| Literature DB >> 26657650 |
Jeong-Hoon Lee1, Yoon Lee2,3, Minjong Lee1, Min Kyu Heo2, Jae-Sung Song2, Ki-Hwan Kim2, Hyunah Lee4, Nam-Joon Yi5, Kwang-Woong Lee5, Kyung-Suk Suh5, Yong-Soo Bae2,3, Yoon Jun Kim1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To date, no adjuvant treatment has been shown to have a clear benefit in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this prospective phase I/IIa study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of adjuvant dendritic cell (DC) therapy in HCC patients who received primary treatment for HCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26657650 PMCID: PMC4702003 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.430
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Figure 1Study design. (A) Study design for vaccination and evaluation. CT=computed tomography; MRI=magnetic resonance imaging; DC=dendritic cell. (B) Flow chart for tolerated dose-finding study. DLT=dose-limiting toxicity; TD=tolerated dose.
Key baseline characteristics before vaccination
| 01 | 63 | F | 0 | HBV | Yes | I | R | 5 | 18.3 | 13 |
| 02 | 61 | M | 0 | HBV | Yes | I | R | 5 | 7.1 | 19 |
| 03 | 53 | M | 0 | HBV | Yes | I | R | 5 | 6.1 | 19 |
| 04 | 53 | M | 0 | HBV | Yes | II | T/T/R/T | 5 | 7.0 | 14 |
| 05 | 45 | M | 0 | HBV | Yes | I | P/P/Op | 5 | 5.4 | 16 |
| 06 | 50 | M | 0 | HBV | Yes | II | T/P/P/P | 5 | 6.5 | 18 |
| 07 | 60 | M | 0 | HBV | Yes | I | P/T/R | 6 | 3.3 | 27 |
| 08 | 66 | M | 0 | U/N | Yes | I | Op | 5 | 2.9 | 21 |
| 09 | 52 | M | 0 | HBV | Yes | IIIA | T/T/T/T/T | 5 | 5470.0 | 2040 |
| 10 | 57 | M | 0 | HBV | No | IIIA | Op | 5 | 2.6 | 30 |
| 11 | 57 | F | 0 | HBV | Yes | I | Op | 5 | 6.6 | 9 |
| 12 | 71 | M | 0 | Alcohol | Yes | I | T/T/T/T/T/P | 6 | 12.0 | 18 |
*Abbreviations: AFP=alpha-fetoprotein; ECOG=Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HBV=hepatitis B virus; HCC=hepatocellular carcinoma; LC=liver cirrhosis; O=operation (resection); P(PEI)=percutaneous ethanol injection; PIVKA-II=protein induced by vitamin K absence-II; R(RFA)=radiofrequency ablation; T (TACE)=transarterial chemoembolization.
The ECOG performance status assesses the daily living abilities of the patient, on a scale ranging from 0 (fully active) to 5 (dead).
Liver cirrhosis (LC) was diagnosed by the presence of histological and radiological evidence.
Figure 2Surface phenotypes and T-cell stimulation capacity of TAA-pulsed mDCs in the preclinical study, which were performed as described in the (A) Representative FACS data (left) and statistical analysis (right) of the surface phenotype of imDCs and TAA-pulsed mDCs. (B) CD8+ T-cell population (left) and the levels of IFN-γ and IL-4 (right) were assessed from the co-culture of autologous T cells with TAA-pulsed or Ag-unpulsed mDCs at a 10 : 1 ratio in the presence of IL-7 (Peprotech). Activated T cells were restimulated three times every 7–8 days with a same set of TAA-pulsed DCs at the same ratio as described in the Supplementary Method. (C) From the activated T cells, the CTL was assessed with MHC-matched HepG2 target cells at different effector/target (E/T) ratios as described in the Supplementary Method. Data are presented as mean±s.d. of nine samples pooled from three individual experiments. *P<0.05 and **P<0.01 compared with control CTLs prepared by stimulation of T cells with Ag-unpulsed mDCs, Student's t-test.
Quality control of 12 DC vaccines
| Sterility | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I (PCR) | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
| II (Direct culture) | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
| Endotoxin (<10 EU ml−1) | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass | Pass |
| Viability (%) | 83.1 | 85.7 | 75.4 | 77.2 | 86.8 | 80.8 | 88.2 | 88.2 | 86.1 | 76.5 | 89.8 | 78.6 |
| Size and granularity (%) | 85.1 | 90.9 | 93.6 | 93.8 | 96.4 | 93.7 | 97.8 | 96.6 | 84.4 | 89.1 | 91.5 | 92.2 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| HLA-DR | 96.2 | 99.7 | 98.7 | 98.1 | 98.1 | 95.2 | 96.9 | 96.0 | 89.6 | 95.4 | 95.6 | 91.7 |
| HLA-ABC | 99.4 | 99.1 | 99.6 | 95.1 | 98.9 | 99.3 | 99.8 | 99.2 | 99.2 | 99.5 | 99.4 | 98.8 |
| CD86 | 92.3 | 98.5 | 96.3 | 93.4 | 94.6 | 98.9 | 99.7 | 98.8 | 96.6 | 98.8 | 99.2 | 98.2 |
| CD80 | 84.8 | 97.8 | 86.1 | 85.5 | 84.0 | 92.8 | 96.3 | 94.6 | 93.7 | 86.6 | 94.7 | 87.9 |
| CD40 | 87.2 | 84.8 | 82.9 | 84.7 | 81.0 | 89.7 | 93.7 | 84.7 | 85.8 | 87.5 | 92.4 | 84.3 |
| CD83 | 54.3 | 46.8 | 15.7 | 13.8 | 14.5 | 82.1 | 96.0 | 86.9 | 65.6 | 61.2 | 86.8 | 79.4 |
| CD14 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 8.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 1.0 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| CD19 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
The viability of the DC vaccine was assessed by flow cytometry after propidium iodide (PI) staining, and is represented as 100−((PI+ of sample)−(PI+ of control)) (%).
The % represents the cell population in the DC gate (higher forward and side scattering (size and granularity increased)) based on the gating control with calibrating beads and PBMCs.
The % represents marker-positive cell populations based on the isotype control in flow cytometry.
Adverse events
| Overall incidence | 12 (100) | 4 (33) | 12 (100) | 0 |
| Injection site pain | 12 (100) | 0 | 12 (100) | 0 |
| Ascites | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fatigue | 4 (33) | 0 | 4 (33) | 0 |
| Fever | 8 (67) | 0 | 8 (67) | 0 |
| Pain | 7 (58) | 0 | 6 (50) | 0 |
| Pain neck/shoulder | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sweating increased | 1 (8) | 0 | 1 (8) | 0 |
| Weakness | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Headache | 5 (42) | 0 | 4 (33) | 0 |
| Hiccups | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nausea | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tinnitus | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Platelets count decreased | 9 (75) | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 |
| Insomnia | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Menorrhagia | 0 | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 |
| Haematocrit decreased | 5 (42) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Haemoglobin decreased | 6 (50) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RBC decreased | 5 (42) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhinitis | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Rhinorrhea | 2 (17) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brain metastases | 0 | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 |
| Hepatoma recurrence | 0 | 2 (17) | 0 | 0 |
| Lymph node metastases | 0 | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 |
| Myalgia | 3 (25) | 0 | 3 (25) | 0 |
| Eosinophil count decreased | 3 (25) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Eosinophil count increased | 5 (42) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Leukopenia | 8 (67) | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 |
| Lymphocytosis | 3 (25) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lymphopenia | 1 (8) | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 |
| Monocytosis | 9 (75) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Neutropenia | 7 (58) | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 |
| Neutrophil count increased | 2 (17) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| White blood cell count increased | 1 (8) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Listed are adverse events, as defined by the World Health Organization-Adversary Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART) version 092. Data are expressed as n (%). NA denotes not applicable.
The adverse events regarding white blood cells occurred simultaneously in one patient.
The results of immunological response and clinical outcomes
| 01 | Positive | 14.7 | 4.1 | 4.0 | −23.0 | 7.7 | No | No | No | No |
| 02 | Positive | −16.8 | −16.6 | −6.8 | −21.1 | 31.6 | No | No | No | No |
| 03 | Positive | 26.2 | −15.8 | −3.2 | −47.5 | 52.6 | No | Yes (294/217) | No | Yes (878/801) |
| 04 | Positive | −20.9 | 35.2 | 6.9 | 8.6 | 0.0 | No | Yes (1075/963) | No | No |
| 05 | Positive | 98.1 | 3.5 | −2.1 | 25.9 | 12.5 | No | Yes (917/805) | No | No |
| 06 | Positive | −13.3 | 59.2 | 36.8 | −21.5 | 0.0 | No | No | No | No |
| 07 | Positive | −22.4 | −32.3 | 42.3 | 63.6 | 37.0 | Yes (134/61) | — | No | Yes (340/267) |
| 08 | Positive | −23.7 | 49.5 | −17.6 | −10.3 | −28.6 | No | No | No | No |
| 09 | Positive | 70.8 | −66.8 | −5.6 | 569.1 | 1619.6 | Yes (205/91) | — | No | Yes (312/198) |
| 10 | Positive | 8.3 | 8.6 | −36.8 | −30.8 | 13.3 | No | Yes (1226/1037) | No | No |
| 11 | Negative | −12.4 | −7.5 | 226.0 | −16.7 | 44.4 | No | No | No | No |
| 12 | Positive | 26.0 | 20.7 | −24.0 | 25.0 | 122.2 | Yes (259/139) | — | No | Yes (783/663) |
Positive means that the lymphocyte proliferation (assessed by 3H-thymidine incorporation) showed over a 2-fold increase at both 18 and 24 weeks after DC vaccination as compared with the mean value in prevaccination.
%=(the value at post vaccination – the value at pre-vaccination)/the value at pre-vaccination × 100.
Recurrence and death were monitored during the study period (SP) (24 weeks from the first DC vaccination) and 4-year follow-up (FU) study. Numbers in the parenthesis represent the TTP (starting from the primary treatment/from the first DC vaccination to the event).
In these two patients, since data at week 24 were missing, data at week 18 were used according to the last observation carried forward method. LN denotes lymph node.
Figure 3Immunological analysis after DC vaccination. (A) Antigen-specific lymphocyte proliferation assay was performed during and after DC vaccinations using the autologous PBMCs obtained from 12 patients (upper), and the results were further analysed in recurrence-free patients (lower left) and recurrent patients (lower right). The proliferation was determined by 3H-thymidine incorporation (dpm) using a liquid scintillation counter. Data are presented as mean±s.e., *P<0.05. (B) ELISPOT assay was performed with the PBMCs obtained from each patient at the indicated time points after the start of DC vaccination. The results from all (12) patients (upper), the nine recurrence-free patients (lower left) and the three recurrent patients (lower right) are presented as mean±s.e.
Figure 4CT and MRI scan data of two representative patients (pt4 and pt6) before and after one cycle of antigen-pulsed DC vaccination. Treatment records of each patient are summarised.
Patient compositions and baseline characteristics of historical control group
| Age, years (median, range) | 57 | 45–71 | 58 | 33–73 |
| Gender ( | M10 (83.3%) | F2 (12.7%) | M25 (80.6%) | F6 (19.4%) |
| HCC history | New 6 (50%) | Recurrent 6 (50%) | New 18 (58%) | Recurrent 13 (42%) |
| Surgery ( | 4 | 33.3% | 11 | 35.5% |
| RFA ( | 4 | 33.3% | 10 | 32.3% |
| TACE ( | 2 | 16.7% | 6 | 19.3% |
| PEIT ( | 2 | 16.7% | 4 | 12.9% |
| Total ( | 12 | 100.0% | 31 | 100.0% |
| Recurrence | 7/12 | 58.3% | 27/31 | 87.1% |
| DM patient, | 10 (83.3) | 27 (87.1) | 1 | |
| AST, IU l−1 | 43.5±10.4 | 47.4±40.3 | 0.183 | |
| ALT, IU l−1 | 46.2±21.0 | 44.4±32.0 | 0.478 | |
| Albumin, g dl−1 | 3.88±0.39 | 4.03±0.43 | 0.183 | |
| Total bilirubin, mg dl−1 | 0.93±0.43 | 0.97±0.59 | 0.989 | |
| PT INR | 1.15±0.07 | 1.19±0.29 | 0.64 | |
| Platelet, × 103 | 133.3±35.8 | 132.2±43.3 | 0.942 | |
| Creatinine, mg dl−1 | 0.92±0.16 | 0.96±0.24 | 0.698 | |
| AFP, ng ml−1 | 7.3 (4.6, 11.4) | 7.4 (3.8, 24.0) | 0.602 | |
| Tumour size, cm | 1.8 (1.0, 2.2) | 2.2 (1.3, 3.5) | 0.121 | |
| Tumour number | 1.67±0.78 | 1.52±1.26 | 0.243 | |
| Tumour stage | 0.544 | |||
| Stage I | 8 (66.7) | 24 (77.4) | ||
| Stage II | 2 (16.7) | 5 (16.1) | ||
| Stage IIIA | 2 (16.7) | 2 (6.5) | ||
Abbreviations: AFP=alpha-fetoprotein; ALT=alanine aminotransferase; AST=aspartate aminotransferase; DM=diabetes mellitus; F=female; M=male; PEI=percutaneous ethanol injection; PT INR=prothrombin time international normalised ratio; RFA=radiofrequency ablation; TACE=transarterial chemoembolisation.
Patients who received more than one treatment of TACE, RFA, PEIT, or Surgery for primary or recurrent HCC during the period (August 2005–October 2013) at Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH). They should be in the window of the enrolment criteria for the clinical study of DC vaccine. Treatment modality ratio (TACE/RFA/PEIT/Surgery) should be matched to that of DC vaccine group. The ratio between the number of newly diagnosed patients and recurrent patients in the historical control group should be comparable with that of DC vaccine group.
Patients newly diagnosed or with recurrent tumour when they received primary treatment at SNUH.
Monitored for 5.5 years starting from the 1st DC vaccination for DC vaccine group, and for the same period from the 1st primary treatment for the historical control group.
P>0.1 indicates that the two groups were comparable.
Figure 5TTP and RFS (starting from primary treatments rather than baseline radiographic tumour assessments) of patients treated with DC vaccine during the trial period and 4-year follow-up study in comparison with historical controls ( The composition of 31 patients with HCC for historical control group was summarised in Table 5. A statistically significant difference in survival was noted (P<0.05).