L’immunothérapie en onco-urologie...Durvalumab. 100-100 0) Time ... Dreicer ASCO 2016 Petrylak...
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of L’immunothérapie en onco-urologie...Durvalumab. 100-100 0) Time ... Dreicer ASCO 2016 Petrylak...

L’immunothérapieenonco-urologie

VACCINE
APCinfusion
TCARcells
Bispecific antibodies
Strategy 1:eliciting tumor-targetingcytolytic lymphocytes
TosupplyoraugmentthefrequencyofTcellsinapatientspecificforoneormoretumor-associatedantigens
cytokines

Strategy 2:disrupting immuneregulation
AntiCTLA4mAb
AntiPD1/PDL1mAb

Strategy 3:altering thetumor microenvironment
MDSC
TregCellsIL10IDO

Cancerdelaprostate:canceridéalpourl’immunothérapie
• Maladieengénérallentementévolutive• Nombreuxantigènescibles• Tissuciblenonessentiel• Marqueurantitumoral àpeuprèsfiable:PSA• Maladiefréquente• Secondecausededécèsparcancerchezl’homme

Lecancerdureinaussi
• Rémissionsspontanées
• Régressionsimprévisibles
• Evolutionparfoistrèslente
->l’échappementàl’immunosurveillance estprobablementfréquentdanslecancerdurein

11/2000
2/2002
Nephrectomie12/2000

11/2000
2/2001
2/2009

Lecancerurothélial aussi
• Hautementmuté(associationaveclenombredenéo-épitopes)
• UtilisationdelaBCGthérapie danslesformesnoninvasives

Alexandrovetal.Nature2013
Le cancer urothélial est très muté

VACCINE
APCinfusion
TCARcells
Bispecific antibodies
Strategy 1:eliciting tumor-targetingcytolytic lymphocytes
TosupplyoraugmentthefrequencyofTcellsinapatientspecificforoneormoretumor-associatedantigens
cytokines

Cytokinesetcancerdelaprostate
• IL2:stratégieabandonnée.RéponsePSArarissimemalgréuneinfiltrationlymphocytaireTintratumorale
• IL2+INF:bis• Cytokinesintratumorales:ter• GM-CSF:réponseplusfréquente
Enpratique:abandonnées

Tauxderéponse faible(5-10%)maisdurableActuellement:indicationsexceptionnellescompte-tenudelatoxicité

Vaccins
• GVAX:extraitsdePC3etLNCAPmodifiiéespoursurexprimer GM-CSF
• RéponseimmunespécifiquecontreplusieursAg
• MAIS:– Uneétudedephase3:pasdesupérioritéparrapportàlachimiothérapie
– Uneétudedephase3:délétère+++

SIPULEUCEL-T(PROVENGE)
Kantoff etal.NEJM2010

Vaccins
• Unedizainedevaccinsencoursd’évaluation• Placedesvaccinsmaldéterminée• Stratégiesdecombinaisons• Sipuleucel- T:100000$parpatient

TCARcells
Antigènespécifiquedelaprostate:PSMA

Anticorpsbispécifique
Risqued’effets« off-target »MoinscheretmoinsdifficilequelesCARTcells

Strategy 2:disrupting immuneregulation
AntiCTLA4mAb
AntiPD1/PDL1mAb

Lymphocyte Inhibition

21

22

Rosenbergetal,Lancet2016
Etude de phase II IMVIGOR monobrasatezolizumab
Hypothèse :tauxderéponse>10%(tauxderéponsehistorique)

Quel est le taux de réponse ?
Letauxderéponsepourunpatientnonsélectionné:15%Letauxderéponseaugmenteavecl’expressiondePDL1surcellulesimmunitairesL’expressiondePDL1n’estpassuffisammentdiscriminantedanslesphasesavancées
Rosenbergetal,Lancet2016

Améliore-t-on la survie des patients ?
Quandunpatientrépond, celui-cirépond bienetlongtemps
Rosenbergetal,Lancet2016

Y-a-t-il des effets secondaires ?
Latoléranceenmonothérapie estexcellentemaisattentionauxEIimmunologiques
Rosenbergetal,Lancet2016

ATEZOLIZUMAB PDL1i PHASE 3
DURVALUMAB PDL1i PHASE 1
NIVOLUMAB PD1i PHASE2
AVELUMAB PDL1i PHASE1
PEMBROLIZUMAB PD1i PHASE3
PD1/PDL1RACE

