BackgroundImmune checkpoint blockade (ICB) promotes adaptive immunity and tumor regression in some cancer patients. However, in patients with immunologically “cold” tumors, tumor-resident innate immune cell activation may be required to prime an adaptive immune response and so exploit the full potential of ICB. Whilst Toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists have been used topically to successfully treat some superficial skin tumors, systemic TLR agonists have not been well-tolerated.MethodsThe response of human immune cells to TLR7 and 8 agonism was measured in primary human immune cell assays. MEDI9197 (3M-052) was designed as a novel lipophilic TLR7/8 agonist that is retained at the injection site, limiting systemic exposure. Retention of the TLR7/8 agonist at the site of injection was demonstrated using quantitative whole-body autoradiography, HPLC-UV, and MALDI mass spectrometry imaging. Pharmacodynamic changes on T cells from TLR7/8 agonist treated B16-OVA tumors was assessed by histology, quantitative real time PCR, and flow cytometry. Combination activity of TLR7/8 agonism with immunotherapies was assessed in vitro by human DC-T cell MLR assay, and in vivo using multiple syngeneic mouse tumor models.ResultsTargeting both TLR7 and 8 triggers an innate and adaptive immune response in primary human immune cells, exemplified by secretion of IFNα, IL-12 and IFNγ. In contrast, a STING or a TLR9 agonist primarily induces release of IFNα. We demonstrate that the TLR7/8 agonist, MEDI9197, is retained at the sight of injection with limited systemic exposure. This localized TLR7/8 agonism leads to Th1 polarization, enrichment and activation of natural killer (NK) and CD8+ T cells, and inhibition of tumor growth in multiple syngeneic models. The anti-tumor activity of this TLR7/8 agonist is enhanced when combined with T cell-targeted immunotherapies in pre-clinical models.ConclusionLocalized TLR7/8 agonism can enhance recruitment and activation of immune cells in tumors and polarize anti-tumor immunity towards a Th1 response. Moreover, we demonstrate that the anti-tumor effects of this TLR7/8 agonist can be enhanced through combination with checkpoint inhibitors and co-stimulatory agonists.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40425-019-0724-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose: While immune checkpoint inhibitors such as anti–PD-L1 are rapidly becoming the standard of care in the treatment of many cancers, only a subset of treated patients have long-term responses. IL12 promotes antitumor immunity in mouse models; however, systemic recombinant IL12 had significant toxicity and limited efficacy in early clinical trials. Experimental Design: We therefore designed a novel intratumoral IL12 mRNA therapy to promote local IL12 tumor production while mitigating systemic effects. Results: A single intratumoral dose of mouse (m)IL12 mRNA induced IFNγ and CD8+ T-cell–dependent tumor regression in multiple syngeneic mouse models, and animals with a complete response demonstrated immunity to rechallenge. Antitumor activity of mIL12 mRNA did not require NK and NKT cells. mIL12 mRNA antitumor activity correlated with TH1 tumor microenvironment (TME) transformation. In a PD-L1 blockade monotherapy-resistant model, antitumor immunity induced by mIL12 mRNA was enhanced by anti–PD-L1. mIL12 mRNA also drove regression of uninjected distal lesions, and anti–PD-L1 potentiated this response. Importantly, intratumoral delivery of mRNA encoding membrane-tethered mIL12 also drove rejection of uninjected lesions with very limited circulating IL12p70, supporting the hypothesis that local IL12 could induce a systemic antitumor immune response against distal lesions. Furthermore, in ex vivo patient tumor slice cultures, human IL12 mRNA (MEDI1191) induced dose-dependent IL12 production, downstream IFNγ expression and TH1 gene expression. Conclusions: These data demonstrate the potential for intratumorally delivered IL12 mRNA to promote TH1 TME transformation and robust antitumor immunity. See related commentary by Cirella et al., p. 6080

No abstract

<p>Table S1</p>

<p>Supplementary Figures S1-S11</p>