Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Review

The Immunoscore: Colon Cancer and Beyond

Helen K. Angell, Daniela Bruni, J. Carl Barrett, Ronald Herbst and Jérôme Galon
Helen K. Angell
1Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: helen.angell@astrazeneca.com
Daniela Bruni
2INSERM, Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology, Équipe Labellisée Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot; Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Daniela Bruni
J. Carl Barrett
3Translational Medicine, Oncology R&D, AstraZeneca, Boston, Massachusetts.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ronald Herbst
4Department of Research, MedImmune, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jérôme Galon
2INSERM, Laboratory of Integrative Cancer Immunology, Équipe Labellisée Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sorbonne Université, Université Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot; Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, Paris, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1851 Published January 2020
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Tumors evolve in close interaction with their microenvironment, which encompasses a continual tension between the developing tumor and the host immune system. Clinical trials have shown that appropriate enhancement of a tumor immune response can lead to long-lasting clinical responses and patient benefit. Understanding the contribution of the immune contexture, in addition to the molecular subtype across different tumor indications, is a significant knowledge gap with limited sagacity to drive rational immunotherapy combinations. To better inform clinical studies, we must first strive to understand the multifaceted elements of the tumor-immune interaction, the spatiotemporal interplay of numerous different immune cell types, in conjunction with an understanding of the oncogenic drivers and mutations that may lead to presentation of neoepitopes and could drive changes within the tumor microenvironment. In this review, we discuss the Immunoscore and its probable universal characteristic. The overlay of immune quantification with the molecular segments of disease and how this may benefit identification of patients at high risk of tumor recurrence will be discussed. The Immunoscore may translate to provide a tumor agnostic method to define immune fitness of a given tumor and predict and stratify patients who will benefit from certain therapies (in particular immune therapies) and, ultimately, help save the lives of patients with cancer.

Introduction

Current cancer classification is provided by the American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) and strictly relies on tumor characteristics, such as the extent of the primary tumor (T), the involvement of regional lymph nodes (N), and the presence of distant metastases (M) (TNM staging). Additional tumor cell parameters are utilized as an indication of the intrinsic biology of the tumor and provide an estimation of tumor progression at the time of the surgical resection. Although powerful, the AJCC/UICC-TNM classification fails to provide complete prognostic information. Clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same histologic tumor stage. This approach has stood the test of time for prognostication; however, the TNM-staging system provides incomplete prognostic information beyond the tumor cell and does not provide insights into the immune status of a tumor and therefore may not predict response to a variety of therapeutic modalities (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Pie chart represents current and possible cancer classification approaches. Tumors are currently classified based solely on tumor cell characteristics (left). These include the AJCC/UICC-TNM stratification system, tumor morphology (i.e., grade of differentiation; tumor budding; sidedness; location; venous emboli, lymphatic invasion, perineural invasion–VELIPI), tumor cell of origin, deregulated molecular pathways, specific tumor signatures, and mutational status. Despite the existence of compelling evidence demonstrating the strength of immune-based classifications (such as that provided by the Immunoscore), current cancer classification does not include any immune parameter to date (right). CIN, chromosomal instability; CMS, consensus molecular subtypes; MSI, microsatellite instability.

The Immunoscore Classification of Colorectal Cancer

Increasing evidence demonstrates that the evolution of cancer is strongly dependent on the complex tumor microenvironment (TME) in which it develops. The TME comprises a variety of cellular entities including fibroblasts, endothelial cells, blood vessels, lymph vessels, and cells of the immune system. Adaptive immune cell infiltration was shown to have a prognostic value superior to the classic tumor invasion criteria, including grade, stage, and metastatic status (1, 2). We have previously defined these major survival-associated immune parameters as the “immune contexture” (2, 3), delineated as the type, functional orientation, density, and location of adaptive immune cells within distinct tumor regions (1–5). In addition to the physical components within the tumor, the TME includes several soluble factors such as cytokines, chemokines, and products of cellular metabolism. Tumor progression and patient survival therefore reflect the complex cellular and molecular interactions of the tumor with the immune system of the host (3).

A potential clinical translation of the immune contexture into a prognostic marker in CRC was established and designated the “Immunoscore” (2, 4, 5). The Immunoscore is based on the quantification of lymphocyte populations, in particular CD3 and CD8-positive T cells, both at the tumor center (CT) and at the invasive margin (IM). The Immunoscore provides a scoring system ranging from low immune cell densities found at both the CT and the IM, Immunoscore 0 (I0), to high densities classed as Immunoscore 4 (I4), with increasing score correlating with longer patient survival. Briefly, CD3- and CD8-immunostained formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) slides are scanned and the two corresponding digital images validated by the operator (Fig. 2). Image analysis is performed via a dedicated software (Immunoscore Analyzer, HalioDx): automatic detection of the tissue histologic structure is followed by an operator-guided definition of the tumor (adenocarcinoma), healthy tissue (submucosa, muscularis propria, serosa), and the epithelium (mucosa). The operator also excludes all areas of necrosis, abscess, and artifacts (bubbles folds, torn areas, background) to avoid false positives. The IM, spanning 360 μm into the healthy tissue and 360 μm into the tumor, is calculated automatically by the software. In the presence of multiple FFPE blocks, the one to select for the Immunoscore evaluation is the one containing the IM. If more than one IM-containing FFPE block is available, the one containing the most immune cells (based on low magnification optical evaluation of the corresponding H&E slide) should be selected. Nonetheless, comparison between the most immune-infiltrated block and a random block showed no significant differences in terms of final Immunoscore categories, supporting the robustness of the assay. The whole procedure, including all material, instrumentation, and software, has been validated and approved for use in clinical practice.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

A, Example of whole-slide CD3 staining. B, Example of staining for a low Immunoscore patient. C, Digital representation of tissue areas including CT, tumor center; IM, invasive margin; and adjacent excluded healthy tissue. Cell density cutoffs also indicated for CD3 and CD8. (CD3CT, CD8CT, CD3IM, and CD8IM). D, Example of staining for a high Immunoscore patient.

In terms of prognostic power, the Immunoscore-measured host immune reaction outperformed the gold standard TNM classification for disease-free survival (DFS), disease-specific survival, and overall survival (OS) (6). Such prognostic superiority was shown to be statistically significant for stage I, II, and III CRC, with tumor progression and invasion depending on the immune parameters (6, 7).

As the Immunoscore is a direct measure of T-cell infiltration into tumors, any mechanism directly or indirectly affecting this process will also affect the Immunoscore category. At the core of this mechanism is the presence of “sufficient” tumor immunogenicity (the ability to elicit a T-cell-mediated immune response), which is related to the neoantigen load and most frequently found in microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) patients. Indeed, CRCs associated to Lynch syndrome (characterized by MSI-H) display higher tumor-infiltrating immune cells (including CD3+ and CD8+) (8). In turn, tumor immunogenicity is shaped by the presence of oncogenic driver mutations, which can also affect indirectly the steps leading to the recruitment of effector T cells. Activation of the oncogenic WNT/β-catenin signaling pathway prevented the recruitment of antigen-presenting dendritic cells, which are a source of T-cell-recruiting chemokines CXCL9 and CXCL10 (9). Of note, the presence of a “good” gut microbiota was also shown to stimulate T-cell recruiting chemokines expression by tumor cells (10). The absence of physical barriers impeding T-cell infiltration and the presence of factors that mediate T-cell expansion (such as IL-15 (11)) and that of a functional immune orientation of the immune contexture (5) are among the other key factors positively affecting the Immunoscore. Thus, the Immunoscore-based stratification constitutes a powerful prognostic tool recapitulating the complex interplay among numerous immune and nonimmune factors within the TME. Immunoscore-high patients are likely to share the majority, if not all of these favorable features.

Apart from constituting a prognostic factor at baseline, the Immunoscore could also play a role as a marker to predict the response to biotherapies targeting key immune checkpoints, such as PD-1/PD-L1 or CTLA4 (3, 4, 12, 13).

In an effort to promote the utilization of the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings, a worldwide Immunoscore consortium was initiated, with the support of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (13). The main objectives of this consortium were to demonstrate feasibility, reproducibility, significance, and robustness of Immunoscore in a worldwide study (Table 1). The consortium identified a strategy to demonstrate the feasibility and reproducibility of the Immunoscore, validated its major prognostic power and robustness in colon cancer stage I/II/III, and demonstrated the utility of the Immunoscore to predict patients with stage II colon cancer with high risk of recurrence (13). The primary study endpoint was time-to-recurrence for Immunoscore (high/low), which was reached in the three cohorts of patients tested. Secondary endpoints were also validated, such as significance in DFS and OS, significance with Immunoscore classified by three versus five groups, significance in patients with stage II colon cancer, and significance in multivariate analysis, adjusted for Immunoscore, age, gender, T-stage, N-stage, microsatellite instability (MSI), and stratified by city centers. Importantly, Immunoscore was demonstrated to have the highest relative contribution to the risk among all clinical parameters, including the AJCC/UICC-TNM staging (Fig. 3) (14). The implementation of Immunoscore in clinical settings and the introduction of an “immune” component (I) to the TNM staging (this becoming TNM-I) have been advocated. The immediate advantages of this approach are multiple, including: an improved prognosis of patients with cancer; an improved identification of patients at high risk of tumor recurrence; and a better stratification of patients who will benefit from immunotherapies and specific combination therapies (4, 15).

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Pie chart represents the significance (log P value) in multivariate analysis for OS. T stage with T1 as reference. N stage with N0 as reference. Differentiation with well differentiated as reference. Immunoscore with Immunoscore low as reference. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.001; ***P < 0.0001. Int, intermediate; Mod, moderate.

Translation of the Immunoscore into Additional Indications

For widespread clinical implementation, a good biomarker should possess a series of features including, but not limited to, ease of routine applicability, feasibility, uncomplicatedness, robustness, and reproducibility (a comprehensive list can be found in Table 1). Remarkably, the Immunoscore has been shown to possess all these key characteristics.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Consensus Immunoscore characteristics for colorectal cancer classification.

The positive impact of tumor-associated cytotoxic and memory T cells on clinical outcome has been largely demonstrated in a plethora of anatomically and cytologically distinct solid tumors (5, 16). These findings encourage us to shift our focus from the classic location- or cytology-based prognosis to an immune-based one. In this scenario, the main characters associated with prolonged survival are the cytotoxic T cells, memory T cells, TH1 cells, and the newly identified lineage of tissue-resident memory T (TRM) cells (3, 4, 16, 17).

The nowadays recognized role of the immune system in shaping cancer evolution, together with the recent breakthrough provided by cancer immunotherapies, calls for a deep assessment of the immune microenvironment within precancerous lesions. A recent study demonstrated the occurrence of immune activation and immune escape (via the expression of immune checkpoints) at the stages preceding lung squamous cell carcinoma (18). It is tempting to speculate that a similar pattern can be found in other precancerous settings, such as colorectal carcinogenesis. To date, no biomarker or test exists to stratify patients according to their likelihood to develop primary disease. It would be of tremendous interest to determine whether the Immunoscore or an Immunoscore-like test could predict patients' survival and outcome at the preinvasive stages of carcinogenesis. By stratifying patients at the premalignant stages, this type of evaluation could support the design and implementation of effective therapeutic approaches (such as checkpoint inhibitors) in selected, high-risk subgroups of patients.

The Immunoscore is not without its faults. First, it is a quantitative assay, quantifying the density of specific immune cells (CD3+, CD8+) using digital pathology. A very high number of T cells infiltrate tumors. Indeed, the mean number of CD3+ cells per tumor slide from resected colon cancer is 88,000 cells/slide. Optical tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) evaluation from an H&E was compared with the Immunoscore, resulting in 48% discordance and highlighting the fundamental need of digital pathology for correct and reproducible evaluation (14). This would represent the first biomarker requiring digital pathology, which is not yet fully accepted by the pathology community, even though it has demonstrated high performance (14). The Immunoscore requires rigorous pathology and experimental practice for the staining, and deviation from the predefined standardized operating procedure may result in improper quantification of the Immunoscore. To ensure the robustness of this assay, an approved in vitro diagnostic Immunoscore assay for clinical use (CE-IVD) has been developed by HalioDx (19). Furthermore, Immunoscore can be performed in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratories in the United States. In clinical trials, samples are often biopsies from metastases and not resected tumors. Therefore, the IM is rarely available. Thus, an Immunoscore for biopsy (without the need of the IM for quantification) has been developed and compared with the consensus Immunoscore for resected tumors. The Immunoscore on biopsy significantly predicts the prognosis of the patients, even if not as powerful as the Immunoscore incorporating the IM (20). Furthermore, the ROC curves testing the specificity sensitivity, or false-negative false-positive results when evaluating Immunoscore biopsy (without IM) compared with Immunoscore, showed 77% sensitivity and 96% specificity, illustrating the good performance of the evaluation of Immunoscore on biopsy (20).

As the concept of immune control of tumors applies virtually to all solid malignancies, it is plausible to extend the introduction of the Immunoscore as an additional prognostic immune parameter to additional cancer types (4, 12, 13, 21, 22). Of course, this does not exclude the subsequent evaluation and possibly addition of further markers. Recent evidence showed that the presence of infiltrating TIM-3+ PD-1+ CD8+ T cells correlated with poor clinical outcome in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (23). Of note, RCC is one of the notable exceptions in which T cells bear negative prognostic value (24), possibly due to an exhausted phenotype (23, 25). Therefore, the assessment of additional exhaustion parameters could prove instrumental in fine-tuning the prognostic value of the Immunoscore in seemingly unsuitable cancer types.

As part of an ongoing collaboration between AstraZeneca and INSERM, we are committed to understanding the prognostic significance of the Immunoscore in additional indications, including gastric, NSCLC, SCLC, SCCHN, TNBC, ovarian, and bladder cancer. The value of Immunoscore goes beyond its prognostic utility. Indeed, the Immunoscore might constitute a powerful tool for predicting response to novel therapeutic approaches, including immunotherapy, thereby highlighting its potential utilization as predictive biomarker. This hypothesis will have to be tested in prospective clinical trials.

The terms “hot” and “cold” tumors have been increasingly used to distinguish tumors according to their degree (high and low, respectively) of immune infiltration, but a general consensus on the definition of these categories is lacking. A step forward to a more standardized and univocal definition of these tumors based on the consensus Immunoscore has been proposed, together with the introduction of two intermediate categories (altered-immunosuppressed and altered-excluded) (15, 26). By stratifying these major groups based on T-cell infiltration, the Immunoscore might be used as a tool to identify phenotypes responding to distinct classes of mono- or combinational therapies. Furthermore, understanding how the immune landscape changes in subsets of molecular segments of disease is of great importance.

The Immune Landscape in Human Tumors and Molecular Subtypes

Morphology, mutation status, cell origin, tumor cell gene expression, and molecular pathways are among the tumor cell characteristics used to distinguish the numerous subtypes of CRC. The most common morphology-based classification distinguishes histologic variants (mucinous, signet ring cell, medullary, micropapillary, serrated, cribriform comedo-type, adenosquamous, spindle cell, and undifferentiated). None of these criteria hold a strong prognostic value.

Additional methods to classify cancer are based on mutation analysis including oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, and metastasis suppressor genes. Cancers can also be classified by molecular pathways: chromosomal instability, MSI, and a CpG island methylator phenotype. Use of whole-genome mRNA expression profiling has, for example, identified similarities between the molecular subtypes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer with the molecular features (e.g., p53) of basal and luminal breast cancers. Recently, transcriptomics analyses identified four consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) of CRC possessing distinct prognostic profiles, including both classical genomic and immune features (27, 28). MSI has utility as a predictive biomarker for response to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade (29, 30), potentially related to the high tumor mutational burden (TMB) and neoantigen generation associated with MSI-high (MSI-H) tumors (31). The increased number of immunogenic peptides found in MSI-H tumors is paralleled by increased TILs, a higher likelihood of immune engagement and increased PD-L1 expression in the tumor (32). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has since granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab for patients with MSI-H or dMMR solid tumors (33). High nonsynonymous TMB is also emerging as a potential tumor genomic determinant associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and durable clinical benefit, correlating with higher neoantigen load (34, 35). Furthermore, the increased adaptive immunity typically associated with MSI-H and high TMB prevents metastatic dissemination, and very few MSI-H patients (<5%) develop metastases (36). Different alterations in the TME are associated with metastatic invasion. The development of distant metastases is a consequence of the decrease in lymphatic vessels and lymphocyte cytotoxicity; accordingly, the immune phenotype is likely to be a major determinant preventing metastatic spreading (36). These results have important clinical implications and plausibly will affect the outcome of clinical trials testing therapies that enhance T-lymphocyte function (anti-CTLA4, anti-PD1, and anti-PD-L1). Studies support the use of T-cell–based immunotherapy at early-stage disease to prevent metastases and suggest that immune analysis of primary tumors may help predict the presence and development of metastasis. Recently, the analysis of longitudinal data sets of metastases from colorectal cancers revealed how the clonal evolution patterns depend on the immune contexture at the metastatic site (37). Immunoediting and Immunoscore were found to be the best predictors of clinical outcome (37). Hence, these parameters could be employed to stratify tumors and metastases based on their probability of recurrence. In the proposed “parallel immune selection model,” persisting and progressing tumor clones were found to be immune-privileged, i.e., unedited or nonimmunogenic (37): these should be the object of therapeutic targeting. Overall, these results strongly suggest that an improved understanding of the processes leading to metastasis could help develop novel treatments for patients with late-stage tumors. In an era of personalized medicine, different immunotherapy strategies are likely to be needed for lymph node and distant metastasis patients, as their immune escape mechanisms are expected to be different.

Adapting Clinical Trials Design for Immunotherapy

Successful applications of immunotherapy are being increasingly reported in several cancer settings; notable examples include Sipuleucel-T for prostate cancer (3, 38), ipilimumab for melanoma (39), and recently, the combination of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy for NSCLC (40). It seems likely that effective immunoguiding could better direct therapeutic choices at baseline (before therapy) (3, 41, 42). To-date, the performance of any anticancer therapeutic intervention, including that of immunotherapies, is evaluated in terms of clinical outcome, OS, or PFS. The newly revealed key role for the immune system brings along the possibility to monitor therapeutic efficacy much earlier by assessing the immune responses during therapy. Of note, the time required for the activation and successful establishment of immune effector mechanisms results typically in delayed objective clinical responses, compared with standard-of-care therapies (39). This delayed time frame is ultimately responsible for tumor “flare” or pseudoprogression. Clinical trial design should incorporate response rates at late, rather than early, time points to avoid the underestimation of the true clinical benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The use of novel surrogate endpoints, such as milestone survival and objective response rate, has also been advocated (43).

The use of novel biomarkers and assays has also become a clear need. In addition to biomarkers and methods directly involving the TME, the assessment of circulating components, whether blood- or bone marrow–associated, or combinations of thereof, seems to constitute promising tools (44–47). In order to successfully demonstrate the correlation between vaccine- or spontaneously induced immune responses and clinical benefit, most studies rely on the use of well-recognized, externally validated and harmonized immune assays (48). However, to date, biomarkers for reliable immunoguiding remain to be established.

Data continue to emerge evaluating the overlap between immune components and response to immunotherapy in clinical trial samples (49). Broadening our understanding around the overlap of molecular segments of disease, with markers that infer sensitivity to immunotherapies, may help better identify those patients who will respond to combinations of immunotherapy with targeted therapies (15). One example is looking at DNA-damaging response inhibitors such as the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi), olaparib. Differences in the immune phenotype across the molecular aberrations, such as BRCA1, BRCA2, and mutations in the homologous recombination repair pathway, are known to infer response to PARPi. Such detailed understanding is required to predict to what extent PARP inhibitors may enhance response to immune checkpoint blockade, such as PD-L1 (50–53), or other immunotherapy approaches.

Successes in Immunotherapy: Challenges and Opportunities Ahead

It has been widely accepted that cancer develops as a result of a failure in one or more mechanisms regulating the immune control of key molecular events (54). By tackling one of the main mechanisms of T-cell exhaustion/dysfunction, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) yield clinical benefit in the cases in which this is the critical step limiting the immune control of the tumor. A multitude of therapeutic antibodies targeting tumor cell surface molecules, growth factors, or cytokine receptors that sustain tumor growth have found their way into the clinic. Many studies have shown that immunotherapies based on the transfer, activation, expansion, or de-blocking of tumor-specific T cells resulted in clinical success (15, 55–58). When achieved, successful responses are often impressive and durable (59), reinforcing our opinion that the systemic and local tumor-specific T-cell response is at the forefront of cancer therapy.

Despite these encouraging results, efficacy of ICIs is not consistent across indications, and the percentage of responders is far from optimal (60). Several mechanisms could be at play underlying these differential clinical activities. Efficacy of ICIs requires a preexisting strong immune infiltrate and generation or rescue of an effective antitumor immune response. Of note, this parallels the prognostic importance of the Immunoscore. In order to increase clinical benefit, these immune-activating strategies may be combined with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or targeted therapy to reduce tumor load and increase immunogenicity. As the number of combinational possibilities increases, the pressure to provide sound rationale and appropriate biomarker(s) for the choice of immunotherapeutic agents and combinations also increases. Notwithstanding, the heightened flexibility seen in more recent platform and window of opportunity trials, looking for every possible synergistic combinations of known drugs with immunotherapy, even just for a single cancer type, remains unfeasible. Plus, this kind of approach might not be successful, as the immune microenvironment differs between patients within a given tumor type as well as across tumor types (5, 61). It is desirable and highly likely and that the choice of treatment option will take into account not only the tumor type but also the tumor-associated immune parameters.

The immune regulatory networks differ over time and with clinical outcome (21), adding an extra level of complexity to this already heterogeneous landscape. Only the combined evaluation of the spatiotemporal interplay of the different immune cell types, together with an understanding of the oncogenic drivers within the specific malignancy, could dissect the complex dynamics of the tumor-immune interaction during tumor progression. Nonetheless, existing immune-related parameters, such as the consensus Immunoscore, together with tumor drivers' assessment (62), TMB measurement (63), LOH HLA (loss of heterozygosity at the HLA locus) evaluation (64, 65), PD-L1 expression (66), and presence of specific immune gene expression signatures (67, 68) can already be exploited to further advance cancer classification. The fact that the Immunoscore is already available with a consensus detailed protocol (14), and gained CE-IVD approval, makes it an ideal solution to relieve this urgent unmet need for improved patients' stratification. Nowadays, a limit to the widespread use of the Immunoscore is the fact that it is not yet reimbursed by the public health services. A first step in this sense came in January 2019, when the Immunoscore become fully reimbursable by a major private medical insurer in the United Kingdom. The limited percentage of patients displaying clinical responses to the novel immunotherapies, coupled with their high costs, threatens the sustainability of these effective therapeutic strategies (69). By enabling the physicians to make better-informed decisions, diagnostics tests such as the Immunoscore can help tailor medicine to an individual's biology, to the benefit of individual patients (which could be, for instance, spared unnecessary treatments), and the society alike.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

H.K. Angell, J.C. Barrett, and R. Herbst are employees and shareholders of AstraZeneca/MedImmune. H.K. Angell is a consultant/advisory board member for INSERM, Perkin-Elmer, Definiens, and HalioDx. R. Herbst is an unpaid consultant/advisory board member for Definiens SAB. J. Galon is developer of the Immunoscore; reports receiving commercial research grants from MedImmune, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Imcheck Therapeutics; holds ownership interest (including patents) in HalioDx and INSERM; and is a consultant/advisory board member for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, Illumina, Northwest Biotherapeutics, Actelion, Gilead, Amgen, Merck MSD, CatalYm, Sanofi, and IObiotech. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other author.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Footnotes

  • Clin Cancer Res 2020;26:332–9

  • Received April 17, 2019.
  • Revision received June 11, 2019.
  • Accepted August 8, 2019.
  • Published first August 14, 2019.
  • ©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Galon J,
    2. Costes A,
    3. Sanchez-Cabo F,
    4. Kirilovsky A,
    5. Mlecnik B,
    6. Lagorce-Pages C,
    7. et al.
    Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science 2006;313:1960–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Galon J,
    2. Fridman WH,
    3. Pages F
    . The adaptive immunologic microenvironment in colorectal cancer: a novel perspective. Cancer Res 2007;67:1883–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Galon J,
    2. Angell HK,
    3. Bedognetti D,
    4. Marincola FM
    . The continuum of cancer immunosurveillance: prognostic, predictive, and mechanistic signatures. Immunity 2013;39:11–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Angell H,
    2. Galon J.
    From the immune contexture to the Immunoscore: the role of prognostic and predictive immune markers in cancer. Curr Opin Immunol 2013;25:261–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Fridman WH,
    2. Pages F,
    3. Sautes-Fridman C,
    4. Galon J
    . The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer 2012;12:298–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Mlecnik B,
    2. Tosolini M,
    3. Kirilovsky A,
    4. Berger A,
    5. Bindea G,
    6. Meatchi T,
    7. et al.
    Histopathologic-based prognostic factors of colorectal cancers are associated with the state of the local immune reaction. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:610–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    1. Broussard EK,
    2. Disis ML.
    TNM staging in colorectal cancer: T is for T cell and M is for memory. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:601–3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Walkowska J,
    2. Kallemose T,
    3. Jonsson G,
    4. Jonsson M,
    5. Andersen O,
    6. Andersen MH,
    7. et al.
    Immunoprofiles of colorectal cancer from Lynch syndrome. Oncoimmunology 2019;8:e1515612.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Spranger S,
    2. Bao R,
    3. Gajewski TF
    . Melanoma-intrinsic beta-catenin signalling prevents anti-tumour immunity. Nature 2015;523:231–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cremonesi E,
    2. Governa V,
    3. Garzon JFG,
    4. Mele V,
    5. Amicarella F,
    6. Muraro MG,
    7. et al.
    Gut microbiota modulate T cell trafficking into human colorectal cancer. Gut 2018;67:1984–94.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Mlecnik B,
    2. Bindea G,
    3. Angell HK,
    4. Sasso MS,
    5. Obenauf AC,
    6. Fredriksen T,
    7. et al.
    Functional network pipeline reveals genetic determinants associated with in situ lymphocyte proliferation and survival of cancer patients. Sci Transl Med 2014;6:228ra37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. Galon J,
    2. Franck P,
    3. Marincola FM,
    4. Angell HK,
    5. Thurin M,
    6. Lugli A,
    7. et al.
    Cancer classification using the Immunoscore: a worldwide task force. J Transl Med 2012;10:205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Galon J,
    2. Pages F,
    3. Marincola FM,
    4. Thurin M,
    5. Trinchieri G,
    6. Fox BA,
    7. et al.
    The immune score as a new possible approach for the classification of cancer. J Transl Med 2012;10:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Pages F,
    2. Mlecnik B,
    3. Marliot F,
    4. Bindea G,
    5. Ou FS,
    6. Bifulco C,
    7. et al.
    International validation of the consensus Immunoscore for the classification of colon cancer: a prognostic and accuracy study. Lancet 2018;39:2128–39.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    1. Galon J,
    2. Bruni D
    . Approaches to treat immune hot, altered and cold tumours with combination immunotherapies. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2019;18:197–218.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Ascierto ML,
    2. De Giorgi V,
    3. Liu Q,
    4. Bedognetti D,
    5. Spivey TL,
    6. Murtas D,
    7. et al.
    An immunologic portrait of cancer. J Transl Med 2011;9:146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Mami-Chouaib F,
    2. Blanc C,
    3. Corgnac S,
    4. Hans S,
    5. Malenica I,
    6. Granier C,
    7. et al.
    Resident memory T cells, critical components in tumor immunology. J Immunother Cancer 2018;6:87.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Mascaux C,
    2. Angelova M,
    3. Vasaturo A,
    4. Beane J,
    5. Hijazi K,
    6. Anthoine G,
    7. et al.
    Immune evasion before tumour invasion in early lung squamous carcinogenesis. Nature 2019;571:570–5.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Hermitte F
    . Biomarkers immune monitoring technology primer: Immunoscore(R) Colon. J Immunother Cancer 2016;4:57.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Van den Eynde M,
    2. Mlecnik B,
    3. Bindea G,
    4. Fredriksen T,
    5. Church SE,
    6. Lafontaine L,
    7. et al.
    The link between the multiverse of immune microenvironments in metastases and the survival of colorectal cancer patients. Cancer Cell 2018;34:1012–26. e3.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Bindea G,
    2. Mlecnik B,
    3. Fridman WH,
    4. Pages F,
    5. Galon J
    . Natural immunity to cancer in humans. Curr Opin Immunol 2010;22:215–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Mlecnik B,
    2. Bindea G,
    3. Pages F,
    4. Galon J
    . Tumor immunosurveillance in human cancers. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2011;30:5–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Granier C,
    2. Dariane C,
    3. Combe P,
    4. Verkarre V,
    5. Urien S,
    6. Badoual C,
    7. et al.
    Tim-3 Expression on tumor-infiltrating PD-1(+)CD8(+) T cells correlates with poor clinical outcome in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2017;77:1075–82.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. 24.↵
    1. Remark R,
    2. Alifano M,
    3. Cremer I,
    4. Lupo A,
    5. Dieu-Nosjean MC,
    6. Riquet M,
    7. et al.
    Characteristics and clinical impacts of the immune environments in colorectal and renal cell carcinoma lung metastases: influence of tumor origin. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:4079–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Giraldo NA,
    2. Becht E,
    3. Pages F,
    4. Skliris G,
    5. Verkarre V,
    6. Vano Y,
    7. et al.
    Orchestration and prognostic significance of immune checkpoints in the microenvironment of primary and metastatic renal cell cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2015;21:3031–40.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Camus M,
    2. Tosolini M,
    3. Mlecnik B,
    4. Pages F,
    5. Kirilovsky A,
    6. Berger A,
    7. et al.
    Coordination of intratumoral immune reaction and human colorectal cancer recurrence. Cancer Res 2009;69:2685–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Becht E,
    2. de Reynies A,
    3. Giraldo NA,
    4. Pilati C,
    5. Buttard B,
    6. Lacroix L,
    7. et al.
    Immune and stromal classification of colorectal cancer is associated with molecular subtypes and relevant for precision immunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:4057–66.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Guinney J,
    2. Dienstmann R,
    3. Wang X,
    4. de Reynies A,
    5. Schlicker A,
    6. Soneson C,
    7. et al.
    The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Med 2015;21:1350–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Dudley JC,
    2. Lin MT,
    3. Le DT,
    4. Eshleman JR
    . Microsatellite instability as a biomarker for PD-1 blockade. Clin Cancer Res 2016;22:813–20.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Le DT,
    2. Durham JN,
    3. Smith KN,
    4. Wang H,
    5. Bartlett BR,
    6. Aulakh LK,
    7. et al.
    Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science 2017;357:409–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Mlecnik B,
    2. Bindea G,
    3. Angell HK,
    4. Maby P,
    5. Angelova M,
    6. Tougeron D,
    7. et al.
    Integrative analyses of colorectal cancer show immunoscore is a stronger predictor of patient survival than microsatellite instability. Immunity 2016;44:698–711.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Abida W,
    2. Cheng ML,
    3. Armenia J,
    4. Middha S,
    5. Autio KA,
    6. Vargas HA,
    7. et al.
    Analysis of the prevalence of microsatellite instability in prostate cancer and response to immune checkpoint blockade. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:471–8.
    OpenUrl
  33. 33.↵
    1. Boyiadzis MM,
    2. Kirkwood JM,
    3. Marshall JL,
    4. Pritchard CC,
    5. Azad NS,
    6. Gulley JL
    . Significance and implications of FDA approval of pembrolizumab for biomarker-defined disease. J Immunother Cancer 2018;6:35.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Rizvi NA,
    2. Hellmann MD,
    3. Snyder A,
    4. Kvistborg P,
    5. Makarov V,
    6. Havel JJ,
    7. et al.
    Cancer immunology. Mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer. Science 2015;348:124–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Ott PA,
    2. Bang YJ,
    3. Piha-Paul SA,
    4. Razak ARA,
    5. Bennouna J,
    6. Soria JC,
    7. et al.
    T-cell-inflamed gene-expression profile, programmed death ligand 1 expression, and tumor mutational burden predict efficacy in patients treated with pembrolizumab across 20 cancers: KEYNOTE-028. J Clin Oncol 2019;37:318–27.
    OpenUrl
  36. 36.↵
    1. Mlecnik B,
    2. Bindea G,
    3. Kirilovsky A,
    4. Angell HK,
    5. Obenauf AC,
    6. Tosolini M,
    7. et al.
    The tumor microenvironment and Immunoscore are critical determinants of dissemination to distant metastasis. Sci Transl Med 2016;8:327ra26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. 37.↵
    1. Angelova M,
    2. Mlecnik B,
    3. Vasaturo A,
    4. Bindea G,
    5. Fredriksen T,
    6. Lafontaine L,
    7. et al.
    Evolution of metastases in space and time under immune selection. Cell 2018;175:751–65. e16.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.↵
    1. Kantoff PW,
    2. Higano CS,
    3. Shore ND,
    4. Berger ER,
    5. Small EJ,
    6. Penson DF,
    7. et al.
    Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:411–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Hodi FS,
    2. O'Day SJ,
    3. McDermott DF,
    4. Weber RW,
    5. Sosman JA,
    6. Haanen JB,
    7. et al.
    Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010;363:711–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Gandhi L,
    2. Rodriguez-Abreu D,
    3. Gadgeel S,
    4. Esteban E,
    5. Felip E,
    6. De Angelis F,
    7. et al.
    Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2018;378:2078–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Gajewski TF,
    2. Louahed J,
    3. Brichard VG
    . Gene signature in melanoma associated with clinical activity: a potential clue to unlock cancer immunotherapy. Cancer J 2010;16:399–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. van der Burg SH,
    2. Kalos M,
    3. Gouttefangeas C,
    4. Janetzki S,
    5. Ottensmeier C,
    6. Welters MJ,
    7. et al.
    Harmonization of immune biomarker assays for clinical studies. Sci Transl Med 2011;3:108ps44.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Anagnostou V,
    2. Yarchoan M,
    3. Hansen AR,
    4. Wang H,
    5. Verde F,
    6. Sharon E,
    7. et al.
    Immuno-oncology trial endpoints: capturing clinically meaningful activity. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:4959–69.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Weide B,
    2. Zelba H,
    3. Derhovanessian E,
    4. Pflugfelder A,
    5. Eigentler TK,
    6. Di Giacomo AM,
    7. et al.
    Functional T cells targeting NY-ESO-1 or Melan-A are predictive for survival of patients with distant melanoma metastasis. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:1835–41.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. 45.↵
    1. Yuan XK,
    2. Zhao XK,
    3. Xia YC,
    4. Zhu X,
    5. Xiao P
    . Increased circulating immunosuppressive CD14(+)HLA-DR(-/low) cells correlate with clinical cancer stage and pathological grade in patients with bladder carcinoma. J Int Med Res 2011;39:1381–91.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Domschke C,
    2. Schuetz F,
    3. Ge Y,
    4. Seibel T,
    5. Falk C,
    6. Brors B,
    7. et al.
    Intratumoral cytokines and tumor cell biology determine spontaneous breast cancer-specific immune responses and their correlation to prognosis. Cancer Res 2009;69:8420–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  47. 47.↵
    1. Manjarrez-Orduno N,
    2. Menard LC,
    3. Kansal S,
    4. Fischer P,
    5. Kakrecha B,
    6. Jiang C,
    7. et al.
    Circulating T cell subpopulations correlate with immune responses at the tumor site and clinical response to PD1 inhibition in non-small cell lung cancer. Front Immunol 2018;9:1613.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    1. Janetzki S,
    2. Price L,
    3. Schroeder H,
    4. Britten CM,
    5. Welters MJ,
    6. Hoos A
    . Guidelines for the automated evaluation of Elispot assays. Nat Protoc 2015;10:1098–115.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    1. Ayers M,
    2. Nebozhyn M,
    3. Cristescu R,
    4. McClanahan TK,
    5. Perini R,
    6. Rubin E,
    7. et al.
    Molecular profiling of cohorts of tumor samples to guide clinical development of pembrolizumab as monotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2019;25:1564–73.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Mouw KW,
    2. Goldberg MS,
    3. Konstantinopoulos PA,
    4. D'Andrea AD
    . DNA damage and repair biomarkers of immunotherapy response. Cancer Discov 2017;7:675–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  51. 51.↵
    1. Domchek SM,
    2. Postel-Vinay S,
    3. Bang YJ,
    4. Park YH,
    5. Alexandre J,
    6. Delord JP,
    7. et al.
    An open-label, multitumor, phase II basket study of olaparib and durvalumab (MEDIOLA): results in germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Cancer Res 2018;78(4).
  52. 52.↵
    1. Krebs M,
    2. Ross K,
    3. Kim S,
    4. De Jonge M,
    5. Barlesi F,
    6. Postel-Vinay S,
    7. et al.
    An open-label. Multitumor phase II Basket Study of Olaparib and Durvalumab (MEDIOLA): results in patients with relapsed SCLC. J Thoracic Oncol 2017;12:S2044–S5.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.↵
    1. Drew Y,
    2. de Jonge M,
    3. Hong SH,
    4. Park YH,
    5. Wolfer A,
    6. Brown J,
    7. et al.
    An open-label, phase II basket study of olaparib and durvalumab (MEDIOLA): results in germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm) platinum-sensitive relapsed (PSR) ovarian cancer (OC). Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:246–7.
    OpenUrl
  54. 54.↵
    1. Chen DS,
    2. Mellman I
    . Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle. Immunity 2013;39:1–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. 55.↵
    1. Ascierto PA,
    2. Dummer R.
    Immunological effects of BRAF+MEK inhibition. Oncoimmunology 2018;7:e1468955.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    1. Ascierto PA,
    2. Melero I,
    3. Bhatia S,
    4. Bono P,
    5. Sanborn RE,
    6. Lipson EJ,
    7. et al.
    Initial efficacy of anti-lymphocyte activation gene-3 (anti-LAG-3; BMS-986016) in combination with nivolumab in patients with melanoma WHO progressed during prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Asia-Pac J Clin Oncol 2017;13:114.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.↵
    1. Motzer RJ,
    2. McHenry MB,
    3. Chen AC
    . Immune checkpoint blockade in advanced renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2018;379:92–3.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    1. Wolchok JD,
    2. Rollin L,
    3. Larkin J
    . Nivolumab and ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N Engl J Med 2017;377:2503–4.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Emens LA,
    2. Butterfield LH,
    3. Hodi FS Jr.,
    4. Marincola FM,
    5. Kaufman HL
    . Cancer immunotherapy trials: leading a paradigm shift in drug development. J Immunother Cancer 2016;4:42.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Ribas A,
    2. Wolchok JD
    . Cancer immunotherapy using checkpoint blockade. Science 2018;359:1350–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. 61.↵
    1. DeNardo DG,
    2. Barreto JB,
    3. Andreu P,
    4. Vasquez L,
    5. Tawfik D,
    6. Kolhatkar N,
    7. et al.
    CD4(+) T cells regulate pulmonary metastasis of mammary carcinomas by enhancing protumor properties of macrophages. Cancer Cell 2009;16:91–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Wang L,
    2. Li F,
    3. Sheng J,
    4. Wong ST
    . A computational method for clinically relevant cancer stratification and driver mutation module discovery using personal genomics profiles. BMC Genomics 2015;16:S6.
    OpenUrl
  63. 63.↵
    1. Endris V,
    2. Buchhalter I,
    3. Allgauer M,
    4. Rempel E,
    5. Lier A,
    6. Volckmar AL,
    7. et al.
    Measurement of tumor mutational burden (TMB) in routine molecular diagnostics: in silico and real-life analysis of three larger gene panels. Int J Cancer 2019;144:2303–12.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.↵
    1. Tran E,
    2. Robbins PF,
    3. Lu YC,
    4. Prickett TD,
    5. Gartner JJ,
    6. Jia L,
    7. et al.
    T-cell transfer therapy targeting mutant KRAS in cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:2255–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. 65.↵
    1. Chowell D,
    2. Morris LGT,
    3. Grigg CM,
    4. Weber JK,
    5. Samstein RM,
    6. Makarov V,
    7. et al.
    Patient HLA class I genotype influences cancer response to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy. Science 2018;359:582–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  66. 66.↵
    1. Xiang X,
    2. Yu PC,
    3. Long D,
    4. Liao XL,
    5. Zhang S,
    6. You XM,
    7. et al.
    Prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in patients with primary solid tumors. Oncotarget 2018;9:5058–72.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    1. Chifman J,
    2. Pullikuth A,
    3. Chou JW,
    4. Bedognetti D,
    5. Miller LD
    . Conservation of immune gene signatures in solid tumors and prognostic implications. BMC Cancer 2016;16:911.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  68. 68.↵
    1. Nirmal AJ,
    2. Regan T,
    3. Shih BB,
    4. Hume DA,
    5. Sims AH,
    6. Freeman TC
    . Immune cell gene signatures for profiling the microenvironment of solid tumors. Cancer Immunol Res 2018;6:1388–400.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  69. 69.↵
    1. Dranitsaris G,
    2. Zhu X,
    3. Adunlin G,
    4. Vincent MD
    . Cost effectiveness vs. affordability in the age of immuno-oncology cancer drugs. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2018;18:351–7.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 26 (2)
January 2020
Volume 26, Issue 2
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Editorial Board (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Immunoscore: Colon Cancer and Beyond
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The Immunoscore: Colon Cancer and Beyond
Helen K. Angell, Daniela Bruni, J. Carl Barrett, Ronald Herbst and Jérôme Galon
Clin Cancer Res January 15 2020 (26) (2) 332-339; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1851

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
The Immunoscore: Colon Cancer and Beyond
Helen K. Angell, Daniela Bruni, J. Carl Barrett, Ronald Herbst and Jérôme Galon
Clin Cancer Res January 15 2020 (26) (2) 332-339; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-1851
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • The Immunoscore Classification of Colorectal Cancer
    • Translation of the Immunoscore into Additional Indications
    • The Immune Landscape in Human Tumors and Molecular Subtypes
    • Adapting Clinical Trials Design for Immunotherapy
    • Successes in Immunotherapy: Challenges and Opportunities Ahead
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Targeting OXPHOS to Increase Radio-immunotherapy Efficacy
  • Single-cell molecular classification of pancreatic cancer
  • Tumor-associated Macrophage-directed Therapies
Show more Review
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement