Defining the mechanisms of action and resistance to the anti-PD-1+LAG-3 and anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 combinations in melanoma flank and brain models

BackgroundAlthough the anti-PD-1+LAG-3 and the anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 combinations are effective in advanced melanoma it remains unclear whether their mechanisms of action and resistance overlap. MethodsWe used single cell (sc) RNA-seq, flow cytometry and IHC analysis of responding SM1 and B16 melanoma flank tumors and SM1 brain metastases to explore the mechanism of action of the anti-PD-1+LAG-3 and the anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 combination. CD4+ and CD8+ T cell depletion and ELISPOT assays were used to demonstrate the unique role of CD4+ T cell help in the anti-tumor effects of the anti-PD-1+LAG-3 combination. Tetramer assays confirmed the loss of CD8+ tumor-reactive T cells in brain tumors resistant to the anti-PD-1+LAG-3 combination. ResultsThe anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 combination was associated with the infiltration of FOXP3+ regulatory CD4+ cells (Tregs), fewer activated CD4+ T cells and the accumulation of a subset of IFN{gamma} secreting cytotoxic CD8+ T cells, whereas the anti-PD-1+LAG-3 combination led to the accumulation of CD4+ T helper cells that expressed CXCR4, TNFSF8, IL21R and a subset of CD8+ T cells with reduced expression of cytotoxic markers. T cell depletion studies showed a requirement for CD4+ T cells for the anti-PD-1+LAG-3 combination, but not the PD-1-CTLA-4 combination at both flank and brain tumor sites. In anti-PD-1+LAG-3 treated tumors, CD4+ T cell depletion was associated with fewer activated (CD69+) CD8+ T cells, impaired IFN{gamma} release and increased numbers of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) but, conversely, increased numbers of activated CD8+ T cells and IFN{gamma} release in anti-PD-1+CTLA-4 treated tumors. Analysis of relapsing melanoma brain metastases from anti-PD-1+LAG-3 treated mice showed an increased accumulation of MDSCs and a loss of gp100+ tumor reactive CD8+ T cells. An analysis of the inferred cell-cell interactions from the scRNA-seq data suggested the MDSCs interacted with multiple subsets of T cells in a bi-directional manner. ConclusionsTogether these studies suggest that these two clinically relevant ICI combinations have differential effects upon CD4+ T cell polarization, which in turn, impacted cytotoxic CD8+ T cell function. Further insights into the mechanisms of action/resistance of these clinically-relevant ICI combinations will allow therapy to be further personalized.