| Literature DB >> 22565484 |
Jürgen C Becker1, Mads H Andersen, Valeska Hofmeister-Müller, Marion Wobser, Lidia Frey, Christiane Sandig, Steffen Walter, Harpreet Singh-Jasuja, Eckhart Kämpgen, Andreas Opitz, Marc Zapatka, Eva-B Bröcker, Per Thor Straten, David Schrama, Selma Ugurel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapeutic vaccination directed to induce an anti-tumoral T-cell response is a field of extensive investigation in the treatment of melanoma. However, many vaccination trials in melanoma failed to demonstrate a correlation between the vaccine-specific immune response and therapy outcome. This has been mainly attributed to immune escape by antigen loss, rendering us in the need of new vaccination targets. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase-II trial investigated a peptide vaccination against survivin, an oncogenic inhibitor-of-apoptosis protein crucial for the survival of tumor cells, in HLA-A1/-A2/-B35-positive patients with treatment-refractory stage-IV metastatic melanoma. The study endpoints were survivin-specific T-cell reactivity (SSTR), safety, response, and survival (OS).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22565484 PMCID: PMC3493663 DOI: 10.1007/s00262-012-1266-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother ISSN: 0340-7004 Impact factor: 6.968
Patient characteristics at enrollment, treatment efficacy, and outcome
| ITT 61 (100.0 %) | PP 55 (100.0 %) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 39 (63.9 %) | 35 (63.6 %) |
| Female | 22 (36.1 %) | 20 (36.4 %) |
| Median age/years (range) | 62.5 (28.4–82.7) | 61.3 (28.4–82.7) |
| HLA typea | ||
| A1 | 20 (32.8 %) | 19 (34.5 %) |
| A2 | 42 (68.9 %) | 32 (58.2 %) |
| B35 | 15 (24.6 %) | 15 (27.3 %) |
| Serum LDH | ||
| ≤UNL | 38 (62.3 %) | 37 (67.3 %) |
| >UNL | 23 (37.7 %) | 18 (32.7 %) |
| Performance status (ECOG) | ||
| 0 | 45 (73.8 %) | 44 (80.0 %) |
| 1 | 12 (19.7 %) | 10 (18.2 %) |
| 2 | 4 (6.5 %) | 1 (1.8 %) |
| M category (AJCC) | ||
| M1a | 6 (9.8 %) | 6 (10.9 %) |
| M1b | 9 (14.8 %) | 9 (16.4 %) |
| M1c | 46 (75.4 %) | 40 (72.7 %) |
| Inflammatory reaction at vaccination sites | ||
| Yes | 18 (29.5 %) | 18 (32.7 %) |
| No | 43 (70.5 %) | 37 (67.3 %) |
| Survivin-specific T-cell reactivity (SSTR)b | ||
| Positive | 13 (21.3 %) | 13 (23.6 %) |
| Negative | 31 (50.8 %) | 28 (50.9 %) |
| Not assessed | 17 (27.9 %) | 14 (25.5 %) |
| Best overall responsec | ||
| CR | 1 (1.6 %) | 1 (1.8 %) |
| PR | 3 (4.9 %) | 3 (5.5 %) |
| SD | 7 (11.5 %) | 7 (12.7 %) |
| PD | 50 (82.0 %) | 44 (80.0 %) |
| Objective response (CR + PR) | 4 (6.6 %) | 4 (7.3 %) |
| Progression arrest (CR + PR + SD) | 11 (18.0 %) | 11 (20.0 %) |
| Median progression-free survival months (95 % CI)d | 2.8 (2.2–3.9) | 3.0 (2.4–4.1) |
| Median overall survival months (95 % CI)d | 9.1 (6.1–11.3) | 9.8 (6.4–11.9) |
ITT intention-to-treat, PP per-protocol, LDH lactate dehydrogenase, UNL upper normal limit, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, AJCC American Joint Committee on Cancer, CR complete response, PR partial response, SD stable disease, PD progressive disease, CI confidence interval
aMultiple entries possible
bSurvivin-specific T-cell reactivities (SSTR) were quantified by ELISPOT as described in "Patients and methods" and classified as positive or negative as described in “Results”
cBest overall response was defined as the best tumor response recorded from the start of treatment until removal of the patient from the trial
dSurvival was measured from the date of first vaccination until the date of death or disease progression, respectively
Fig. 1Schematic presentation of the study flow (CONSORT diagram). ITT intention-to-treat, PP per-protocol
Fig. 2Survivin-specific T-cell reactivities (SSTR) of the per-protocol population (55 patients) as detected by ELISPOT, diagramed by a vaccination regimens; b patients’ HLA type; c patients’ gender; d M category according to AJCC criteria; e best overall response grouped as progression arrest (CR + PR + SD) and progression (PD); and f inflammatory reaction at the vaccination sites. Patients demonstrating a positive detection of SSTR at at least one time point during the first 16 weeks of ongoing vaccination were defined positive (green bars); patients without this reactivity were considered negative (red bars). Fisher’s exact test was used to compare T-cell reactivities between groups; p values are provided above the corresponding bars
