No one can predict who responds to immunotherapy
Checkpoint drugs cure some patients and do nothing for most. We still cannot tell the two apart before treating.
PD-L1 immunohistochemistry, tumour mutational burden and mismatch-repair deficiency are the approved selection biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitors, and all are imperfect: PD-L1-negative patients respond, PD-L1-high patients progress, TMB thresholds vary by tumour type and assay, and only dMMR/MSI-high is a strong discriminator. As a result checkpoint inhibitors are given to nearly half of US patients with cancer while an estimated one in eight benefits, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars and a burden of immune-related adverse events in non-responders. Better predictors will need to integrate the tumour (antigenicity, interferon signalling, antigen presentation), the microenvironment (T-cell infiltration, myeloid state), the host (HLA genotype, microbiome) and early on-treatment dynamics (ctDNA clearance, CD8 PET, radiomics). The regulatory and reimbursement systems also need to accept biomarkers that deselect patients, which no sponsor is motivated to develop.
- Response depends on several partly independent axes (antigenicity, T-cell infiltration, antigen presentation, host factors) that no single marker captures.
- PD-L1 expression is heterogeneous, dynamic and measured with several non-interchangeable assays and cut-offs.
- TMB is a proxy for neoantigen load that ignores immunogenicity and antigen presentation.
- Sponsors are not rewarded for developing biomarkers that shrink the eligible population.
- Early on-treatment signals (ctDNA, imaging) are rarely used to stop ineffective therapy.
- The Friends of Cancer Research TMB Harmonization Project and the Blueprint PD-L1 IHC Comparison Project have standardised assay reporting.
- Immuno-PET tracers such as 89Zr-labelled CD8 minibodies are in trials as early pharmacodynamic readouts of T-cell infiltration.
- ctDNA dynamics in the first weeks of checkpoint therapy are being validated as an early marker of benefit in lung cancer and melanoma.
- Multimodal foundation models trained on pathology, genomics and radiology (Owkin, Tempus, Paige) aim to predict immunotherapy benefit from routine data.
- FDA approval of pembrolizumab for TMB-high solid tumours (2020) and dMMR tumours (2017) established tumour-agnostic immune biomarkers.
Tumour mutational burden decides who gets immunotherapy in some settings, but every sequencing panel calculates it differently. A shared calibration would make the number mean the same thing everywhere.
Cells chop up their internal proteins and display the pieces on their surface. That means even undruggable proteins inside the cell can be attacked from outside by the immune system.
Gut bacteria appear to influence whether immunotherapy works, and diet and antibiotics shape gut bacteria. Yet almost no drug trial records what patients ate or which antibiotics they took. Recording it would cost almost nothing.
Some tumours have broken the machinery that displays their identity to immune cells. Those patients cannot benefit from most immunotherapy and should be routed elsewhere.
Pancreatic tumours are packed with a type of white blood cell that shuts down the immune attack. Blocking the signal that recruits them may open the tumour to immunotherapy.
Tumours are acidic, and immune cells stop working in acid. Neutralising that acid, or blocking the pumps that create it, might let immunotherapy work.
Tumours that contain small immune structures resembling lymph nodes respond far better to immunotherapy. Inducing those structures on purpose could make cold tumours responsive.
Lab-grown mini-tumours usually contain only cancer cells. Adding the patient's own immune cells lets researchers test immunotherapy outside the body.
Most cancer drugs are tested in mice with no immune system, then given to people who have one. Mice carrying the same patient's immune cells and tumour would be a fairer test.
Immunotherapy works in tumours that immune cells can enter and ignores those that shut them out. Systematically test ways to open up the shut-out tumours, measured with spatial maps.
New imaging shows where every cell type sits in a tumour slice. Using it to see which sub-populations are hidden from immune cells could explain why immunotherapy fails in parts of a tumour.
There are several different PD-L1 tests, each tied to a different drug, and they disagree. A single digitally calibrated scale would let any lab's result be translated into any drug's cut-off.
Vaccines tailored to each patient's tumour mutations are showing real benefit but cost a fortune to make. Automate the whole process so a personalised vaccine costs about as much as a course of chemotherapy.
Radiation can alert the immune system, but too big a single dose destroys the very alarm signal it creates. Picking the right dose and schedule may be free extra benefit.
Dozens of trials have collected immune, genomic and imaging data on the same drugs. Nobody can analyse them together, so the answer stays hidden in fragments.
Immunotherapy can trigger dangerous attacks on the gut, lungs or heart. Use blood, gut bacteria and genetic markers to spot who is at risk and act early.
Antibiotics given in the weeks before immunotherapy are linked to much worse results. A simple stewardship rule could preserve benefit at no cost.
Patients who happened to take common allergy pills during immunotherapy seemed to live longer in a large records study. A simple randomised trial would show whether the pills really help.
Many patients are denied a drug because a test says they will not benefit. For the most important tests, that assumption should itself be tested in a trial.
Tumours fill with immune cells that protect them. Earlier drugs tried to remove those cells and failed. Newer ones aim to switch them to the attacking side.
Growing a patient's own tumour-fighting cells only works if those cells are there to start with. A test for them would spare futile treatment.
New microscopes can measure dozens of proteins at once and map where immune cells sit in a tumour. These readouts could predict immunotherapy response, but every lab does it differently.
Transferring gut bacteria from patients who responded to immunotherapy has helped some patients who had stopped responding. It is time for a proper large trial.
People who eat more fibre appear to respond better to immunotherapy, while some probiotic supplements may do the opposite. A proper trial would settle it.
Muscle is an immune organ as well as a movement organ. Building it during immunotherapy might improve how well the treatment works, not just how patients feel.
Targeted drugs briefly make cancer cells easier for the immune system to spot. Giving immunotherapy exactly in that window, rather than at the same time, may work better.
Immune side-effects are usually treated with high-dose steroids, which may also switch off the anti-cancer response. Targeted alternatives may control the side-effect and keep the benefit.
Injecting immune-activating agents into a single tumour, plus a small dose of radiation, can teach the immune system to attack tumours elsewhere in the body.
Whether immune cells are next to cancer cells matters more than how many there are. Turning that spatial picture into a reliable, standardised test would predict response better.
Low doses of drugs that change how DNA is packaged can make cancer cells display more of what marks them as abnormal, potentially waking up immunotherapy in cold tumours.
Scans at three months often cannot tell whether immunotherapy is working. A blood test at six weeks may give a clearer, earlier answer.
Tumours starved of oxygen produce a chemical that switches immune cells off. A scan can show which tumours are starved, and those are the ones to treat with blockers.
Giving immunotherapy for a few weeks before surgery produces a tumour sample that shows exactly what the drug did. That is the fastest way to learn who responds.
Resistance often arrives as the same few mutations. Teaching the immune system to recognise them in advance could remove the escaping cells while they are still rare.
Personal cancer vaccines target many mutations, some of which are present in only part of the tumour. Aiming only at mutations every cell shares should stop the tumour escaping by losing them.
When immunotherapy works, specific immune cell families multiply in the blood within weeks. Tracking that could tell patients early whether to continue.
For patients with advanced melanoma, immunotherapy offers a realistic chance of long-term survival and probably cure, and the ten-year data show that patients who are alive and progression-free at three years rarely die of melanoma afterwards. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab gives the best long-term results but at a high price in serious side effects; nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus relatlimab are alternatives for patients at lower risk or with autoimmune concerns. The trial is also a caution about surrogate endpoints: the survival plateau took years to become visible.
For the first time a new drug has beaten pembrolizumab, the global first-line standard, in a randomised lung cancer trial, and it did so by combining checkpoint blockade with anti-angiogenesis in one molecule. For patients outside China nothing changes yet: the drug is not approved in the West, the trial was single-country, and survival benefit has not been shown. If confirmed in the global HARMONi-3 and HARMONi-7 trials, PD-1 x VEGF bispecifics could replace PD-1 antibodies as the immunotherapy backbone.
Patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer who complete chemoradiotherapy without progression should now be offered up to two years of durvalumab consolidation, which extends life by almost two years on average. This is the first survival improvement for limited-stage disease since twice-daily radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation, and small-cell lung cancer is no longer a disease where immunotherapy gives only marginal gains.
For the first time a randomised trial suggests that a vaccine tailored to an individual's tumour can reduce relapse when combined with immunotherapy, which is a proof of concept for a field that had failed for decades. Nothing changes for patients yet: the trial was small, the confidence interval crossed one, and the phase 3 trial in melanoma (and parallel trials in lung and other cancers) must confirm it. If it does, personalised mRNA vaccines could become a routine adjunct to checkpoint inhibitors after surgery.
Women with locally advanced cervical cancer that is node-positive or stage III-IVA should now be offered pembrolizumab alongside and after chemoradiotherapy, which improves the chance of cure. The result matters most in countries where cervical cancer is common but immunotherapy access is poorest, so its global impact depends on pricing and health-system capacity. It does not apply to early-stage disease treated with surgery or to lower-risk locally advanced disease without nodal involvement.
Patients fit enough for cisplatin whose bladder cancer has invaded the muscle wall should now be offered durvalumab with their pre-operative chemotherapy and for about a year after surgery, which improves the chance of cure without compromising the operation. The trial cannot say whether the adjuvant phase is necessary, or how to treat cisplatin-ineligible patients, for whom other trials are ongoing.
For colon cancer that is mismatch-repair deficient (about 10-15% of colon cancers, more in older patients), a single short course of immunotherapy before surgery is now a reasonable standard and is far more effective than chemotherapy, which barely works in this subtype. It requires testing every colon cancer for mismatch repair at diagnosis, before surgery. Whether some patients can safely skip surgery, as in dMMR rectal cancer, is the next question.
Pancreatic cancer was thought to be immunologically inert because of its low mutation burden; this study showed that with the right vaccine platform its few neoantigens can still be targeted. It is the strongest human evidence so far that personalised cancer vaccines can generate durable, tumour-specific immunity, and it justifies the randomised trials now running in pancreatic cancer and melanoma. Benefit is not yet proven, because responders may simply have had more immunogenic tumours.
Women with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer should receive a PD-1 antibody (dostarlimab or pembrolizumab) with their chemotherapy, and mismatch repair testing is now essential because women with dMMR tumours gain a very large and durable benefit. The gain in mismatch-repair-proficient tumours is real but smaller, and molecular classification (POLE, p53, MMR) is increasingly used to decide who benefits most.
Patients with operable stage II-III lung cancer without EGFR or ALK alterations should have chemo-immunotherapy discussed before surgery rather than only afterwards. Three pre-operative cycles do not compromise the operation and improve cure rates. Whether to continue immunotherapy after surgery, as the perioperative trials do, and whether patients with pCR need any further treatment, remain open questions.
Patients with rectal cancer whose tumour is mismatch-repair deficient (about 5-10% of rectal cancers) can now be offered immunotherapy alone with the realistic expectation of avoiding surgery, radiotherapy and a permanent stoma. This requires mismatch repair testing on the diagnostic biopsy, close endoscopic and MRI surveillance, and treatment in an experienced centre. It does not apply to the 90% of rectal cancers that are mismatch-repair proficient.
For stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer, chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab before surgery and pembrolizumab alone afterwards is now the standard approach worldwide, and the survival gain is real, not just a surrogate. It does not apply to stage I disease or to hormone-receptor-positive or HER2-positive cancers. The price is a year of immunotherapy with a meaningful chance of a permanent endocrine side effect such as hypothyroidism or adrenal insufficiency.
Patients with newly diagnosed advanced melanoma have a dual-checkpoint option that improves on nivolumab alone with only a modest increase in serious side effects, making it attractive for those unable to tolerate or unwilling to risk the toxicity of ipilimumab. It did not prove superior survival, and it has not been compared with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, which remains preferred for patients with brain metastases or other high-risk features. LAG-3 is now an established target under study in many other cancers.
Lifileucel proved that Steven Rosenberg's decades-old TIL concept could be industrialised into a licensed product and gave patients with checkpoint-refractory melanoma, who otherwise have few options, a chance of durable remission. It is the first cell therapy approved for any solid tumour. The treatment requires surgery to harvest tumour, hospitalisation for lymphodepletion and IL-2, and specialised centres, so its reach is limited.
Patients with newly diagnosed advanced stomach or oesophageal adenocarcinoma whose tumour is HER2-negative and PD-L1 positive (CPS 5 or more, or at least 1 in some regions) should receive chemotherapy with nivolumab (or pembrolizumab, from KEYNOTE-859), which adds about three months of median survival and doubles the chance of being alive at three years. The benefit in PD-L1-negative tumours is doubtful, and these patients may be better served by chemotherapy alone or by trials.
Patients with advanced liver cancer and good liver function should be offered atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (or durvalumab plus tremelimumab) rather than sorafenib as first treatment; median survival is now around 19 months and about a quarter of patients respond. Endoscopy to treat varices before starting bevacizumab is essential because of bleeding risk. Patients with poorer liver function (Child-Pugh B) or autoimmune disease or transplants were not studied.
Every colorectal cancer should be tested for mismatch repair deficiency, because patients whose metastatic tumour is dMMR should receive pembrolizumab rather than chemotherapy as first treatment, gaining a much better chance of durable remission with fewer side effects. About a third of dMMR tumours do not respond initially, so early scans are essential and chemotherapy remains available. The trial does not apply to the 95% of colorectal cancers that are mismatch-repair proficient.
Patients with head and neck squamous cell cancer that has recurred or spread should be treated first with pembrolizumab: alone if their tumour is strongly PD-L1 positive and they can wait for a slower response, or with chemotherapy if the tumour is bulky or PD-L1 low. Cetuximab-based chemotherapy is no longer the default. Long-term follow-up shows a small but real group of patients alive at four to five years, which was almost unheard of before.
Most patients with newly diagnosed advanced non-squamous lung cancer that lacks a targetable mutation should receive chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab; those with PD-L1 of 50% or more may reasonably receive pembrolizumab alone. About one in five patients is alive at five years, compared with roughly one in ten with chemotherapy alone. Patients with EGFR or ALK alterations were excluded and should have targeted therapy first.
Patients with stage III lung cancer that cannot be removed surgically should receive a year of durvalumab after completing chemoradiotherapy, provided they have not progressed. This roughly doubles the chance of being alive without progression at five years. Whether the benefit extends to PD-L1-negative tumours is contested, and the EGFR-mutated subgroup is better served by osimertinib (LAURA).
This small trial explained why colorectal cancer had seemed immune-resistant (most is MMR-proficient) and established the principle that a genomic feature, not the tissue of origin, can predict immunotherapy response. It led directly to the 2017 tissue-agnostic approval of pembrolizumab and to routine MMR/MSI testing of many cancers. Every patient with advanced dMMR cancer should now be considered for checkpoint blockade.
This study is why PD-1 inhibitors were developed across cancers rather than in melanoma alone: unexpected activity in lung cancer, historically thought immune-resistant, changed drug development priorities industry-wide. It also introduced PD-L1 immunohistochemistry as a candidate biomarker and pneumonitis as a signature toxicity. Within five years PD-1 blockade was approved in more than ten cancers.
This paper launched the immunotherapy era. It was the first randomised evidence that taking a brake off the immune system could extend life in a solid cancer, and it introduced clinicians to immune-related adverse events and to responses that arrive late or after apparent progression. Ipilimumab alone has since been superseded by PD-1 antibodies and combinations, but every checkpoint programme traces back to this result.
Tumours hide from T cells by displaying PD-L1; blocking that interaction lets the immune system attack. This is the mechanism of pembrolizumab, nivolumab, atezolizumab and their relatives, which now treat more than 20 cancer types.
Every checkpoint inhibitor, from ipilimumab to pembrolizumab, rests on this idea: the immune system can already recognise cancer and just needs its brakes released. It changed the goal of immunotherapy from vaccinating against tumours to unleashing existing T cells.
Pages like this
not linked directly; found by shared links- BottleneckBiomarkers are not validated or standardised
Shares Randomised trials to test whether biomarker-negative patients really do not benefit, Standards for spatial and multiplex tissue biomarkers before they reach the clinic, A single calibrated tumour mutational burden across all sequencing panels, Use a hypoxia scan to pick patients for adenosine-pathway drugs.
- BottleneckCold tumours and the immunosuppressive microenvironment
Shares KEYNOTE-177, Clear the suppressive neutrophils out of pancreatic tumours first, De-acidify the tumour so T cells can work in it, Test protein and resistance training during immunotherapy.
- ProductIpilimumab
Shares Predict immune side-effects before they happen and pre-empt them, Sharon Belvin, Leach, Krummel and Allison: releasing the CTLA-4 brake makes mice reject tumours, CheckMate 067.
- TechnologyMicrobiome modulation to unlock immunotherapy
Shares Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), FMT plus pembrolizumab in anti-PD-1-refractory melanoma (Pittsburgh), MIMic-01: healthy-donor FMT plus anti-PD-1, first-line melanoma, Gut microbiome diversity and composition.
- PathwayPD-1 / PD-L1 immune checkpoint & T-cell activation
Shares Time immunotherapy to the moment targeted drugs make tumours visible, Leach, Krummel and Allison: releasing the CTLA-4 brake makes mice reject tumours, Iwai and Honjo: tumours use PD-L1 to escape T cells, and blocking it restores attack, Topalian 2012: the first large trial of a PD-1 antibody shows durable responses across melanoma, lung and kidney cancer.
- CompanyMerck & Co. (MSD)
Shares KEYNOTE-189: pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as first treatment for non-squamous lung cancer without a driver mutation, KEYNOTE-942: a personalised mRNA cancer vaccine plus pembrolizumab after melanoma surgery, KEYNOTE-A18: pembrolizumab with chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer, HARMONi-2: ivonescimab, a PD-1 x VEGF bispecific, beats pembrolizumab head-to-head in PD-L1-positive lung cancer.
- TechnologySingle-cell & spatial profiling
Shares Map which tumour clones sit next to which immune cells before choosing therapy, Standards for spatial and multiplex tissue biomarkers before they reach the clinic, Clear the suppressive neutrophils out of pancreatic tumours first, Reprogramme suppressive macrophages instead of trying to delete them.
- TechnologyTIL therapy
Shares Grow tumour organoids together with the patient's own immune cells, Vaccines aimed only at mutations shared by every tumour cell, Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM), Select patients for cell therapy by whether their tumour holds reactive T cells.