100
-100
0
SLDchangefrom
PD(%
)
Time
Patie
ntsw
ithCRorPRatbestresponse
Time Time
OS
Similarefficacyplotsforallofthem
Atezolizumab

100
-100
0
SLDchangefrom
PD(%
)
Time
Patie
ntsw
ithCRorPRatbestresponse
Time Time
OS
Similarefficacyplotsforallofthem
Durvalumab

100
-100
0
SLDchangefrom
PD(%
)
Time
Patie
ntsw
ithCRorPRatbestresponse
Time Time
OS
Similarefficacyplotsforallofthem
Nivolumab

Dreicer ASCO2016 PetrylakASCO2015 ApoloGUASCO2016 MassardASCO2016 SharmaASCO2016Plimack ASCO2015ESMO2016
PhaseIBasketStudiesn=310 n=87 n=44 n=42 n=78 n=29
AdaptedfromB.Plimack,presentedatASCO2016
n=265
HistoricalControlwChemo~12%
RosenbergLancet2016
PD-1/PD-L1 INHIBITORS
Overall Response Rates: Post-Platinum

SECONDLINEPHASEIII
KEYNOTE-045StudyDesign (NCT02256436)
EstimatedtimelinesEstimatedcompletion:May2017
Pembrolizumab
SOC:Paclitaxel,DocetaxelorVinflunine
Secondaryendpoints•ORR•Safety
Primaryendpoints
OS&PFS
• Urothelial cancer• Progressionorrecurrence
ofurothelial cancerfollowingafirst-lineplatinum-containingregimen.
• Nomorethan2priorlinesofsystemicchemotherapy.
RandomizationN=470patients
71
Estimated timelinesEstimatedcompletion:Nov2017
Atezolizumab
SOC:Docetaxel,PaclitaxelorVinflunine
Secondaryendpoints•ORR•PFS•DOR•Safety
Primaryendpoints
OS• Urothelial cancer• Progressionorrecurrence
ofurothelial cancerfollowingafirst-lineplatinum-containingregimen.
RandomizationN=932patients
IMvigor211StudyDesign(NCT02302807)

KEYNOTE-045 STUDY
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

DISPOSITION OF STUDY TREATMENT
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

BASELINE CHARACTERISTICS
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

OVERALL SURVIVAL : TOTAL
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

OVERALL SURVIVAL : CPS ≥ 10%
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

CONFIRMED OBJECTIVE RESPONSE RATE
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

OVERALL SURVIVAL IN SUBGROUPS
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

TOLERANCE
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

TREATMENT-RELATED AE
Bellmunt etal.NEJM2017

Powlesetal.EACR2017
IMVIGOR211study
ORR:13.4%ITTand23%inIC2/31-yearOS:40%inITTpatients

NMIBC MIBC MetastaticUC
Low Grade HighGrade
BCGrefractory
Pembrolizumab/BCGAtezolizumab/BCG
Pembrolizumab/BCG
neoadjuvant Adjuvant fit unfit
Maintenance
Platinum-resistant
DANUBE(durva,tremelimumabMK-3475-361(pembrolizumab)IMVIGOR130(atezolizumab
CA209-901094(nivolumab,ipilimumab)
• Pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE045,PhaseIII)• Atezolizumab (IMVIGOR211,PhaseIII)• Pembrolizumab +Epacadostat (phase III)
2nde line
1ère ligne
Current/futurclinicaltrialsinUC
Atezolizumab (NMvigor010, phase3)Nivolumab (CHECKMATE274,phase3)Pembrolizumab (Ambassador,phase3)
• Avelumab (JAVELIN,phaseIII)
Pembro +Epacadostat (KN672,phaseIII)
Pandore(pembro, phaseII)