Fig. 3Vaccination-induced CD8+ T cells recognize the modified and wild-type HLA-A2-restricted survivin epitopes. PBMCs drawn from a HLA-A2+ patient before (left panels) and after 8 weeks (right panels) of vaccination in Regimen I were incubated with the modified survivin peptide LMLGEFLKL, the wild-type survivin peptide LTLGEFLKL, and the HIV-derived peptide ILKEPVHGV as negative control. Cells were stained with the HLA multimers HIV (A*0201-ILKEPVHGV) and wild-type survivin (A*0201-LTLGEFLKL) (a) or with HLA multimers HIV and modified survivin (A*0201-LMLGEFLKL) (b). Cells were analyzed by flow cytometry and gated on live CD8+ CD3+ lymphocytes
Characteristics of patients with progression arrest
| Sex | Age (years) | Localization of primary melanoma | Stage (AJCC) | HLA type | Vaccination regimen | OPS (ECOG) | Previous therapy in stage-IV | Sites of metastases | Number of vaccinations (ELISPOT)a | Survivin-specific T-cell reactivity vaccination sites | Inflammatory reaction at responseb | Best overall | PFS (months) | OS (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| m | 61 | Cutaneous | M1a | A1, A2 | Regimen I | 0 | Temozolomide, interferon-alpha | LN, intramuscular | 62+ | Negative | Absent | PR | 64+ | 64+ |
| m | 46 | Cutaneous | M1b | A2 | Regimen I | 0 | Temozolomide, interferon-alpha | Lung, LN | 60+ | Positive | Present | CR | 63+ | 63+ |
| f | 86 | Cutaneous | M1c | A2, B35 | Regimen I | 0 | Temozolomide, interferon-alpha | Liver, LN | 55+ | Positive | Present | PR | 58+ | 58+ |
| f | 52 | Cutaneous | M1b | A2 | Regimen I | 0 | Dacarbazine, radiation | Lung, LN, SC | 39 | Positive | Present | PR | 45 | 48+ |
| m | 63 | Uveal | M1c | B35 | Regimen I | 0 | Imatinib | Liver, lung | 11 | n.a. | Absent | SD | 9 | 31 |
| f | 73 | Cutaneous | M1a | A1, B35 | Regimen I | 1 | Dacarbazine | LN, SC | 10 | Positive | Absent | SD | 5 | 28 |
| f | 78 | Cutaneous | M1b | A2 | Regimen I | 1 | Dacarbazine | Lung, LN | 18 | Positive | Present | SD | 20 | 25 |
| f | 70 | Cutaneous | M1a | A2, B35 | Regimen II | 0 | Dacarbazine | LN, SC, C | 18 | Positive | Present | SD | 8 | 20 |
| m | 69 | Cutaneous | M1c | A2 | Regimen I | 0 | Dacarbazine, fotemustine | Brain, lung, LN, SC | 12 | n.a. | Absent | SD | 6 | 16 |
| m | 34 | Cutaneous | M1b | A2, B35 | Regimen III | 0 | Temozolomide | Lung, LN, SC | 14 | Positive | Absent | SD | 8 | 15 |
| m | 62 | Uveal | M1c | A2 | Regimen I | 0 | Imatinib | Liver | 8 | Negative | Absent | SD | 6 | 9 |
Patients are sorted by overall survival (OS, last column). Age, stage of disease, overall performance status (OPS), and sites of metastases refer to the time point of first vaccination
AJCC American Joint Committee on Cancer, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, PFS progression-free survival, n.a. not assessed, LN lymph node, SC subcutaneous, C cutaneous
aPatients demonstrating a positive detection of survivin-specific T-cell reactivity at at least one time point during ongoing vaccination were defined positive; patients without any positive reactivity throughout the vaccination period were considered as negative
bBest overall response was defined as the best tumor response recorded from the start of treatment until removal of the patient from the trial. All responses presented here were reviewed and confirmed by an independent radiologist
Fig. 4Kaplan–Meier plots depicting the probability of overall survival (OS) of the per-protocol population (55 patients) by a survivin-specific T-cell reactivity (SSTR) detected by ELISPOT as described in “Patients and methods” and classified as positive or negative as described in “Results”; and b inflammatory reaction at the vaccination sites. Differences between groups were calculated using the logrank test; p values are provided within the corresponding plots. Censored observations are indicated by vertical bars
Fig. 5Vaccination sites in two representative patients showing a weak (a–d) and a strong (e–h) inflammatory reaction, respectively. Staining with hematoxylin and eosin. Magnification ×10 (b, f), ×20 (c, g), and ×40 (d, h)