| Literature DB >> 32547707 |
Anders Handrup Kverneland1, Magnus Pedersen1, Marie Christine Wulff Westergaard1, Morten Nielsen1, Troels Holz Borch1, Lars Rønn Olsen2,3, Gitte Aasbjerg2, Saskia J Santegoets4, Sjoerd H van der Burg4, Katy Milne5, Brad H Nelson5,6, Özcan Met1, Marco Donia1, Inge Marie Svane1.
Abstract
Immune therapy is a promising field within oncology but has been unsuccessful in ovarian cancer (OC). Still, there is rationale and evidence supporting immune therapy in OC. We investigated the potential for adoptive cell therapy (ACT) from in vitro expanded tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in combination with checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and conducted immunological testing of ex vivo expanded TILs (REP-TILs). Six patients with late-stage metastatic high-grade serous OC were treated with immune therapy consisting of ipilimumab followed by surgery to obtain TILs and infusion of REP-TILs, low-dose IL-2 and nivolumab. One patient achieved a partial response and 5 others experienced disease stabilization for up to 12 months. Analysis of the REP-TILs with flow- and mass-cytometry show primarily activated and differentiated effector memory T cells. REP-TILs showed in vitro reactivity and expression of inhibitory receptors, such as LAG-3 and PD-1. Furthermore, our data indicate that addition of ipilimumab therapy improves the T cell fold expansion during production, increase the level of CD8 T cell tumor reactivity, and favorably affect the T cell phenotype. We show that the combination of ICI and ACT is feasible and safe. With one partial response and one long-lasting SD, we demonstrated the potential of ACT in OC. Copyright:Entities:
Keywords: adoptive cell therapy; checkpoint inihibors; combinational immune therapy; ovarian cancer; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes
Year: 2020 PMID: 32547707 PMCID: PMC7275789 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.27604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Baseline patient characteristics
| ID | Age | Histology | Sites of disease | Prior systemic treatment | Prior lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 51 | Serous adenocarcinoma | Peritoneum, vagina, lymph nodes | Carboplatin/paclitaxel, doxorubicin, paclitaxel/bevacizumab, tisotumab vedotin | 4 |
| 2 | 52 | Serous adenocarcinoma | Peritoneum, lymph nodes | Carboplatin/paclitaxel, carboplatin/doxorubicin/bevacizumab, carboplatin/gemcitabin, topotecan | 4 |
| 3 | 63 | Serous adenocarcinoma | Peritoneum, lung, pleura, lymph nodes, | Carboplatin/paclitaxel, carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, doxorubicin, cabazitaxel, topotecan | 4 |
| 4 | 60 | Serous adenocarcinoma | Peritoneum, lymph nodes | Carboplatin/paclitaxel, carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, doxorubicin, paclitaxel, gemcitabin, trabectidin, tisotumab vedotin | 7 |
| 6 | 49 | Serous adenocarcinoma | Peritoneum, lung, liver, lymph nodes | carboplatin/paclitaxel/bevacizumab, doxorubicin, paclitaxel, topotecan | 4 |
| 7 | 54 | Serous adenocarcinoma | Peritoneum, lymph nodes | Carboplatin/paclitaxel, bevacizumab/caelyx, trabectidin | 3 |
Summary of expanded TILs (REP TILs), therapy and clinical response
| ID | Metastasis location | Exp. time (days) | Surgery to ACT (days) | Infused cells (10e9) | Fold exp. | CD3 (%) | CD4 (%) | CD8 (%) | IL-2 doses | Nivo-lumab doses | BOR | PFS (days) | OS (days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vagina | 18 | 34 | 107 | 5360 | 99.7 | 26.4 | 70.2 | 14 | 4 | PR | 99 | 685 |
| 2 | Peritoneum | 42 | 65 | 21.9 | 1441 | 98.6 | 45.8 | 42.5 | 14 | 4 | SD | 342 | 489 |
| 3 | Both ovaries | 21 | 58 | 93.9 | 4680 | 99.5 | 36.1 | 58.0 | 4 | 1 | SD | 86 | 214 |
| 4 | Peritoneum | 25 | 62 | 75.0 | 3790 | 99.5 | 96.2 | 3.1 | 11 | 3 | SD | 84 | 280 |
| 6 | Liver | 27 | 50 | 98.4 | 4920 | 93.6 | 7.8 | 88.5 | 14 | 2 | SD | 144 | 144 |
| 7 | Peritoneum | 28 | 93 | 54.4 | 2720 | 99.1 | 73.0 | 20.9 | 14 | 4 | SD | 86 | 136 |
| Median | 25 | 60 | 84.7 | 4235 | 99.3 | 41.0 | 50.2 | 14 | 3.5 | 86 | 214 |
Safety and toxicity. List of grade 3 and 4 adverse events related to study drugs (CTCAE 4.0)
| Therapy | Adverse event (Grade 3-4) |
|
|---|---|---|
|
| Performance status 3-4 | 3 |
| Fatigue | 3 | |
| Nausea | 1 | |
| Vomiting | 1 | |
| Diarrhea | 1 | |
| Hyponatremia | 3 | |
| Infection | 2 | |
| Neutropenia | 6 | |
| Anemia | 6 | |
| Trombocytopenia | 6 | |
| Agammaglobulimia | 1 | |
|
| Dyspnea | 1 |
|
| Performance status 3-4 | 3 |
| Fever | 3 | |
| Fatigue | 2 | |
| Vomiting | 1 | |
|
| Colitis | 1 |
| Thyroiditis (grade 2) | 1 | |
| Dry skin | 1 |
Figure 1Clinical response.
Clinical response curves following the infusion of ex vivo expanded TILs. (A) shows the proportional change of the cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) (B) shows radiological change in the target lesion sum according to RECIST 1.1, and (C) is a waterfall plot with the best overall response (BOR).
Figure 2Phenotype of ex vivo expanded tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (REP-TILs).
The combined flow cytometry results showing the different cell populations within the CD3+ T cells (A), CD4+ T cells (B) and CD8+ T cells (C). Gd: Gamma-delta; CM: Central memory (CD45RA-CCR7+); EM: Effector memory (CD45RA-CCR7-).
Figure 3Mass cytometry of ex vivo expanded tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (REP-TILs).
Semi-supervised clustering analysis based on CD4, CD8, CD45RO, CCR7, CD45RA, CD56, HLA-DR and TCRgd expression as lineage markers. (A) shows the Umap of the 8 resulting clusters while (B) shows the proportional size (median with range) of the clusters.
Figure 4Immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence of tumor tissue.
(A) shows the PD-1/PD-L1/CD163/Hematoxylin staining of the tumor tissue from patient #1, where PD-L1 is shown in brown, CD163 in blue, PD-1 in red and hematoxylin nuclear counterstain in dark blue. (B) is a component fluorescence image generated by inForm spectral unmixing, from the MHCI/MHCII/IDO/DAPI staining, showing the MHC II class expression (in red) in the tumor tissue from patient #3 and nuclear counterstain DAPI in blue.
Figure 5tumor reactivity of expanded TILs. Proportional number of reactive CD4 (A) and CD8 (B) T cells after 4 hours of co-culture with either cultured tumor cells (TC), cultured tumor cells with IFN-gamma (TC+IFN) or tumor digest (TD). Tumor reactivity was defined as the production of TNF and/or IFN-gamma and/or expression of CD107 as assessed by flow cytometry with >0.5% tumor reactive T cells and >50 events.
Figure 6Therapy regimen.
Overview and timeline of the trial with conditioning chemotherapy, adoptive cell therapy and checkpoint inhibitors during the clinical trial.