Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates dual CTLA4 and PD-L1 blockade overcomes treatment resistance in KEAP1/STK11-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer, highlighting a biomarker-directed strategy.
For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), dual immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) with CTLA4 inhibitors and PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors (hereafter, PD-(L)1 inhibitors) is associated with higher rates of anti-tumour activity and immune-related toxicities, when compared with treatment with PD-(L)1 inhibitors alone. However, there are currently no validated biomarkers to identify which patients will benefit from dual ICB¹,². Here we show that patients with NSCLC who have mutations in the STK11 and/or KEAP1 tumour suppressor genes derived clinical benefit from dual ICB with the PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab and the CTLA4 inhibitor tremelimumab, but not from durvalumab alone, when added to chemotherapy in the randomized phase III POSEIDON trial³. Unbiased genetic screens identified loss of both of these tumour suppressor genes as independent drivers of resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition, and showed that loss of Keap1 was the strongest genomic predictor of dual ICB efficacy-a finding that was confirmed in several mouse models of Kras-driven NSCLC. In both mouse models and patients, KEAP1 and STK11 alterations were associated with an adverse tumour microenvironment, which was characterized by a preponderance of suppressive myeloid cells and the depletion of CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cells, but relative sparing of CD4⁺ effector subsets. Dual ICB potently engaged CD4⁺ effector cells and reprogrammed the tumour myeloid cell compartment towards inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS)-expressing tumoricidal phenotypes that-together with CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells-contributed to anti-tumour efficacy. These data support the use of chemo-immunotherapy with dual ICB to mitigate resistance to PD-(L)1 inhibition in patients with NSCLC who have STK11 and/or KEAP1 alterations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Skoulidis et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: