Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (3)
Document Type
- Journal article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Keywords
- CTLA-4 (2)
- PD-1 (2)
- immune checkpoint blockade (2)
- treatment resistance (2)
- uveal melanoma (2)
- liver metastasis (1)
- re-induction (1)
- toxicity (1)
Tumor vessels with resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy are characterized by the normalization of the vascular structures through integration of mature pericytes and smooth muscle cells (SMC) into the vessel wall, a process termed vessel stabilization. Unfortunately, stabilization-associated vascular remodeling can result in reduced sensitivity to subsequent anti-angiogenic therapy. We show here that blockade of VEGF by bevacizumab induces stabilization of angiogenic tumor blood vessels in human tumor specimen by recruiting Nestin-positive cells, whereas mature vessels down-regulated Nestin-expression. Using xenograft tumors growing on bone-marrow (BM) chimera of C57Bl/6 wildtype and Nestin-GFP transgenic mice, we show for first time that Nestin(+) cells inducing the maturation of tumor vessels do not originate from the BM but presumably reside within the adventitia of adult blood vessels. Complementary ex vivo experiments using explants of murine aortas revealed that Nestin(+) multipotent stem cells (MPSCs) are mobilized from their niche and differentiated into pericytes and SMC through the influence of tumor-cell-secreted factors. We conclude that tissue-resident Nestin(+) cells are more relevant than BM-derived cells for vessel stabilization and therefore have to be considered in future strategies for anti-angiogenic therapy. The identification of proteins mediating recruitment or differentiation of local Nestin(+) cells with potential stem cell character to angiogenic blood vessels may allow the definition of new therapeutic targets to reduce tumor resistance against anti-angiogenic drugs.
Background: Since there is no standardized and effective treatment for advanced uveal melanoma (UM), the prognosis is dismal once metastases develop. Due to the availability of immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) in the real-world setting, the prognosis of metastatic UM has improved. However, it is unclear how the presence of hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis impacts the response and survival after ICB. Methods: A total of 178 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included in this analysis. Patients were recruited from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of hepatic metastasis, two cohorts were compared: patients with liver metastasis only (cohort A, n = 55) versus those with both liver and extra-hepatic metastasis (cohort B, n = 123). Data were analyzed in both cohorts for response to treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). The survival and progression probabilities were calculated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Log-rank tests, χ\(^2\) tests, and t-tests were performed to detect significant differences between both cohorts. Results: The median OS of the overall population was 16 months (95% CI 13.4–23.7) and the median PFS, 2.8 months (95% CI 2.5–3.0). The median OS was longer in cohort B than in cohort A (18.2 vs. 6.1 months; p = 0.071). The best objective response rate to dual ICB was 13.8% and to anti-PD-1 monotherapy 8.9% in the entire population. Patients with liver metastases only had a lower response to dual ICB, yet without significance (cohort A 8.7% vs. cohort B 16.7%; p = 0.45). Adverse events (AE) occurred in 41.6%. Severe AE were observed in 26.3% and evenly distributed between both cohorts. Conclusion: The survival of this large cohort of patients with advanced UM was more favorable than reported in previous benchmark studies. Patients with both hepatic and extrahepatic metastasis showed more favorable survival and higher response to dual ICB than those with hepatic metastasis only.
Re-induction with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) needs to be considered in many patients with uveal melanoma (UM) due to limited systemic treatment options. Here, we provide hitherto the first analysis of ICB re-induction in UM. A total of 177 patients with metastatic UM treated with ICB were included from German skin cancer centers and the German national skin cancer registry (ADOReg). To investigate the impact of ICB re-induction, two cohorts were compared: patients who received at least one ICB re-induction (cohort A, n = 52) versus those who received only one treatment line of ICB (cohort B, n = 125). In cohort A, a transient benefit of overall survival (OS) was observed at 6 and 12 months after the treatment start of ICB. There was no significant difference in OS between both groups (p = 0.1) with a median OS of 16.2 months (cohort A, 95% CI: 11.1–23.8) versus 9.4 months (cohort B, 95% CI: 6.1–14.9). Patients receiving re-induction of ICB (cohort A) had similar response rates compared to those receiving ICB once. Re-induction of ICB may yield a clinical benefit for a small subgroup of patients even after resistance or development of toxicities.