Yoshiyasu Umeda

Cancer cells in the tumour microenvironment use various mechanisms to evade the immune system, particularly T cell attack1. For example, metabolic reprogramming in the tumour microenvironment and mitochondrial dysfunction in tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) impair antitumour immune responses2–4. However, detailed mechanisms of such processes remain unclear. Here we analyse clinical specimens and identify mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) mutations in TILs that are shared with cancer cells. Moreover, mitochondria with mtDNA mutations from cancer cells are able to transfer to TILs. Typically, mitochondria in TILs readily undergo mitophagy through reactive oxygen species. However, mitochondria transferred from cancer cells do not undergo mitophagy, which we find is due to mitophagy-inhibitory molecules. These molecules attach to mitochondria and together are transferred to TILs, which results in homoplasmic replacement. T cells that acquire mtDNA mutations from cancer cells exhibit metabolic abnormalities and senescence, with defects in effector functions and memory formation. This in turn leads to impaired antitumour immunity both in vitro and in vivo. Accordingly, the presence of an mtDNA mutation in tumour tissue is a poor prognostic factor for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer. These findings reveal a previously unknown mechanism of cancer immune evasion through mitochondrial transfer and can contribute to the development of future cancer immunotherapies. Mitochondria with mutations in their DNA from cancer cells can be transferred to T cells in the tumour microenvironment, which leads to T cell dysfunction and impaired antitumour immunity.

Background Patients with cancer benefit from treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), and those with an inflamed tumor microenvironment (TME) and/or high tumor mutation burden (TMB), particularly, tend to respond to ICIs; however, some patients fail, whereas others acquire resistance after initial response despite the inflamed TME and/or high TMB. We assessed the detailed biological mechanisms of resistance to ICIs such as programmed death 1 and/or cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 blockade therapies using clinical samples. Methods We established four pairs of autologous tumor cell lines and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) from patients with melanoma treated with ICIs. These tumor cell lines and TILs were subjected to comprehensive analyses and in vitro functional assays. We assessed tumor volume and TILs in vivo mouse models to validate identified mechanism. Furthermore, we analyzed additional clinical samples from another large melanoma cohort. Results Two patients were super-responders, and the others acquired resistance: the first patient had a non-inflamed TME and acquired resistance due to the loss of the beta-2 microglobulin gene, and the other acquired resistance despite having inflamed TME and extremely high TMB which are reportedly predictive biomarkers. Tumor cell line and paired TIL analyses showed high CD155, TIGIT ligand, and TIGIT expression in the tumor cell line and tumor-infiltrating T cells, respectively. TIGIT blockade or CD155-deletion activated T cells in a functional assay using an autologous cell line and paired TILs from this patient. CD155 expression increased in surviving tumor cells after coculturing with TILs from a responder, which suppressed TIGIT + T-cell activation. Consistently, TIGIT blockade or CD155-deletion could aid in overcoming resistance to ICIs in vivo mouse models. In clinical samples, CD155 was related to resistance to ICIs in patients with melanoma with an inflamed TME, including both primary and acquired resistance. Conclusions The TIGIT/CD155 axis mediates resistance to ICIs in patients with melanoma with an inflamed TME, promoting the development of TIGIT blockade therapies in such patients with cancer.

•Anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4 antibody therapy (PD1 + CTLA4) is an option for patients with advanced mucosal melanoma (MCM).•Data on the efficacy of PD1 + CTLA4 compared with PD-1 monotherapy (PD1) for MCM, however, are limited.•We retrospectively analyzed data from 329 Japanese patients with advanced MCM treated with PD1 or PD1 + CTLA4.•No significant differences in objective response rate, progression-free survival, or overall survival were observed.•Immune-related adverse events resulting in treatment cessation were higher in the PD1 + CTLA4 group. BackgroundAnti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody monotherapy (PD1) has led to favorable responses in advanced non-acral cutaneous melanoma among Caucasian populations; however, recent studies suggest that this therapy has limited efficacy in mucosal melanoma (MCM). Thus, advanced MCM patients are candidates for PD1 plus anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) combination therapy (PD1 + CTLA4). Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in MCM, however, are limited. We aimed to compare the efficacies of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 in Japanese advanced MCM patients.Patients and methodsWe retrospectively assessed advanced MCM patients treated with PD1 or PD1 + CTLA4 at 24 Japanese institutions. Patient baseline characteristics, clinical responses (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis, and toxicity was assessed to estimate the efficacy and safety of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4.ResultsAltogether, 329 patients with advanced MCM were included in this study. PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 were used in 263 and 66 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between both treatment groups, except for age (median age 71 versus 65 years; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 groups with respect to objective response rate (26% versus 29%; P = 0.26) or PFS and OS (median PFS 5.9 months versus 6.8 months; P = 0.55, median OS 20.4 months versus 20.1 months; P = 0.55). Cox multivariate survival analysis revealed that PD1 + CTLA4 did not prolong PFS and OS (PFS: hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.19, P = 0.30; OS: HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.38, P = 0.59). The rate of ≥grade 3 immune-related adverse events was higher in the PD1 + CTLA4 group than in the PD1 group (53% versus 17%; P < 0.001).ConclusionsFirst-line PD1 + CTLA4 demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy to PD1 in Japanese MCM patients, but with a higher rate of immune-related adverse events. Anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibody monotherapy (PD1) has led to favorable responses in advanced non-acral cutaneous melanoma among Caucasian populations; however, recent studies suggest that this therapy has limited efficacy in mucosal melanoma (MCM). Thus, advanced MCM patients are candidates for PD1 plus anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) combination therapy (PD1 + CTLA4). Data on the efficacy of immunotherapy in MCM, however, are limited. We aimed to compare the efficacies of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 in Japanese advanced MCM patients. We retrospectively assessed advanced MCM patients treated with PD1 or PD1 + CTLA4 at 24 Japanese institutions. Patient baseline characteristics, clinical responses (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan–Meier analysis, and toxicity was assessed to estimate the efficacy and safety of PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4. Altogether, 329 patients with advanced MCM were included in this study. PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 were used in 263 and 66 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between both treatment groups, except for age (median age 71 versus 65 years; P < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between the PD1 and PD1 + CTLA4 groups with respect to objective response rate (26% versus 29%; P = 0.26) or PFS and OS (median PFS 5.9 months versus 6.8 months; P = 0.55, median OS 20.4 months versus 20.1 months; P = 0.55). Cox multivariate survival analysis revealed that PD1 + CTLA4 did not prolong PFS and OS (PFS: hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.19, P = 0.30; OS: HR 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.57-1.38, P = 0.59). The rate of ≥grade 3 immune-related adverse events was higher in the PD1 + CTLA4 group than in the PD1 group (53% versus 17%; P < 0.001). First-line PD1 + CTLA4 demonstrated comparable clinical efficacy to PD1 in Japanese MCM patients, but with a higher rate of immune-related adverse events.