GREY:IMVIF - Post by User
Comment by
qwerty22on Mar 11, 2021 1:29pm
251 Views
Post# 32774042
RE:IMV scientific report
RE:IMV scientific report It's really just science. Maybe describe it as pre-preclinical.
The importance to me is in relation to the dlbcl/pd-l1 finding. What this paper talks about is the importance of immune suppressors in tumours. These are a bunch of mechanisms that stop the immune system from targeting and killing tumour cells. PS is the mechanism they look at in this Nature paper. What they show is if you switch off that mechanism and at the same time boost the immune systems response to cancer with dpx then you get a stronger response. More cells infiltrate the tumour because the tumour environment is no longer immune suppressed. I think this fits with the dlbcl observation. What I think they are showing with that data is that in dlbcl dpx as only limited efficacy because of immune suppressing processes. When they find pd-l1 positive tumours what they have in that scenario are tumours that are using pd-l1 to suppress the immune system, when they switch that off with Keytruda then the immune response induced by dpx is free to get to work on the tumour. In pd-l1 negative tumours different immune suppressors are at work so dpx is less effective at inducing tumour regression, maybe what they would need to do in those tumours is identify which immune suppressors are working in that tumour and use different drugs to switch that off.
So while this Nature paper doesn't necessarily lead to new clinical programs what it suggests is that basic mechanism (switch off immune suppressor + dpx immune boost = strong anti-tumour activity) might exist in other scenarios than just pd-l1+ dlbcl.