| Literature DB >> 32466781 |
Stephen T Ryan1, Jing Zhang2, Danielle N Burner1, Michael Liss3, Emily Pittman2, Michelle Muldong1, Ahmed Shabaik4, Jason Woo1, Nicole Basler1, Jonathan Cunha1, Shabnam Shalapour2, Monica V Estrada5, Michael Karin2,2, Karen Messer2,6, Stephen Howell2,7, Christopher J Kane1,2, Christina A M Jamieson8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapeutic regulation of the tumor microenvironment in prostate cancer patients is not understood. Most antibody immunotherapies have not succeeded in prostate cancer. We showed previously that high-risk PCa patients have a higher density of tumor infiltrating B-cells in prostatectomy specimens. In mouse models, anti-CD20 antibody ablation of B-cells delayed PCa regrowth post-treatment. We sought to determine whether neoadjuvant anti-CD20 immunotherapy with rituximab could reduce CD20+ B cell infiltration of prostate tumors in patients.Entities:
Keywords: CD20; CD3; Immunotherapy; Neoadjuvant; PD-L1; Prostate cancer; Prostatectomy; Rituximab; Tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32466781 PMCID: PMC7257145 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-020-02370-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 8.440
Demographics
| Rituximab (n = 8) | Controls (n = 11) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (mean/SD) | 62.3 (5.2) | 63.4 (6.4) |
| Race (%) | ||
| White | 7 (87.5) | 10 (90.9) |
| Unknown | 1 (12.5) | 1 (9.1) |
| Ethnicity (%) | ||
| Hispanic | 1 (12.5) | 1 (9.1) |
| Non-hispanic | 6 (75) | 9 (81.8) |
| Unknown | 1 (12.5) | 1 (9.1) |
| PSA at diagnosis (mean/SD) | 7.7 (4.7) | 7.5 (4.7) |
| Gleason risk group after prostatectomy (n/%) | ||
| I (GS 3 + 3) | – | 3 (27.3)a |
| II (GS 3 + 4) | 1 (12.5) | – |
| III (GS 4 + 3) | 2 (25) | – |
| IV and V (GS ≥ 8) | 5 (62.5) | 8 (72.7) |
| pT stage | ||
| pT2a-c | 3 (37.5) | 2 (18.2) |
| pT3a-b | 5 (62.5) | 9 (81.8) |
aAll were pT3a
Fig. 1Immunohistochemical staining of serial prostatectomy sections showed presence of CD20+ B-cells cells aggregated in immune cell foci known as tertiary lymphoid structures (TLSs). a Representative AperioScope scanned image of anti-CD20 stained prostatectomy section counter-stained with hematoxylin. Tumor regions outlined by pathologist markings in blue, T = tumor, NT = non-tumor, ×10 magnification. b Box inset enlarged at ×200 magnification shows CD20+ B-cells stained brown in bright-field. c Post-deconvolution image of CD20 staining. After Imagescope deconvolution algorithm is run the stained color intensity is represented as image pixels with high intensity (brown), intermediate (orange) and low (yellow) staining intensity
Fig. 2Primary outcome analysis of B cell density in prostatectomy tissue showed decrease in B-cell density in tumor regions after neoadjuvant Rituximab treatment. a Boxplot and scatter plot for B cell density (Treated vs. Control), B-cell density in treated: 0.027 mm2/mm2 (95% CI 0.021, 0.033) and 0.044 mm2/mm2 (95% CI 0.028, 0.062) in the controls, p = 0.02 for Welch two sample t-test comparing B-cell density of Tumor in treated group and historic control group, i.e. The mean B cell density in tumor was significantly lower in treated subjects compared to historical control subjects. C = control samples, P = PROTUX Rituximab-treated, T = marked tumor region, N = adjacent normal tissue. b Within subject difference of B-cell density: tumor minus adjacent normal tissue (Treated vs. Controls)
Primary analysis: results
| B-cell density (mm2/mm2) | Rituximab | Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor region | 0.027 (0.021, 0.033) | 0.044 (0.028, 0.062) | 0.02 |
| Non-neoplastic region | 0.032 (0.011, 0.053) | 0.036 (0.023, 0.048) | 0.36 |
| Within group difference | |||
| Tumor − non-neoplastic | − 0.005 (− 0.028, + 0.017) | 0.009 (− 0.004, + 0.023) | 0.11 |
Mean B-cell densities (95% CI). (Top) B cell density within the Tumor and Normal tissue regions. (Bottom) Comparison of within group difference
1. Density of Tumor for subjects treated with Rituximab
2. Density of adjacent normal tissue for subjects treated with Rituximab
3. Use one sample t test to get the mean and 95% CI. p value is from two sample t-test
For two sample t-test, the Welch (or Satterthwaite) approximation to the degrees of freedom is used
