Lung cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer which also causes the highest burden of mortality amongst all malignant tumors worldwide (Siegel et al., 2021). Based on their histological features, lung tumors are divided into two major groups: (1) small cell lung carcinoma (SCLC), which accounts for 15% of all lung cancers, and (2) non-SCLC (NSCLC), which comprises 85% of all lung cancers (Travis, 2012). NSCLCs are further subclassified into adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and large cell carcinoma (Travis et al., 2015). The fact that a large group of patients has advanced disease stage at time of diagnosis explains the low 5-year survival rate of lung cancer patients, which decreases from 56% to only about 6% in the presence of metastasis (Siegel et al., 2019). This survival rate is the lowest compared with other common (metastatic) cancer types such as prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers (Bray et al., 2018). Originating from the global epidemic of tobacco consumption in the 20^th century, lung cancer was one of the main factors responsible for the increase of cancer-associated deaths observed within this period. However, during the last three decades, we have witnessed a significant decline in lung cancer mortality that can be attributed to (i) the reduction of smoking, (ii) the promising developments in early diagnosis and (iii) new therapeutic modalities (Siegel et al., 2021).

Broader public awareness of lung cancer and its relevant clinical signs as well as the initiation of novel screening concepts have proven that the frequency of devastating advanced stage disease can be reduced by earlier diagnosis (Jones and Baldwin, 2018). After diagnosis, improved video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery procedures to resect the tumors (Jones and Baldwin, 2018), as well as several new targeted medicines, including epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors or immunotherapies are now available. In conjunction with classical cytotoxic chemotherapies (but also as stand-alone medications) these drugs have had a major impact on the reduction of lung cancer mortality rates in specific patient cohorts (Malhotra et al., 2017; Minguet et al., 2016).

One of the main breakthroughs in cancer biology during the last three decades is related to the identification of disease-driving changes in proto-oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. This has been accomplished by genome-wide profiling of the mutational landscape of cancer cells. It has also led to a reductionist view, in the sense that the central criterion to define a tumor are the genetic alterations found in cancer cells. Accordingly, a malignant tumor mass is (always) caused by genetically transformed cancer cells, which by their unlimited proliferation properties, fuel local and systemic cancer development and progression (Hanahan and Weinberg, 2000). Subsequently, a large body of evidence about key mutations has been obtained by whole genome DNA sequencing which has revolutionized our understanding of the genomic landscapes of cancer cells. These insights not only expanded lung tumor classification beyond histology, but also revealed that lung cancers belong to the most highly mutated tumors (Alexandrov et al., 2013). Specifically, profiling of the mutated genes of lung tumors revealed Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS), EGFR, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK), TP53 and liver kinase B1 (LKB1) as the most commonly mutated genes (Skoulidis and Heymach, 2019). In numerous clinical studies, the success of specific small-molecule inhibitors directed against some of the mutant oncoproteins finally demonstrated the importance of changes in the genetic landscape for the classification, pathogenesis and therapy of lung tumors (Skoulidis and Heymach, 2019).

However, the cancer-cell-based classification of any given tumor is too simplistic to explain or predict tumor behavior and its clinical response to treatment. A tumor is not just composed of genetically transformed cancer cells, but also contains multiple other types such as immune, stromal, and endothelial cells. This creates a unique environment, in which oxygen supply, availability of metabolites and pH are subject to tremendous fluctuations (Helmlinger et al., 1997; Brown and Wilson, 2004; Carmona-Fontaine et al., 2017; Altea-Manzano et al., 2020). Importantly, the non-transformed cells are not just passive bystanders, but have pivotal roles in tumor initiation, progression and metastasis (Hanahan and Weinberg, 2011; Baghban et al., 2020). Accordingly, the term tumor microenvironment (TME) has been introduced in the cancer field to indicate that non-transformed immune or stromal cells and their crosstalk with cancer cells not only regulate the tumor development at early stages of disease but also fulfill critical functions during advanced disease stages and metastasis (Binnewies et al., 2018).

The TME is a double-edged sword that has anti-tumor activities early on but may promote tumor progression at later stages. In this regard, the cellular profile of the TME and its properties are key to defining the function of the TME as anti- or pro-tumor (Duan et al., 2020). The cellular TME components can be categorized into (i) pro-tumorigenic / immunosuppressive cells including pro-tumor M2-macrophages, myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), and regulatory T (T_reg) cells, and (ii) anti-tumorigenic immune effector cells, such as anti-tumor M1-macrophages, cytotoxic CD8⁺ T cells and natural killer (NK) cells (Duan et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2017). The relevance of the interactions between these cell types and the tumor is evident from the remarkable anti-tumor effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). These therapeutic antibodies disrupt the negative regulation of T cell activity by cancer cells which is mediated by the interaction of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1, upregulated on cancer cells) with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1, (up)regulated on T cells) within the TME (Iwai et al., 2017). Although ICIs showed promising clinical outcomes in cancer patients, often only a subgroup of patients respond effectively (Robert, 2020). Therefore, there must be further mechanisms by which cancer cells not only suppress or hijack the TME antitumor functions but also impact the TME in a pro-tumor manner. Given the distinct genomic profile of cancer cells, it is plausible that the genetic landscape of cancer cells will impact on the TME phenotype and vice versa. Focusing on lung cancer, we will discuss new findings regarding the interplay of the genetic landscape of tumor cells and how it shapes the TME phenotype. We will also evaluate the crosstalk between the tumor genetic landscape and TME phenotype from a clinical point of view, addressing its potential application as a prognostic and/or therapeutic tool in lung cancer patients.

From the genetic point of view, the TME is a heterogeneous niche that contains a mixture of differentially mutated cancer cells, which give rise to the distinct cancer cell populations (clones) with their unique genomic landscapes (McGranahan and Swanton, 2017). Darwinian selection will lead to the preferential survival of clones with fitter phenotypes (Merlo et al., 2006). However, this type of selection can also be viewed as a ‘tragedy of the commons’ which shows how individuals driven by self-interest can be detrimental for the resource of the overall population. Based on this idea, the short-term interest of the selfish propagation in a distinct population (in this case a cancer cell clone with specific mutations) can be of ‘individual’ benefit. However, in the long term, it may also damage the cohabitants (in this case the TME with other clones and stroma / immune cells) and will finally lead to the destruction of the cohabitants and the extinction of the whole population (including cancer cells) (Hardin, 1968). Therefore, the fitness of selected clones cannot be solely defined from the perspective of cell autonomous growth as a consequence of the mutational landscape of cancer cells.

Interactions between organisms (i.e. cells) can be viewed as a game with multiple players and evolutionary game theory has been used to investigate the consequences of their interactions. According to the evolutionary game theory, the fitness of the selected cancer cell clones within the dynamic, complex and heterogeneous TME is not only associated with the individual cancer cell benefit but also essentially depends on the crosstalk of clones with other clones and cellular components of the TME (Archetti and Pienta, 2019).

By applying the crosstalk scenario, we can advance the successive clonal evolution model of Peter Nowell, which did not fully consider the association of the non-genetic variability of immune / stroma cells and the potential functional crosstalk between clones and TME components (Figure 1; Janiszewska and Polyak, 2015; Nowell, 1976). A tumor arises in a multistep process, starting from a proliferating single-cell harboring genomic mutations and showing chromosomal and genetic instability within a unique normal microenvironment (NME), in which tissue homeostasis is tightly controlled through cellular crosstalk to maintain the balance of cell proliferation and death (Nelson and Bissell, 2006).

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

During the clonal evolution of the initial cancer cells, some of the daughter cells acquire stepwise additional somatic mutations. The sequential, subclonal selection not only favors cells with better autonomous proliferation capacities, but also selects cancer cells with the ability to transform the normal into a tumor microenvironment by reprogramming residential stroma or immune cells as well as newly recruited immune cells (Sun et al., 2018). Normally, immune or stromal cells of the NME impose protective constraints to prevent any disturbances in the balance of cell proliferation and death within the NME (Joyce and Pollard, 2009). Tumor growth will eventually depend on the success of cancer cells to alter the NME. If selected clones with specific TME-programming mutations can overcome the protective barriers of the NME, the tumor will eventually progress (O’Toole et al., 2014; Schietinger et al., 2016; Casanova-Acebes et al., 2021; Figure 1).

One argument supporting this concept is the observation that tumor doubling times (around 60–200 days) is orders of magnitude slower than cancer cell doubling times (around 1–2 days). This argues for a suppressive function of the NME and as a result the majority of cancer cells usually die before they can divide and establish a tumor mass (Klein, 2009; Greaves and Maley, 2012).

One of the key clinical observations in support of the relation between the genomic landscape of lung cancer cells and the TME is the association with tumor mutational burden (TMB), defined as the number of non-synonymous somatic mutations per megabase of tumor DNA, and the outcomes in patients treated with immunotherapy (Litchfield et al., 2021; Snyder et al., 2014). Recognition of cancer cells by immune cells mainly relies on presentation of tumor-specific antigens by the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules on the surface of cancer cells which prime and activate the immune cells that can ultimately trigger cancer cell death (Schreiber et al., 2011).

Neo-antigens mostly originate from non-synonymous mutations. Despite the fact that not all somatic mutations will lead to neoantigens, TMB can serves as an indicator of neoantigen load of a tumor (Zou et al., 2021). In addition, common lung tumor mutations, including KRAS and TP53, are characterized by a high TMB and numerous somatic mutations, which are associated with increased tumor immunogenicity (Dong et al., 2017b; Gao et al., 2020). Thus, high TMB correlates with a greater probability of harboring neoantigens and cancer cell driver mutations (Chan et al., 2019). High TMB in turn will boost tumor immunogenicity, because more neoantigens are recognized by cytotoxic T cells, which promote the antitumor immune response (Rizvi et al., 2015). Given the central role of antigen/neoantigen for T cell activation, it is plausible that the TMB can guide immunotherapy-based strategies that rely on the activation of adaptive immunity (Sui et al., 2018).

Several retrospective studies indicated that tumor TMB is associated with the efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade and with clinical outcomes in lung cancer patients. In the KEYNOTE-158 study, tumor TMB-high status characterized a subgroup of patients with advanced solid tumors who showed a significant tumor remission in response to the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab (Marabelle et al., 2020). In the CHECKMATE-026 study, the NSCLC patients were categorized in three groups based on TMB status (low TMB: 0 and 100 mutations, medium TMB: 100–242 mutations and high TMB: >243 mutations). High TMB patients treated with the anti PD-1 antibody nivolumab showed a longer progression-free survival (PFS; 9.7 vs 5.8 months; HR  = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.38–1.00) and higher response rates (47 vs 28%) than patients with the same TMB receiving chemotherapy. Moreover, patients with both high TMB and PD-L1 expression in more than 50% of the tumor cells had a higher response rate (75%) compared to patients with only one of these factors (32% among patients with a high tumor-mutation burden only and 34% among those with a PD-L1 expression level of ≥50% only; Carbone et al., 2016). In the CHECKMATE-227 study, patients with advanced NSCLC and a TMB status of at least 10 mutations per megabase, the combined treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, an antibody targeting the global negative T cell regulator Cytotoxic T lymphocyte-Associated antigen (CTLA-4), resulted in a longer PFS compared to the chemotherapy group (7.2 vs 5.5 months; HR  = 0.58, 97.5% CI: 0.41–0.81, p < 0.001) (Hellmann et al., 2018).

Aneuploidy, the presence of an abnormal number of chromosomes in cancer cells (Holland and Cleveland, 2009), should also be considered, as a modulator of the TME immune-phenotype. Aneuploidy has been shown to be positively correlated with the number of mutations in the most types of cancer including lung tumor (Taylor et al., 2018). Three groups independently indicated that tumor aneuploidy negatively correlates with markers of immune evasion and number of tumor-infiltrating leukocytes (Davoli et al., 2017; Xian et al., 2021; Taylor et al., 2018). Davoli et al. reported a significantly reduced expression of genes associated with adaptive immunity, high cytotoxic activity mediated by CD8⁺ T cells and pathways related to the presence of pro-inflammatory cytokines in high aneuploid tumors. Moreover, they found highly aneuploid tumors to be associated with poorer survival of patients (Davoli et al., 2017). Xian et al., also showed that aneuploidy negatively correlated with immune-mediated cytotoxicity in most cancer types. The effect may be mediated by non-cell autonomous effects on immune cells including macrophages and T cells. Implicated in this process are polarized macrophages that support an immune suppressive phenotype and negatively regulate T cells during activation (Xian et al., 2021). Finally, Taylor et al., suggested that the negative correlation between aneuploidy and leukocyte infiltrates may explain the down-regulation of genes associated with immune signatures in high aneuploidy tumors.

These clinical studies provide evidence that the immune profile of the TME correlates with the genomic landscape of the lung tumor and suggest that future immune therapeutic strategies may be designed and applied in line with the TMB and aneuploidy. Although the correlation between tumor mutation load and immune therapy outcomes does not prove causality, clinical studies and new experimental evidence (see below) foster the idea that the cancer cell genomic landscape and the TME phenotype interact with each other.

In the following, we will focus on specific lung cancer mutations in proto-oncogenes (KRAS, EGFR, ALK, MYC) and tumor suppressor genes (p53, LKB1) and how they relate to alterations in the TME. KRAS mutations are the most frequent oncogenic driver mutations in human lung cancer cells (Cancer Genome Atlas Research, 2014; Jordan et al., 2017; Skoulidis et al., 2015). Until very recently, no drugs were available to treat mutant KRAS-driven lung cancer (Huang et al., 2021). KRAS mutations not only cause cell autonomous proliferation and survival of cancer cells but also impact on the lung TME phenotype by non-cell autonomous modulation of immune cells (Dias Carvalho et al., 2018). Specifically, in lung cancer positive for oncogenic KRAS mutations, a pro-tumorigenic, immunosuppressed TME enriched in pro-tumor M2 macrophages, MDSCs, interleukin (IL)–17-producing T helper (Th)17 cells and CD4⁺FoxP3⁺ T_reg cells has been found (Cullis et al., 2018). This raises the question of the molecular links between KRAS and the altered TME.

KRAS is a small GTPase and an activator of MAPK pathways (Joneson et al., 1996). It has also long been known that mutant RAS proteins activate the nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer of the B-cells (NF-κB) pathway in cancer cells (Cullis et al., 2018; Finco et al., 1997; Kim et al., 2002). The NF-κB family of transcription factors comprises five proteins whose homo- or heterodimers play important roles in regulating gene expression in many systems, including innate and adaptive immunity (Zhang et al., 2017). In most tissues, the nuclear activity of NF-κB subunits is tightly controlled by cytoplasmic retention through the binding to inhibitor of NF-κB (IκB) proteins (Oeckinghaus and Ghosh, 2009). In many tumors, the tight cytoplasmic control of NF-κB is relaxed, the pathway becomes constitutively (or chronically) activated and elevated levels of nuclear activity are observed (Taniguchi and Karin, 2018).

As NF-κB-binding sites are found in the enhancers and promoters of numerous immunoregulatory genes (Natoli et al., 2005), it is not surprising that NF-κB plays a pivotal role in cancer by fueling a pro-tumorigenic inflammatory environment through the induction of classical NF-κB target genes (Baud and Karin, 2009; DiDonato et al., 2012). These genes comprise a plethora of cytokines and chemokines, including IL6, tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), IL-1α/β, CXCL1, 2, 5, and 8, monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1) / CCL2, and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM1) as well as regulatory cell cycle and anti-apoptotic proteins (Baud and Karin, 2009; Eluard et al., 2020). The same factors are also upregulated in lung cancer and NF-κB is discussed for its role in driving the major hallmarks of NSCLC (Dimitrakopoulos et al., 2020; Figure 2). In the following, we discuss pivotal findings concerning KRAS-driven cytokine and chemokine networks in lung cancer.

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

By secreting IL-6, mutant KRAS cancer cells can activate Janus activated kinase 1 (JAK1) to induce the phosphorylation of the transcription factor signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) which is found in immune components such as macrophages of the TME (reviewed in Chonov et al., 2019). Studies in preclinical mouse models showed that the pharmacological blockade of IL-6 suppresses progression of KRAS-mutant positive lung cancer, inhibits STAT3 activation and more importantly diminishes the number of pro-tumor M2 macrophages, MDSCs and T_reg cells while the CD8⁺ T-cell responses increases (Caetano et al., 2016, Figure 2A).

CXCL8 /IL-8 is as chemokine that attracts polymorphonuclear inflammatory leukocytes to sites of tissue injury by acting on the chemokine receptors CXCR1/2 (Baggiolini, 1998; Harada et al., 1994; Russo et al., 2014). Tumors very frequently coopt the production of this chemokine to execute different pro-tumoral functions, including angiogenesis, survival signaling, and attraction of myeloid suppressor cells (Alfaro et al., 2017). Seminal work by Bar-Sagi et al. showed that mutant KRAS^G12V transcriptionally induces CXCL8 through the RAF-MAPK, PI3K and NF-κB signaling pathways (Sparmann and Bar-Sagi, 2004). Using a mouse xenograft tumor model, a neutralizing anti-CXCL8 antibody was shown to attenuate survival and neo-angiogenesis in a non-cell-autonomous manner and to reduce the infiltration of inflammatory immune cells (Sparmann and Bar-Sagi, 2004). This study demonstrated chemokine induced oncogenic activation of tumor cells that serves to regulate the TME. Likewise, the lung tissues derived from the Kras^G12D LA1 lung adenocarcinoma mouse model showed higher concentrations of the CXCL8 functional homologues KC and MIP-2 (Wislez et al., 2006). The reduced frequency and progression of lung tumors following antibody-based blockade of the CXCR2 receptor is further evidence for the role CXCL8 plays in tumorigenesis (Wislez et al., 2006).

IL-6, CXCL8 and multiple other chemokines (e.g. CXCL1, 2, 3, 5, CCL20, CCL2) are under complex control of ‘master cytokines’ such as IL-1α or IL-1β, which can induce the transcriptional and post-transcriptional expression of all of these factors simultaneously through a network of signaling pathways and transcription factors (including the NF-κB system) in multiple normal as well as cancer cells from both mice or humans (Gaestel et al., 2009; Jurida et al., 2015; Weber et al., 2010; Wolter et al., 2008; Ziesché et al., 2013). The IL-1 system can be successfully pharmacologically targeted in a range of chronic inflammatory conditions by the (i) IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), (ii) the fully human anti IL-1β antibody canakinumab, or (iii) a recombinant IL-1 receptor IgG fusion protein called rilonacept (Dinarello et al., 2012; Mantovani et al., 2019a). Of note, the IL-1RA is equally effective in suppressing IL-1α and IL-1β, while canakinumab is IL-1β-specific (Dinarello et al., 2012).

IL-1α/β have also long been considered as crucial cytokines in cancer, however often contradictory pro- or anti-tumorigenic roles were found in different tumor models or clinical studies (Garlanda and Mantovani, 2021). While both cytokines activate the same IL-1 receptor heterodimer, composed of IL-1R1 and IL-1R3 (also called IL-1R accessory protein, IL-1RAcP), and are supposed to initiate the same downstream gene-regulatory effects (see above), they differ in their post-transcriptional processing and release mechanisms. The IL-1α precursor can function intracellularly as an active nuclear transcriptional regulator and the processed mature IL-1α is primarily membrane-associated or released locally from severely damaged, necrotic cells (Kim et al., 2013; Malik and Kanneganti, 2018; Rider et al., 2013; Werman et al., 2004). In contrast, the inactive IL-1β precursor requires processing by the inflammasome complexes as well as secretion to induce local but also systemic inflammation (Mangan et al., 2018). The Apte lab systematically studied the role of IL-1α or IL-1β in tumor initiation and progression using several genetically engineered mouse models. They showed that nuclear IL-1α acts as a signal for genotoxic stress and binds to sites of DNA damage and thereby regulates tissue inflammation (Cohen et al., 2015). They also assessed the role of IL-1β and IL-17, an IL-1-inducible T cell cytokine, in a model of experimental lung metastasis. Using IL-1β or IL-1RA-deficient mice, they found that lack of IL-1β or excess of IL-1 activity (by lack of IL-1RA) in the lung TME both resulted in reduced T cell activity and a poor prognosis. IL-1β-deficient mice showed increased T_reg numbers and activities whereas in IL-1RA-deficient mice enhanced accumulation and activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells were found, both resulting in suppressed antitumor immunity. In mice lacking IL-17, the study showed reduced tumor progression along with improved T cell function. These data provided evidence for a critical and unique role of IL-1 in upregulating cytokines (e.g. IL-17) and in determining the balance between inflammation and antitumor immunity in specific tumor microenvironments such as in the lung (Carmi et al., 2011).

Further studies corroborate the importance of the IL-1/IL-17 axis also for KRAS-driven lung cancer. KRAS mutations in lung epithelial cells lead to the recruitment of Th17 cells and increased IL-17 production, both of which are associated with lung tumorigenesis (Chang et al., 2014). IL-17 secreted from tumor-infiltrating Th17 lymphocytes can induce the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) gene-regulatory events in lung cancer cells, thereby promoting tumor cell migration, intravasation, and metastasis (Salazar et al., 2020). Accordingly and in line with the results from Apte et al., the blockade of IL-17 in mouse cancer models results in a reduction of lung tumor metastasis and the genetic ablation of IL-17C in a Kras^G12D lung cancer mouse model improved the response to anti-PD1 treatment (Ritzmann et al., 2019), (Chang et al., 2014; Salazar et al., 2020; Figure 2A). Moreover, the numbers of Th17 lymphocytes in patients with lung cancer negatively correlate with overall survival (Salazar et al., 2020).

Based on their own results and observations from other studies, Apte et al. concluded that IL-1α and IL-1β play opposing roles in the malignant process. While the membrane-associated IL-1α is mainly immunostimulatory, IL-1β that is secreted into the TME is mainly pro-inflammatory and promotes tumorigenesis, tumor invasiveness, and immunosuppression. These distinct functions of the two IL-1 agonists are important in early stages of tumor development and contribute to tumor progression according to their expression patterns within the TME (Voronov and Apte, 2017). New data provide further support for this concept. In a murine breast cancer model, IL-1β-deficiency resulted in IL-12 secretion by CD11b⁺ dendritic cells (DCs) cells and supported antitumor immunity by activated CD8⁺ lymphocytes expressing IFNγ, TNFα, and granzyme B. These T cells infiltrated tumors and induced their regression. Treating mice first with anti-IL-1β antibodies followed by anti-PD-1 antibodies completely abrogated tumor progression. These data define microenvironmental IL-1β as a master cytokine in tumor progression whose suppression also facilitates successful therapeutic checkpoint inhibition (Kaplanov et al., 2019).

These pre-clinical observations gained new importance with results emerging from the Canakinumab Anti-inflammatory Thrombosis Outcomes Study (CANTOS) trial (Ridker et al., 2017a). The CANTOS trial recruited 10,061 patients who had a previous myocardial infarction and some type of low level, smoldering inflammation (baseline CRP levels of ≥2 mg/L). Patients were treated with optimal medical and lipid-lowering therapy, and randomized to receive canakinumab or placebo (Ridker et al., 2017a). The CANTOS trial was designed to proof the concept that targeting IL-1β-mediated chronic inflammation can reduce cardiovascular events. Unexpectedly, the prespecified safety analysis of the trial data also revealed that treatment with canakinumab was associated with a dose-dependent reduction in lung cancer incidence (HR = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18–0.59; p<0.0001 for the canakinumab 300 mg group compared with placebo) as well as lung cancer mortality (HR = 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10–0.54; p<0.0002 for canakinumab 300 mg group compared with placebo) (Crossman and Rothman, 2018; Ridker et al., 2017b).

A recent follow-up study examined circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and nine soluble inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, IL-6, IL1RA, IL-18, Leptin, TNFα, adiponectin, fibrinogen, and PAI1) in blood samples from CANTOS patients. Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database ctDNA mutations were detected in 65% (46/71) of the CANTOS patients with lung cancer but none of the mutations commonly found in lung cancer were enriched (or depleted) following canakinumab treatment. Further, median time to lung cancer diagnosis was shorter in patients with (n=29, 407 days) versus without (n=38, 837 days) detectable COSMIC ctDNA mutations at baseline (p=0.011). High baseline levels of CRP and IL-6 trended toward shorter median time to lung cancer diagnosis, suggesting that IL-1β-inducible CRP and IL-6, similar to ctDNA at baseline, correlate positively with a more rapid progression to lung cancer diagnosis (Wong et al., 2020). These results provide further evidence for the importance of the IL-1β pathway for pro-tumor inflammation in lung cancer and suggest canakinumab’s effect may be mediated by delaying inflammation-driven disease progression of diverse molecular subtypes of lung cancer.

In conclusion, the results from CANTOS as well as the findings from pre-clinical studies clearly point to an important role of the IL-1 system, autocrine or paracrine cytokine loops, and the downstream cytokine / chemokine networks for lung tumor development and progression (Briukhovetska et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021).

EGFR is also one of the most commonly mutated genes in lung cancer. EGFR is a trans-membrane glycoprotein with an extracellular ligand binding domain for epidermal growth factor, a transmembrane domain, and an intracellular tyrosine kinase domain that regulates epithelial tissue maintenance and growth (Liu et al., 2017). The clinical outcomes of immune checkpoint therapies have revealed that EGFR mutations in lung cancer cells can not only upregulate the intrinsic PD-L1 expression on cancer cells but also suppress T cell function and increase levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines within the TME, which marks an immune escape phenotype of EGFR-mutant NSCLC (Akbay et al., 2013; Chen et al., 2015). Moreover, it has been shown that patients with EGFR mutations have fewer T cell infiltrations of PD-L1⁺/CD8⁺ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and reduced shrinking properties of the tumor in response to immune cell activation (Figure 2C, Dong et al., 2017a). In comparison to the reduced number of cytotoxic T cells in EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinomas, patients with oncogenic EML4-ALK rearrangements showed a significant increase in regulatory T cells, supporting the concept that different driver oncogenes induce distinct immunosuppressive mechanisms (Budczies et al., 2022).

The MYC oncoproteins belong to a super-transcription factor family that regulates the transcription of at least 15% of the entire genome (Dang et al., 2006). MYC activation is involved in the regulation of cell-cycle progression, apoptosis, cellular senescence, and metabolism (Gabay et al., 2014). Co-occurrence of MYC genetic alterations with KRAS mutations considerably accelerates lung tumor development with a reduction of the survival rate in mouse lung tumor models (Kortlever et al., 2017). This mutational combination not only generates highly proliferative, invasive cancer cell clones but also reprograms the TME towards the inflammatory, angiogenic, and immune-suppressed phenotype. Mechanistically, MYC-induced immunosuppression relies on CCL9 and IL-23. CCL9 regulates the recruitment of CD206⁺ pro-tumor macrophages and PD-L1-dependent expulsion of T and B cells. IL-23 boosts the pro-tumor CCL9 effects through the elimination of adaptive T and B cells and innate immune NK cells (Kortlever et al., 2017). Blocking of CCL9 and IL-23 abrogates the lung tumor aggressiveness in KRAS/MYC-altered mice mainly by re-establishing a tumor-suppressive lung microenvironment (Kortlever et al., 2017).

TP53, encoding the tumor suppressive transcription factor p53, is not only the most frequently mutated genes in cancer but also across all types of lung cancer with mutations rates ranging from 46% in lung adenocarcinoma to over 90% in SCLC (Gibbons et al., 2014; George et al., 2015). TP53-mutant tumors show a distinct TME profile including increased PD-L1 expression and CD8⁺ T cell infiltration, which suggest an adaptive immune resistance and a high immunogenicity state (Dong et al., 2017b). The excess of TP53 mutations in lung cancer cells can also elevate NF-κB activity (Scian et al., 2005). Interestingly, enhanced activation of NF-κB suppresses p53-mediated gene activation and thereby promotes resistance to apoptosis in cancer cells (Webster and Perkins, 1999). Similar to KRAS mutations, TP53 mutation-mediated NF-κB activation has an additional, non-cell autonomous impact on the TME through the secretion of a variety of pro-tumor and immunosuppressive cytokines and chemokines (Figure 2B; Mantovani et al., 2019b). In KRAS-mutant lung cancer cells with TP53 co-mutations, increased NF-κB signaling conferred pro-survival signals to the cancer cells (Meylan et al., 2009). With regard to TME phenotype, KRAS/TP53 lung tumors are further characterized by increased expression of PD-L1 and a higher proportion of PD-L1⁺/CD8a⁺ T cells compared to KRAS or TP53 single mutation (Dong et al., 2017b). Moreover, TP53 mutations also directly impact on the protein secretion machinery itself (Pavlakis and Stiewe, 2020; Pavlakis et al., 2020). For example, TP53 inactivation in lung adenocarcinomas was found to activate progestin and adipoQ receptor 11 (PAQR11)-mediated prometastatic secretory vesicle biogenesis in the Golgi, resulting in the autocrine activation of a PLAU receptor/STAT3/PAQR11 feedforward signaling loop that triggers an immunosuppressive TME rich in effector/memory CD8⁺ T cells and M1 macrophages (Tan et al., 2021a). Similarly, TP53 loss induces Golgi reassembly and stacking protein 55 kD (G55)-dependent secretion that promotes angiogenesis and CD8⁺ T cell exhaustion (Tan et al., 2021b). Missense mutations in TP53 specifically induce the endoplasmic reticulum UDPase ENTPD5 that drives the calnexin/calreticulin cycle required for proper folding of secreted proteins (Vogiatzi et al., 2016). The loss of TP53 or the expression of mutant p53 proteins thereby acts at multiple non-cell-autonomous levels to blunt antitumor and promote tumor-supporting TME properties (Blagih et al., 2020).

Co-mutation of KRAS and the tumor suppressor LKB1, one of the most prevalent mutational combinations in lung tumor, is observed in about ~25% of KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinomas (Skoulidis et al., 2015). LKB1 is a serine-threonine kinase, which has important regulatory roles in cellular metabolism and energy stress response mainly through activating AMP kinase (AMPK) and AMPK-related family members (Marcus and Zhou, 2010). Hence, mutations in LKB1 have tremendous impact on energy and metabolic profiles of a stressed TME, wherein cancer cells and immune or stromal cells are subjected to metabolic alterations, limited nutrient availabilities, hypoxia, and pH disturbances (Zheng et al., 2020a). Mutational cooperation between LKB1 loss and KRAS activation leads to induction of the serine–glycine–one-carbon pathway in lung cancer cells which results in enhanced S-adenosyl methionine (SAM) synthesis as a critical substrate for DNA methylation. Upregulation of SAM leads to increased DNA methylation in lung cancer cells with KRAS/LKB1 co-mutations (Kottakis et al., 2016). Interestingly, extracellular serine within TME is essential for optimal T cell expansion through supplementation of glycine and one-carbon units for de novo nucleotide biosynthesis in proliferating T cells. Accordingly, upregulation of the serine–glycine–one-carbon pathway in LKB1 mutated cancer cells can deplete the serine level in the extracellular space and thereby regulate T cell proliferation and function (Ma et al., 2017). Furthermore, KRAS/LKB1 co-mutated lung tumors are characterized by an altered nitrogen metabolism. KRAS/LKB1-mutant lung cancer cells are more dependent on an unorthodox pathway of pyrimidine biosynthesis that utilizes mitochondrially generated carbamoyl phosphate through upregulation of carbamoyl phosphate synthetase-1 (CPS1; Kim et al., 2017). CPS1 allows the mutated cancer cells to become resistant to arginine depletion, which is a major strategy of pro-tumor macrophages and tumor-associated myeloid cells to inhibit antigen-specific T cell responses (Bronte and Zanovello, 2005). Along the same line, primary resistance to PD-1 based therapies in KRAS-mutant lung cancer patients is mainly associated with LKB1 alterations in cancer cells. Furthermore, the genetic ablation of Lkb1 also induces the resistance to anti–PD-1/anti–PD-L1 therapies in murine Kras-mutant lung cancer models (Skoulidis et al., 2018). Therefore, KRAS/LKB1 mutations in cancer cells not only establish a non-T cell, inflamed TME including reduced infiltration of CD3⁺, CD4⁺, CD8⁺ T cells and low expression of PD-1, but also help the cancer cells to cope with harsh conditions in the TME, when metabolites such as arginine become limited depending on the immune status (Figure 2D).

The mutational characteristics of cancer cells can shape the cellular composition of the TME, in particular the immune phenotype, but there is less attention paid to the fact that the immune components of the TME can vice versa modify the tumor genomic landscape. As tumorigenesis is an evolutionary process of clonal selection, cancer cell clones with strongly immunogenic neo-antigens are susceptible to recognition and elimination by immune cells at the early stages of tumor development. This can confer an evolutionary advantage to tumor development through the elimination of those clones with high antigenic mutations or aberrations (Figure 3). Simultaneously, other clones that manage to restrict neo-antigenic peptide presentation by MHC I molecules become invisible to the adaptive immune system and evade the anti-tumor immune response. Accordingly, the immune phenotype of the TME can shape the genomic landscape of tumor not only by detecting and eliminating immunogenic clones but also by promoting the outgrowth of clones that can evade immune responses. The important role of immune cells is underlined by the increased tumor susceptibility of immunodeficient mice compared to wild-type mice and the higher immunogenicity of cancer cells from immunodeficient mice (Koebel et al., 2007). Also, it has been documented that immunosuppressed transplant recipients with kidney failure developed secondary tumors after transplantation from undetected (occult) cancer of the organ donors (MacKie et al., 2003).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

More recently, Marty et al. developed the Patient harmonic-mean best rank (PHBR) score to predict the probability for a patient’s MHC I variants to bind to a peptide sequence containing the relevant residues which can be recognized by matching immune cells. In their model, low PHBR scores demonstrate a high likelihood of residue presentation (Marty et al., 2017). Interestingly, mutations in known oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes have higher PHBR scores than random mutations, which means less recognition probability by immune cells. Moreover, they could find a positive correlation between the PHBR score of any given mutation and the frequency of the mutation in tumors. Accordingly, an oncogenic mutation can acquire the high mutation frequency not only because of a cell-autonomous fitness benefit provided by the mutation but also due to poor presentation of the mutant peptide, which renders the mutations undetectable to the immune cells (Marty et al., 2017).

Furthermore, McGranahan et al. revealed that tumors with clonal loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in the HLA locus, the gene which encodes MHC I molecules, is associated with a high neoantigen burden, APOBEC-mediated mutagenesis and significantly elevated PD-L1-positive immune cells compared to tumors without any HLA LOH, suggesting that HLA LOH can be considered as an immune escape mechanism (McGranahan et al., 2017). The authors proposed that infiltration of immune cells, including CD8⁺ T cells, happens upon the accumulation of antigen/neoantigen within cancer cells. This immune infiltration creates a selection barrier for tumors by eliminating the clones with high antigen/neoantigen load. However, cancer cell subclones with HLA LOH may be positively selected based on their evasion capability from CD8⁺ T cell recognition (McGranahan et al., 2017).

Altogether, the development of the mutational landscape of cancer cells in the early stage of tumor development is tightly interconnected with the immune components of the TME. Although the immune component of TME can recognize and eliminate the clones with high antigen/neoantigen load, they eventually co-determine the genomic landscape of tumor by paving the way for the fitter clones with less immunogenic mutations (lower PHBR scores) or antigen presentation defects (high HLA LOH), which supports evasion from the immune response (Figure 3).

As outlined above, there is ample evidence to suggest that cytokine networks govern immune evasion and foster the development of immunosuppressive T cells and TAMs within the TME (Van Den Eeckhout et al., 2021; Van Den Eeckhout et al., 2020). However, it is still unclear how to tackle the TME cytokine milieu therapeutically in order to trigger strong and sustained antitumor responses in the majority of patients. A large and comprehensive survey of completed and ongoing clinical trials on cytokines and chemokines concluded that, with few exceptions in small numbers of patients, inhibiting or enhancing a single cytokine or chemokine pathway is unlikely to have sustained activity against advanced-stage cancer (Propper and Balkwill, 2022). Thus, while new pre-clinical and clinical results reinforce the idea that cytokines and chemokines should be targeted to reprogram the TME as outlined above, new strategies are needed for effective therapies.

With respect to the TME, it is important to consider the local concentrations of cytokines at time of diagnosis (and biopsy) and how they may change over time (during therapy). Many cytokines have natural antagonists and the ratios of agonists to antagonists will determine the TME phenotype. For example, the IL-1 family of cytokines (IL-1F) comprises seven proinflammatory receptor agonists (IL-1α/b, IL-18, IL-33, IL-36 α/β/γ) and four anti-inflammatory or antagonistic members (IL-1RA, IL-36Ra, IL-37, IL-38) (Teufel et al., 2022). Most cytokines regulate gene expression patterns in their target cells (Gaestel et al., 2009). It is therefore important to consider the cytokine-activated effects downstream of their receptors and the cell-to-cell heterogeneity of these effects within the TME in order to understand the outcome of systemic manipulations of individual cytokines or their neutralization in patients.

Towards this goal, we propose that it will be instrumental to determine the (epi)genetic profile of individual cells in the TME by combinatorial high-resolution approaches to map cell states and understand the regulatory diversity at the single cell and molecular levels (Shema et al., 2019). While the overall gene expression pattern of a population of (tumor) cells might appear stable, at the single-cell level gene expression occurs stochastically with individual genes undergoing cycles of bursts in activity and periods of inactivity (Misteli, 2020). This type of gene activity is closely linked to the different levels of 3D hierarchical genome organization within the nucleus (chromosomes, compartments, topologically-associating domains (TADs), DNA loops, nucleosome accessibility; reviewed in Finn and Misteli, 2019). High-throughput chromosome conformation capture (Hi-C) and high-throughput imaging assays can now be used to systematically map chromatin states of individual cells (Finn et al., 2019). Together with the multitude of next generation sequencing (NGS) techniques now available to measure mRNA expression and chromatin accessibility at single cell resolution, the genetic activities of individual cells can be precisely mapped (Kaya-Okur et al., 2019; Luecken and Theis, 2019; Meers et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2021). The basic concepts of these approaches are summarized in Figure 4.

Figure 4

Download asset Open asset

The application of multi-level single-cell NGS approaches will allow to track the genetically most active cells within the TME and to monitor their functional changes upon tumor progression or during therapy (Guruprasad et al., 2021; Longo et al., 2021; Shema et al., 2019). For example, in a recent study whole-exome and transcriptomic data for >1000 immune checkpoint inhibitor-treated patients across seven tumor types were combined with single-cell RNA-seq data from clonal neoantigen-reactive CD8⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), to identify CCR5 and CXCL13 as T cell-intrinsic markers of ICI sensitivity (Litchfield et al., 2021).

In the long-term, the NGS-based approaches should be complemented by advanced proteomic methods that allow to determine and quantify secreted proteins and proteins in body fluids, such as proximity extension assays (PEA) or adapted liquid chromatography mass spectrometry set ups (LC-MS/MS) (Geyer et al., 2019; Petrera et al., 2021). With respect to the importance of the activation status of the NF-κB system for the TME, proximity ligation assays (PLA) can be combined with immunofluorescence and single-molecule RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (smRNA-FISH) to monitor the flow of signal transduction, that is the formation of active NF-κB dimers and the nuclear translocation as well as the resulting expression of NF-κB target genes in single cells (Figure 5; Mayr-Buro et al., 2019; Meier-Soelch et al., 2021).

Figure 5

Download asset Open asset

In conclusion, the combined application of NGS and proteomics methods will allow to (i) deconvolute the main cellular sources of the altered cytokine milieu and (ii) quantify the entire spectrum of mediators that drive TME phenotypes as a prerequisite for much more precise targeted therapies.

Over the last decades, the conceptual picture of a tumor has shifted from a solid mass of tumor cells to a complex and dynamic micro-organ where genetically altered cancer cells are embedded into an interactive tumor microenvironment containing numerous non-transformed immune and stromal cell types. This conceptual shift introduces the mutational landscape of the cancer cells and the cellular architecture and phenotype of the TME as the two major determinants of tumor initiation, progression and metastasis. Based on the accumulated and emerging evidence, we propose that the fate of individual tumor subclones depends on how well the cancer cell’s genetic profile and the TME phenotype harmonize. While cancer cells require genomic instability to bring forth strong oncogenic drivers that enable aggressive proliferation, the neoantigens, generated in this process, render the cells vulnerable to immune attack. A balance between these opposing forces is required for optimal tumor growth and results from a mutual crosstalk in which the genetic alterations of the cancer cells induce immunosuppressive signals that shape a tumor-supportive TME, while the TME immune components edit the genetic profile of the tumor cells by depleting highly immunogenic subclones until a balance between the two processes is achieved.

In light of the key roles of cancer cell mutations and the TME phenotype during tumor evolution, integrating these two aspects for lung tumor stratification is expected to help anticipate primary and acquired therapy resistance, the key remaining obstacles to a long-term survival benefit under treatment with targeted and immunotherapy regimens. The main and immediate challenge for the integration of genetic landscape and TME phenotype is the heterogeneity of tumor tissues, which calls for spatially resolved single-cell analysis techniques. To address the TME phenotype and its heterogeneity, highly multiplexed imaging technologies and computational tools have been developed that can quantitatively and at single-cell resolution reveal the spatial distribution of tumor, immune and stromal cell components, their interactions and activity states in distinct tumor niches. While the mutational landscape is still primarily profiled by next generation sequencing of bulk tumor tissue, recent advances with single-cell genomics raise hope that tumor mutational status and TME phenotype can soon be better integrated in one framework for a refined classification of lung tumors that better informs clinical decision making for the benefit of long-term survival.

1. 1. Addeo A
   2. Friedlaender A
   3. Banna GL
   4. Weiss GJ

   (2021) TMB or not TMB as a biomarker: that is the question

   Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 163:103374.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103374

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Akbay EA
   2. Koyama S
   3. Carretero J
   4. Altabef A
   5. Tchaicha JH
   6. Christensen CL
   7. Mikse OR
   8. Cherniack AD
   9. Beauchamp EM
   10. Pugh TJ
   11. Wilkerson MD
   12. Fecci PE
   13. Butaney M
   14. Reibel JB
   15. Soucheray M
   16. Cohoon TJ
   17. Janne PA
   18. Meyerson M
   19. Hayes DN
   20. Shapiro GI
   21. Shimamura T
   22. Sholl LM
   23. Rodig SJ
   24. Freeman GJ
   25. Hammerman PS
   26. Dranoff G
   27. Wong K-K

   (2013) Activation of the PD-1 pathway contributes to immune escape in EGFR-driven lung tumors

   Cancer Discovery 3:1355–1363.

   https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0310

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Alexandrov LB
   2. Nik-Zainal S
   3. Wedge DC
   4. Aparicio SAJR
   5. Behjati S
   6. Biankin AV
   7. Bignell GR
   8. Bolli N
   9. Borg A
   10. Børresen-Dale A-L
   11. Boyault S
   12. Burkhardt B
   13. Butler AP
   14. Caldas C
   15. Davies HR
   16. Desmedt C
   17. Eils R
   18. Eyfjörd JE
   19. Foekens JA
   20. Greaves M
   21. Hosoda F
   22. Hutter B
   23. Ilicic T
   24. Imbeaud S
   25. Imielinski M
   26. Imielinsk M
   27. Jäger N
   28. Jones DTW
   29. Jones D
   30. Knappskog S
   31. Kool M
   32. Lakhani SR
   33. López-Otín C
   34. Martin S
   35. Munshi NC
   36. Nakamura H
   37. Northcott PA
   38. Pajic M
   39. Papaemmanuil E
   40. Paradiso A
   41. Pearson JV
   42. Puente XS
   43. Raine K
   44. Ramakrishna M
   45. Richardson AL
   46. Richter J
   47. Rosenstiel P
   48. Schlesner M
   49. Schumacher TN
   50. Span PN
   51. Teague JW
   52. Totoki Y
   53. Tutt ANJ
   54. Valdés-Mas R
   55. van Buuren MM
   56. van ’t Veer L
   57. Vincent-Salomon A
   58. Waddell N
   59. Yates LR
   60. Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative
   61. ICGC Breast Cancer Consortium
   62. ICGC MMML-Seq Consortium
   63. ICGC PedBrain
   64. Zucman-Rossi J
   65. Futreal PA
   66. McDermott U
   67. Lichter P
   68. Meyerson M
   69. Grimmond SM
   70. Siebert R
   71. Campo E
   72. Shibata T
   73. Pfister SM
   74. Campbell PJ
   75. Stratton MR

   (2013) Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer

   Nature 500:415–421.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12477

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Alfaro C
   2. Sanmamed MF
   3. Rodríguez-Ruiz ME
   4. Teijeira Á
   5. Oñate C
   6. González Á
   7. Ponz M
   8. Schalper KA
   9. Pérez-Gracia JL
   10. Melero I

   (2017) Interleukin-8 in cancer pathogenesis, treatment and follow-up

   Cancer Treatment Reviews 60:24–31.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.08.004

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Altea-Manzano P
   2. Cuadros AM
   3. Broadfield LA
   4. Fendt SM

   (2020) Nutrient metabolism and cancer in the in vivo context: a metabolic game of give and take

   EMBO Reports 21:e50635.

   https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202050635

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Archetti M
   2. Pienta KJ

   (2019) Cooperation among cancer cells: applying game theory to cancer

   Nature Reviews. Cancer 19:110–117.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-018-0083-7

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Baggiolini M

   (1998) Chemokines and leukocyte traffic

   Nature 392:565–568.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/33340

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Baghban R
   2. Roshangar L
   3. Jahanban-Esfahlan R
   4. Seidi K
   5. Ebrahimi-Kalan A
   6. Jaymand M
   7. Kolahian S
   8. Javaheri T
   9. Zare P

   (2020) Tumor microenvironment complexity and therapeutic implications at a glance

   Cell Communication and Signaling 18:59.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12964-020-0530-4

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Baud V
   2. Karin M

   (2009) Is NF-kappab a good target for cancer therapy? hopes and pitfalls

   Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 8:33–40.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2781

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Binnewies M
    2. Roberts EW
    3. Kersten K
    4. Chan V
    5. Fearon DF
    6. Merad M
    7. Coussens LM
    8. Gabrilovich DI
    9. Ostrand-Rosenberg S
    10. Hedrick CC
    11. Vonderheide RH
    12. Pittet MJ
    13. Jain RK
    14. Zou W
    15. Howcroft TK
    16. Woodhouse EC
    17. Weinberg RA
    18. Krummel MF

    (2018) Understanding the tumor immune microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy

    Nature Medicine 24:541–550.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0014-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Blagih J
    2. Buck MD
    3. Vousden KH

    (2020) P53, cancer and the immune response

    Journal of Cell Science 133:jcs237453.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.237453

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Bray F
    2. Ferlay J
    3. Soerjomataram I
    4. Siegel RL
    5. Torre LA
    6. Jemal A

    (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

    CA 68:394–424.

    https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Briukhovetska D
    2. Dörr J
    3. Endres S
    4. Libby P
    5. Dinarello CA
    6. Kobold S

    (2021) Interleukins in cancer: from biology to therapy

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 21:481–499.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-021-00363-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Bronte V
    2. Zanovello P

    (2005) Regulation of immune responses by L-arginine metabolism

    Nature Reviews. Immunology 5:641–654.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nri1668

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Brown JM
    2. Wilson WR

    (2004) Exploiting tumour hypoxia in cancer treatment

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 4:437–447.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1367

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Brown H
    2. Vansteenkiste J
    3. Nakagawa K
    4. Cobo M
    5. John T
    6. Barker C
    7. Kohlmann A
    8. Todd A
    9. Saggese M
    10. Chmielecki J
    11. Markovets A
    12. Scott M
    13. Ramalingam SS

    (2020) Programmed cell death ligand 1 expression in untreated EGFR mutated advanced NSCLC and response to osimertinib versus comparator in FLAURA

    Journal of Thoracic Oncology 15:138–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2019.09.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Budczies J
    2. Kirchner M
    3. Kluck K
    4. Kazdal D
    5. Glade J
    6. Allgäuer M
    7. Kriegsmann M
    8. Heußel CP
    9. Herth FJ
    10. Winter H
    11. Meister M
    12. Muley T
    13. Goldmann T
    14. Fröhling S
    15. Wermke M
    16. Waller CF
    17. Tufman A
    18. Reck M
    19. Peters S
    20. Schirmacher P
    21. Thomas M
    22. Christopoulos P
    23. Stenzinger A

    (2022) Deciphering the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in ALK- and EGFR-positive lung adenocarcinoma

    Cancer Immunology, Immunotherapy 71:251–265.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-021-02981-w

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Caetano MS
    2. Zhang H
    3. Cumpian AM
    4. Gong L
    5. Unver N
    6. Ostrin EJ
    7. Daliri S
    8. Chang SH
    9. Ochoa CE
    10. Hanash S
    11. Behrens C
    12. Wistuba II
    13. Sternberg C
    14. Kadara H
    15. Ferreira CG
    16. Watowich SS
    17. Moghaddam SJ

    (2016) IL6 blockade reprograms the lung tumor microenvironment to limit the development and progression of K-ras–mutant lung cancer

    Cancer Research 76:3189–3199.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-2840

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Cancer Genome Atlas Research N

    (2014) Comprehensive molecular profiling of lung adenocarcinoma

    Nature 511:543–550.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13385

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Carbone DP
    2. Reck M
    3. Paz-Ares L
    4. Creelan B
    5. Horn L
    6. Steins M
    7. Felip E
    8. van den Heuvel MM
    9. Ciuleanu TE
    10. Badin F
    11. Ready N
    12. Hiltermann TJN
    13. Nair S
    14. Juergens R
    15. Peters S
    16. Minenza E
    17. Wrangle JM
    18. Rodriguez-Abreu D
    19. Borghaei H
    20. Blumenschein GR
    21. Villaruz LC
    22. Havel L
    23. Krejci J
    24. Corral Jaime J
    25. Chang H
    26. Geese WJ
    27. Bhagavatheeswaran P
    28. Chen AC
    29. Socinski MA

    (2016) First-line nivolumab in stage IV or recurrent non–small-cell lung cancer

    New England Journal of Medicine 376:2415–2426.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613493

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Carmi Y
    2. Rinott G
    3. Dotan S
    4. Elkabets M
    5. Rider P
    6. Voronov E
    7. Apte RN

    (2011) Microenvironment-derived IL-1 and IL-17 interact in the control of lung metastasis

    Journal of Immunology 186:3462–3471.

    https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1002901

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Carmona-Fontaine C
    2. Deforet M
    3. Akkari L
    4. Thompson CB
    5. Joyce JA
    6. Xavier JB

    (2017) Metabolic origins of spatial organization in the tumor microenvironment

    PNAS 114:2934–2939.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1700600114

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Casanova-Acebes M
    2. Dalla E
    3. Leader AM
    4. LeBerichel J
    5. Nikolic J
    6. Morales BM
    7. Brown M
    8. Chang C
    9. Troncoso L
    10. Chen ST
    11. Sastre-Perona A
    12. Park MD
    13. Tabachnikova A
    14. Dhainaut M
    15. Hamon P
    16. Maier B
    17. Sawai CM
    18. Agulló-Pascual E
    19. Schober M
    20. Brown BD
    21. Reizis B
    22. Marron T
    23. Kenigsberg E
    24. Moussion C
    25. Benaroch P
    26. Aguirre-Ghiso JA
    27. Merad M

    (2021) Tissue-resident macrophages provide a pro-tumorigenic niche to early NSCLC cells

    Nature 595:578–584.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03651-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Chan TA
    2. Yarchoan M
    3. Jaffee E
    4. Swanton C
    5. Quezada SA
    6. Stenzinger A
    7. Peters S

