F-AraG PET for CD8 Profiling of Tumors and Assessment of Immunomodulation by Chemotherapy.

Most clinical trials exploring various combinations of chemo- and immunotherapy rely on serial biopsy to provide information on immune response. The aim of this study was to assess the value of F-arabinosyl guanine (F-AraG) as a noninvasive tool that profiles tumors on the basis of the key player in adaptive antitumor response, CD8+ cells, and evaluates the immunomodulatory effects of chemotherapy. To evaluate the ability of F-AraG to report on the presence of CD8+ cells within the tumor microenvironment, we imaged a panel of syngeneic tumor models (MC38, CT26, LLC, A9F1, 4T1, and B16F10) and correlated the signal intensity with the number of lymphocytes found in the tumors. The capacity of F-AraG to detect immunomodulatory effects of chemotherapy was determined by longitudinal imaging of tumor-bearing mice (MC38 and A9F1) undergoing 2 types of chemotherapy: oxaliplatin/cyclophosphamide, shown to induce immunogenic cell death, and paclitaxel/carboplatin, reported to cause immunogenically silent tumor cell death. In the tumor panel, F-AraG revealed strikingly different uptake patterns resembling cancer-immune phenotypes observed in the clinic. A statistically significant correlation was found between the F-AraG signal and the number of PD-1-positive CD8+ cells isolated from the tumors ( = 0.528, < 0.0001). In the MC38 model, paclitaxel/carboplatin did not result in an appreciable change in signal after therapy (1.69 ± 0.25 vs. 1.50 ± 0.33 percentage injected dose per gram), but oxaliplatin/cyclophosphamide treatment led to close to a 2.4-fold higher F-AraG signal (1.20 ± 0.31 vs. 2.84 ± 0.93 percentage injected dose per gram). The statistically significant increase in signal after oxaliplatin/cyclophosphamide was also observed in the A9F1 model (0.95 ± 0.36 vs. 1.99 ± 0.54 percentage injected dose per gram). The ability of F-AraG PET to assess the location and function of CD8+ cells, as well immune activity within tumors after immune priming therapy, warrants further investigation into its utility for patient selection, evaluation of optimal time to deliver immunotherapies, and assessment of combinatorial therapies.