Secondary analysis 1—change in PSA pre-treatment to day 29
| Patient study ID | Early PSA | Day 29 PSA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15.08 | 12.14 |
| 2 | 14.5 | 16.52 |
| 3 | 3.98 | 4.4 |
| 4 | 5.98 | 5.96 |
| 5 | 4.32 | 2.7 |
| 6 | 10.52 | 14.43 |
| 7 | 5.26 | 4.61 |
| 8 | 5.16 | 6.09 |
To determine the effectiveness of neoadjuvant rituximab in the treatment of prostate cancer as evaluated by the serum PSA
Wilcoxon signed rank test, p-value = 0.84
Fig. 3Secondary outcome analysis: serum PSA from Day 1 to Day 29 not significantly changed in Rituximab treated patients. Serum PSA did not appreciably change over the course of neoadjuvant rituximab (Day1: 8.1 ng/mL (± 4.3), Day 29: 8.36 ng/mL (± 4.88), p = 0.84)
Fig. 4Secondary analysis showed decrease in CD3 + T-cell density. a CD3 plot Boxplot and scatter plot for CD3 density (Treated vs. Control), p = 0.995 for Welch two sample t-test comparing CD3+ T-cell density of Tumor in treated group and historic control group, i.e. the mean CD3+ T-cell density in tumor was significantly lower in treated subjects compared to historical control subjects. Mean CD3+ T-cell density in the tumor region of the Rituximab-treated group was 0.0223 mm2/mm2 (95% CI 0.0116, 0.033) and 0.0419 mm2/mm2 (95% CI 0.0305, 0.0533) in the control group. b Within subject difference of CD3 density: tumor minus adjacent normal tissue (Treated vs. Controls)
Secondary analysis: CD3, a pan T-cell marker
| CD3+ density (mm2/mm2) | Rituximab | Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor region | 0.022 (0.012, 0.033) | 0.042 (0.031, 0.053) | 0.01 |
| Non-neoplastic region | 0.019 (0.011, 0.026) | 0.021 (0.017, 0.025) | 0.56 |
| Within group difference | |||
| Tumor − non-neoplastic | 0.004 (− 0.005, + 0.013) | 0.021 (+ 0.011, + 0.031) | 0.01 |
1. Density of tumor for subjects treated with Rituximab
2. Density of adjacent normal tissue for subjects treated with Rituximab
3. Use one sample t test to get the mean and 95% CI
4. p value is from two sample t-test
For two sample t-test, the Welch (or Satterthwaite) approximation to the degrees of freedom is used
Null hypothesis is no difference. Alternative hypothesis is true difference in means is greater than 0
5. (Tumor − Normal) is calculated by: column D − column E
Secondary analysis: PD-L1
| PD-L1 density (mm2/mm2) | Rituximab | Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor region | 0.059 (0.018, 0.099) | 0.083 (0.040, 0.127) | 0.36 |
| Non-neoplastic region | 0.054 (0.004, 0.103) | 0.132 (0.056, 0.321) | 0.39 |
| Within group difference | |||
| Tumor − non-neoplastic | 0.005 (− 0.012, + 0.022) | − 0.049 (− 0.248, + 0.151) | 0.56 |
1. Density of tumor for subjects treated with rituximab
2. Density of adjacent normal tissue for subjects treated with rituximab
3. Use one sample t test to get the mean and 95% CI
4. p value is from two sample t-test
For two sample t-test, the Welch (or Satterthwaite) approximation to the degrees of freedom is used
Null hypothesis is no difference
5. (Tumor − normal) is calculated by: column K − column L
Fig. 5Secondary analysis of PD-L1 immunohistochemical staining density. a Boxplot and scatter plot for PD-L1 density (Treated vs Control), mean PD-L1 density in the treated (0.0589) versus control samples (0.0833) was observed but was not significant: p = 0.245 for Welch two sample t-test comparing PD-L1+ cell density of tumor in treated group and historic control group, i.e. the mean PD-L1+ cell density in tumor was significantly lower in treated subjects compared to historical control subjects. b Within subject difference of PDL1 density: tumor minus adjacent normal tissue (Treated vs. Controls)
Secondary analysis 4: safety and tolerability of neo-adjuvant rituximab
| Severity/grade | Adverse events (n) | Possible, probable, or definite attribution (n) | Description of related adverse events (n of patients affected) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mild/1 | 6 | 2 | Fatigue (×2) |
| Moderate/2 | 3 | 2 | Infusion related reaction (×2) |
| Severe/3 | 0 | 0 | |
| Life-threatening/4 | 1 | 0 | |
| Fatal/5 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 10 | 4 |
Adverse events (description, timing, grade [CTCAE v4.03], severity, seriousness, and relatedness)