IMvigor210 Study: Cohort 1
IRF, independent review facility. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02108652. a PD-L1 prospectively assessed by a central laboratory, with patients and investigators blinded. b Cockcroft-Gault formula. 1. Galsky J Clin Oncol 2011.
IMvigor210:• Inoperable locally advanced or
metastatic urothelial carcinoma• Predominantly UC histology• Tumor tissue evaluable for
PD-L1 testinga
Cohort 1 (N = 119):1L cisplatin ineligible
Cohort 2:Platinum-treated mUC
Atezolizumab 1200 mg IV q3w until RECIST v1.1 progression
Atezolizumab 1200 mg IV q3w until loss of clinical benefit
Primary endpoint • Confirmed ORR: RECIST v1.1
(per central IRF)
Key secondary endpoints • DOR, PFS, OS, safety
Cohort 1–specific inclusion criteria • No prior treatment for mUC (> 12 mo since perioperative chemo)• ECOG PS 0-2• Cisplatin ineligibility1 based on ≥ 1 of the following:
− Renal impairment: GFR < 60 and > 30 mL/minb
− ≥ Grade 2 hearing loss or peripheral neuropathy− ECOG PS 2

EfficacyResponse to atezolizumab (IRF RECIST v1.1)
• Patients in this analysis had a median of follow-up duration of 14.4 mo (range, 0.2-20.1 mo)
a Includes 19 patients with missing/unevaluable responses. All treated patients had measurable disease at baseline per investigator-assessed RECIST v1.1. PD-L1 IC status: IC2/3 (≥ 5%), IC1 (≥ 1% and < 5%), IC0 (< 1%). Data cutoff: March 14, 2016.
IC1(n = 48)
IC0(n = 39)
23% (12, 37) 21% (9, 36)
6% 8%
17% 13%
IC2/3(n = 32)
IC1/2/3(n = 80)
All Patients(N = 119)
ORRa (95% CI) 28% (14, 47) 25% (16, 36) 24% (16, 32)
CR 6% 6% 7%
PR 22% 19% 17%

# at Risk: All: 119 101 89 78 71 64 52 33 16 7 1
• With a median follow-up of 14.4 months,a
the event rate is 47%
Ove
rall S
urvi
val,
%
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time, months6 8 102 40 12 14 16 18 20
12-mo OS rate: 57% (48, 66)
a Range, 0.2 to 20.1 mo. Data cutoff: March 14, 2016. 1. De Santis J Clin Oncol 2012. 2. Galsky ECC 2015 [poster 115].
+ censored event
EfficacyOverall Survival (Median and Landmark 12-Month OS)
N = 119
mOS (95% CI):12-mo OS (95% CI):
14.8 mo (10.1, NE)57% (48, 66)
• Atezolizumab compares favorably with historic data from cisplatin-ineligible patients, both from clinical trials and real-world studies1,2

# at Risk: All: 119 101 89 78 71 64 52 33 16 7 1
IC0/1: 87 73 65 57 52 46 37 26 13 6 1IC2/3: 32 28 24 21 19 18 15 7 3 1 0
Ove
rall S
urvi
val,
%
100
80
60
40
20
0
Time, months6 8 102 40 12 14 16 18 20
• With a median follow-up of 14.4 months,a the event rate is 47%
a Range, 0.2 to 20.1 mo. Data cutoff: March 14, 2016.
EfficacyOverall Survival (Median OS) by PD-L1 Status
Subgroup■ All (N = 119)■ IC0/1 (n = 87) ■ IC2/3 (n = 32)
mOS (95% CI)14.8 mo (10.1, NE)15.3 mo (9.8, NE)12.3 mo (6.0, NE)
Ove
rall S
urvi
val,
%

KEYNOTE-052:Pembrolizumab as1stline
Patients(N=370)• CUavancés• Absencedechimiothérapiepréalable pourlesmCU
• ECOGPS0-2• Inéligible pourunechimiothérapie parcisplatine enraisond’≥1élément :- CrCI <60ml/min- ECOGPS2- Toxicité neurologique /auditive grade≥2- Insuffisance cardiaqueNYHAclassIII
Pembrolizumab200mgIV/3sem.
Critèresprincipaux• Tauxderéponsesobjectives(ORR)globales
• ORRchezlespatientsdontlatumeurexprimePD-L1
ORR=29%chezles370patientsinclusdansl’étude.
ORR=51%encasd’expressionPDL1>10%
Signaturede18gènesassociésauxlymphocytesTcorréléeàlaréponseanti-tumorale
Balar etal.ASCOGU2017

FIRSTLINEPHASEIII
KEYNOTE361StudyDesign (NCT02853305)
EstimatedtimelinesEstimatedcompletion:Feb2018
pembrolizumab
SOC:+pembrolizumab
Secondaryendpoints•ORR•Safety
Primaryendpoints
PFS1andOSinPDL1+• MetastaticUrothelialcancer
• Unfitorfitpatients• Nochemotherapy
inmetastatic setting.
RandomizationN=990patients
71
SOC:Platinum-based
chemo
H1:PFSinchemo +pembro >chemo inPDL1+(HR=0.6)H2:OSinchemo +pembro >chemo inPDL1+(HR=0.625)H3:PFSinchemo +pembro >chemo inallpatientsH4:OSinchemo +pembro >chemo inallpatients…

FIRSTLINEPHASEIII
IMVIGOR130StudyDesign(NCT02853305)
EstimatedtimelinesEstimatedcompletion:Feb2018
Atezolizumab
SOC:+atezolizumab
Secondaryendpoints•ORR•Safety
Primaryendpoints
PFS1andOSincombovs chemo• MetastaticUrothelialcancer
• Unfitorfitpatients• Nochemotherapy
inmetastatic setting.
RandomizationN=1200patients
71
SOC:Platinum-based
chemo
H1:PFSinchemo +pembro >chemo inPDL1+(HR=0.6)H2:OSinchemo +pembro >chemo inPDL1+(HR=0.625)H3:PFSinchemo +pembro >chemo inallpatientsH4:OSinchemo +pembro >chemo inallpatients…

FIRSTLINEPHASEIII
CHECKMATE901StudyDesign(NCT02256436)
EstimatedtimelinesEstimatedcompletion:
Nivolumab +ipilimumab
SOC:Platinum-based
chemo
Secondaryendpoints•OSinallpatients•ORR•Safety
Primaryendpoints
OS&PFSinunfitpatients• MetastaticUrothelialcancer
• Unfitorfitpatients• Nochemotherapy
inmetastatic setting.
RandomizationN=690patients
71
SOC:Platinum-based
chemo+nivolumab

FIRSTLINEPHASEIII
JAVELINStudyDesign(NCT002603432)
EstimatedtimelinesEstimatedcompletion:2020
avelumab
SOC:BSC
Secondaryendpoints•PFS•ORR,duration ofresponse•Safety
Primaryendpoints
OS• MetastaticUrothelial
cancer• CR,PR,SDupon4-6
paltinum-basedchemo
RandomizationN=668patients
71

NMIBC MIBC MetastaticUC
Low Grade HighGrade
BCGrefractory
Pembrolizumab/BCGAtezolizumab/BCG
Pembrolizumab/BCG
neoadjuvant Adjuvant fit unfit
Maintenance
Platinum-resistant
DANUBE(durva,tremelimumabMK-3475-361(pembrolizumab)IMVIGOR130(atezolizumab
CA209-901094(nivolumab,ipilimumab)
• Pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE045,PhaseIII)• Atezolizumab (IMVIGOR211,PhaseIII)• Pembrolizumab +Epacadostat (phase III)
2nde line
1ère ligne
Current/futurclinicaltrialsinUC
Atezolizumab (NMvigor010, phase3)Nivolumab (CHECKMATE274,phase3)Pembrolizumab (Ambassador,phase3)
• Avelumab (JAVELIN,phaseIII)
Pembro +Epacadostat (KN672,phaseIII)
Pandore(pembro, phaseII)

Autorisationnivolumab secondelignemétastatiquecancerdurein
Tauxderéponse :25%

Pasdefacteurscliniquesoubiologiquesderéponse

Trèsbientoléréeengénérallorsd’uneadministrationenmonothérapie
Concernantlatolérance

CheckMate 214: Study design
IMDC, International Metastatic RCC Database Consortium; KPS, Karnofsky performance status; Q2W, every 2 weeks; Q3W, every 3 weeks
Treatment until progression or unacceptable
toxicity
• Treatment-naïve advanced or metastatic clear-cell RCC
• Measurable disease• KPS ≥70%• Tumor tissue
available for PD-L1 testing
TreatmentPatients
Randomize 1:1Arm A
3 mg/kg nivolumab IV + 1 mg/kg ipilimumab IV Q3W
for four doses, then 3 mg/kg nivolumab IV Q2W
Arm B50 mg sunitinib orally once
daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycles)
Stratified by • IMDC prognostic score (0 vs 1–2 vs 3–6)
•Region (US vs Canada/Europe vs Rest of World)