    (2019) Development of tumor mutation burden as an immunotherapy biomarker: utility for the oncology clinic

    Annals of Oncology 30:44–56.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy495

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Chang SH
    2. Mirabolfathinejad SG
    3. Katta H
    4. Cumpian AM
    5. Gong L
    6. Caetano MS
    7. Moghaddam SJ
    8. Dong C

    (2014) T helper 17 cells play a critical pathogenic role in lung cancer

    PNAS 111:5664–5669.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319051111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Chen N
    2. Fang W
    3. Zhan J
    4. Hong S
    5. Tang Y
    6. Kang S
    7. Zhang Y
    8. He X
    9. Zhou T
    10. Qin T
    11. Huang Y
    12. Yi X
    13. Zhang L

    (2015) Upregulation of PD-L1 by EGFR activation mediates the immune escape in EGFR-driven NSCLC: implication for optional immune targeted therapy for NSCLC patients with EGFR mutation

    Journal of Thoracic Oncology 10:910–923.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000500

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Chonov DC
    2. Ignatova MMK
    3. Ananiev JR
    4. Gulubova MV

    (2019) IL-6 activities in the tumour microenvironment part 1

    Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences 7:2391–2398.

    https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2019.589

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Cohen I
    2. Idan C
    3. Rider P
    4. Peleg R
    5. Vornov E
    6. Elena V
    7. Tomas M
    8. Martin T
    9. Tudor C
    10. Cicerone T
    11. Wegner M
    12. Mareike W
    13. Brondani L
    14. Lydia B
    15. Freudenberg M
    16. Marina F
    17. Mittler G
    18. Gerhard M
    19. Ferrando-May E
    20. Elisa F-M
    21. Dinarello CA
    22. Apte RN
    23. Ron AN
    24. Schneider R
    25. Robert S

    (2015) IL-1α is a DNA damage sensor linking genotoxic stress signaling to sterile inflammation and innate immunity

    Scientific Reports 5:14756.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14756

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Crossman D
    2. Rothman AMK

    (2018) Interleukin-1 beta inhibition with canakinumab and reducing lung cancer-subset analysis of the canakinumab anti-inflammatory thrombosis outcome study trial (CANTOS)

    Journal of Thoracic Disease 10:S3084–S3087.

    https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2018.07.50

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Cullis J
    2. Das S
    3. Bar-Sagi D

    (2018) Kras and tumor immunity: friend or foe?

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 8:a031849.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a031849

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Dang CV
    2. O’Donnell KA
    3. Zeller KI
    4. Nguyen T
    5. Osthus RC
    6. Li F

    (2006) The c-myc target gene network

    Seminars in Cancer Biology 16:253–264.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2006.07.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Davoli T
    2. Uno H
    3. Wooten EC
    4. Elledge SJ

    (2017) Tumor aneuploidy correlates with markers of immune evasion and with reduced response to immunotherapy

    Science 355:eaaf8399.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf8399

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Dias Carvalho P
    2. Guimarães CF
    3. Cardoso AP
    4. Mendonça S
    5. Costa ÂM
    6. Oliveira MJ
    7. Velho S

    (2018) KRAS oncogenic signaling extends beyond cancer cells to orchestrate the microenvironment

    Cancer Research 78:7–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-2084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. DiDonato JA
    2. Mercurio F
    3. Karin M

    (2012) NF-κb and the link between inflammation and cancer

    Immunological Reviews 246:379–400.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-065X.2012.01099.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Dimitrakopoulos F-ID
    2. Kottorou AE
    3. Kalofonou M
    4. Kalofonos HP

    (2020) The fire within: NF-κb involvement in non-small cell lung cancer

    Cancer Research 80:4025–4036.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-3578

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Dinarello CA
    2. Simon A
    3. van der Meer JWM

    (2012) Treating inflammation by blocking interleukin-1 in a broad spectrum of diseases

    Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 11:633–652.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3800

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Dong ZY
    2. Zhang JT
    3. Liu SY
    4. Su J
    5. Zhang C
    6. Xie Z
    7. Zhou Q
    8. Tu HY
    9. Xu CR
    10. Yan LX
    11. Li YF
    12. Zhong WZ
    13. Wu YL

    (2017a) EGFR mutation correlates with uninflamed phenotype and weak immunogenicity, causing impaired response to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer

    Oncoimmunology 6:e1356145.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/2162402X.2017.1356145

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Dong ZY
    2. Zhong WZ
    3. Zhang XC
    4. Su J
    5. Xie Z
    6. Liu SY
    7. Tu HY
    8. Chen HJ
    9. Sun YL
    10. Zhou Q
    11. Yang JJ
    12. Yang XN
    13. Lin JX
    14. Yan HH
    15. Zhai HR
    16. Yan LX
    17. Liao RQ
    18. Wu SP
    19. Wu YL

    (2017b) Potential predictive value of tp53 and kras mutation status for response to PD-1 blockade immunotherapy in lung adenocarcinoma

    Clinical Cancer Research 23:3012–3024.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2554

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Duan Q
    2. Zhang H
    3. Zheng J
    4. Zhang L

    (2020) Turning cold into hot: firing up the tumor microenvironment

    Trends in Cancer 6:605–618.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trecan.2020.02.022

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Eluard B
    2. Thieblemont C
    3. Baud V

    (2020) NF-κb in the new era of cancer therapy

    Trends in Cancer 6:677–687.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trecan.2020.04.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Finco TS
    2. Westwick JK
    3. Norris JL
    4. Beg AA
    5. Der CJ
    6. Baldwin AS

    (1997) Oncogenic ha-ras-induced signaling activates NF-κb transcriptional activity, which is required for cellular transformation

    Journal of Biological Chemistry 272:24113–24116.

    https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.39.24113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Finn EH
    2. Misteli T

    (2019) Molecular basis and biological function of variability in spatial genome organization

    Science 365:eaaw9498.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw9498

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Finn EH
    2. Pegoraro G
    3. Brandão HB
    4. Valton AL
    5. Oomen ME
    6. Dekker J
    7. Mirny L
    8. Misteli T

    (2019) Extensive heterogeneity and intrinsic variation in spatial genome organization

    Cell 176:1502–1515.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.01.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Gabay M
    2. Li Y
    3. Felsher DW

    (2014) MYC activation is a hallmark of cancer initiation and maintenance

    Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 4:a014241.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a014241

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Gaestel M
    2. Kotlyarov A
    3. Kracht M

    (2009) Targeting innate immunity protein kinase signalling in inflammation

    Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 8:480–499.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2829

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Gao G
    2. Liao W
    3. Ma Q
    4. Zhang B
    5. Chen Y
    6. Wang Y

    (2020) KRAS G12D mutation predicts lower TMB and drives immune suppression in lung adenocarcinoma

    Lung Cancer 149:41–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.09.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Garlanda C
    2. Mantovani A

    (2021) Interleukin-1 in tumor progression, therapy, and prevention

    Cancer Cell 39:1023–1027.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2021.04.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. George J
    2. Lim JS
    3. Jang SJ
    4. Cun Y
    5. Ozretić L
    6. Kong G
    7. Leenders F
    8. Lu X
    9. Fernández-Cuesta L
    10. Bosco G
    11. Müller C
    12. Dahmen I
    13. Jahchan NS
    14. Park K-S
    15. Yang D
    16. Karnezis AN
    17. Vaka D
    18. Torres A
    19. Wang MS
    20. Korbel JO
    21. Menon R
    22. Chun S-M
    23. Kim D
    24. Wilkerson M
    25. Hayes N
    26. Engelmann D
    27. Pützer B
    28. Bos M
    29. Michels S
    30. Vlasic I
    31. Seidel D
    32. Pinther B
    33. Schaub P
    34. Becker C
    35. Altmüller J
    36. Yokota J
    37. Kohno T
    38. Iwakawa R
    39. Tsuta K
    40. Noguchi M
    41. Muley T
    42. Hoffmann H
    43. Schnabel PA
    44. Petersen I
    45. Chen Y
    46. Soltermann A
    47. Tischler V
    48. Choi C
    49. Kim Y-H
    50. Massion PP
    51. Zou Y
    52. Jovanovic D
    53. Kontic M
    54. Wright GM
    55. Russell PA
    56. Solomon B
    57. Koch I
    58. Lindner M
    59. Muscarella LA
    60. la Torre A
    61. Field JK
    62. Jakopovic M
    63. Knezevic J
    64. Castaños-Vélez E
    65. Roz L
    66. Pastorino U
    67. Brustugun O-T
    68. Lund-Iversen M
    69. Thunnissen E
    70. Köhler J
    71. Schuler M
    72. Botling J
    73. Sandelin M
    74. Sanchez-Cespedes M
    75. Salvesen HB
    76. Achter V
    77. Lang U
    78. Bogus M
    79. Schneider PM
    80. Zander T
    81. Ansén S
    82. Hallek M
    83. Wolf J
    84. Vingron M
    85. Yatabe Y
    86. Travis WD
    87. Nürnberg P
    88. Reinhardt C
    89. Perner S
    90. Heukamp L
    91. Büttner R
    92. Haas SA
    93. Brambilla E
    94. Peifer M
    95. Sage J
    96. Thomas RK

    (2015) Comprehensive genomic profiles of small cell lung cancer

    Nature 524:47–53.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14664

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Geyer PE
    2. Voytik E
    3. Treit PV
    4. Doll S
    5. Kleinhempel A
    6. Niu L
    7. Müller JB
    8. Buchholtz M-L
    9. Bader JM
    10. Teupser D
    11. Holdt LM
    12. Mann M

    (2019) Plasma proteome profiling to detect and avoid sample-related biases in biomarker studies

    EMBO Molecular Medicine 11:e10427.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/emmm.201910427

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Gibbons DL
    2. Byers LA
    3. Kurie JM

    (2014) Smoking, p53 mutation, and lung cancer

    Molecular Cancer Research 12:3–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-13-0539

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Greaves M
    2. Maley CC

    (2012) Clonal evolution in cancer

    Nature 481:306–313.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10762

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Guruprasad P
    2. Lee YG
    3. Kim KH
    4. Ruella M

    (2021) The current landscape of single-cell transcriptomics for cancer immunotherapy

    The Journal of Experimental Medicine 218:e20201574.

    https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20201574

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Hanahan D
    2. Weinberg RA

    (2000) The hallmarks of cancer

    Cell 100:57–70.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81683-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Hanahan D
    2. Weinberg RA

    (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation

    Cell 144:646–674.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Harada A
    2. Sekido N
    3. Akahoshi T
    4. Wada T
    5. Mukaida N
    6. Matsushima K

    (1994) Essential involvement of interleukin-8 (IL-8) in acute inflammation

    Journal of Leukocyte Biology 56:559–564.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/jlb.56.5.559

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Hardin G

    (1968) The tragedy of the commons

    Science 162:1243–1248.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.162.3859.1243

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Hellmann MD
    2. Ciuleanu T-E
    3. Pluzanski A
    4. Lee JS
    5. Otterson GA
    6. Audigier-Valette C
    7. Minenza E
    8. Linardou H
    9. Burgers S
    10. Salman P
    11. Borghaei H
    12. Ramalingam SS
    13. Brahmer J
    14. Reck M
    15. O’Byrne KJ
    16. Geese WJ
    17. Green G
    18. Chang H
    19. Szustakowski J
    20. Bhagavatheeswaran P
    21. Healey D
    22. Fu Y
    23. Nathan F
    24. Paz-Ares L

    (2018) Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in lung cancer with a high tumor mutational burden

    The New England Journal of Medicine 378:2093–2104.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801946

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Helmlinger G
    2. Yuan F
    3. Dellian M
    4. Jain RK

    (1997) Interstitial ph and po2 gradients in solid tumors in vivo: high-resolution measurements reveal a lack of correlation

    Nature Medicine 3:177–182.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm0297-177

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Holland AJ
    2. Cleveland DW

    (2009) Boveri revisited: chromosomal instability, aneuploidy and tumorigenesis

    Nature Reviews. Molecular Cell Biology 10:478–487.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm2718

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Hsu KH
    2. Tseng JS
    3. Yang TY
    4. Chen KC
    5. Su KY
    6. Yu SL
    7. Chen JJW
    8. Huang YH
    9. Chang GC

    (2022) PD-L1 strong expressions affect the clinical outcomes of osimertinib in treatment naïve advanced EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer patients

    Scientific Reports 12:9753.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-13102-7

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Huang L
    2. Guo Z
    3. Wang F
    4. Fu L

    (2021) KRAS mutation: from undruggable to druggable in cancer

    Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 6:386.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-021-00780-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Iwai Y
    2. Hamanishi J
    3. Chamoto K
    4. Honjo T

    (2017) Cancer immunotherapies targeting the PD-1 signaling pathway

    Journal of Biomedical Science 24:26.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-017-0329-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Janiszewska M
    2. Polyak K

    (2015) Clonal evolution in cancer: a tale of twisted twines

    Cell Stem Cell 16:11–12.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.12.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Jia Y
    2. Li X
    3. Jiang T
    4. Zhao S
    5. Zhao C
    6. Zhang L
    7. Liu X
    8. Shi J
    9. Qiao M
    10. Luo J
    11. Liu S
    12. Han R
    13. Su C
    14. Ren S
    15. Zhou C

