IL-10 is an immunomodulatory cytokine that is frequently upregulated in various types of cancer. The biological role of IL-10 in cancer is quite complex; however, the presence of IL-10 in advanced metastases and the positive correlation between serum IL-10 levels and progression of disease indicates a critical role of IL-10 in the tumor microenvironment. IL-10 has been shown to directly affect the function of antigen-presenting cells by inhibiting the expression of MHC and costimulatory molecules, which in turn induces immune suppression or tolerance. Additionally, IL-10 downregulates the expression of Th1 cytokines and induces T-regulatory responses. Taken together, a combination of IL-10 antagonism and immunostimulatory treatments such as cancer vaccines, Toll-like receptor agonists, Th1 cytokines, and chemokines would be a logical approach to enhance an antitumor immune response.

Immunotherapies have emerged as one of the most promising approaches to treat patients with cancer. Recently, there have been many clinical successes using checkpoint receptor blockade, including T cell inhibitory receptors such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death-1 (PD-1). Despite demonstrated successes in a variety of malignancies, responses only typically occur in a minority of patients in any given histology. Additionally, treatment is associated with inflammatory toxicity and high cost. Therefore, determining which patients would derive clinical benefit from immunotherapy is a compelling clinical question.Although numerous candidate biomarkers have been described, there are currently three FDA-approved assays based on PD-1 ligand expression (PD-L1) that have been clinically validated to identify patients who are more likely to benefit from a single-agent anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Because of the complexity of the immune response and tumor biology, it is unlikely that a single biomarker will be sufficient to predict clinical outcomes in response to immune-targeted therapy. Rather, the integration of multiple tumor and immune response parameters, such as protein expression, genomics, and transcriptomics, may be necessary for accurate prediction of clinical benefit. Before a candidate biomarker and/or new technology can be used in a clinical setting, several steps are necessary to demonstrate its clinical validity. Although regulatory guidelines provide general roadmaps for the validation process, their applicability to biomarkers in the cancer immunotherapy field is somewhat limited. Thus, Working Group 1 (WG1) of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) Immune Biomarkers Task Force convened to address this need. In this two volume series, we discuss pre-analytical and analytical (Volume I) as well as clinical and regulatory (Volume II) aspects of the validation process as applied to predictive biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy. To illustrate the requirements for validation, we discuss examples of biomarker assays that have shown preliminary evidence of an association with clinical benefit from immunotherapeutic interventions. The scope includes only those assays and technologies that have established a certain level of validation for clinical use (fit-for-purpose). Recommendations to meet challenges and strategies to guide the choice of analytical and clinical validation design for specific assays are also provided.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40425-016-0178-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

NCI-V01-1646).

There is growing recognition that immunotherapy is likely to significantly improve health outcomes for cancer patients in the coming years. Currently, while a subset of patients experience substantial clinical benefit in response to different immunotherapeutic approaches, the majority of patients do not but are still exposed to the significant drug toxicities. Therefore, a growing need for the development and clinical use of predictive biomarkers exists in the field of cancer immunotherapy. Predictive cancer biomarkers can be used to identify the patients who are or who are not likely to derive benefit from specific therapeutic approaches. In order to be applicable in a clinical setting, predictive biomarkers must be carefully shepherded through a step-wise, highly regulated developmental process. Volume I of this two-volume document focused on the pre-analytical and analytical phases of the biomarker development process, by providing background, examples and “good practice” recommendations. In the current Volume II, the focus is on the clinical validation, validation of clinical utility and regulatory considerations for biomarker development. Together, this two volume series is meant to provide guidance on the entire biomarker development process, with a particular focus on the unique aspects of developing immune-based biomarkers. Specifically, knowledge about the challenges to clinical validation of predictive biomarkers, which has been gained from numerous successes and failures in other contexts, will be reviewed together with statistical methodological issues related to bias and overfitting. The different trial designs used for the clinical validation of biomarkers will also be discussed, as the selection of clinical metrics and endpoints becomes critical to establish the clinical utility of the biomarker during the clinical validation phase of the biomarker development. Finally, the regulatory aspects of submission of biomarker assays to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as well as regulatory considerations in the European Union will be covered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40425-016-0179-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The anticancer potential of catechins derived from green tea is not well understood, in part because catechin-related growth suppression and/or apoptosis appears to vary with the type and stage of malignancy as well as with the type of catechin. This in vitro study examined the biological effects of epicatechin (EC), epigallocatechin (EGC), EC 3-gallate (ECG) and EGC 3-gallate (EGCG) in cell lines from human gender-specific cancers. Cell lines developed from organ-confined (HH870) and metastatic (DU145) prostate cancer, and from moderately (HH450) and poorly differentiated (HH639) epithelial ovarian cancer were grown with or without EC, EGC, ECG or EGCG. When untreated cells reached confluency, viability and doubling time were measured for treated and untreated cells. Whereas EC treatment reduced proliferation of HH639 cells by 50%, EGCG suppressed proliferation of all cell lines by 50%. ECG was even more potent: it inhibited DU145, HH870, HH450 and HH639 cells at concentrations of 24, 27, 29 and 30 µM, whereas EGCG inhibited DU145, HH870, HH450 and HH639 cells at concentrations 89, 45, 62 and 42 µM. When compared with EGCG, ECG more effectively suppresses the growth of prostate cancer and epithelial ovarian cancer cell lines derived from tumors of patients with different stages of disease.