Dimou, Anastasios

Abstract Chromosomal rearrangements involving ALK, ROS1, RET and others generate novel fusion kinases which comprise approximately 10% of the oncogenic drivers in lung adenocarcinoma. Several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are approved or in development for each of these oncogenes and have shown marked clinical improvement for patients, but resistance inevitably occurs, a significant proportion of which is not currently druggable. AXL is a receptor tyrosine kinase that is often upregulated in resistant cancers in response to both chemotherapy and targeted therapies such as EGFR inhibitors. AXL can promote resistance to targeted therapy by signaling through the MAPK and Akt pathways or heterodimerizing with other receptors to maintain growth and survival signaling. However, the role of AXL in mediating resistance to ALK, ROS1, and RET TKIs is not well understood. In screening our unique panel of patient-derived lung adenocarcinoma cell lines harboring ALK, ROS1 or RET gene fusions, we found elevated AXL expression was correlated with resistance to cognate TKIs, as well as mesenchymal features including spindle morphology and vimentin expression. Combining the AXL inhibitor R428 with TKI treatment, such as crizotinib for ALK and ROS1 driven cell lines, was effective at inhibiting colony formation and wound healing in fusion kinase inhibitor resistant cell lines. Combination treatment downregulates Akt phosphorylation in resistant cells, and we found the resistant cell lines were also more sensitive to PI3K inhibition than cell lines that are still sensitive to their specific TKI. Interestingly, we also identified AXL cross talk with other receptor tyrosine kinases. In a RET inhibitor resistant model expression of both AXL and EGFR are elevated and the receptors interact, which can be disrupted upon EGF stimulation, to drive resistance. Collectively, we show that AXL upregulation is a common marker of TKI resistance among ALK, ROS1, and RET fusion kinase driven lung adenocarcinoma models, and provide rationale for AXL as a clinical target for combination therapy to overcome drug resistance. Citation Format: Tara Peters, Anastasios Dimou, Anh Le, Robert Doebele. Identifying the role of AXL in fusion kinase inhibitor resistant non-small cell lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 5262.

e22020 Background: The combination of nab-paclitaxel (NP) and bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with MM has shown promising clinical activity. AB160 is a 160 nm nano-immunoconjugate of NP nanoparticles non-covalently coated with BEV for targeted delivery into high VEGF expressing tissues. Preclinical data showed that AB160 improved tumor targeting/ tumor inhibition more than NP followed by BEV. Methods: A 3+3 phase I trial was conducted in patients (pts) with MM who had prior systemic treatment for metastatic disease to determine the maximum tolerated dose of AB160 administered intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Dose level 1 (DL1) was 125 mg/m2 NP /50 mg/m2 BEV. Dose limiting toxicities (DLT) included grade (G) 4 neutropenia or anemia, PLT < 25,000, serum creatinine ≥ 2 times baseline, G2-4 neurologic toxicity or G3-4 non-hematologic toxicities. Tumor evaluations (RECIST) were conducted every 8 weeks. Treatment continued until progression or intolerability. Results: 21 pts (11 ♀) aged 36-78 years old were enrolled. One of the first 3 pts on DL1 developed a G2 colonic perforation; this was considered a DLT. One of the next 3 pts on DL1 had a DLT: G4 neutropenia. Of the 3 pts on DL-1 (100 mg/m2 NP/40 mg/m2 BEV), 2 had no DLTs and 1 died of sepsis after C1D1 dose. Enrollment was suspended until an amendment modifying the eligibility criteria was approved by the IRB. The trial reopened. One of the 4 pts on DL-1 and 1 of the 5 pts on DL1 had a DLT: G3 pain and G3 fatigue, respectively. Enrollment ended after 2 of the 3 pts on DL2 (150 mg/m2 NP/ 60 mg/m2 BEV) developed G4 neutropenia. Thus, MTD is DL1. A median of 3 cycles was administered. Treatment ended due to progression (9), intolerability (9), refusal (2) and death (1). There were no objective tumor responses. Common G3-4 toxicities were: neutropenia (33%) and thromboembolic events (19%). Conclusions: AB160 was found to have insufficient clinical benefit in patients with previously treated MM to justify further development. However, parallel phase I testing in gynecologic cancers suggests clinical benefit (abstract #300225). Clinical trial information: NCT02020707.

9517 Background: Although PD-1/L1 axis directed therapies induce durable responses in some mm patients (pts), biomarkers of response remain elusive. We hypothesized that quantifying key immune suppression mechanisms within the tumor microenvironment would provide superior predictors of response to anti-PD-1 compared with single marker assessment. Methods: Pre-treatment tumor biopsies from 124 mm pts treated with anti-PD-1 at 7 academic centers were fluorescently stained with multiple immune markers in discovery (n = 24) and validation (n = 100) cohorts. Selected biomarker signatures, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score (proportion of PD-1+ cells co-localized with PD-L1) and IDO1/HLA-DR co-expression were evaluated for anti-PD-1 treatment response and survival. Slides were imaged using Vectra; biomarker positive cells and their co-localization were objectively quantified in pathologist-selected regions using novel Automated Quantitative Analysis (AQUA) algorithms. Results: In the discovery cohort, high levels of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score and/or IDO1/HLA-DR coexpression was strongly positively associated with response to anti-PD-1 (p = 0.0005). In contrast, other individual biomarkers (PD-1, PD-L1, CD8) were not associated with response or survival (p > 0.10). This finding was replicated in the validation cohort: pts with high PD-1/PD-L1 and/or IDO1/HLA-DR were more likely to respond to treatment (p = 0.009). These pts also experienced a three-fold increase in progression free survival (hazards ratio (HR) = 0.33; p = 0.003) and overall survival (HR = 0.34; p = 0.004). Multivariate analyses revealed that these findings were independent of BRAF mutation, stage, LDH and prior therapy. In the combined cohort (n = 124), 80% of responding pts had higher levels of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction scores and/or IDO1/HLA-DR. In contrast, PD-L1 expression alone (≥1% or ≥50%) was not predictive of PFS or OS (p > 0.1). Conclusions: This novel multiplexed method profiling key tumor-immune suppression pathways identified mm pts likely to respond to anti-PD-1 therapy. This method could help stratify patients for PD-1 monotherapy and be useful in guiding future clinical trials.

Abstract Purpose: PD-1/L1 axis–directed therapies produce clinical responses in a subset of patients; therefore, biomarkers of response are needed. We hypothesized that quantifying key immunosuppression mechanisms within the tumor microenvironment by multiparameter algorithms would identify strong predictors of anti–PD-1 response. Experimental Design: Pretreatment tumor biopsies from 166 patients treated with anti–PD-1 across 10 academic cancer centers were fluorescently stained with multiple markers in discovery (n = 24) and validation (n = 142) cohorts. Biomarker-positive cells and their colocalization were spatially profiled in pathologist-selected tumor regions using novel Automated Quantitative Analysis algorithms. Selected biomarker signatures, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score, and IDO-1/HLA-DR coexpression were evaluated for anti–PD-1 treatment outcomes. Results: In the discovery cohort, PD-1/PD-L1 interaction score and/or IDO-1/HLA-DR coexpression was strongly associated with anti–PD-1 response (P = 0.0005). In contrast, individual biomarkers (PD-1, PD-L1, IDO-1, HLA-DR) were not associated with response or survival. This finding was replicated in an independent validation cohort: patients with high PD-1/PD-L1 and/or IDO-1/HLA-DR were more likely to respond (P = 0.0096). These patients also experienced significantly improved progression-free survival (HR = 0.36; P = 0.0004) and overall survival (HR = 0.39; P = 0.0011). In the combined cohort, 80% of patients exhibiting higher levels of PD-1/PD-L1 interaction scores and IDO-1/HLA-DR responded to PD-1 blockers (P = 0.000004). In contrast, PD-L1 expression was not predictive of survival. Conclusions: Quantitative spatial profiling of key tumor-immune suppression pathways by novel digital pathology algorithms could help more reliably select melanoma patients for PD-1 monotherapy. Clin Cancer Res; 24(21); 5250–60. ©2018 AACR.