    (2019) EGFR-targeted therapy alters the tumor microenvironment in EGFR-driven lung tumors: implications for combination therapies

    International Journal of Cancer 145:1432–1444.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.32191

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Jones GS
    2. Baldwin DR

    (2018) Recent advances in the management of lung cancer

    Clinical Medicine 18:s41–s46.

    https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.18-2-s41

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Joneson T
    2. White MA
    3. Wigler MH
    4. Bar-Sagi D

    (1996) Stimulation of membrane ruffling and MAP kinase activation by distinct effectors of RAS

    Science 271:810–812.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.271.5250.810

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Jordan EJ
    2. Kim HR
    3. Arcila ME
    4. Barron D
    5. Chakravarty D
    6. Gao J
    7. Chang MT
    8. Ni A
    9. Kundra R
    10. Jonsson P
    11. Jayakumaran G
    12. Gao SP
    13. Johnsen HC
    14. Hanrahan AJ
    15. Zehir A
    16. Rekhtman N
    17. Ginsberg MS
    18. Li BT
    19. Yu HA
    20. Paik PK
    21. Drilon A
    22. Hellmann MD
    23. Reales DN
    24. Benayed R
    25. Rusch VW
    26. Kris MG
    27. Chaft JE
    28. Baselga J
    29. Taylor BS
    30. Schultz N
    31. Rudin CM
    32. Hyman DM
    33. Berger MF
    34. Solit DB
    35. Ladanyi M
    36. Riely GJ

    (2017) Prospective comprehensive molecular characterization of lung adenocarcinomas for efficient patient matching to approved and emerging therapies

    Cancer Discovery 7:596–609.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-16-1337

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Joyce JA
    2. Pollard JW

    (2009) Microenvironmental regulation of metastasis

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 9:239–252.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2618

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Jurida L
    2. Soelch J
    3. Bartkuhn M
    4. Handschick K
    5. Müller H
    6. Newel D
    7. Weber A
    8. Dittrich-Breiholz O
    9. Schneider H
    10. Bhuju S
    11. Saul VV
    12. Schmitz ML
    13. Kracht M

    (2015) The activation of IL-1-induced enhancers depends on TAK1 kinase activity and NF-κb p65

    Cell Reports 10:726–739.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.01.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Kaplanov I
    2. Carmi Y
    3. Kornetsky R
    4. Shemesh A
    5. Shurin GV
    6. Shurin MR
    7. Dinarello CA
    8. Voronov E
    9. Apte RN

    (2019) Blocking IL-1β reverses the immunosuppression in mouse breast cancer and synergizes with anti-PD-1 for tumor abrogation

    PNAS 116:1361–1369.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1812266115

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Katopodi T
    2. Petanidis S
    3. Domvri K
    4. Zarogoulidis P
    5. Anestakis D
    6. Charalampidis C
    7. Tsavlis D
    8. Bai C
    9. Huang H
    10. Freitag L
    11. Hohenforst-Schmidt W
    12. Matthaios D
    13. Porpodis K

    (2021) Kras-driven intratumoral heterogeneity triggers infiltration of M2 polarized macrophages via the circhipk3/PTK2 immunosuppressive circuit

    Scientific Reports 11:15455.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94671-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Kaya-Okur HS
    2. Wu SJ
    3. Codomo CA
    4. Pledger ES
    5. Bryson TD
    6. Henikoff JG
    7. Ahmad K
    8. Henikoff S

    (2019) CUT&tag for efficient epigenomic profiling of small samples and single cells

    Nature Communications 10:1930.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09982-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Kerr KM
    2. Bibeau F
    3. Thunnissen E
    4. Botling J
    5. Ryška A
    6. Wolf J
    7. Öhrling K
    8. Burdon P
    9. Malapelle U
    10. Büttner R

    (2021) The evolving landscape of biomarker testing for non-small cell lung cancer in europe

    Lung Cancer 154:161–175.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2021.02.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Kim BY
    2. Gaynor RB
    3. Song K
    4. Dritschilo A
    5. Jung M

    (2002) Constitutive activation of NF-kappab in ki-ras-transformed prostate epithelial cells

    Oncogene 21:4490–4497.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1205547

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Kim B
    2. Lee Y
    3. Kim E
    4. Kwak A
    5. Ryoo S
    6. Bae SH
    7. Azam T
    8. Kim S
    9. Dinarello CA

    (2013) The interleukin-1α precursor is biologically active and is likely a key alarmin in the IL-1 family of cytokines

    Frontiers in Immunology 4:391.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2013.00391

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Kim J
    2. Hu Z
    3. Cai L
    4. Li K
    5. Choi E
    6. Faubert B
    7. Bezwada D
    8. Rodriguez-Canales J
    9. Villalobos P
    10. Lin Y-F
    11. Ni M
    12. Huffman KE
    13. Girard L
    14. Byers LA
    15. Unsal-Kacmaz K
    16. Peña CG
    17. Heymach JV
    18. Wauters E
    19. Vansteenkiste J
    20. Castrillon DH
    21. Chen BPC
    22. Wistuba I
    23. Lambrechts D
    24. Xu J
    25. Minna JD
    26. DeBerardinis RJ

    (2017) CPS1 maintains pyrimidine pools and DNA synthesis in KRAS/LKB1-mutant lung cancer cells

    Nature 546:168–172.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22359

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Klein CA

    (2009) Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases

    Nature Reviews. Cancer 9:302–312.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2627

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Koebel CM
    2. Vermi W
    3. Swann JB
    4. Zerafa N
    5. Rodig SJ
    6. Old LJ
    7. Smyth MJ
    8. Schreiber RD

    (2007) Adaptive immunity maintains occult cancer in an equilibrium state

    Nature 450:903–907.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06309

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Kortlever RM
    2. Sodir NM
    3. Wilson CH
    4. Burkhart DL
    5. Pellegrinet L
    6. Brown Swigart L
    7. Littlewood TD
    8. Evan GI

    (2017) Myc cooperates with ras by programming inflammation and immune suppression

    Cell 171:1301–1315.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Kottakis F
    2. Nicolay BN
    3. Roumane A
    4. Karnik R
    5. Gu H
    6. Nagle JM
    7. Boukhali M
    8. Hayward MC
    9. Li YY
    10. Chen T
    11. Liesa M
    12. Hammerman PS
    13. Wong KK
    14. Hayes DN
    15. Shirihai OS
    16. Dyson NJ
    17. Haas W
    18. Meissner A
    19. Bardeesy N

    (2016) LKB1 loss links serine metabolism to DNA methylation and tumorigenesis

    Nature 539:390–395.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20132

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Le HK
    2. Graham L
    3. Cha E
    4. Morales JK
    5. Manjili MH
    6. Bear HD

    (2009) Gemcitabine directly inhibits myeloid derived suppressor cells in BALB/c mice bearing 4T1 mammary carcinoma and augments expansion of T cells from tumor-bearing mice

    International Immunopharmacology 9:900–909.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intimp.2009.03.015

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Litchfield K
    2. Reading JL
    3. Puttick C
    4. Thakkar K
    5. Abbosh C
    6. Bentham R
    7. Watkins TBK
    8. Rosenthal R
    9. Biswas D
    10. Rowan A
    11. Lim E
    12. Al Bakir M
    13. Turati V
    14. Guerra-Assunção JA
    15. Conde L
    16. Furness AJS
    17. Saini SK
    18. Hadrup SR
    19. Herrero J
    20. Lee SH
    21. Van Loo P
    22. Enver T
    23. Larkin J
    24. Hellmann MD
    25. Turajlic S
    26. Quezada SA
    27. McGranahan N
    28. Swanton C

    (2021) Meta-analysis of tumor- and T cell-intrinsic mechanisms of sensitization to checkpoint inhibition

    Cell 184:596–614.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Liu X
    2. Wang P
    3. Zhang C
    4. Ma Z

    (2017) Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR): A rising star in the era of precision medicine of lung cancer

    Oncotarget 8:50209–50220.

    https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.16854

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. Longo SK
    2. Guo MG
    3. Ji AL
    4. Khavari PA

    (2021) Integrating single-cell and spatial transcriptomics to elucidate intercellular tissue dynamics

    Nature Reviews. Genetics 22:627–644.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-021-00370-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. Luecken MD
    2. Theis FJ

    (2019) Current best practices in single-cell RNA-seq analysis: a tutorial

    Molecular Systems Biology 15:e8746.

    https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20188746

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
86. 1. Ma EH
    2. Bantug G
    3. Griss T
    4. Condotta S
    5. Johnson RM
    6. Samborska B
    7. Mainolfi N
    8. Suri V
    9. Guak H
    10. Balmer ML
    11. Verway MJ
    12. Raissi TC
    13. Tsui H
    14. Boukhaled G
    15. Henriques da Costa S
    16. Frezza C
    17. Krawczyk CM
    18. Friedman A
    19. Manfredi M
    20. Richer MJ
    21. Hess C
    22. Jones RG

    (2017) Serine is an essential metabolite for effector T cell expansion

    Cell Metabolism 25:482.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2017.01.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. MacKie RM
    2. Reid R
    3. Junor B

    (2003) Fatal melanoma transferred in a donated kidney 16 years after melanoma surgery

    The New England Journal of Medicine 348:567–568.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200302063480620

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Malhotra J
    2. Jabbour SK
    3. Aisner J

    (2017) Current state of immunotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer

    Translational Lung Cancer Research 6:196–211.

    https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2017.03.01

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Malik A
    2. Kanneganti TD

    (2018) Function and regulation of IL-1α in inflammatory diseases and cancer

    Immunological Reviews 281:124–137.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/imr.12615

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Mangan MSJ
    2. Olhava EJ
    3. Roush WR
    4. Seidel HM
    5. Glick GD
    6. Latz E

    (2018) Targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome in inflammatory diseases

    Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery 17:588–606.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2018.97

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Mantovani F
    2. Collavin L
    3. Del Sal G

    (2019a) Mutant p53 as a guardian of the cancer cell

    Cell Death and Differentiation 26:199–212.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41418-018-0246-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Mantovani A
    2. Dinarello CA
    3. Molgora M
    4. Garlanda C

    (2019b) Interleukin-1 and related cytokines in the regulation of inflammation and immunity

    Immunity 50:778–795.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2019.03.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Marabelle A
    2. Fakih M
    3. Lopez J
    4. Shah M
    5. Shapira-Frommer R
    6. Nakagawa K
    7. Chung HC
    8. Kindler HL
    9. Lopez-Martin JA
    10. Miller WH Jr
    11. Italiano A
    12. Kao S
    13. Piha-Paul SA
    14. Delord J-P
    15. McWilliams RR
    16. Fabrizio DA
    17. Aurora-Garg D
    18. Xu L
    19. Jin F
    20. Norwood K
    21. Bang Y-J

    (2020) Association of tumour mutational burden with outcomes in patients with advanced solid tumours treated with pembrolizumab: prospective biomarker analysis of the multicohort, open-label, phase 2 KEYNOTE-158 study

    The Lancet. Oncology 21:1353–1365.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30445-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Marcus AI
    2. Zhou W

    (2010) LKB1 regulated pathways in lung cancer invasion and metastasis

    Journal of Thoracic Oncology 5:1883–1886.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181fbc28a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Marcus L
    2. Fashoyin-Aje LA
    3. Donoghue M
    4. Yuan M
    5. Rodriguez L
    6. Gallagher PS
    7. Philip R
    8. Ghosh S
    9. Theoret MR
    10. Beaver JA
    11. Pazdur R
    12. Lemery SJ

    (2021) FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for the treatment of tumor mutational burden-high solid tumors

    Clinical Cancer Research 27:4685–4689.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-0327

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. Marty R
    2. Kaabinejadian S
    3. Rossell D
    4. Slifker MJ
    5. van de Haar J
    6. Engin HB
    7. de Prisco N
    8. Ideker T
    9. Hildebrand WH
    10. Font-Burgada J
    11. Carter H

    (2017) MHC-I genotype restricts the oncogenic mutational landscape

    Cell 171:1272–1283.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Mayr-Buro C
    2. Schlereth E
    3. Beuerlein K
    4. Tenekeci U
    5. Meier-Soelch J
    6. Schmitz ML
    7. Kracht M

    (2019) Single-cell analysis of multiple steps of dynamic NF-κb regulation in interleukin-1α-triggered tumor cells using proximity ligation assays

    Cancers 11:E1199.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11081199

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. McGranahan N
    2. Rosenthal R
    3. Hiley CT
    4. Rowan AJ
    5. Watkins TBK
    6. Wilson GA
    7. Birkbak NJ
    8. Veeriah S
    9. Van Loo P
    10. Herrero J
    11. Swanton C
    12. TRACERx Consortium

    (2017) Allele-specific HLA loss and immune escape in lung cancer evolution

    Cell 171:1259–1271.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.10.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. McGranahan N
    2. Swanton C

    (2017) Clonal heterogeneity and tumor evolution: past, present, and the future

    Cell 168:613–628.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Meers MP
     2. Bryson TD
     3. Henikoff JG
     4. Henikoff S

     (2019) Improved CUT&RUN chromatin profiling tools

     eLife 8:e46314.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.46314

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Meier-Soelch J
     2. Mayr-Buro C
     3. Juli J
     4. Leib L
     5. Linne U
     6. Dreute J
     7. Papantonis A
     8. Schmitz ML
     9. Kracht M

     (2021) Monitoring the levels of cellular NF-κB activation states

     Cancers 13:5351.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13215351

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Merlo LMF
     2. Pepper JW
     3. Reid BJ
     4. Maley CC

     (2006) Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process

     Nature Reviews. Cancer 6:924–935.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2013

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Meylan E
     2. Dooley AL
     3. Feldser DM
     4. Shen L
     5. Turk E
     6. Ouyang C
     7. Jacks T

     (2009) Requirement for NF-κb signalling in a mouse model of lung adenocarcinoma

     Nature 462:104–107.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08462

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Minguet J
     2. Smith KH
     3. Bramlage P

     (2016) Targeted therapies for treatment of non-small cell lung cancer--recent advances and future perspectives

     International Journal of Cancer 138:2549–2561.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.29915

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Misteli T

     (2020) The self-organizing genome: principles of genome architecture and function

     Cell 183:28–45.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.09.014

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Montesion M
     2. Murugesan K
     3. Jin DX
     4. Sharaf R
     5. Sanchez N
     6. Guria A
     7. Minker M
     8. Li G
     9. Fisher V
     10. Sokol ES
     11. Pavlick DC
     12. Moore JA
     13. Braly A
     14. Singal G
     15. Fabrizio D
     16. Comment LA
     17. Rizvi NA
     18. Alexander BM
     19. Frampton GM
     20. Hegde PS
     21. Albacker LA

     (2021) Somatic HLA class I loss is a widespread mechanism of immune evasion which refines the use of tumor mutational burden as a biomarker of checkpoint inhibitor response

     Cancer Discovery 11:282–292.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-20-0672

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Natoli G
     2. Saccani S
     3. Bosisio D
     4. Marazzi I

     (2005) Interactions of NF-kappab with chromatin: the art of being at the right place at the right time

     Nature Immunology 6:439–445.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/ni1196

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Nelson CM
     2. Bissell MJ

     (2006) Of extracellular matrix, scaffolds, and signaling: tissue architecture regulates development, homeostasis, and cancer

     Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 22:287–309.

     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.22.010305.104315

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Nowell PC

     (1976) The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations

     Science 194:23–28.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.959840

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Oeckinghaus A
     2. Ghosh S

     (2009) The NF-kappab family of transcription factors and its regulation

     Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 1:a000034.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a000034

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. O’Toole A
     2. Michielsen AJ
     3. Nolan B
     4. Tosetto M
     5. Sheahan K
     6. Mulcahy HE
     7. Winter DC
     8. Hyland JM
     9. O’Connell PR
     10. Fennelly D
     11. O’Donoghue D
     12. O’Sullivan J
     13. Doherty GA
     14. Ryan EJ

     (2014) Tumour microenvironment of both early- and late-stage colorectal cancer is equally immunosuppressive

     British Journal of Cancer 111:927–932.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.367

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Pavlakis E
     2. Neumann M
     3. Stiewe T

     (2020) Extracellular vesicles: messengers of p53 in tumor-stroma communication and cancer metastasis

     International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21:E9648.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21249648

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Pavlakis E
     2. Stiewe T

     (2020) P53’s extended reach: the mutant p53 secretome

     Biomolecules 10:E307.

     https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10020307

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Petrera A
     2. von Toerne C
     3. Behler J
     4. Huth C
     5. Thorand B
     6. Hilgendorff A
     7. Hauck SM

     (2021) Multiplatform approach for plasma proteomics: complementarity of olink proximity extension assay technology to mass spectrometry-based protein profiling

     Journal of Proteome Research 20:751–762.

     https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.0c00641

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Propper DJ
     2. Balkwill FR

     (2022) Harnessing cytokines and chemokines for cancer therapy

     Nature Reviews. Clinical Oncology 19:237–253.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-021-00588-9

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Rider P
     2. Carmi Y
     3. Voronov E
     4. Apte RN

     (2013) Interleukin-1alpha

     Seminars in Immunology 25:430–438.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smim.2013.10.005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Ridker PM
     2. Everett BM
     3. Thuren T
     4. MacFadyen JG
     5. Chang WH
     6. Ballantyne C
     7. Fonseca F
     8. Nicolau J
     9. Koenig W
     10. Anker SD
     11. Kastelein JJP
     12. Cornel JH
     13. Pais P
     14. Pella D
     15. Genest J
     16. Cifkova R
     17. Lorenzatti A
     18. Forster T
     19. Kobalava Z
     20. Vida-Simiti L
     21. Flather M
     22. Shimokawa H
     23. Ogawa H
     24. Dellborg M
     25. Rossi PRF
     26. Troquay RPT
     27. Libby P
     28. Glynn RJ
     29. CANTOS Trial Group

     (2017a) Antiinflammatory therapy with canakinumab for atherosclerotic disease

     The New England Journal of Medicine 377:1119–1131.

     https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1707914

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Ridker PM
     2. MacFadyen JG
     3. Thuren T
     4. Everett BM
     5. Libby P
     6. Glynn RJ
     7. Group CT

     (2017b) Effect of interleukin-1β inhibition with canakinumab on incident lung cancer in patients with atherosclerosis: exploratory results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

     Lancet 390:1833–1842.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32247-X

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Ritzmann F
     2. Jungnickel C
     3. Vella G
     4. Kamyschnikow A
     5. Herr C
     6. Li D
     7. Menger MM
     8. Angenendt A
     9. Hoth M
     10. Lis A
     11. Bals R
     12. Beisswenger C

     (2019) IL-17C-mediated innate inflammation decreases the response to PD-1 blockade in a model of kras-driven lung cancer

     Scientific Reports 9:10353.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46759-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. 1. Rizvi NA
     2. Hellmann MD
     3. Snyder A
     4. Kvistborg P
     5. Makarov V
     6. Havel JJ
     7. Lee W
     8. Yuan J
     9. Wong P
     10. Ho TS
     11. Miller ML
     12. Rekhtman N
     13. Moreira AL
     14. Ibrahim F
     15. Bruggeman C
     16. Gasmi B
     17. Zappasodi R
     18. Maeda Y
     19. Sander C
     20. Garon EB
     21. Merghoub T
     22. Wolchok JD
     23. Schumacher TN
     24. Chan TA

     (2015) Cancer immunology mutational landscape determines sensitivity to PD-1 blockade in non-small cell lung cancer

     Science 348:124–128.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1348

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Robert C

     (2020) A decade of immune-checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy

     Nature Communications 11:3801.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17670-y

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Russo RC
     2. Garcia CC
     3. Teixeira MM
     4. Amaral FA

     (2014) The CXCL8/IL-8 chemokine family and its receptors in inflammatory diseases

     Expert Review of Clinical Immunology 10:593–619.

     https://doi.org/10.1586/1744666X.2014.894886

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Salazar Y
     2. Zheng X
     3. Brunn D
     4. Raifer H
     5. Picard F
     6. Zhang Y
     7. Winter H
     8. Guenther S
     9. Weigert A
     10. Weigmann B
     11. Dumoutier L
     12. Renauld J-C
     13. Waisman A
     14. Schmall A
     15. Tufman A
     16. Fink L
     17. Brüne B
     18. Bopp T
     19. Grimminger F
     20. Seeger W
     21. Pullamsetti SS
     22. Huber M
     23. Savai R

     (2020) Microenvironmental th9 and th17 lymphocytes induce metastatic spreading in lung cancer

     The Journal of Clinical Investigation 130:3560–3575.

     https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI124037

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Sarode P
     2. Zheng X
     3. Giotopoulou GA
     4. Weigert A
     5. Kuenne C
     6. Günther S
     7. Friedrich A
     8. Gattenlöhner S
     9. Stiewe T
     10. Brüne B
     11. Grimminger F
     12. Stathopoulos GT
     13. Pullamsetti SS
     14. Seeger W
     15. Savai R

     (2020) Reprogramming of tumor-associated macrophages by targeting β-catenin/FOSL2/ARID5A signaling: A potential treatment of lung cancer

     Science Advances 6:eaaz6105.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz6105

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Schietinger A
     2. Philip M
     3. Krisnawan VE
     4. Chiu EY
     5. Delrow JJ
     6. Basom RS
     7. Lauer P
     8. Brockstedt DG
     9. Knoblaugh SE
     10. Hämmerling GJ
     11. Schell TD
     12. Garbi N
     13. Greenberg PD

     (2016) Tumor-specific T cell dysfunction is a dynamic antigen-driven differentiation program initiated early during tumorigenesis

     Immunity 45:389–401.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2016.07.011

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Schreiber RD
     2. Old LJ
     3. Smyth MJ

     (2011) Cancer immunoediting: integrating immunity’s roles in cancer suppression and promotion

     Science 331:1565–1570.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1203486

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Scian MJ
     2. Stagliano KER
     3. Anderson MAE
     4. Hassan S
     5. Bowman M
     6. Miles MF
     7. Deb SP
     8. Deb S

     (2005) Tumor-derived p53 mutants induce NF-kappab2 gene expression

     Molecular and Cellular Biology 25:10097–10110.

     https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.25.22.10097-10110.2005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Shackelford DB
     2. Abt E
     3. Gerken L
     4. Vasquez DS
     5. Seki A
     6. Leblanc M
     7. Wei L
     8. Fishbein MC
     9. Czernin J
     10. Mischel PS
     11. Shaw RJ

     (2013) LKB1 inactivation dictates therapeutic response of non-small cell lung cancer to the metabolism drug phenformin

     Cancer Cell 23:143–158.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2012.12.008

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Shema E
     2. Bernstein BE
     3. Buenrostro JD

     (2019) Single-cell and single-molecule epigenomics to uncover genome regulation at unprecedented resolution

     Nature Genetics 51:19–25.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-018-0290-x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Siegel RL
     2. Miller KD
     3. Jemal A

     (2019) Cancer statistics, 2019

     CA 69:7–34.

     https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Siegel RL
     2. Miller KD
     3. Fuchs HE
     4. Jemal A

     (2021) Cancer statistics, 2021

     CA 71:7–33.

     https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21654

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
132. 1. Skoulidis F
     2. Byers LA
     3. Diao L
     4. Papadimitrakopoulou VA
     5. Tong P
     6. Izzo J
     7. Behrens C
     8. Kadara H
     9. Parra ER
     10. Canales JR
     11. Zhang J
     12. Giri U
     13. Gudikote J
     14. Cortez MA
     15. Yang C
     16. Fan Y
     17. Peyton M
     18. Girard L
     19. Coombes KR
     20. Toniatti C
     21. Heffernan TP
     22. Choi M
     23. Frampton GM
     24. Miller V
     25. Weinstein JN
     26. Herbst RS
     27. Wong KK
     28. Zhang J
     29. Sharma P
     30. Mills GB
     31. Hong WK
     32. Minna JD
     33. Allison JP
     34. Futreal A
     35. Wang J
     36. Wistuba II
     37. Heymach JV

     (2015) Co-occurring genomic alterations define major subsets of KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma with distinct biology, immune profiles, and therapeutic vulnerabilities

     Cancer Discovery 5:860–877.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-14-1236

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
133. 1. Skoulidis F
     2. Goldberg ME
     3. Greenawalt DM
     4. Hellmann MD
     5. Awad MM
     6. Gainor JF
     7. Schrock AB
     8. Hartmaier RJ
     9. Trabucco SE
     10. Gay L

     (2018) STK11/LKB1 mutations and PD-1 inhibitor resistance in KRAS-mutant lung adenocarcinoma

     Cancer Discovery 8:822–835.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0099

     • Google Scholar
134. 1. Skoulidis F
     2. Heymach JV

     (2019) Co-occurring genomic alterations in non-small-cell lung cancer biology and therapy

     Nature Reviews. Cancer 19:495–509.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0179-8

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
135. 1. Snyder A
     2. Makarov V
     3. Merghoub T
     4. Yuan J
     5. Zaretsky JM
     6. Desrichard A
     7. Walsh LA
     8. Postow MA
     9. Wong P
     10. Ho TS
     11. Hollmann TJ
     12. Bruggeman C
     13. Kannan K
     14. Li Y
     15. Elipenahli C
     16. Liu C
     17. Harbison CT
     18. Wang L
     19. Ribas A
     20. Wolchok JD
     21. Chan TA

     (2014) Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma

     The New England Journal of Medicine 371:2189–2199.

     https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1406498

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
136. 1. Sparmann A
     2. Bar-Sagi D

     (2004) Ras-induced interleukin-8 expression plays a critical role in tumor growth and angiogenesis

     Cancer Cell 6:447–458.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2004.09.028

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
137. 1. Sui H
     2. Ma N
     3. Wang Y
     4. Li H
     5. Liu X
     6. Su Y
     7. Yang J

     (2018) Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: toward personalized medicine and combination strategies

     Journal of Immunology Research 2018:6984948.

     https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6984948

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
138. 1. Sun R
     2. Hu Z
     3. Curtis C

     (2018) Big bang tumor growth and clonal evolution

     Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine 8:a028381.

     https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a028381

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
139. 1. Tan X
     2. Banerjee P
     3. Shi L
     4. Xiao GY
     5. Rodriguez BL
     6. Grzeskowiak CL
     7. Liu X
     8. Yu J
     9. Gibbons DL
     10. Russell WK
     11. Creighton CJ
     12. Kurie JM

     (2021a) P53 loss activates prometastatic secretory vesicle biogenesis in the golgi

     Science Advances 7:eabf4885.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf4885

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
140. 1. Tan X
     2. Shi L
     3. Banerjee P
     4. Liu X
     5. Guo HF
     6. Yu J
     7. Bota-Rabassedas N
     8. Rodriguez BL
     9. Gibbons DL
     10. Russell WK
     11. Creighton CJ
     12. Kurie JM

     (2021b) A protumorigenic secretory pathway activated by p53 deficiency in lung adenocarcinoma

     The Journal of Clinical Investigation 131:137186.

     https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI137186

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
141. 1. Taniguchi K
     2. Karin M

     (2018) NF-κb, inflammation, immunity and cancer: coming of age

     Nature Reviews. Immunology 18:309–324.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nri.2017.142

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
142. 1. Taylor AM
     2. Shih J
     3. Ha G
     4. Gao GF
     5. Zhang X
     6. Berger AC
     7. Schumacher SE
     8. Wang C
     9. Hu H
     10. Liu J
     11. Lazar AJ
     12. Cherniack AD
     13. Beroukhim R
     14. Meyerson M
     15. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network

     (2018) Genomic and functional approaches to understanding cancer aneuploidy

     Cancer Cell 33:676–689.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2018.03.007

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
143. 1. Teufel LU
     2. Arts RJW
     3. Netea MG
     4. Dinarello CA
     5. Joosten LAB

     (2022) IL-1 family cytokines as drivers and inhibitors of trained immunity

     Cytokine 150:155773.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2021.155773

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
144. 1. Travis WD

     (2012) Update on small cell carcinoma and its differentiation from squamous cell carcinoma and other non-small cell carcinomas

     Modern Pathology 25 Suppl 1:S18–S30.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2011.150

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
145. 1. Travis WD
     2. Brambilla E
     3. Nicholson AG
     4. Yatabe Y
     5. Austin JHM
     6. Beasley MB
     7. Chirieac LR
     8. Dacic S
     9. Duhig E
     10. Flieder DB
     11. Geisinger K
     12. Hirsch FR
     13. Ishikawa Y
     14. Kerr KM
     15. Noguchi M
     16. Pelosi G
     17. Powell CA
     18. Tsao MS
     19. Wistuba I
     20. WHO Panel

     (2015) The 2015 world health organization classification of lung tumors: impact of genetic, clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification

     Journal of Thoracic Oncology 10:1243–1260.

     https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0000000000000630

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
146. 1. Van Den Eeckhout B
     2. Tavernier J
     3. Gerlo S

     (2020) Interleukin-1 as innate mediator of T cell immunity

     Frontiers in Immunology 11:621931.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2020.621931

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
147. 1. Van Den Eeckhout B
     2. Huyghe L
     3. Van Lint S
     4. Burg E
     5. Plaisance S
     6. Peelman F
     7. Cauwels A
     8. Uzé G
     9. Kley N
     10. Gerlo S
     11. Tavernier J

     (2021) Selective IL-1 activity on CD8⁺ T cells empowers antitumor immunity and synergizes with neovasculature-targeted TNF for full tumor eradication

     Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer 9:e003293.

     https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2021-003293

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
148. 1. Villalobos P
     2. Wistuba II

     (2017) Lung cancer biomarkers

     Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 31:13–29.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2016.08.006

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
149. 1. Vogiatzi F
     2. Brandt DT
     3. Schneikert J
     4. Fuchs J
     5. Grikscheit K
     6. Wanzel M
     7. Pavlakis E
     8. Charles JP
     9. Timofeev O
     10. Nist A
     11. Mernberger M
     12. Kantelhardt EJ
     13. Siebolts U
     14. Bartel F
     15. Jacob R
     16. Rath A
     17. Moll R
     18. Grosse R
     19. Stiewe T

     (2016) Mutant p53 promotes tumor progression and metastasis by the endoplasmic reticulum udpase ENTPD5

     PNAS 113:E8433–E8442.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1612711114

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
150. 1. Voronov E
     2. Apte RN

     (2017) Targeting the tumor microenvironment by intervention in interleukin-1 biology

     Current Pharmaceutical Design 23:4893–4905.

     https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612823666170613080919

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
151. 1. Weber A
     2. Wasiliew P
     3. Kracht M

     (2010) Interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway

     Science Signaling 3:cm1.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/scisignal.3105cm1

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
152. 1. Webster GA
     2. Perkins ND

     (1999) Transcriptional cross talk between NF-kappab and p53

     Molecular and Cellular Biology 19:3485–3495.

     https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.19.5.3485

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
153. 1. Werman A
     2. Werman-Venkert R
     3. White R
     4. Lee JK
     5. Werman B
     6. Krelin Y
     7. Voronov E
     8. Dinarello CA
     9. Apte RN

     (2004) The precursor form of IL-1alpha is an intracrine proinflammatory activator of transcription

     PNAS 101:2434–2439.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0308705101

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
154. 1. Wislez M
     2. Fujimoto N
     3. Izzo JG
     4. Hanna AE
     5. Cody DD
     6. Langley RR
     7. Tang H
     8. Burdick MD
     9. Sato M
     10. Minna JD
     11. Mao L
     12. Wistuba I
     13. Strieter RM
     14. Kurie JM

     (2006) High expression of ligands for chemokine receptor CXCR2 in alveolar epithelial neoplasia induced by oncogenic kras

     Cancer Research 66:4198–4207.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-3842

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
155. 1. Wolter S
     2. Doerrie A
     3. Weber A
     4. Schneider H
     5. Hoffmann E
     6. von der Ohe J
     7. Bakiri L
     8. Wagner EF
     9. Resch K
     10. Kracht M

     (2008) C-jun controls histone modifications, NF-kappab recruitment, and RNA polymerase II function to activate the ccl2 gene

     Molecular and Cellular Biology 28:4407–4423.

     https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.00535-07

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
156. 1. Wong CC
     2. Baum J
     3. Silvestro A
     4. Beste MT
     5. Bharani-Dharan B
     6. Xu S
     7. Wang YA
     8. Wang X
     9. Prescott MF
     10. Krajkovich L
     11. Dugan M
     12. Ridker PM
     13. Martin A-M
     14. Svensson EC

     (2020) Inhibition of il1β by canakinumab may be effective against diverse molecular subtypes of lung cancer: an exploratory analysis of the CANTOS trial

     Cancer Research 80:5597–5605.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-3176

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
157. 1. Wu Y-L
     2. Tsuboi M
     3. He J
     4. John T
     5. Grohe C
     6. Majem M
     7. Goldman JW
     8. Laktionov K
     9. Kim S-W
     10. Kato T
     11. Vu H-V
     12. Lu S
     13. Lee K-Y
     14. Akewanlop C
     15. Yu C-J
     16. de Marinis F
     17. Bonanno L
     18. Domine M
     19. Shepherd FA
     20. Zeng L
     21. Hodge R
     22. Atasoy A
     23. Rukazenkov Y
     24. Herbst RS

     (2020) Osimertinib in resected egfr -mutated non–small-cell lung cancer

     New England Journal of Medicine 383:1711–1723.

     https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2027071

     • Google Scholar
158. 1. Wu SJ
     2. Furlan SN
     3. Mihalas AB
     4. Kaya-Okur HS
     5. Feroze AH
     6. Emerson SN
     7. Zheng Y
     8. Carson K
     9. Cimino PJ
     10. Keene CD
     11. Sarthy JF
     12. Gottardo R
     13. Ahmad K
     14. Henikoff S
     15. Patel AP

     (2021) Single-cell CUT&tag analysis of chromatin modifications in differentiation and tumor progression

     Nature Biotechnology 39:819–824.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-021-00865-z

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
159. 1. Xian S
     2. Dosset M
     3. Almanza G
     4. Searles S
     5. Sahani P
     6. Waller TC
     7. Jepsen K
     8. Carter H
     9. Zanetti M

     (2021) The unfolded protein response links tumor aneuploidy to local immune dysregulation

     EMBO Reports 22:e52509.

     https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202152509

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
160. 1. Yang Z
     2. Schooling CM
     3. Kwok MK

     (2021) Mendelian randomization study of interleukin (IL)-1 family and lung cancer

     Scientific Reports 11:17606.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-97099-5

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
161. 1. Zhang Q
     2. Lenardo MJ
     3. Baltimore D

     (2017) 30 years of NF-κb: A blossoming of relevance to human pathobiology

     Cell 168:37–57.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.12.012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
162. 1. Zheng X
     2. Turkowski K
     3. Mora J
     4. Brüne B
     5. Seeger W
     6. Weigert A
     7. Savai R

     (2017) Redirecting tumor-associated macrophages to become tumoricidal effectors as a novel strategy for cancer therapy

     Oncotarget 8:48436–48452.

     https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.17061

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
163. 1. Zheng X
     2. Mansouri S
     3. Krager A
     4. Grimminger F
     5. Seeger W
     6. Pullamsetti SS
     7. Wheelock CE
     8. Savai R

     (2020a) Metabolism in tumour-associated macrophages: a quid pro quo with the tumour microenvironment

     European Respiratory Review 29:200134.

     https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0134-2020

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
164. 1. Zheng X
     2. Weigert A
     3. Reu S
     4. Guenther S
     5. Mansouri S
     6. Bassaly B
     7. Gattenlöhner S
     8. Grimminger F
     9. Pullamsetti S
     10. Seeger W
     11. Winter H
     12. Savai R

     (2020b) Spatial density and distribution of tumor-associated macrophages predict survival in non-small cell lung carcinoma

     Cancer Research 80:4414–4425.

     https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-0069

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
165. 1. Zhu J
     2. Zhang T
     3. Li J
     4. Lin J
     5. Liang W
     6. Huang W
     7. Wan N
     8. Jiang J

     (2019) Association between tumor mutation burden (TMB) and outcomes of cancer patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitions: A meta-analysis

     Frontiers in Pharmacology 10:673.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.00673

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
166. 1. Ziesché E
     2. Kettner-Buhrow D
     3. Weber A
     4. Wittwer T
     5. Jurida L
     6. Soelch J
     7. Müller H
     8. Newel D
     9. Kronich P
     10. Schneider H
     11. Dittrich-Breiholz O
     12. Bhaskara S
     13. Hiebert SW
     14. Hottiger MO
     15. Li H
     16. Burstein E
     17. Schmitz ML
     18. Kracht M

     (2013) The coactivator role of histone deacetylase 3 in IL-1-signaling involves deacetylation of p65 NF-κb

     Nucleic Acids Research 41:90–109.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks916

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
167. 1. Zou XL
     2. Li XB
     3. Ke H
     4. Zhang GY
     5. Tang Q
     6. Yuan J
     7. Zhou CJ
     8. Zhang JL
     9. Zhang R
     10. Chen WY

     (2021) Prognostic value of neoantigen load in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer

     Frontiers in Immunology 12:689076.

     https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2021.689076

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Siavash Mansouri

   1. Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany
   2. Institute for Lung Health (ILH), Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0493-5084

2. Daniel Heylmann

   Rudolf Buchheim Institute of Pharmacology, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8335-2313

3. Thorsten Stiewe

   1. Institute for Lung Health (ILH), Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
   2. Institute of Molecular Oncology, Marburg, Germany
   3. Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Giessen, Germany
   4. Universities of Giessen and Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), Giessen, Germany

   Contribution

   Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0134-7826

4. Michael Kracht

   1. Rudolf Buchheim Institute of Pharmacology, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
   2. Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Giessen, Germany
   3. Universities of Giessen and Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), Giessen, Germany
   4. Member of the Cardio-Pulmonary Institute (CPI), Frankfurt, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Preparation and editing of figures

   Contributed equally with

   Rajkumar Savai

   For correspondence

   michael.kracht@pharma.med.uni-giessen.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8501-043X

5. Rajkumar Savai

   1. Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, Bad Nauheim, Germany
   2. Institute for Lung Health (ILH), Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany
   3. Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Giessen, Germany
   4. Universities of Giessen and Marburg Lung Center (UGMLC), Giessen, Germany
   5. Member of the Cardio-Pulmonary Institute (CPI), Frankfurt, Germany
   6. Frankfurt Cancer Institute (FCI), Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Preparation and editing of figures

   Contributed equally with

   Michael Kracht

   For correspondence

   1. rajkumar.savai@mpi-bn.mpg.de
   2. savai.rajkumar@innere.med.uni-giessen.de

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1538-2091

• 1,793

  views

• 375

  downloads

• 9

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.