J Brian Szender1, Antonios Papanicolau-Sengos2, Kevin H Eng3, Anthony J Miliotto4, Amit A Lugade4, Sacha Gnjatic5, Junko Matsuzaki4, Carl D Morrison2, Kunle Odunsi6. 1. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. 2. Omniseq LLC, Buffalo, NY 14203, United States. 3. Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. 4. Center for Immunotherapy, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. 5. Tisch Cancer Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, United States. 6. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States; Center for Immunotherapy, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY 14263, United States. Electronic address: kunle.odunsi@roswellpark.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: NY-ESO-1 is a cancer testis antigen and a promising target for immunotherapy. The purpose of this study was to determine the expression frequency, immunogenicity, and clinical impact of NY-ESO-1 in ovarian cancer. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC), reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and quantitative-PCR (qRT-PCR) were utilized in an ovarian cancer (including Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers) patient cohort; humoral responses against NY-ESO-1 were determined by ELISA. Clinicopathologic outcomes including progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival were evaluated based on NY-ESO-1 expression. Cohen's kappa (κ) tested agreement between expression tests. RESULTS: NY-ESO-1 expression was detected by any method in 40.7% of 1002 patients' tumors (NY-ESO-1+) and baseline humoral response was identified in 19.0% of 689 tested patients. NY-ESO-1+ patients were older (p<0.001), higher stage (85% stage III/IV vs. 76.4%, p=0.015), less likely to have a complete response to initial therapy (53.9% vs. 68.9%, p=0.002), had more serous histotype (74.5% vs. 66.9%, p=0.011), and had more grade 3 tumors (83.7% vs. 70.8%, p<0.001). There was a trend towards shorter PFS (22.2 vs. 25.0months, p=0.07) and significantly shorter OS (42.9 vs. 50.0months, p=0.003) among NY-ESO-1+ patients. A subset analysis of NY-ESO-1+ patients that received immunotherapy demonstrated improved OS by >2years (52.6 vs. 27.2months, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first demonstration of an association between NY-ESO-1 expression and an aggressive cancer phenotype. The relatively high expression frequency of NY-ESO-1 in ovarian cancer patients coupled with the poor clinical outcomes in NY-ESO-1+ patients reveals an underappreciated need for targeted therapy against this antigen. In support, our study reveals that NY-ESO-1+ patients enrolled on immunotherapy trials targeting the antigen exhibited an improvement in OS.
OBJECTIVES:NY-ESO-1 is a cancer testis antigen and a promising target for immunotherapy. The purpose of this study was to determine the expression frequency, immunogenicity, and clinical impact of NY-ESO-1 in ovarian cancer. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry (IHC), reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), and quantitative-PCR (qRT-PCR) were utilized in an ovarian cancer (including Fallopian tube and primary peritoneal cancers) patient cohort; humoral responses against NY-ESO-1 were determined by ELISA. Clinicopathologic outcomes including progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survival were evaluated based on NY-ESO-1 expression. Cohen's kappa (κ) tested agreement between expression tests. RESULTS:NY-ESO-1 expression was detected by any method in 40.7% of 1002 patients' tumors (NY-ESO-1+) and baseline humoral response was identified in 19.0% of 689 tested patients. NY-ESO-1+ patients were older (p<0.001), higher stage (85% stage III/IV vs. 76.4%, p=0.015), less likely to have a complete response to initial therapy (53.9% vs. 68.9%, p=0.002), had more serous histotype (74.5% vs. 66.9%, p=0.011), and had more grade 3 tumors (83.7% vs. 70.8%, p<0.001). There was a trend towards shorter PFS (22.2 vs. 25.0months, p=0.07) and significantly shorter OS (42.9 vs. 50.0months, p=0.003) among NY-ESO-1+ patients. A subset analysis of NY-ESO-1+ patients that received immunotherapy demonstrated improved OS by >2years (52.6 vs. 27.2months, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first demonstration of an association between NY-ESO-1 expression and an aggressive cancer phenotype. The relatively high expression frequency of NY-ESO-1 in ovarian cancerpatients coupled with the poor clinical outcomes in NY-ESO-1+ patients reveals an underappreciated need for targeted therapy against this antigen. In support, our study reveals that NY-ESO-1+ patients enrolled on immunotherapy trials targeting the antigen exhibited an improvement in OS.
Authors: Deborah K Armstrong; Brian Bundy; Lari Wenzel; Helen Q Huang; Rebecca Baergen; Shashikant Lele; Larry J Copeland; Joan L Walker; Robert A Burger Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-01-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: T Kurashige; Y Noguchi; T Saika; T Ono; Y Nagata; A Jungbluth; G Ritter; Y T Chen; E Stockert; T Tsushima; H Kumon; L J Old; E Nakayama Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-06-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: D S Alberts; P Y Liu; E V Hannigan; R O'Toole; S D Williams; J A Young; E W Franklin; D L Clarke-Pearson; V K Malviya; B DuBeshter Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1996-12-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Naiyer A Rizvi; Matthew D Hellmann; Alexandra Snyder; Pia Kvistborg; Vladimir Makarov; Jonathan J Havel; William Lee; Jianda Yuan; Phillip Wong; Teresa S Ho; Martin L Miller; Natasha Rekhtman; Andre L Moreira; Fawzia Ibrahim; Cameron Bruggeman; Billel Gasmi; Roberta Zappasodi; Yuka Maeda; Chris Sander; Edward B Garon; Taha Merghoub; Jedd D Wolchok; Ton N Schumacher; Timothy A Chan Journal: Science Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Y T Chen; E Stockert; Y Chen; P Garin-Chesa; W J Rettig; P van der Bruggen; T Boon; L J Old Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1994-02-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Catherine M Koebel; William Vermi; Jeremy B Swann; Nadeen Zerafa; Scott J Rodig; Lloyd J Old; Mark J Smyth; Robert D Schreiber Journal: Nature Date: 2007-11-18 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kunle Odunsi; Achim A Jungbluth; Elisabeth Stockert; Feng Qian; Sacha Gnjatic; Jonathan Tammela; Marilyn Intengan; Amy Beck; Bernadette Keitz; Darren Santiago; Barbara Williamson; Matthew J Scanlan; Gerd Ritter; Yao-Tseng Chen; Deborah Driscoll; Ashwani Sood; Shashikant Lele; Lloyd J Old Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Rudolf Kaaks; Renée Turzanski Fortner; Anika Hüsing; Myrto Barrdahl; Marika Hopper; Theron Johnson; Anne Tjønneland; Louise Hansen; Kim Overvad; Agnès Fournier; Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault; Marina Kvaskoff; Laure Dossus; Mattias Johansson; Heiner Boeing; Antonia Trichopoulou; Vassiliki Benetou; Carlo La Vecchia; Sabina Sieri; Amalia Mattiello; Domenico Palli; Rosario Tumino; Giuseppe Matullo; N Charlotte Onland-Moret; Inger T Gram; Elisabete Weiderpass; Maria-Jose Sánchez; Carmen Navarro Sanchez; Eric J Duell; Eva Ardanaz; Nerea Larranaga; Eva Lundin; Annika Idahl; Karin Jirström; Björn Nodin; Ruth C Travis; Elio Riboli; Melissa Merritt; Dagfinn Aune; Kathryn Terry; Daniel W Cramer; Karen S Anderson Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jianhang Zhao; Zhaoxu Xu; Yan Liu; Xiaobin Wang; Xinli Liu; Yanan Gao; Ying Jin Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 6.166