4.6 Article

CTLA-4 Blockade Synergizes Therapeutically with PARP Inhibition in BRCA1-Deficient Ovarian Cancer

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 3, 期 11, 页码 1257-1268

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-15-0044

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ovarian Cancer Research Fund Liz Tilberis Early Career Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immune checkpoint blockade has shown significant therapeutic efficacy in melanoma and other solid tumors, but results in ovarian cancer have been limited. With evidence that tumor immunogenicity modulates the response to checkpoint blockade, and data indicating that BRCA-deficient ovarian cancers express higher levels of immune response genes, we hypothesized that BRCA(-) ovarian tumors would be vulnerable to checkpoint blockade. To test this hypothesis, we used an immunocompetent BRCA1-deficient murine ovarian cancer model to compare treatment with CTLA-4 or PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies alone or combined with targeted cytotoxic therapy using a PARP inhibitor. Correlative studies were performed in vitro using human BRCA1(-) cells. We found that CTLA-4 antibody, but not PD-1/PD-L1 blockade, synergized therapeutically with the PARP inhibitor, resulting in immune-mediated tumor clearance and long-term survival in a majority of animals (P < 0.0001). The survival benefit of this combination was T-cell mediated and dependent on increases in local IFN gamma production in the peritoneal tumor environment. Evidence of protective immune memory was observed more than 60 days after completion of therapy. Similar increases in the cytotoxic effect of PARP inhibition in the presence of elevated levels of IFNg in human BRCA1(-) cancer cells support the translational potential of this treatment protocol. These results demonstrate that CTLA-4 blockade combined with PARP inhibition induces protective antitumor immunity and significant survival benefit in the BRCA1(-) tumor model, and support clinical testing of this regimen to improve outcomes for women with hereditary ovarian cancer. (C) 2015 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据