ORR and DOR: IMDC intermediate/poor risk
N = 847
OutcomeNIVO +
IPIN = 425
SUNN = 422
Confirmed ORR,a % (95% CI)
42 (37–47)
27 (22–31)
P < 0.0001Confirmed BOR,a %
Complete responsePartial responseStable diseaseProgressive diseaseUnable to determine/notreported
9b
3231208
1b
25451712
aIRRC-assessed ORR and BOR by RECIST v1.1; bP < 0.0001
SUN
NIVO +IPI
No.atRisk
177 146 120 55 3
112 75 52 17 0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 6 12 18 24Months
DurationofResponse(Probability)
Co-primary endpoint: ORR
Medianduration ofresponse,months(95%
CI)
Patientswithongoingresponse,
%NIVO +IPI NR(21.8–NE) 72
SUN 18.2(14.8–NE) 63

OS: IMDC intermediate/poor risk
Hazard ratio (99.8% CI), 0.63 (0.44–0.89)P < 0.0001
Median OS, months (95% CI)
NIVO + IPI NR (28.2–NE)
SUN 26.0 (22.1–NE)
Ove
rall
Surv
ival
(Pro
babi
lity)
425 399 372 348 332 318 300 241 119 44 2 0422 387 352 315 288 253 225 179 89 34 3 0
No. at RiskNIVO + IPI
SUN
Months
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.018 21 24 27 30 3315129630
Co-primary endpoint

ORR,PFS,andOS:Intentiontotreat
a23% of patients in the NIVO + IPI arm and 25% of patients in the SUN arm had tumor PD-L1 expression ≥1%bIRRC-assessed by RECIST v1.1cIRRC-assessed
N = 1,096a
Outcome NIVO + IPIN = 550
SUNN = 546
Confirmed ORR,b % (95% CI) 39 (35–43) 32 (28–36)
P = 0.0191
PFS,c median (95% CI), months
12.4 (9.9–16.5)
12.3 (9.8–15.2)
HR(99.1%CI)0.98(0.79–1.23)
P=0.8498
550 523 492 464 443 426 404 339 197 71 4 0546 506 471 432 402 363 334 283 173 66 6 0
Ove
rall
Surv
ival
(Pro
babi
lity)
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 6 12 18 24
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
33303 9 15 21 27Months
No. at RiskNIVO + IPI
HR (99.8% CI) 0.68 (0.49–0.95)P = 0.0003
MedianOS,months(95%CI)
NIVO +IPI NR(NE–NE)SUN 32.9(NE–NE)
Secondary endpoint

284 202 155 119 102 90 70 23 9 1 0
278 200 138 105 83 67 43 25 11 1 0
PFS by PD-L1 expression: IMDC intermediate/poor risk
PD-L1 <1% (n = 562) PD-L1 ≥1% (n = 214)
HR (95% CI) 0.48 (0.28–0.82)P = 0.0003
MedianPFS,months(95%CI)
NIVO +IPI 22.8(9.4–NE)SUN 5.9(4.4–7.1)
HR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.74–1.36)P = 0.9670
MedianPFS,months(95%CI)
NIVO +IPI 11.0(8.1–14.9)SUN 10.4(7.5–13.8)
NIVO
SUN
No.atRisk
100 77 61 54 50 48 41 21 8 2 0
114 63 40 24 17 13 9 4 0 0 3
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 963 21181512 302724
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 963 21181512 302724
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
Progression-FreeSurvival(Probability)
MonthsMonths
Exploratory endpoint

CancerdelaprostateetIpilimumab:
mCRPC postchimiothérapie :combinaison ipi +IRvsIRseule
Kwon etal.LO2014

AntiPD1etantiPDL1?
• Danslesétudesdephase1toutetumeuraveclenivolumab (antiPD1):pasderéponseobservéedanslescancersdelaprostate

inhibiteurscheckpointsetcancerdelaprostate
• Peuefficaces(commedanslecancerdusein)– Rôledesautrescheckpoints(TIM-3,LAG3,..)?– Microbiote spécifique?– Chargemutationnellefaible(1-2mut/Mb)?– Rôledelatestostéronedanslesinteractionstumeur-cellulesimmunitaires?

