Bogenrieder, T.; Markmann, S.; Mahner, S.; Mueller, L.; Lorenz, R.; et al. Topotecan weekly versus conventional 5-day schedule in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: A randomized multicenter phase II trial of the North-Eastern German Society of Gynecological Oncology Ovarian Cancer Study Group. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011, 29, 242–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Gordon, A.N.; Tonda, M.; Sun, S.; Rackoff, W.; Investigators, D.S. Long-term survival advantage for women treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared with topotecan in a phase 3 randomized study of recurrent and refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2004, 95, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Rose, P.G.; Blessing, J.A.; Ball, H.G.; Hoffman, J.; Warshal, D.; DeGeest, K.; Moore, D.H. A phase II study of docetaxel in paclitaxel-resistant ovarian and peritoneal carcinoma: A Gynecologic Oncology Group study. Gynecol. Oncol. 2003, 88, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Aghajanian, C.; Blank, S.V.; Goff, B.A.; Judson, P.L.; Teneriello, M.G.; Husain, A.; Sovak, M.A.; Yi, J.; Nycum, L.R. OCEANS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with platinum-sensitive recurrent epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012, 30, 2039–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Pujade-Lauraine, E.; Hilpert, F.; Weber, B.; Reuss, A.; Poveda, A.; Kristensen, G.; Sorio, R.; Vergote, I.; Witteveen, P.; Bamias, A.; et al. Bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: The AURELIA open-label randomized phase III trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 32, 1302–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ledermann, J.; Harter, P.; Gourley, C.; Friedlander, M.; Vergote, I.; Rustin, G.; Scott, C.L.; Meier, W.; Shapira-Frommer, R.; Safra, T.; et al. Olaparib maintenance therapy in patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed serous ovarian cancer: A preplanned retrospective analysis of outcomes by BRCA status in a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 852–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Koebel, C.M.; Vermi, W.; Swann, J.B.; Zerafa, N.; Rodig, S.J.; Old, L.J.; Smyth, M.J.; Schreiber, R.D. Adaptive immunity maintains occult cancer in an equilibrium state. Nature 2007, 450, 903–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhang, L.; Conejo-Garcia, J.R.; Katsaros, D.; Gimotty, P.A.; Massobrio, M.; Regnani, G.; Makrigiannakis, A.; Gray, H.; Schlienger, K.; Liebman, M.N.; et al. Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Sato, E.; Olson, S.H.; Ahn, J.; Bundy, B.; Nishikawa, H.; Qian, F.; Jungbluth, A.A.; Frosina, D.; Gnjatic, S.; Ambrosone, C.; et al. Intraepithelial CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and a high CD8+/regulatory T cell ratio are associated with favorable prognosis in ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 18538–18543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Curiel, T.J.; Coukos, G.; Zou, L.; Alvarez, X.; Cheng, P.; Mottram, P.; Evdemon-Hogan, M.; Conejo-Garcia, J.R.; Zhang, L.; Burow, M.; et al. Specific recruitment of regulatory T cells in ovarian carcinoma fosters immune privilege and predicts reduced survival. Nat. Med. 2004, 10, 942–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Dong, H.P.; Elstrand, M.B.; Holth, A.; Silins, I.; Berner, A.; Trope, C.G.; Davidson, B.; Risberg, B. NK- and B-cell infiltration correlates with worse outcome in metastatic ovarian carcinoma. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2006, 125, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Emens, L.A.; Kok, M.; Ojalvo, L.S. Targeting the programmed cell death-1 pathway in breast and ovarian cancer. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 28, 142–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Pardoll, D.M. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12, 252–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Freeman, G.J.; Long, A.J.; Iwai, Y.; Bourque, K.; Chernova, T.; Nishimura, H.; Fitz, L.J.; Malenkovich, N.; Okazaki, T.; Byrne, M.C.; et al. Engagement of the PD-1 immunoinhibitory receptor by a novel B7 family member leads to negative regulation of lymphocyte activation. J. Exp. Med. 2000, 192, 1027–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Francisco, L.M.; Salinas, V.H.; Brown, K.E.; Vanguri, V.K.; Freeman, G.J.; Kuchroo, V.K.; Sharpe, A.H. PD-L1 regulates the development, maintenance, and function of induced regulatory T cells. J. Exp. Med. 2009, 206, 3015–3029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Latchman, Y.; Wood, C.R.; Chernova, T.; Chaudhary, D.; Borde, M.; Chernova, I.; Iwai, Y.; Long, A.J.; Brown, J.A.; Nunes, R.; et al. PD-L2 is a second ligand for PD-1 and inhibits T cell activation. Nat. Immunol. 2001, 2, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Iwai, Y.; Ishida, M.; Tanaka, Y.; Okazaki, T.; Honjo, T.; Minato, N. Involvement of PD-L1 on tumor cells in the escape from host immune system and tumor immunotherapy by PD-L1 blockade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 12293–12297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Marincola, F.M.; Jaffee, E.M.; Hicklin, D.J.; Ferrone, S. Escape of human solid tumors from T-cell recognition: Molecular mechanisms and functional significance. Adv. Immunol. 2000, 74, 181–273. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Konishi, J.; Yamazaki, K.; Azuma, M.; Kinoshita, I.; Dosaka-Akita, H.; Nishimura, M. B7-H1 expression on non-small cell lung cancer cells and its relationship with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and their PD-1 expression. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004, 10, 5094–5100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Mu, C.Y.; Huang, J.A.; Chen, Y.; Chen, C.; Zhang, X.G. High expression of PD-L1 in lung cancer may contribute to poor prognosis and tumor cells immune escape through suppressing tumor infiltrating dendritic cells maturation. Med. Oncol. 2011, 28, 682–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Herbst, R.S.; Soria, J.C.; Kowanetz, M.; Fine, G.D.; Hamid, O.; Gordon, M.S.; Sosman, J.A.; McDermott, D.F.; Powderly, J.D.; Gettinger, S.N.; et al. Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients. Nature 2014, 515, 563–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Thompson, R.H.; Dong, H.; Lohse, C.M.; Leibovich, B.C.; Blute, M.L.; Cheville, J.C.; Kwon, E.D. PD-1 is expressed by tumor-infiltrating immune cells and is associated with poor outcome for patients with renal cell carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007, 13, 1757–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Thompson, R.H.; Dong, H.; Kwon, E.D. Implications of B7-H1 expression in clear cell carcinoma of the kidney for prognostication and therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 2007, 13, 709s–715s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Thompson, R.H.; Gillett, M.D.; Cheville, J.C.; Lohse, C.M.; Dong, H.; Webster, W.S.; Chen, L.; Zincke, H.; Blute, M.L.; Leibovich, B.C.; et al. Costimulatory molecule B7-H1 in primary and metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 2005, 104, 2084–2091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Thompson, R.H.; Kuntz, S.M.; Leibovich, B.C.; Dong, H.; Lohse, C.M.; Webster, W.S.; Sengupta, S.; Frank, I.; Parker, A.S.; Zincke, H.; et al. Tumor B7-H1 is associated with poor prognosis in renal cell carcinoma patients with long-term follow-up. Cancer Res. 2006, 66, 3381–3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Thompson, R.H.; Webster, W.S.; Cheville, J.C.; Lohse, C.M.; Dong, H.; Leibovich, B.C.; Kuntz, S.M.; Sengupta, S.; Kwon, E.D.; Blute, M.L. B7-H1 glycoprotein blockade: A novel strategy to enhance immunotherapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2005, 66, 10–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Huang, Y.; Zhang, S.D.; McCrudden, C.; Chan, K.W.; Lin, Y.; Kwok, H.F. The prognostic significance of PD-L1 in bladder cancer. Oncol. Rep. 2015, 33, 3075–3084. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  33. Mahoney, K.M.; Atkins, M.B. Prognostic and predictive markers for the new immunotherapies. Oncology 2014, 28, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Hamanishi, J.; Mandai, M.; Iwasaki, M.; Okazaki, T.; Tanaka, Y.; Yamaguchi, K.; Higuchi, T.; Yagi, H.; Takakura, K.; Minato, N.; et al. Programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 and tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T lymphocytes are prognostic factors of human ovarian cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 3360–3365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Maine, C.J.; Aziz, N.H.; Chatterjee, J.; Hayford, C.; Brewig, N.; Whilding, L.; George, A.J.; Ghaem-Maghami, S. Programmed death ligand-1 over-expression correlates with malignancy and contributes to immune regulation in ovarian cancer. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2014, 63, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Darb-Esfahani, S.; Kunze, C.A.; Kulbe, H.; Sehouli, J.; Wienert, S.; Lindner, J.; Budczies, J.; Bockmayr, M.; Dietel, M.; Denkert, C.; et al. Prognostic impact of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) and PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in cancer cells and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in ovarian high grade serous carcinoma. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 1486–1499. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Webb, J.R.; Milne, K.; Kroeger, D.R.; Nelson, B.H. PD-L1 expression is associated with tumor-infiltrating T cells and favorable prognosis in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 141, 293–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Weber, J.S.; D'Angelo, S.P.; Minor, D.; Hodi, F.S.; Gutzmer, R.; Neyns, B.; Hoeller, C.; Khushalani, N.I.; Miller, W.H.; Lao, C.D.; et al. Nivolumab versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma who progressed after anti-CTLA-4 treatment (CheckMate 037): A randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Robert, C.; Ribas, A.; Wolchok, J.D.; Hodi, F.S.; Hamid, O.; Kefford, R.; Weber, J.S.; Joshua, A.M.; Hwu, W.J.; Gangadhar, T.C.; et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: A randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet 2014, 384, 1109–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ribas, A.; Puzanov, I.; Dummer, R.; Schadendorf, D.; Hamid, O.; Robert, C.; Hodi, F.S.; Schachter, J.; Pavlick, A.C.; Lewis, K.D.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus investigator-choice chemotherapy for ipilimumab-refractory melanoma (KEYNOTE-002): A randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015, 16, 908–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Robert, C.; Schachter, J.; Long, G.V.; Arance, A.; Grob, J.J.; Mortier, L.; Daud, A.; Carlino, M.S.; McNeil, C.; Lotem, M.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 2521–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Borghaei, H.; Paz-Ares, L.; Horn, L.; Spigel, D.R.; Steins, M.; Ready, N.E.; Chow, L.Q.; Vokes, E.E.; Felip, E.; Holgado, E.; et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 1627–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Brahmer, J.; Reckamp, K.L.; Baas, P.; Crinò, L.; Eberhardt, W.E.; Poddubskaya, E.; Antonia, S.; Pluzanski, A.; Vokes, E.E.; Holgado, E.; et al. Nivolumab versus Docetaxel in Advanced Squamous-Cell Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 123–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Herbst, R.S.; Baas, P.; Kim, D.W.; Felip, E.; Pérez-Gracia, J.L.; Han, J.Y.; Molina, J.; Kim, J.H.; Arvis, C.D.; Ahn, M.J.; et al. Pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for previously treated, PD-L1-positive, advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (KEYNOTE-010): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016, 387, 1540–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Motzer, R.J.; Escudier, B.; McDermott, D.F.; George, S.; Hammers, H.J.; Srinivas, S.; Tykodi, S.S.; Sosman, J.A.; Procopio, G.; Plimack, E.R.; et al. Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 373, 1803–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Hodi, F.S.; O'Day, S.J.; McDermott, D.F.; Weber, R.W.; Sosman, J.A.; Haanen, J.B.; Gonzalez, R.; Robert, C.; Schadendorf, D.; Hassel, J.C.; et al. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 711–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hodi, F.S.; Mihm, M.C.; Soiffer, R.J.; Haluska, F.G.; Butler, M.; Seiden, M.V.; Davis, T.; Henry-Spires, R.; MacRae, S.; Willman, A.; et al. Biologic activity of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 antibody blockade in previously vaccinated metastatic melanoma and ovarian carcinoma patients. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 4712–4717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hodi, F.S.; Butler, M.; Oble, D.A.; Seiden, M.V.; Haluska, F.G.; Kruse, A.; Macrae, S.; Nelson, M.; Canning, C.; Lowy, I.; et al. Immunologic and clinical effects of antibody blockade of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 in previously vaccinated cancer patients. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 3005–3010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hamanishi, J.; Mandai, M.; Ikeda, T.; Minami, M.; Kawaguchi, A.; Murayama, T.; Kanai, M.; Mori, Y.; Matsumoto, S.; Chikuma, S.; et al. Safety and Antitumor Activity of Anti-PD-1 Antibody, Nivolumab, in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 4015–4022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Crotzer, D.R.; Sun, C.C.; Coleman, R.L.; Wolf, J.K.; Levenback, C.F.; Gershenson, D.M. Lack of effective systemic therapy for recurrent clear cell carcinoma of the ovary. Gynecol. Oncol. 2007, 105, 404–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Varga, A.; Piha-Paul, S.A.; Ott, P.A.; Mehnert, J.M.; Berton-Rigaud, D.; Johnson, E.A.; Cheng, J.D.; Yuan, S.; Rubin, E.H.; Matei, D.E. Antitumor activity and safety of pembrolizumab in patients (pts) with PD-L1 positive advanced ovarian cancer: Interim results from a phase Ib study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 5510. [Google Scholar]
  52. Brahmer, J.R.; Tykodi, S.S.; Chow, L.Q.; Hwu, W.J.; Topalian, S.L.; Hwu, P.; Drake, C.G.; Camacho, L.H.; Kauh, J.; Odunsi, K.; et al. Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 366, 2455–2465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Disis, M.L.; Patel, M.R.; Pant, S.; Hamilton, E.P.; Lockhart, A.C.; Kelly, K.; Beck, J.T.; Gordon, M.S.; Weiss, G.J.; Taylor, M.H.; et al. Avelumab (MSB0010718C; anti-PD-L1) in patients with recurrent/refractory ovarian cancer from the JAVELIN Solid Tumor phase Ib trial: Safety and clinical activity. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 5533. [Google Scholar]
  54. Grabosch, S.; Zeng, F.; Mad, T.; Zhang, L.; Brozick, J.G.T.; Edwards, R.P.; Vlad, A. Chemo-Induced Biology of PD-L1 and In Vivo Combination Immune Therapy for Ovarian Cancer. In Proceedings of the Poster Section of Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, San Diego, CA, USA, 19–22 March 2016.
  55. Xu, S.; Tao, Z.; Hai, B.; Liang, H.; Shi, Y.; Wang, T.; Song, W.; Chen, Y.; OuYang, J.; Chen, J.; et al. miR-424(322) reverses chemoresistance via T-cell immune response activation by blocking the PD-L1 immune checkpoint. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Peng, J.; Hamanishi, J.; Matsumura, N.; Abiko, K.; Murat, K.; Baba, T.; Yamaguchi, K.; Horikawa, N.; Hosoe, Y.; Murphy, S.K.; et al. Chemotherapy Induces Programmed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Overexpression via the Nuclear Factor-κB to Foster an Immunosuppressive Tumor Microenvironment in Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Res. 2015, 75, 5034–5045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mantia-Smaldone, G.; Ronner, L.; Blair, A.; Gamerman, V.; Morse, C.; Orsulic, S.; Rubin, S.; Gimotty, P.; Adams, S. The immunomodulatory effects of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin are amplified in BRCA1—Deficient ovarian tumors and can be exploited to improve treatment response in a mouse model. Gynecol. Oncol. 2014, 133, 584–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Higuchi, T.; Flies, D.B.; Marjon, N.A.; Mantia-Smaldone, G.; Ronner, L.; Gimotty, P.A.; Adams, S.F. CTLA-4 Blockade Synergizes Therapeutically with PARP Inhibition in BRCA1-Deficient Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Immunol. Res. 2015, 3, 1257–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mesnage, S.; Genestie, C.; Auguste, A.; Pain, E.; Gouy, S.; Morice, P.; Bentivegna, E.; Lhomme, C.; Pautier, P.; Dunan, A.; et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and PDL1 expression in ovarian cancer (OC): Evolution with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) and prognostic value. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 5512. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ku, G.Y.; Yuan, J.; Page, D.B.; Schroeder, S.E.; Panageas, K.S.; Carvajal, R.D.; Chapman, P.B.; Schwartz, G.K.; Allison, J.P.; Wolchok, J.D. Single-institution experience with ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients in the compassionate use setting: Lymphocyte count after 2 doses correlates with survival. Cancer 2010, 116, 1767–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Di Giacomo, A.M.; Ascierto, P.A.; Queirolo, P.; Pilla, L.; Ridolfi, R.; Santinami, M.; Testori, A.; Simeone, E.; Guidoboni, M.; Maurichi, A.; et al. Three-year follow-up of advanced melanoma patients who received ipilimumab plus fotemustine in the Italian Network for Tumor Biotherapy (NIBIT)-M1 phase II study. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 798–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Llosa, N.J.; Cruise, M.; Tam, A.; Wicks, E.C.; Hechenbleikner, E.M.; Taube, J.M.; Blosser, R.L.; Fan, H.; Wang, H.; Luber, B.S.; et al. The vigorous immune microenvironment of microsatellite instable colon cancer is balanced by multiple counter-inhibitory checkpoints. Cancer Discov. 2015, 5, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Xiao, Y.; Freeman, G.J. The microsatellite instable subset of colorectal cancer is a particularly good candidate for checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Cancer Discov. 2015, 5, 16–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. McAlpine, J.N.; Porter, H.; Köbel, M.; Nelson, B.H.; Prentice, L.M.; Kalloger, S.E.; Senz, J.; Milne, K.; Ding, J.; Shah, S.P.; et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations correlate with TP53 abnormalities and presence of immune cell infiltrates in ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma. Mod. Pathol. 2012, 25, 740–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Strickland, K.C.; Howitt, B.E.; Shukla, S.A.; Rodig, S.; Ritterhouse, L.L.; Liu, J.F.; Garber, J.E.; Chowdhury, D.; Wu, C.J.; D'Andrea, A.D.; et al. Association and prognostic significance of BRCA1/2-mutation status with neoantigen load, number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and expression of PD-1/PD-L1 in high grade serous ovarian cancer. Oncotarget 2016, 7, 13587–13598. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  66. Mabuchi, S.; Sugiyama, T.; Kimura, T. Clear cell carcinoma of the ovary: Molecular insights and future therapeutic perspectives. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2016, 27, e31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Strickland, K.; Howitt, B.E.; Rodig, S.J.; Matulonis, U.A.; Konstantinopoulos, P. Immunogenicity of clear cell ovarian cancer: Association with ARID1A loss, microsatellite instability and endometriosis. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016, 34, 5514. [Google Scholar]
  68. Friedlander, M.L.; Russell, K.; Millis, S.; Gatalica, Z.; Bender, R.; Voss, A. Molecular profiling of clear cell ovarian cancers: Identifying potential treatment targets for clinical trials. Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 2016, 26, 648–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Lastwika, K.J.; Wilson, W.; Li, Q.K.; Norris, J.; Xu, H.; Ghazarian, S.R.; Kitagawa, H.; Kawabata, S.; Taube, J.M.; Yao, S.; et al. Control of PD-L1 Expression by Oncogenic Activation of the AKT–mTOR Pathway in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Res. 2016, 76, 227–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Zorn, K.K.; Bonome, T.; Gangi, L.; Chandramouli, G.V.; Awtrey, C.S.; Gardner, G.J.; Barrett, J.C.; Boyd, J.; Birrer, M.J. Gene expression profiles of serous, endometrioid, and clear cell subtypes of ovarian and endometrial cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2005, 11, 6422–6430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Ribas, A.; Hamid, O.; Daud, A.; Hodi, F.S.; Wolchok, J.D.; Kefford, R.; Joshua, A.M.; Patnaik, A.; Hwu, W.J.; Weber, J.S.; et al. Association of pembrolizumab with tumor response and survival among patients with advanced melanoma. JAMA 2016, 315, 1600–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Dear, A.E. Epigenetic modulators and the new immunotherapies. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 684–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Wrangle, J.; Wang, W.; Koch, A.; Easwaran, H.; Mohammad, H.P.; Vendetti, F.; Vancriekinge, W.; Demeyer, T.; Du, Z.; Parsana, P.; et al. Alterations of immune response of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer with Azacytidine. Oncotarget 2013, 4, 2067–2079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Li, H.; Chiappinelli, K.B.; Guzzetta, A.A.; Easwaran, H.; Yen, R.W.; Vatapalli, R.; Topper, M.J.; Luo, J.; Connolly, R.M.; Azad, N.S.; et al. Immune regulation by low doses of the DNA methyltransferase inhibitor 5-azacitidine in common human epithelial cancers. Oncotarget 2014, 5, 587–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Suzuki, H.; Onishi, H.; Wada, J.; Yamasaki, A.; Tanaka, H.; Nakano, K.; Morisaki, T.; Katano, M. VEGFR2 is selectively expressed by FOXP3high CD4+ Treg. Eur. J. Immunol. 2010, 40, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Coukos, G.; Benencia, F.; Buckanovich, R.J.; Conejo-Garcia, J.R. The role of dendritic cell precursors in tumour vasculogenesis. Br. J. Cancer 2005, 92, 1182–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Rossi, V.; Sarotto, I.; Maggiorotto, F.; Berchialla, P.; Kubatzki, F.; Tomasi, N.; Redana, S.; Martinello, R.; Valabrega, G.; Aglietta, M.; et al. Moderate immunohistochemical expression of HER-2 (2+) without HER-2 gene amplification is a negative prognostic factor in early breast cancer. Oncologist 2012, 17, 1418–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Milani, A.; Geuna, E.; Mittica, G.; Valabrega, G. Overcoming endocrine resistance in metastatic breast cancer: Current evidence and future directions. World J. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 5, 990–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Chen, Y.; Wang, Q.; Shi, B.; Xu, P.; Hu, Z.; Bai, L.; Zhang, X. Development of a sandwich ELISA for evaluating soluble PD-L1 (CD274) in human sera of different ages as well as supernatants of PD-L1+ cell lines. Cytokine 2011, 56, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 17 01169 g001 1024
Figure 1. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and PD-1/L1 checkpoint blockade. MHC, major histocompatibility complex; TCR, T cell receptor; PD-1, programmed cell death-1; PD-L1, programmed cell death ligand-1; +, B7 receptor expressed; −, B7 receptor not expressed.
Figure 1. Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and PD-1/L1 checkpoint blockade. MHC, major histocompatibility complex; TCR, T cell receptor; PD-1, programmed cell death-1; PD-L1, programmed cell death ligand-1; +, B7 receptor expressed; −, B7 receptor not expressed.
Ijms 17 01169 g001
Table
Table 1. Clinical trials with immune checkpoints inhibitors in ovarian cancer.
Table 1. Clinical trials with immune checkpoints inhibitors in ovarian cancer.
Type of TreatmentIDConditionPhasePrimary OutcomeSecondary OutcomeStatusSponsor
Neoadjuvant Pembrolizumab + chemotherapy then Pembrolizumab maintenance therapyNCT02520154Advanced EOC/primary peritoneal/fallopian tube cancer2PFS Not yet recruitingM.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Pembrolizumab with first line platinum based chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab manteinance therapyNCT02766582Suboptimally cytoreduced EOC/primary peritoneal/fallopian tube cancer2PFSOS, QoLNot yet recruitingMedical College of Wisconsin
Niraparib + PembrolizumabNCT02657889Advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer or recurrent EOC1–2DLT, ORRSafety, tolerability, DR, DCR, OSRecruitingTesaro, Inc.
