Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30203227›Full record

ReviewSeminars in immunopathology2019

Inhibiting IDO pathways to treat cancer: lessons from the ECHO-301 trial and beyond.

Alexander J Muller, Mark G Manfredi, Yousef Zakharia, George C Prendergast

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in immunopathology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 161 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
161citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

161 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 247 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Phase II Study of Epacadostat and Pembrolizumab in Patients with Advanced Sarcoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

101 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander J MullerLankenau Institute for Medical Research (LIMR), 100 East Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA. muller@limr.org.
Mark G ManfrediKyn Therapeutics, Cambridge, MA, 01238, USA.
Yousef ZakhariaHolden Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 52242, USA.
George C PrendergastLankenau Institute for Medical Research (LIMR), 100 East Lancaster Avenue, Wynnewood, PA, 19096, USA.
Lankenau Institute for Medical Research · USUniversity of Iowa · US

Funding

Viral VectorP30CA086862 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI Douglas Robert Spitz · 2000 to 2026
$70.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With immunotherapy enjoying a rapid resurgence based on the achievement of durable remissions in some patients with agents that derepress immune function, commonly referred to as "checkpoint inhibitors," enormous attention developed around the IDO1 enzyme as a metabolic mediator of immune escape in cancer. In particular, outcomes of multiple phase 1/2 trials encouraged the idea that small molecule inhibitors of IDO1 may improve patient responses to anti-PD1 immune checkpoint therapy. However, recent results from ECHO-301, the first large phase 3 trial to evaluate an IDO1-selective enzyme inhibitor (epacadostat) in combination with an anti-PD1 antibody (pembrolizumab) in advanced melanoma, showed no indication that epacadostat provided an increased benefit. Here we discuss several caveats associated with this failed trial. First is the uncertainty as to whether the target was adequately inhibited. In particular, there remains a lack of direct evidence regarding the degree of IDO1 inhibition within the tumor, and previous trial data suggest that sufficient drug exposure may not have been achieved at the dose tested in ECHO-301. Second, while there is a mechanistic rationale for the combination tested, the preclinical data were not particularly compelling. More efficacious combinations have been demonstrated with DNA damaging modalities which may therefore be a more attractive alternative. Third, as a highly selective IDO1 inhibitor, epacadostat was advanced aggressively despite preclinical genetic evidence of tumors bypassing IDO1 blockade. Indeed, a well-grounded literature starting in 2011 points to targeting strategies that account for both IDO and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase as more appealing directions to pursue, including dual inhibitors and inhibitors of nodal downstream effector pathways such as aryl hydrocarbon receptor blockade. Overall, the clinical readout from a single trial with significant limitations is by no means a definitive test for the field. While biomarker information yet to be gleaned from ECHO-301 may yet reveal useful information regarding IDO1 pathway drugs, better rationalized compounds and better rationalized trial designs will be important in the future to accurately gauge medical impact.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkersDrug Resistance, NeoplasmHumansIndoleamine-Pyrrole 2,3,-DioxygenaseMolecular Targeted TherapyNeoplasmsProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorSignal TransductionTreatment OutcomeTryptophanTumor EscapeAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalBiomarkersIndoleamine-Pyrrole 2,3,-DioxygenasePDCD1 protein, humanProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorTryptophanIDO1IDO2Immune adjuvantsImmune checkpointsImmunometabolismImmunotherapyIndoleamine 2,3-dioxygenaseTDOTDO2Tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase

Identifiers

PMID30203227
OpenAlexW2890642520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.