Cancers develop in complex tissue environments, which they depend on for sustained growth, invasion and metastasis. Unlike tumor cells, stromal cell types within the tumor microenvironment (TME) are genetically stable and thus represent an attractive therapeutic target with reduced risk of resistance and tumor recurrence. However, specifically disrupting the pro-tumorigenic TME is a challenging undertaking, as the TME has diverse capacities to induce both beneficial and adverse consequences for tumorigenesis. Furthermore, many studies have shown that the microenvironment is capable of normalizing tumor cells, suggesting that re-education of stromal cells, rather than targeted ablation per se, may be an effective strategy for treating cancer. Here we discuss the paradoxical roles of the TME during specific stages of cancer progression and metastasis, as well as recent therapeutic attempts to re-educate stromal cells within the TME to have anti-tumorigenic effects.

/pdf/microenvironmental-regulation-of-tumor-progression-and-4528oymlw6.pdf

Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis.

Oncology Meets Immunology: The Cancer-Immunity Cycle

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) homeostasis and redox regulation in cellular signaling

Background The cancer-cell–killing property of atezolizumab may be enhanced by the blockade of vascular endothelial growth factor–mediated immunosuppression with bevacizumab. This open-label, phase 3 study evaluated atezolizumab plus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic nonsquamous non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had not previously received chemotherapy. Methods We randomly assigned patients to receive atezolizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (ACP), bevacizumab plus carboplatin plus paclitaxel (BCP), or atezolizumab plus BCP (ABCP) every 3 weeks for four or six cycles, followed by maintenance therapy with atezolizumab, bevacizumab, or both. The two primary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival both among patients in the intention-to-treat population who had a wild-type genotype (WT population; patients with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations were excluded) and among patients in the WT population who had high expression of an effector T-cell (Teff) gene signature in the tumor (Teff-high WT population) and overall survival in the WT population. The ABCP group was compared with the BCP group before the ACP group was compared with the BCP group. Results In the WT population, 356 patients were assigned to the ABCP group, and 336 to the BCP group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (8.3 months vs. 6.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 0.74; P<0.001); the corresponding values in the Teff-high WT population were 11.3 months and 6.8 months (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.38 to 0.68]; P<0.001). Progression-free survival was also longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group in the entire intention-to-treat population (including those with EGFR or ALK genetic alterations) and among patients with low or negative programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, those with low Teff gene-signature expression, and those with liver metastases. Median overall survival among the patients in the WT population was longer in the ABCP group than in the BCP group (19.2 months vs. 14.7 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P=0.02). The safety profile of ABCP was consistent with previously reported safety risks of the individual medicines. Conclusions The addition of atezolizumab to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC, regardless of PD-L1 expression and EGFR or ALK genetic alteration status. (Funded by F. Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech; IMpower150 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02366143.)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa1716948

Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC

Genomic and transcriptomic features of response to anti-pd-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma

We describe a new mechanism regulating the tumor endothelial barrier and T cell infiltration into tumors. We detected selective expression of the death mediator Fas ligand (FasL, also called CD95L) in the vasculature of human and mouse solid tumors but not in normal vasculature. In these tumors, FasL expression was associated with scarce CD8(+) infiltration and a predominance of FoxP3(+) T regulatory (Treg) cells. Tumor-derived vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), interleukin 10 (IL-10) and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) cooperatively induced FasL expression in endothelial cells, which acquired the ability to kill effector CD8(+) T cells but not Treg cells because of higher levels of c-FLIP expression in Treg cells. In mice, genetic or pharmacologic suppression of FasL produced a substantial increase in the influx of tumor-rejecting CD8(+) over FoxP3(+) T cells. Pharmacologic inhibition of VEGF and PGE2 produced a marked increase in the influx of tumor-rejecting CD8(+) over FoxP3(+) T cells that was dependent on attenuation of FasL expression and led to CD8-dependent tumor growth suppression. Thus, tumor paracrine mechanisms establish a tumor endothelial death barrier, which has a critical role in establishing immune tolerance and determining the fate of tumors.

/pdf/tumor-endothelium-fasl-establishes-a-selective-immune-1i20ibxvdo.pdf

Tumor endothelium FasL establishes a selective immune barrier promoting tolerance in tumors.

T-regulatory cells (Tregs) are found infiltrating tumors in a vast array of tumor types, and tumor-infiltrating Tregs are often associated with a poor clinical outcome. Tregs are potent immunosuppressive cells of the immune system that promote progression of cancer through their ability to limit antitumor immunity and promote angiogenesis. Here, we discuss the ways in which Tregs suppress the antitumor immune response and elaborate on our recent discovery that Tregs make significant direct contributions to tumor angiogenesis. Further, we highlight several current therapies aimed at eliminating Tregs in cancer patients. Given the multifaceted role of Tregs in cancer, a greater understanding of their functions will ultimately strengthen future therapies.

https://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/canres/72/9/2162.full.pdf

T-Regulatory Cells: Key Players in Tumor Immune Escape and Angiogenesis

Deciphering and reversing tumor immune suppression.

Emerging evidence indicates that angiogenesis and immunosuppression frequently occur simultaneously in response to diverse stimuli. Here, we describe a fundamental biological programme that involves the activation of both angiogenesis and immunosuppressive responses, often through the same cell types or soluble factors. We suggest that the initiation of these responses is part of a physiological and homeostatic tissue repair programme, which can be co-opted in pathological states, notably by tumours. This view can help to devise new cancer therapies and may have implications for aseptic tissue injury, pathogen-mediated tissue destruction, chronic inflammation and even reproduction.

The parallel lives of angiogenesis and immunosuppression: cancer and other tales

Oxidative stress activates the transcription factor NRF2, which in turn binds cis-acting antioxidant response element (ARE) enhancers and induces expression of protective antioxidant genes. In contrast, the transcriptional repressor BACH1 binds ARE-like enhancers in cells naive to oxidative stress and antagonizes NRF2 binding until it becomes inactivated by pro-oxidants. Here, we describe the dynamic roles of BACH1 and NRF2 in the transcription of the heme oxygenase-1 (HMOX1) gene. HMOX1 induction, elicited by arsenite-mediated oxidative stress, follows inactivation of BACH1 and precedes activation of NRF2. BACH1 repression is dominant over NRF2-mediated HMOX1 transcription and inactivation of BACH1 is a prerequisite for HMOX1 induction. In contrast, thioredoxin reductase 1 (TXNRD1) is regulated by NRF2 but not by BACH1. By comparing the expression levels of HMOX1 with TXNRD1, we show that nuclear accumulation of NRF2 is not necessary for HMOX1 induction; rather, BACH1 inactivation permits NRF2 already present in the nucleus at low basal levels to bind the HMOX1 promoter and elicit HMOX1 induction. Thus, BACH1 confers an additional level of regulation to ARE-dependent genes that reveals a new dimension to the oxidative stress response.

/pdf/heme-oxygenase-1-induction-by-nrf2-requires-inactivation-of-2bmbdghtor.pdf

Gregory T. Motz

Papers

Tumor endothelium FasL establishes a selective immune barrier promoting tolerance in tumors.

T-Regulatory Cells: Key Players in Tumor Immune Escape and Angiogenesis

Deciphering and reversing tumor immune suppression.

The parallel lives of angiogenesis and immunosuppression: cancer and other tales

Heme oxygenase-1 induction by NRF2 requires inactivation of the transcriptional repressor BACH1