Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

89Zr-atezolizumab imaging as a non-invasive approach to assess clinical response to PD-L1 blockade in cancer

Nature Medicine volume 24, pages 1852–1858 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Programmed cell death protein-1/ligand-1 (PD-1/PD-L1) blockade is effective in a subset of patients with several tumor types, but predicting patient benefit using approved diagnostics is inexact, as some patients with PD-L1-negative tumors also show clinical benefit1,2. Moreover, all biopsy-based tests are subject to the errors and limitations of invasive tissue collection3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. Preclinical studies of positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging with antibodies to PD-L1 suggested that this imaging method might be an approach to selecting patients12,13. Such a technique, however, requires substantial clinical development and validation. Here we present the initial results from a first-in-human study to assess the feasibility of imaging with zirconium-89-labeled atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1), including biodistribution, and secondly test its potential to predict response to PD-L1 blockade (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT02453984 and NCT02478099). We imaged 22 patients across three tumor types before the start of atezolizumab therapy. The PET signal, a function of tracer exposure and target expression, was high in lymphoid tissues and at sites of inflammation. In tumors, uptake was generally high but heterogeneous, varying within and among lesions, patients, and tumor types. Intriguingly, clinical responses in our patients were better correlated with pretreatment PET signal than with immunohistochemistry- or RNA-sequencing-based predictive biomarkers, encouraging further development of molecular PET imaging for assessment of PD-L1 status and clinical response prediction.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: 89Zr-atezolizumab biodistribution and PD-L1 IHC in healthy tissue.
Fig. 2: 89Zr-atezolizumab tumor uptake.
Fig. 3: Autoradiography and IHC of postimaging tumor biopsy.
Fig. 4: 89Zr-atezolizumab tumor uptake as predictor for response.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The RNA-sequencing dataset presented in this manuscript is available through GEO (series accession GSE115594). The data are annotated with a short summary and a description of the study design and can be freely downloaded via the GEO website (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/). Clinical details of the cases and laboratory data, restricted to non-identifying data owing to privacy concerns, can be requested by e-mail from the corresponding author, who will handle all requests.

References

  1. Balar, A. V. et al. Atezolizumab as first-line treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet 389, 67–76 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Daud, A. I. et al. Programmed death-ligand 1 expression and response to the anti-programmed death 1 antibody pembrolizumab in melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 4102–4109 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hegde, P. S., Karanikas, V. & Evers, S. The where, the when, and the how of immune monitoring for cancer immunotherapies in the era of checkpoint inhibition. Clin. Cancer Res. 22, 1865–1874 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenberg, J. E. et al. Atezolizumab in patients with locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma who have progressed following treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy: a single-arm, multicentre, phase 2 trial. Lancet 387, 1909–1920 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen, P. L. et al. Analysis of immune signatures in longitudinal tumor samples yields insight into biomarkers of response and mechanisms of resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Cancer Discov. 6, 827–837 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ansell, S. M. et al. PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 311–319 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dong, Z. Y. et al. Potential predictive value of TP53 and KRAS mutation status for response to PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in lung adenocarcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 3012–3024 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fehrenbacher, L. et al. Atezolizumab versus docetaxel for patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (POPLAR): a multicentre, open-label, phase 2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 387, 1837–1846 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kowanetz, M. et al. Tumor mutation load assessed by FoundationOne (FM1) is associated with improved efficacy of atezolizumab (atezo) in patients with advanced NSCLC. Ann. Oncol. 27, 15–42 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Van Allen, E. M. et al. Genomic correlates of response to CTLA-4 blockade in metastatic melanoma. Science 350, 207–211 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim, J. M. & Chen, D. S. Immune escape to PD-L1/PD-1 blockade: seven steps to success (or failure). Ann. Oncol. 27, 1492–1504 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Heskamp, S. et al. Noninvasive imaging of tumor PD-L1 expression using radiolabeled anti-PD-L1 antibodies. Cancer Res. 75, 2928–2936 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chatterjee, S. et al. A humanized antibody for imaging immune checkpoint ligand PD-L1 expression in tumors. Oncotarget 7, 10215–10227 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Rehman, J. A. et al. Quantitative and pathologist-read comparison of the heterogeneity of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Modern Pathol. 30, 340–349 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith, J. et al. Quantitative and qualitative characterization of two PD-L1 clones: SP263 and E1L3N. Diagn. Pathol. 11, 44 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. McLaughlin, J. et al. Quantitative assessment of the heterogeneity of PD-L1 expression in non-small-cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2, 46–54 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Scheel, A. H. et al. Harmonized PD-L1 immunohistochemistry for pulmonary squamous-cell and adenocarcinomas. Modern Pathol. 29, 1165–1172 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Madore, J. et al. PD-L1 expression in melanoma shows marked heterogeneity within and between patients: implications for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 clinical trials. Pigm. Cell Melanoma Res. 28, 245–253 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sanmamed, M. F. & Chen, L. Inducible expression of B7-H1 (PD-L1) and its selective role in tumor site immune modulation. Cancer J. 20, 256–261 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Gniadek, T. J. et al. Heterogeneous expression of PD-L1 in pulmonary squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma: implications for assessment by small biopsy. Modern Pathol. 30, 530–538 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. McDermott, D. F. et al. Atezolizumab, an anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody, in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: long-term safety, clinical activity, and immune correlates from a phase Ia study. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 833–842 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Herbst, R. S. et al. Predictive correlates of response to the anti-PD-L1 antibody MPDL3280A in cancer patients. Nature 515, 563–567 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Dijkers, E. C. et al. Biodistribution of 89Zr-trastuzumab and PET imaging of HER2-positive lesions in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 87, 586–592 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gaykema, S. B. et al. 89Zr-trastuzumab and 89Zr-bevacizumab PET to evaluate the effect of the HSP90 inhibitor NVP-AUY922 in metastatic breast cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 20, 3945–3954 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lamberts, T. E. et al. ImmunoPET with anti-mesothelin antibody in patients with pancreatic and ovarian cancer before anti-mesothelin antibody-drug conjugate treatment. Clin. Cancer Res. 22, 1642–1652 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. den Hollander, M. W. et al. TGF-β antibody uptake in recurrent high-grade glioma imaged with 89Zr-fresolimumab PET. J. Nucl. Med. 56, 1310–1314 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ogembo, J. G. et al. SIRPα and FHOD1 are unique markers of littoral cells, a recently evolved major cell population of red pulp of human spleen. J. Immunol. 188, 4496–4505 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Fullerton, J. N. & Gilroy, D. W. Resolution of inflammation: a new therapeutic frontier. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15, 551–567 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Johnson, D. B., Rioth, M. J. & Horn, L. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 15, 658–669 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Powles, T. et al. MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer. Nature 515, 558–562 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Petrylak, D. P. et al. Atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) monotherapy for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer: long-term outcomes from a phase 1 study. JAMA Oncol. 4, 537–544 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Emens, L. et al. Inhibition of PD-L1 by MPDL3280A leads to clinical activity in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Cancer Res. 75, abstr. 2859 (2015).

  33. Eisenhauer, E. A. et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 45, 228–247 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lamberts, L. E. et al. Antibody positron emission tomography imaging in anticancer drug development. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 1491–1504 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Verel, I. et al. 89Zr immuno-PET: comprehensive procedures for the production of 89Zr-labeled monoclonal antibodies. J. Nucl. Med. 44, 1271–1281 (2003).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A. G. et al. ImmunoPET and biodistribution with human epidermal growth factor receptor 3 targeting antibody 89Zr-RG7116. mABs 6, 1051–1058 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Oude Munnink, T. H. et al. PET with the 89Zr-labeled transforming growth factor-beta antibody fresolimumab in tumor models. J. Nucl. Med. 52, 2001–2008 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Makris, N. E. et al. Multicenter harmonization of 89Zr PET/CT performance. J. Nucl. Med. 55, 264–267 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Frings, V. et al. Repeatability of metabolically active tumor volume measurements with FDG PET/CT in advanced gastrointestinal malignancies: a multicenter study. Radiology 273, 539–548 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. U.S. Department of Health And Human Services. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0 (NIH publication no. 09-7473) (National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA, 2009).

  41. Austin, P. C. & Stuart, E. A. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat. Med. 34, 3661–3679 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank patients and their families for participating in this study. This work was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society grant RUG 2016-10034 (POINTING) and the ERC Advanced grant OnQview ERC 293445, both awarded to E.G.E.d.V., a personal Dutch Cancer Society fellowship RUG 2014-6625 awarded to F.B., and a research grant from Hoffmann–La Roche/Genentech, which was made available to the UMCG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Frederike Bensch, Elly L. van der Veen, Iris C. Kok, Sjoukje F. Oosting, Carolina P. Schröder, Jourik A. Gietema & Elisabeth G. E. de Vries

  2. Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Marjolijn N. Lub-de Hooge & Annelies Jorritsma-Smit

  3. Medical Imaging Center, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    Marjolijn N. Lub-de Hooge, Ronald Boellaard, Thomas C. Kwee & Adrienne H. Brouwers

  4. Pulmonary Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands

    T. Jeroen N. Hiltermann, Anthonie J. van der Wekken & Harry J. M. Groen

  5. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Sjoerd G. Elias

  6. Genentech, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Sandra Sanabria Bohorquez, Alex de Crespigny, Simon-Peter Williams & Bernard M. Fine

  7. Genentech, Basel, Switzerland

    Christoph Mancao

Authors
  1. Frederike Bensch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elly L. van der Veen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marjolijn N. Lub-de Hooge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annelies Jorritsma-Smit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ronald Boellaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Iris C. Kok
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sjoukje F. Oosting
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Carolina P. Schröder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. T. Jeroen N. Hiltermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Anthonie J. van der Wekken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Harry J. M. Groen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Thomas C. Kwee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sjoerd G. Elias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jourik A. Gietema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Sandra Sanabria Bohorquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Alex de Crespigny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Simon-Peter Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Christoph Mancao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Adrienne H. Brouwers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Bernard M. Fine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Elisabeth G. E. de Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.B., E.G.E.d.V., B.M.F., and A.d.C. designed the study. F.B., E.L.v.d.V., M.N.L.-d.H., A.J.-S., R.B., S.G.E., B.M.F., C.M., and A.d.C. developed the methodology. Acquisition of data was performed by F.B., C.M., T.C.K., E.L.v.d.V., I.C.K., S.F.O., C.P.S., T.J.N.H., A.J.v.d.W., H.J.M.G., J.A.G., A.H.B., and S.S.B. S.G.E., F.B., C.M., E.L.v.d.V., and S.-P.W. conducted statistical analyses and preclinical experiments. A.H.B. and E.G.E.d.V. provided supervision. F.B., E.G.E.d.V., B.M.F., S.-P.W., S.S.B., C.M., and S.G.E. wrote the manuscript. Results were discussed by all authors, who also commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisabeth G. E. de Vries.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare the following as competing interests: H.J.M.G. received research support from Hoffmann–La Roche (payment to the institution) and has an advisory role for Roche Netherlands; B.M.F., C.M., S.S.B., A.d.C., and S.-P.W. are employed by Hoffman–La Roche/Genentech and own stock in Hoffman–La Roche/Genentech; E.G.E.d.V. received research support from Hoffman–La Roche/Genentech (payment to the institution) and is a member of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figures 1–10 and Supplementary Tables 1–6

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bensch, F., van der Veen, E.L., Lub-de Hooge, M.N. et al. 89Zr-atezolizumab imaging as a non-invasive approach to assess clinical response to PD-L1 blockade in cancer. Nat Med 24, 1852–1858 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0255-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0255-8

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer