10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 3 ,   4 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 3 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 10 , 10 , 10 , 2 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 22 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 1 , 2 , 2 , 25
      Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
      BMJ Publishing Group
      oncology, immunology, tumours, randomised trials, HLA

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          To compare the clinical efficacy of New York Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-1 (NY-ESO-1) vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in a randomized, double-blind phase II study in participants with fully resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence.

          Methods

          Participants with resected stage IIc, IIIb, IIIc and IV melanoma expressing NY-ESO-1 were randomized to treatment with three doses of NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX or ISCOMATRIX adjuvant administered intramuscularly at 4-week intervals, followed by a further dose at 6 months. Primary endpoint was the proportion free of relapse at 18 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and two per-protocol populations. Secondary endpoints included relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), safety and NY-ESO-1 immunity.

          Results

          The ITT population comprised 110 participants, with 56 randomized to NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX and 54 to ISCOMATRIX alone. No significant toxicities were observed. There were no differences between the study arms in relapses at 18 months or for median time to relapse; 139 vs 176 days (p=0.296), or relapse rate, 27 (48.2%) vs 26 (48.1%) (HR 0.913; 95% CI 0.402 to 2.231), respectively. RFS and OS were similar between the study arms. Vaccine recipients developed strong positive antibody responses to NY-ESO-1 (p≤0.0001) and NY-ESO-1-specific CD4 + and CD8 + responses. Biopsies following relapse did not demonstrate differences in NY-ESO-1 expression between the study populations although an exploratory study demonstrated reduced (NY-ESO-1) +/Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) class I + double-positive cells in biopsies from vaccine recipients performed on relapse in 19 participants.

          Conclusions

          The vaccine was well tolerated, however, despite inducing antigen-specific immunity, it did not affect survival endpoints. Immune escape through the downregulation of NY-ESO-1 and/or HLA class I molecules on tumor may have contributed to relapse.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Integrated NY-ESO-1 antibody and CD8+ T-cell responses correlate with clinical benefit in advanced melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab.

          Ipilimumab, a monoclonal antibody against cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), has been shown to improve survival in patients with advanced metastatic melanoma. It also enhances immunity to NY-ESO-1, a cancer/testis antigen expressed in a subset of patients with melanoma. To characterize the association between immune response and clinical outcome, we first analyzed NY-ESO-1 serum antibody by ELISA in 144 ipilimumab-treated patients with melanoma and found 22 of 140 (16%) seropositive at baseline and 31 of 144 (22%) seropositive following treatment. These NY-ESO-1-seropositive patients had a greater likelihood of experiencing clinical benefit 24 wk after ipilimumab treatment than NY-ESO-1-seronegative patients (P = 0.02, relative risk = 1.8, two-tailed Fisher test). To understand why some patients with NY-ESO-1 antibody failed to experience clinical benefit, we analyzed NY-ESO-1-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell responses by intracellular multicytokine staining in 20 NY-ESO-1-seropositive patients and found a surprising dissociation between NY-ESO-1 antibody and CD8 responses in some patients. NY-ESO-1-seropositive patients with associated CD8(+) T cells experienced more frequent clinical benefit (10 of 13; 77%) than those with undetectable CD8(+) T-cell response (one of seven; 14%; P = 0.02; relative risk = 5.4, two-tailed Fisher test), as well as a significant survival advantage (P = 0.01; hazard ratio = 0.2, time-dependent Cox model). Together, our data suggest that integrated NY-ESO-1 immune responses may have predictive value for ipilimumab treatment and argue for prospective studies in patients with established NY-ESO-1 immunity. The current findings provide a strong rationale for the clinical use of modulators of immunosuppression with concurrent approaches to favor tumor antigen-specific immune responses, such as vaccines or adoptive transfer, in patients with cancer.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A panel of MHC class I restricted viral peptides for use as a quality control for vaccine trial ELISPOT assays.

            Vaccines in general and HIV vaccines in particular are focusing ever more on the induction of cellular immunity specifically the generation of cytotoxic T cells (CTL). As progress is made towards developing a safe and effective HIV vaccine, there is a need for a robust, sensitive and reproducible assay to evaluate vaccine-induced cellular immunogenicity in Phase II/III trials. The enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay fits these criteria and is a technology that is readily transferable and amenable to high-through-put screening. There is a need for reagents that can be used as positive controls and for optimizing and standardizing the assay. We selected a panel of 23 8-11 mer Influenza virus (Flu), Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein Barr virus (EBV) epitopes recognized by CD8 positive T cells and presented by 11 class I HLA-A and HLA-B alleles whose cumulative frequencies represent >100% of Caucasian individuals. We examined interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) secretion in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) incubated with the peptides using a modified ELISPOT assay. IFN-gamma secretion was detected in 15/17 (88%) HIV-1 seronegative and 14/20 (70%) HIV-1 seropositive individuals. Release of IFN-gamma in response to the pool of peptides was CD8+ T cell mediated and HLA restricted. In vitro stimulation of PBMC with individual peptides or the pool of peptides led to the expansion of T cells capable of killing target cells expressing the appropriate viral antigen in a CTL assay. The size, shape and appearance of the spots produced using this peptide panel provided a standard for the establishment of acceptance criteria of spots for the evaluation of ELISPOT plates using an automated reader system.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Recombinant NY-ESO-1 protein with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant induces broad integrated antibody and CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cell responses in humans.

              NY-ESO-1 is a "cancer-testis" antigen expressed in many cancers. ISCOMATRIX is a saponin-based adjuvant that induces antibody and T cell responses. We performed a placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of recombinant NY-ESO-1 protein with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant. Forty-six evaluable patients with resected NY-ESO-1-positive tumors received three doses of vaccine intramuscularly at monthly intervals. The vaccine was well tolerated. We observed high-titer antibody responses, strong delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions, and circulating CD8(+) and CD4(+) T cells specific for a broad range of NY-ESO-1 epitopes, including known and previously unknown epitopes. In an unplanned analysis, vaccinated patients appeared to have superior clinical outcomes to those treated with placebo or protein alone. The vaccine is safe and highly potent immunologically.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Immunother Cancer
                J Immunother Cancer
                jitc
                jitc
                Journal for Immunotherapy of Cancer
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2051-1426
                2020
                20 April 2020
                : 8
                : 1
                : e000410
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentCancer Immunobiology Programme , Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University at Austin Health , Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
                [2 ]Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Austin Branch , Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
                [3 ]departmentOncology , Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust , London, UK
                [4 ]Melanoma Institute Australia , North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
                [5 ]Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School , Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
                [6 ]departmentMelanona and Skin Service , Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [7 ]departmentCancer Services Division , Princess Alexandra Hospital Health Service District , Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
                [8 ]departmentOncology Services Unit , Princess Alexandra Hospital Health Service District , Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia
                [9 ]departmentMRC Human Immunology Unit, Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine , John Radcliffe Hospital , Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
                [10 ]departmentSchool of Biological Sciences and Maurice Wilkins Centre , The University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                [11 ]departmentDepartment of Anatomical Pathology , Austin Health , Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
                [12 ]departmentSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology , Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital , Nedlands, Western Australia, Australia
                [13 ]departmentMount Vernon Cancer Centre , Mount Vernon Hospital , Northwood, London, UK
                [14 ]departmentSchool of Medicine and Health Science , The University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                [15 ]departmentMelanoma Immunology and Oncology Group , Centenary Institute , Newtown, New South Wales, Australia
                [16 ]departmentInstitute of Cancer Sciences , University of Glasgow , Glasgow, UK
                [17 ]departmentSchool of Cancer Sciences , University of Southampton Faculty of Medicine , Southampton, Hampshire, UK
                [18 ]University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust , Birmingham, UK
                [19 ]departmentCell and Molecular Sciences, Division of Oncology , St Georges Hospital Medical School , London, UK
                [20 ]departmentWest Anglia Cancer Research Network Oncology Centre , Addenbrooke's Hospital , Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK
                [21 ]departmentThe Cancer Research Centre , Weston Park Hospital , Sheffield, UK
                [22 ]Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research , New York, New York, USA
                [23 ]Versagenics Inc , Morrisville, North Carolina, USA
                [24 ]CSL Limited , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                [25 ]departmentBiochemistry and Genetics , La Trobe University , Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Jonathan S Cebon; j.cebon@ 123456onjcri.org.au
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3898-950X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2816-2496
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9066-8244
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8908-6071
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6105-9039
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8333-8685
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9626-2600
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3305-9768
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3064-737X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4175-914X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3619-1657
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4875-7021
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7086-4096
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5329-280X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5221-9771
                Article
                jitc-2019-000410
                10.1136/jitc-2019-000410
                7204806
                32317292
                0bc5cf46-8f60-43ac-8f77-bc7f266b2829
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 03 March 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000884, Cancer Research Institute;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009729, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research;
                Categories
                Clinical/Translational Cancer Immunotherapy
                1506
                2435
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                oncology,immunology,tumours,randomised trials,hla
                oncology, immunology, tumours, randomised trials, hla

                Comments

                Comment on this article