Weneedtotackletheoverallecosystem
22/02/2018 TITRE DU DIAPORAMA Général 65

Pembrolizumab
TauxderéponsePSA:30%

Previous ttt:Caso/zola
200mut(4mut/Mb) 1500mut (30mut/Mb)

Openquestions
• Howtoimproveresponserate?

ImmuneCheckpointBlockadeforTherapeuticAction
againstMultipleCancerClones
αPD-1
αPD-L1
αCTLA4
αOX40
α4-1BB
αCD47
αKIR
αCD40
αLAG-3
αTIM-3
αGITR

ImmunostimulatorymAbsAgonisiticAntagonistic

Openquestions
• Howtoimproveresponserate?• Howtoselectpatients?

Ø PDL1expressionØ TCRexpansionØ ImmunesignatureØ CD8infiltrateØ MutationalloadØ Hostfactors:microbiotaØ (…)
QUESTFORPATIENTSELECTION

Y-a-t-il des facteurs prédictifs de réponse ?
L’infiltration lymphocytaireCD8estassociéeà:- ExpressionfortedePDL1- Signatured’activationlymphocytaireT- Réponseantitumorale
Rosenbergetal,Lancet2016

Y-a-t-il des facteurs prédictifs de réponse ?
Lephénotype basalestassociéà:- Expressionplus fortedePDL1surlescellulesimmunitaires- Expressionplus fortedePDL1surlescellulestumorales
Laréponseantitumorale semblesupérieuredanslecluster2Laréponseantitumorale estplusfortesihautechargemutationnelle

IMvigor210: TCGA Subtype in mUC
• Luminal I tumors have low Teff expression
• Luminal II tumors have high Teff and low stromal gene expression
• Basal tumors have high Teff and high stromal gene expression
Luminal BasalPapillary like Squamous
ResponseIC statusTC status
FGFR3CDKN2AKRT5
EGFRGATA3FOXA1ERBB2
KRT14
Mesenchymal
CD8A
GZMBGZMA
IFNGCXCL9CXCL10PRF1TBX21COL4A1COL4A2PDGFRBBGNNUAK1
Z: - 3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
CR PR SD PD IC3 IC2 IC1 IC0 TC3 TC2 TC1 TC0
Stromal
Teff
TCGASubtype
I II III IV
Data cutoff: March 14, 2016.

IMvigor210: TCGA Subtype in mUC
• IMvigor210 subtypes have distinct tumor-immune landscapes that reflect responsiveness to atezolizumab
TIL, tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte. a High myeloid, inflammatory, activated stromal/fibroblast markers. Data cutoff: March 14, 2016.
Immune desert Inflamed Immune suppresseda
Increased responses
Tumor cellsTIL/immune cells
Tumor stroma
Luminal BasalPapillary like Squamous
ResponseIC statusTC status
MesenchymalI II III IV

• mUC has a high mutation load and thus potential for neoantigen generation and recognition by the immune system1-3
• Median load was significantly higher in responders vs non-responders– This relationship was statistically independent of other predictors of response
Mutation load by FoundationOne and response
1. Lawrence Nature 2013. 2. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network Nature 2014. 3. Kandoth Nature 2013. Data cutoff: March 14, 2016.
II IIILuminal Basal
IVAll(n = 150)
Mut
atio
n Lo
ad/M
B
I0
102030
40
IC0/1 IC2/3
0102030
40
50
Mut
atio
n Lo
ad/M
Brespondernon-responder
RECIST v1.1response

Strategy 3:altering thetumor microenvironment
MDSC
TregCellsIL10IDO

Howtoimprovetheefficacyofimmunotherapy
22/02/2018 TITRE DU DIAPORAMA Général79Twyman-Saint Victor et al, Nature 2015 22/02/2018Pili et al, JCO 2011

Conclusion• Lescancersurologiquessontsensiblesauximmunothérapies• Lesinhibiteursdescheckpointssontlesplusétudiés
– AMMsouspeupourlenivolumab danslecancerdureinensecondeligneaprèstraitementanti-angiogénique
– AMMen2017danslecancerdelavessieendeuxièmelignemétastatique
• Latendance:– Combinaisonsdesinhibiteursdecheckpointsentreeux– Combinaisonsvaccins/chimiothérapie/antiangiogéniques– Évaluationprécocedanslesstadeslocalisés
• Lesproblèmes:– Lecoût– Pasdefacteurprédictifrobuste