Literature DB >> 28883996

Immunotherapy for penile cancer.

Carlo Buonerba1,2,1,2, Martina Pagliuca1,1, Francesca Maria Vitrone1,1, Ilaria Ascione1,1, Ivana Elefante2,2, Vittorio Riccio1,1, Francesca Romano2,2, Sabino De Placido1,1, Giuseppe Di Lorenzo1,1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  HPV; environment; immunotherapy; nivolumab; penile cancer

Year:  2017        PMID: 28883996      PMCID: PMC5583688          DOI: 10.4155/fsoa-2017-0031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Future Sci OA        ISSN: 2056-5623


× No keyword cloud information.

Background

Penile carcinoma is a rare disease, with incidence rates varying in the range of 1–10 cases per 100,000 men depending on ethnicity, geographic area, cultural background and social habits [1,2]. Tumorigenesis of penile carcinoma is governed by a complex interplay of multiple causative factors. These include initiating agents, such as tobacco toxins, UV radiation and, possibly, household contaminants from solid fuel combustion, which have been implicated in carcinoma of the cervix [3], as well as promoting agents, such as cytokines related to chronic inflammation and high-risk HPV, mainly HPV-16 and HPV-18 [2], which are well known for their major etiopathogenetic role in cervix carcinomas [4]. In patients with carcinoma of the penis, keratinizing squamous cell and verrucous lesions harbor high-risk HPV only in 30% of cases and coexist with squamous cell hyperplasia and/or lichen sclerosus, while basaloid and warty carcinomas, which are composed of small, undifferentiated basaloid cells with koilocytic changes, harbor HPV in 80–100% of cases [2]. Positivity to high-risk HPV has both prognostic and biological implications in penile cancer. In fact, HPV infection may be associated with better outcomes in penile cancer men, as reported in a retrospective study of 171 patients showing a 5-year cancer-specific survival rate of 78 and 93%, respectively, in the high-risk HPV-negative subgroup versus the high-risk HPV-positive subgroup (log rank test p = 0.03) [5]. Furthermore, while HPV-positive tumors express more frequently HER3 and cytoplasmic Akt1, HPV-negative tumors express more frequently phosphorylated EGFR [6], which is consistent with the negative prognostic effect associated with presence of phosphorylated EGFR [7].

The role of HPV as a potential target for immunotherapy

The HPV proteins E6 and E7 play a key role in HPV-mediated carcinogenesis. In addition to inactivating p53, E6 can bind to transcription factors (myc), autocrine motility factors that regulate cell adhesion and polarity (paxillin), apoptosis-inducing factors (Bcl2) and replication and DNA repair factors (mcm7), while the E7 protein inactivates the retinoblastoma tumor-suppressor protein via proteasome-dependent degradation and causes p16INK4a overexpression, which can be detected on immunohistochemistry and can be employed as a reliable diagnostic marker of high-risk HPV infection [8]. Interestingly, the p16INK4a protein is overexpressed both in intraepithelial and invasive lesions [9,10], and can serve as a reliable diagnostic histologic biomarker of HPV infection in penile cancers. On the basis of the established etiopathogenetic role of HPV in a subgroup of penile cancer patients, we wish to speculate here that HPV-associated antigens have the potential to provide specific targets for an immunotherapy approach in men with penile cancer. At the present time, two vaccines based on HPV L1 virus-like particles are commercially available and approved in young women in order to prevent HPV infection, that is Gardasil ®(Merck & Co., NJ, USA) and Cervarix® (GlaxoSmithKline, England, UK). While Gardasil contains virus-like particles from HPV-16 and HPV-18, but also from low-risk carcinogenic genotypes 6 and 11, which cause benign genital warts, Cervarix contains virus-like particles from HPV-16 and HPV-18 only [11]. Spontaneous clearance of high-risk HPV occurs in approximately a third of women after 6 months and in approximately half of the women after 12 months [11]. Although available preventive anti-HPV vaccines are able to induce both antibody and cellular responses, they are not able to improve spontaneous HPV clearance rate [11], so they cannot be considered as candidates for an immunotherapy approach in HPV-mediated tumors. In fact, while HPV L1 protein is predominantly expressed in terminally differentiated keratinocytes, expression of the E6 and E7 proteins is retained through all of the epithelial layers and through multiple stages of infection. As a result, an immune response against E6 and E7 antigens may be effective to clear E6- and E7-expressing neoplastic cells [12].

Future perspective: VGX-3100 & anti-PD1/PD-L1 agents

The novel immunotherapy agent VGX-3100 (Inovio Pharmaceuticals, PA, USA), which is delivered via electroporation, is based on two property DNA synthetic plasmids that encode the E6 and E7 genes of HPV-16 and HPV-18 [12]. Electroporation uses brief electric pulses to cause transient and reversible permeabilization of the cell membrane, which optimizes transfection of nucleic acids, with a 100–1000-fold enhancement of plasmid delivery and gene expression [12]. VGX-3100 was tested in a pivotal Phase I study in 18 women with recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or 3, showing encouraging results in terms of HPV-specific CD8(+) and CD4+ T-cell response [12]. In a subsequent double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase IIb study [13], 167 patients with CIN2/3 associated with HPV-16 and HPV-18 were randomly assigned in a 3:1 ratio to receive 6 mg VGX-3100 (n = 125) or 1 ml placebo solution (n = 42), both given intramuscularly at 0, 4 and 12 weeks. The primary objective of the study, that was improvement of histopathological regression rate of CIN 2/3 lesions, was met in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, with 55 (48·2%) of the 114 patients receiving VGX-3100 and 12 (30·0%) of the 40 placebo recipients showing regression to CIN 1 or no disease. The safety profile of VGX-3100 was excellent, with the majority of patients showing injection-site reactions, and erythema being significantly more frequent in the VGX-3100 group (98/125, 78·4%) with respect to the placebo group (24/42, 57·1%; p = 0·007). While VGX-3100 may be useful to avoid morbidity of surgical treatment in women with CIN2/3 cancers, this agent may provide survival benefits in patients with limited therapeutic options such as those with penile carcinoma. As we reported previously, prognosis of penile cancer is excellent in patients with noninvasive disease, while in patients with invasive tumors 5-year cancer-specific survival rates vary in the ranges of 75–93%, 40–70%, 33–50% and 20–34% in men with cN0, cN1, cN2 and cN3 disease [14]. Prognosis of patients requiring systemic chemotherapy for advanced disease is poor – approximately 6–12 months [15,16]. We speculate that a potential setting of experimental use of VGX 3100 in a clinical trial may include men with p16INK4a-positive penile cancer who have undergone complete surgical resection, but are at significant risk of disease recurrence. Conversely, we speculate that in men with metastatic penile cancer that tested positive for HPV 16/18, given the high burden of the disease, combination of an active, antigen-specific immunotherapy treatment such as VGX 3100 with an anti-PD (Programmed Death)-1/PD-L1 (Programmed Death-Ligand 1) agent may be beneficial. In fact, in a recently published retrospective study, 23 (62.2%) of 37 primary tumors were positive for PD-L1 expression, with a strong positive correlation of PD-L1 expression in primary and metastatic samples [17]. Of note, anti PD-1 agent nivolumab has shown efficacy in head and neck cancers, which share histologic (squamous histology) and pathogenic (HPV infection) characteristics with penile cancer [18]. In conclusion, although the industry may show little interest in rare diseases such as penile cancer, a continued effort should be made by independent investigators to contribute to advances in the treatment of such a devastating disease, given its high morbidity and mortality.
  18 in total

Review 1.  Penile cancer: current therapy and future directions.

Authors:  G Sonpavde; L C Pagliaro; C Buonerba; T B Dorff; R J Lee; G Di Lorenzo
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  Presence of high-risk human papillomavirus DNA in penile carcinoma predicts favorable outcome in survival.

Authors:  Anne P Lont; Bin K Kroon; Simon Horenblas; Maarten P W Gallee; Johannes Berkhof; Chris J L M Meijer; Peter J F Snijders
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2006-09-01       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Distinctive association of p16INK4a overexpression with penile intraepithelial neoplasia depicting warty and/or basaloid features: a study of 141 cases evaluating a new nomenclature.

Authors:  Alcides Chaux; Rolf Pfannl; Belén Lloveras; María Alejo; Omar Clavero; Cecilia Lezcano; Nubia Muñoz; Silvia de Sanjosé; Xavier Bosch; Marier Hernández-Pérez; Elsa F Velazquez; Antonio L Cubilla
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 6.394

4.  Two major pathways of penile carcinogenesis: HPV-induced penile cancers overexpress p16ink4a, HPV-negative cancers associated with dermatoses express p53, but lack p16ink4a overexpression.

Authors:  Sebastian Mannweiler; Stephan Sygulla; Elke Winter; Sigrid Regauer
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  2013-03-06       Impact factor: 11.527

Review 5.  Molecular mechanisms of human papillomavirus-induced carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Michaël Lehoux; Claudia M D'Abramo; Jacques Archambault
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 2.000

6.  Effect of human papillomavirus 16/18 L1 viruslike particle vaccine among young women with preexisting infection: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Sholom Wacholder; Ana C Rodriguez; Diane Solomon; M Concepcion Bratti; John T Schiller; Paula Gonzalez; Gary Dubin; Carolina Porras; Silvia E Jimenez; Douglas R Lowy
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 7.  Global burden of human papillomavirus and related diseases.

Authors:  David Forman; Catherine de Martel; Charles J Lacey; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Laia Bruni; Jerome Vignat; Jacques Ferlay; Freddie Bray; Martyn Plummer; Silvia Franceschi
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 3.641

8.  Alternative HER/PTEN/Akt pathway activation in HPV positive and negative penile carcinomas.

Authors:  Elzbieta Stankiewicz; David M Prowse; Mansum Ng; Jack Cuzick; David Mesher; Frances Hiscock; Yong-Jie Lu; Nicholas Watkin; Catherine Corbishley; Wayne Lam; Daniel M Berney
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-03-02       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The evolving landscape in advanced penile cancer.

Authors:  Carlo Buonerba; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Giuseppe Calderoni; Matteo Ferro; Francesco Perri; Lucia Lombardi; Raffaele Ardito; Piera Federico; Sabino De Placido; Michele Aieta
Journal:  Future Sci OA       Date:  2015-11-01

10.  Cytosolic phosphorylated EGFR is predictive of recurrence in early stage penile cancer patients: a retropective study.

Authors:  Giuseppe Di Lorenzo; Sisto Perdonà; Carlo Buonerba; Guru Sonpavde; Vincenzo Gigantino; Giuseppe Pannone; Giuseppe Quarto; Matteo Ferro; Gabriella Gaudioso; Daniela Terracciano; Rossella Di Trolio; Pasquale Rescigno; Gerardo Botti; Sabino De Placido; Gaetano Facchini; Paolo A Ascierto; Renato Franco
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2013-07-02       Impact factor: 5.531

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Advances in Understanding of Penile Carcinogenesis: The Search for Actionable Targets.

Authors:  Juan Chipollini; Sharon Chaing; Mounsif Azizi; Laura C Kidd; Patricia Kim; Philippe E Spiess
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.923

2.  Immune responses against autologous tumor and human papilloma virus in lymph nodes from patients with penile cancer.

Authors:  Lu Zhang; A Ali Zirakzadeh; Jesper Rosvall; Mats Hedlund; Ping Sheng Hu; Katrine Riklund; Amir Sherif; Ola Winqvist
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2020-12-10

3.  Immune checkpoint inhibitors in penile cancer.

Authors:  Carlo Buonerba; Luca Scafuri; Ferdinando Costabile; Bruno D'Ambrosio; Simona Gatani; Pasquale Verolino; Rossella Di Trolio; Vincenzo Cosimato; Antonio Verde; Giuseppe Di Lorenzo
Journal:  Future Sci OA       Date:  2021-05-21
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.