Cancer immunotherapies, including checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive T cell transfer and therapeutic cancer vaccines, have shown promising response rates in clinical trials. Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of patients in which initially regressing tumors start to regrow due to an immunotherapy-driven acquired resistance. Studies on the underlying mechanisms reveal that these can be similar to well-known tumor intrinsic and extrinsic primary resistance factors that precluded the majority of patients from responding to immunotherapy in the first place. Here, we discuss primary and secondary immune resistance and point at strategies to identify potential new mechanisms of immune evasion. Ultimately, this may lead to improved immunotherapy strategies with improved clinical outcomes.

BackgroundImmunotherapy of cancer is successful but tumor regression often is incomplete and followed by escape. Understanding the mechanisms underlying this acquired resistance will aid the development of more effective treatments.MethodsWe exploited a mouse model where tumor-specific therapeutic vaccination results in tumor regression, followed by local recurrence and resistance. In depth studies on systemic, local and tumor intrinsic changes were performed with flow and mass cytometry, immunohistochemistry, transcriptomics and several perturbation studies with inhibitors or agonistic antibodies in mice. Main findings were recapitulated in vaccinated patients.ResultsFull tumor regression and cure of tumor-bearing mice is dependent on the magnitude of the vaccine-induced T-cell response. Recurrence of tumors did not involve classical immune escape mechanisms, such as antigen-presentation alterations, immune checkpoint expression, resistance to killing or local immune suppression. However, the recurrent tumors displayed a changed transcriptome with alterations in p53, tumor necrosis factor-α and transforming growth factor-β signaling pathways and they became immunologically cold. Remarkably, ex vivo cell-sorted recurrent tumors, directly reinjected in naïve hosts retained their resistance to vaccination despite a strong infiltration with tumor-specific CD8+ T cells, similar to that of vaccine-responsive tumors. The influx of inflammatory mature myeloid effector cells in the resistant tumors, however, was impaired and this turned out to be the underlying mechanisms as restoration of inflammatory myeloid cell infiltration reinstated the sensitivity of these refractory tumors to vaccination. Notably, impaired myeloid cell infiltration after vaccination was also associated with vaccine resistance in patients.ConclusionAn immunotherapy-induced disability of tumor cells to attract innate myeloid effector cells formed a major mechanism underlying immune escape and acquired resistance. These data not only stresses the importance of myeloid effector cells during immunotherapy but also demands for new studies to harness their tumoricidal activities.

The surface inhibitory receptor NKG2A forms heterodimers with the invariant CD94 chain and is expressed on a subset of activated CD8 T cells. As antibodies to block NKG2A are currently tested in several efficacy trials for different tumor indications, it is important to characterize the NKG2A+ CD8 T cell population in the context of other inhibitory receptors. Here we used a well‐controlled culture system to study the kinetics of inhibitory receptor expression. Naïve mouse CD8 T cells were synchronously and repeatedly activated by artificial antigen presenting cells in the presence of the homeostatic cytokine IL‐7. The results revealed NKG2A as a late inhibitory receptor, expressed after repeated cognate antigen stimulations. In contrast, the expression of PD‐1, TIGIT and LAG‐3 was rapidly induced, hours after first contact and subsequently down regulated during each resting phase. This late, but stable expression kinetics of NKG2A was most similar to that of TIM‐3 and CD39. Importantly, single‐cell transcriptomics of human tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) showed indeed that these receptors were often coexpressed by the same CD8 T cell cluster. Furthermore, NKG2A expression was associated with cell division and was promoted by TGF‐β in vitro, although TGF‐β signaling was not necessary in a mouse tumor model in vivo. In summary, our data show that PD‐1 reflects recent TCR triggering, but that NKG2A is induced after repeated antigen stimulations and represents a late inhibitory receptor. Together with TIM‐3 and CD39, NKG2A might thus mark actively dividing tumor‐specific TILs.