| Literature DB >> 27852036 |
Doreen O Jackson1, Kevin Byrd2,3, Timothy J Vreeland4, Diane F Hale1, Garth S Herbert1, Julia M Greene1, Erika J Schneble1, John S Berry1, Alfred F Trappey1, G T Clifton5, Mark O Hardin6, Jonathan Martin7, John C Elkas8,9, Thomas P Conrads2,3,8,10, Kathleen M Darcy2,3, Chad A Hamilton2,3, George L Maxwell2,3,11,10, George E Peoples7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Folate binding protein(FBP) is an immunogenic protein over-expressed in endometrial(EC) and ovarian cancer(OC). We are conducting a phase I/IIa trial of E39 (GALE 301)+GM-CSF, an HLA-A2-restricted, FBP-derived peptide vaccine to prevent recurrences in disease-free EC and OC patients. This interim analysis summarizes toxicity, immunologic responses, and clinical outcomes to date.Entities:
Keywords: cancer; endometrial; folate binding protein; immunotherapy; ovarian
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 27852036 PMCID: PMC5362533 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.13305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Patient flow for study enrollment
The prospectively followed control group also included three HLA-A2 positive patients who declined vaccine administration.
Demographics
| Characteristic | Vaccinated ( | Controls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 61 | 0.790 | |
| (Interquartile Range 1-3) | 52-67 | 53-63 | |
| 0.373 | |||
| Endometrial | 6 (20.7) | 3 (13.6) | |
| Fallopian | 1 (3.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Ovarian | 20 (69.0) | 18 (86.4) | |
| Peritoneal | 2 (6.9) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 0.851 | |||
| 1 (Well Differentiated) | 2 (6.9) | 2 (9.1) | |
| 2 (Moderately Differentiated) | 4 (13.8) | 2 (9.1) | |
| 3 (Poorly Differentiated) | 23 (79.3) | 18 (81.8) | |
| 0.536 | |||
| Tis | 1 (3.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 1 | 6 (20.7) | 3 (13.6) | |
| > 1 | 21 (72.4) | 19 (86.4) | |
| Tx | 1 (3.4) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 0.764 | |||
| Positive | 9 (31.0) | 5 (22.7) | |
| Negative | 20 (69.0) | 17 (77.3) | |
| 0.591 | |||
| I | 4 (13.8) | 3 (13.6) | |
| II | 2 (6.9) | 3 (13.6) | |
| III | 18 (62.1) | 11 (50.0) | |
| IV | 5 (17.2) | 5 (22.7) | |
| 0.388 | |||
| Primary | 24 (82.8) | 16 (72.7) | |
| Recurrent | 5 (17.2) | 6 (27.3) |
Demographics – Dosing Cohort
| Characteristic | Vaccinated <1000mcg ( | Vaccinated 1000mcg ( | Controls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61 | 57 | 61 | 0.827 | |
| (Interquartile Range 1-3) | 56 - 66 | 49 - 67 | 53 - 63 | |
| 0.531 | ||||
| Endometrial | 3 (21.4) | 3 (20.0) | 3 (13.6) | |
| Fallopian | 1 (7.1) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Ovarian | 9 (64.3) | 11 (73.3) | 18 (86.4) | |
| Peritoneal | 1 (7.1) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 0.508 | ||||
| 1 (Well Differentiated) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (13.3) | 2 (9.1) | |
| 2 (Moderately Differentiated) | 3 (21.4) | 1 (6.7) | 2 (9.1) | |
| 3 (Poorly Differentiated) | 11 (78.6) | 12 (80.0) | 18 (81.8) | |
| 0.469 | ||||
| Tis | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 1 | 3 (21.4) | 3 (20.0) | 3 (13.6) | |
| > 2 | 11 (78.6) | 10 (66.7) | 19 (86.4) | |
| Tx | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 0.450 | ||||
| Positive | 6 (42.9) | 3 (20.0) | 5 (22.7) | |
| Negative | 8 (57.1) | 12 (80.0) | 17 (77.3) | |
| 0.297 | ||||
| I | 1 (7.1) | 3 (20.0) | 3 (13.6) | |
| II | 0 (0.0) | 2 (13.3) | 3 (13.6) | |
| III | 11 (78.6) | 7 (46.7) | 11 (50.0) | |
| IV | 2 (14.3) | 3 (20.0) | 5 (22.7) | |
| 0.305 | ||||
| Primary | 13 (92.9) | 11 (73.3) | 16 (72.7) | |
| Recurrent | 1 (7.1) | 4 (26.7) | 6 (27.3) |
Figure 2Maximum local and systemic toxicities appreciated within the dosing cohorts
There was a statistically significant difference between the local toxicity experienced by the 1000mcg vs <1000mcg group (p=0.04). No significant difference was noted within systemic toxicity. This difference may be due to an increased consumption of GM-CSF with higher doses of the peptide, thus leading to a smaller amount of GM-CSF to cause worsened local or systemic toxicity.
Figure 3Immune response before and after the primary vaccination series according to dosing cohorts
The average size DTH reaction in all vaccinated patients prior to vaccination was 5.7 ±1.5 mm compared to 10.3 ±2.8 mm post-vaccination (p=0.06). The 1000mcg patients had a statistically significant increase in pre-vaccination versus post-vaccination DTH (3.8 +2.0 mm vs 9.5 +3.5 mm, p=0.03), while <1000mcg patients experienced a smaller increase in pre- vs post-vaccination, which was not statistically significant (7.8 +2.1 mm vs 11.3 +4.8 mm, p=0.28).
Figure 4The 2-year estimated DFS for vaccinated patients was 43% (95% confidence interval (CI): 18-66%) versus 33.6% (95% CI: 13-56%) in control patients (p=0.36)
The vaccinated patients experienced a 31% reduction in relative recurrence risk regardless of dose.
Figure 5This subgroup analysis was performed based on dosing
The 2-year estimated DFS indicated a significant survival advantage for the 1000 mcg group at 85.7% (95% CI: 54-96%) compared to controls at 33.6% (95% CI: 13-56%) and the <1000 mcg group at 20.8% (95% CI: 4-47%). Comparing the 1000 mcg and control groups, there was an 83% reduction in relative risk of recurrence.