Investigates TIL recognition of tumor organoids affecting clinical outcomes in metastasis, suggesting predictive value.
Background Neoantigen-specific tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have the ability to mediate responses in patients with metastatic epithelial cancers. While some identified factors are associated with response, there is a need for ways to determine which patients will benefit from adoptive cell therapy with TIL. Patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTO) retain the genetic makeup of the tumor from which they are derived, and are a useful tool in personalized medicine to test the effectiveness of anticancer therapies. Methods Tumor organoids were grown from patients with metastatic epithelial cancers treated on a TIL protocol. TIL recognition of autologous PDTO by enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assays and 4–1BB upregulation, as well as objective Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) responses to treatment, were measured in a cohort of treated patients. The most common histologies were colorectal (20 patients, 67%), pancreatic (4 patients, 13%), and breast (2 patients, 7%) cancer. Results Recognition of PDTO was driven by major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I-restricted reactivity and upregulation of MHC in response to interferon-γ was not associated with response. There were no responders in the 9 patients who lacked PDTO recognition on their initial TIL screening compared with seven responses in 18 patients with initial reactivity (p=0.059). After TIL were selected and expanded for administration, 15 infusion products showed organoid recognition, with 8 of these patients achieving objective responses (53%), while only 1 of 15 patients without organoid recognition responded (7%; p=0.014). Conclusions TIL reactivity against autologous tumor organoid appears to be associated with objective clinical response in patients with metastatic epithelial cancers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gustafson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: