BACKGROUND Somatic mutations have the potential to encode “non-self” immunogenic antigens. We hypothesized that tumors with a large number of somatic mutations due to mismatch-repair defects may be susceptible to immune checkpoint blockade. METHODS We conducted a phase 2 study to evaluate the clinical activity of pembrolizumab, an anti–programmed death 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, in 41 patients with progressive metastatic carcinoma with or without mismatch-repair deficiency. Pembrolizumab was administered intravenously at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 14 days in patients with mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancers, patients with mismatch repair–proficient colorectal cancers, and patients with mismatch repair–deficient cancers that were not colorectal. The coprimary end points were the immune-related objective response rate and the 20-week immune-related progression-free survival rate. RESULTS The immune-related objective response rate and immune-related progression-free survival rate were 40% (4 of 10 patients) and 78% (7 of 9 patients), respectively, for mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancers and 0% (0 of 18 patients) and 11% (2 of 18 patients) for mismatch repair–proficient colorectal cancers. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were not reached in the cohort with mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer but were 2.2 and 5.0 months, respectively, in the cohort with mismatch repair–proficient colorectal cancer (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.10 [P<0.001], and hazard ratio for death, 0.22 [P = 0.05]). Patients with mismatch repair–deficient noncolorectal cancer had responses similar to those of patients with mismatch repair–deficient colorectal cancer (immune-related objective response rate, 71% [5 of 7 patients]; immune-related progression-free survival rate, 67% [4 of 6 patients]). Whole-exome sequencing revealed a mean of 1782 somatic mutations per tumor in mismatch repair–deficient tumors, as compared with 73 in mismatch repair–proficient tumors (P = 0.007), and high somatic mutation loads were associated with prolonged progression-free survival (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS This study showed that mismatch-repair status predicted clinical benefit of immune checkpoint blockade with pembrolizumab. (Funded by Johns Hopkins University and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01876511.)
Allogeneic GM-CSF-secreting tumor vaccines are safe in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. This vaccine approach seems to induce dose-dependent systemic antitumor immunity as measured by increased postvaccination DTH responses against autologous tumors. Further clinical evaluation of this approach in patients with pancreatic cancer is warranted.
Purpose: The combination of chemotherapy and immunotherapy has not been examined in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.We conducted a study of two granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor^secreting pancreatic cancer cell lines (CG8020/CG2505) as immunotherapy administered alone or in sequence with cyclophosphamide in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Experimental Design: This was an open-label study with two cohorts: cohort A, 30 patients administered a maximum of six doses of CG8020/CG2505 at 21-day intervals; and cohort B, 20 patients administered 250 mg/m 2 of cyclophosphamide i.v.1day before the same immunotherapy given as in cohort A. The primary objective was to evaluate safety and duration of immunity. Secondary objectives included time to disease progression and median overall survival. Results: The administration of CG8020/CG2505 alone or in sequence with cyclophosphamide showed minimal treatment-related toxicity. Median survival values in cohort A and cohort B were 2.3 and 4.3 months, respectively. CD8 + T-cell responses to HLA class I^restricted mesothelin epitopes were identified predominantly in patients treated with cyclophosphamide + CG8020/ CG2505 immunotherapy. Conclusion: Granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor^secreting pancreatic cancer cell lines CG8020/CG2505 alone or in sequence with cyclophosphamide showed minimal treatment-related toxicity in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Also, mesothelin-specific T-cell responses were detected/enhanced in some patients treated with CG8020/CG2505 immunotherapy. In addition, cyclophosphamide-modulated immunotherapy resulted in median survival in a gemcitabine-resistant population similar to chemotherapy alone. These findings support additional investigation of cyclophosphamide with CG8020/CG2505 immunotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.
A B S T R A C T PurposeGranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) -secreting tumor vaccines have demonstrated bioactivity but may be limited by disease burdens and immune tolerance. We tested the hypothesis that cyclophosphamide (CY) and doxorubicin (DOX) can enhance vaccine-induced immunity in patients with breast cancer. Patients and MethodsWe conducted a 3 ϫ 3 factorial (response surface) dose-ranging study of CY, DOX, and an HER2-positive, allogeneic, GM-CSF-secreting tumor vaccine in 28 patients with metastatic breast cancer. Patients received three monthly immunizations, with a boost 6 to 8 months from study entry. Primary objectives included safety and determination of the chemotherapy doses that maximize HER2-specific immunity. Results Twenty ConclusionFirst, immunotherapy with an allogeneic, HER2-positive, GM-CSF-secreting breast tumor vaccine alone or with CY and DOX is safe and induces HER2-specific immunity in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Second, the immunomodulatory activity of low-dose CY has a narrow therapeutic window, with an optimal dose not exceeding 200 mg/m 2 . Third, factorial designs provide an opportunity to identify the most active combination of interacting drugs in patients. Further investigation of the impact of chemotherapy on vaccine-induced immunity is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.