Chemotherapy + pembrolizumab and pembrolizumab as maintenance therapyNCT02608684Platinum-resistant recurrent EOC2ORRPFS, time to progression, DR, OSRecruitingCedars-Sinai Medical Center
PembrolizumabNCT02674061 (KEYNOTE-100)Advanced recurrent EOC2ORRDCRRecruitingMerck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Dose Dense Paclitaxel with pembrolizumabNCT02440425Platinum-resistant recurrent EOC2PFS, safetyORR, DCR, DR, OSRecruitingH. Lee Moffit Cancer Center and Research Institute
ACP-196 ± PembrolizumabNCT02537444 (KEYNOTE-191)Platinum-sensitive recurrent EOC2ORR RecruitingAcerta Pharma BV
WT1 Vaccine and NivolumabNCT02737787Recurrent EOCin CCR after chemotherapy1DLT RecruitingMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab + Acetylsalicylic AcidNCT02659384Platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer2PFS Not yet recruitingEORTC
Durvalumab + Paclitaxel and CarboplatinNCT02726997High-grade non-mucinousEOC, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer1–2PharmacokineticsPFS, feasibilityNot yet recruitingM.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Toll-like Receptor Agonist 8 Motolimod (VTX-2337) + DurvalumabNCT02431559Platinum-resistant recurrent EOC1–2MTD, PFS RecruitingLudwig Institute for Cancer Research
Durvalumab + Olaparib or CediranibNCT02484404Advanced solid tumors and recurrent EOC1–2Recommended dose, ORR RecruitingNational Cancer Institute (NCI)
DurvalumabNCT02764333Platinum-resistant EOC2ORR RecruitingMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
Avelumab ± PLD Versus PLD AloneNCT02580058Platinum-resistant/refractory EOC3OSORR, DC, PFS, DRRecruitingPfizer
avelumab in combination with and/or following platinum-based chemotherapyNCT02718417Previously untreated EOC3PFSOS, maintenance PFS, ORR, DRNot yet recruitingPfizer
Olaparib + TremelimumabNCT02571725recurrent BRCA mutation-associated EOC1–2Recommended dose, ORRPFSRecruitingNew Mexico Cancer Care Alliance
Tremelimumab ± OlaparibNCT02485990recurrent or persistentEOC, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma1–2Safety RecruitingSidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center
IpilimumabNCT01611558Recurrent platinum sensitive EOC2SafetyORRActive but not recruitingBristol-Myers Squibb
Nivolumab ± IpilimumabNCT02498600Recurrent EOC/primary peritoneal/fallopian tube cancer2Objective tumor responseOS, PFS, safetySuspendedNational Cancer Institute (NCI)
EOC = epithelial ovarian cancer, OS = overall survival, PFS = progression free survival, DR = duration of response, DCR = disease control rate, QoL = quality of life, DLT = dose-limiting toxicities, ORR = overall response rate, CCR = complete clinical remission, MTD = maximum tolerated dose, PLD = pegylated liposomal doxorubicin.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mittica, G.; Genta, S.; Aglietta, M.; Valabrega, G. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A New Opportunity in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071169

AMA Style

Mittica G, Genta S, Aglietta M, Valabrega G. Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A New Opportunity in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer? International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2016; 17(7):1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071169

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mittica, Gloria, Sofia Genta, Massimo Aglietta, and Giorgio Valabrega. 2016. "Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A New Opportunity in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer?" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 17, no. 7: 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071169

APA Style

Mittica, G., Genta, S., Aglietta, M., & Valabrega, G. (2016). Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A New Opportunity in the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer? International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 17(7), 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071169

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop