Uveal melanoma (UM), though a rare form of melanoma, is the most common intraocular tumor in adults. Conventional therapies of primary tumors lead to an excellent local control, but 50% of patients develop metastases, in most cases with lethal outcome. Somatic driver mutations that act on the MAP-kinase pathway have been identified, yet targeted therapies show little efficacy in the clinics. No drugs are currently available for the G protein alpha subunitsGNAQ and GNA11, which are the most frequent driver mutations in UM. Drugs targeting the YAP–TAZ pathway that is also activated in UM, the tumor-suppressor gene BRCA1 Associated Protein 1 (BAP1) and the Splicing Factor 3b Subunit 1 gene (SF3B1) whose mutations are associated with metastatic risk, have not been developed yet. Immunotherapy is highly effective in cutaneous melanoma but yields only poor results in the treatment of UM: anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4 blocking antibodies did not meet the expectations except for isolated cases. Here, we discuss how the improved knowledge of the tumor microenvironment and of the cross-talk between tumor and immune cells could help to reshape anti-tumor immune responses to overcome the intrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockers of UM. We critically review the dogma of low mutational load, the induction of immune-suppressive cells, and the expression of alternative immune checkpoint molecules. We argue that immunotherapy might still be an option for the treatment of UM.

Introduction: Immune check point inhibitors have recently entered the armamentarium of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. Among them, the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has pushed it a step forward; however, a number of patients still present primary non-responses without any biomarker to predict responses to different options. Here, we aimed to identify a putative baseline biomarker to predict the response to atezolizumab–bevacizumab, by investigating whether baseline PD1+ and PD-L1+ peripheral granulocyte percentages might offer a non-invasive, cheap, and easily feasible assay. Methods: A prospective Italian cohort of 34 patients treated by atezolizumab–bevacizumab was tested to assay the baseline percentage of peripheral granulocytes and their PD1 and PD-L1 expression. The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was also considered, and all data were compared with the clinical course of patients. Results: A low-baseline PD1+ peripheral granulocyte percentage turned out to predict responder patients (mean ±SD of PD1+ granulocyte percentage in responders versus non-responders: 9.9 ± 9.1 vs. 29.2 ± 17.6; student’s t-test, p < 0.01). In line, patients identified by a low PD1+ granulocyte percentage displayed a longer TTP (log-rank test, p < 0.0001). A lower granulocyte percentage on total white blood cells, irrespective of PD1 or PD-L1 expression, is also associated with responses to atezolizumab–bevacizumab (log-rank test, p < 0.05). No predictive value was observed for either the PD-L1+ granulocyte percentage or NLR. Conclusions: A low-baseline PD1+ peripheral granulocyte percentage is associated with responses to atezolizumab–bevacizumab treatment in advanced HCC. These findings encourage evaluating this minimally invasive, cheap, and easy test in further independent cohorts and outlining the relevance of innate immunity in the response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract