Cargando…

Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma

BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical efficacy of New York Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-1 (NY-ESO-1) vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in a randomized, double-blind phase II study in participants with fully resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. METHODS: Participant...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cebon, Jonathan S, Gore, Martin, Thompson, John F, Davis, Ian D, McArthur, Grant A, Walpole, Euan, Smithers, Mark, Cerundolo, Vincenzo, Dunbar, P Rod, MacGregor, Duncan, Fisher, Cyril, Millward, Michael, Nathan, Paul, Findlay, Michael P N, Hersey, Peter, Evans, T R Jeffry, Ottensmeier, Christian Hermann, Marsden, Jeremy, Dalgleish, Angus G, Corrie, Pippa G, Maria, Marples, Brimble, Margaret, Williams, Geoff, Winkler, Sintia, Jackson, Heather M, Endo-Munoz, Liliana, Tutuka, Candani S A, Venhaus, Ralph, Old, Lloyd J, Haack, Dennis, Maraskovsky, Eugene, Behren, Andreas, Chen, Weisan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7204806/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32317292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2019-000410
_version_ 1783530123684741120
author Cebon, Jonathan S
Gore, Martin
Thompson, John F
Davis, Ian D
McArthur, Grant A
Walpole, Euan
Smithers, Mark
Cerundolo, Vincenzo
Dunbar, P Rod
MacGregor, Duncan
Fisher, Cyril
Millward, Michael
Nathan, Paul
Findlay, Michael P N
Hersey, Peter
Evans, T R Jeffry
Ottensmeier, Christian Hermann
Marsden, Jeremy
Dalgleish, Angus G
Corrie, Pippa G
Maria, Marples
Brimble, Margaret
Williams, Geoff
Winkler, Sintia
Jackson, Heather M
Endo-Munoz, Liliana
Tutuka, Candani S A
Venhaus, Ralph
Old, Lloyd J
Haack, Dennis
Maraskovsky, Eugene
Behren, Andreas
Chen, Weisan
author_facet Cebon, Jonathan S
Gore, Martin
Thompson, John F
Davis, Ian D
McArthur, Grant A
Walpole, Euan
Smithers, Mark
Cerundolo, Vincenzo
Dunbar, P Rod
MacGregor, Duncan
Fisher, Cyril
Millward, Michael
Nathan, Paul
Findlay, Michael P N
Hersey, Peter
Evans, T R Jeffry
Ottensmeier, Christian Hermann
Marsden, Jeremy
Dalgleish, Angus G
Corrie, Pippa G
Maria, Marples
Brimble, Margaret
Williams, Geoff
Winkler, Sintia
Jackson, Heather M
Endo-Munoz, Liliana
Tutuka, Candani S A
Venhaus, Ralph
Old, Lloyd J
Haack, Dennis
Maraskovsky, Eugene
Behren, Andreas
Chen, Weisan
author_sort Cebon, Jonathan S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical efficacy of New York Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-1 (NY-ESO-1) vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in a randomized, double-blind phase II study in participants with fully resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. METHODS: Participants with resected stage IIc, IIIb, IIIc and IV melanoma expressing NY-ESO-1 were randomized to treatment with three doses of NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX or ISCOMATRIX adjuvant administered intramuscularly at 4-week intervals, followed by a further dose at 6 months. Primary endpoint was the proportion free of relapse at 18 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and two per-protocol populations. Secondary endpoints included relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), safety and NY-ESO-1 immunity. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 110 participants, with 56 randomized to NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX and 54 to ISCOMATRIX alone. No significant toxicities were observed. There were no differences between the study arms in relapses at 18 months or for median time to relapse; 139 vs 176 days (p=0.296), or relapse rate, 27 (48.2%) vs 26 (48.1%) (HR 0.913; 95% CI 0.402 to 2.231), respectively. RFS and OS were similar between the study arms. Vaccine recipients developed strong positive antibody responses to NY-ESO-1 (p≤0.0001) and NY-ESO-1-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) responses. Biopsies following relapse did not demonstrate differences in NY-ESO-1 expression between the study populations although an exploratory study demonstrated reduced (NY-ESO-1)(+)/Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) class I(+) double-positive cells in biopsies from vaccine recipients performed on relapse in 19 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccine was well tolerated, however, despite inducing antigen-specific immunity, it did not affect survival endpoints. Immune escape through the downregulation of NY-ESO-1 and/or HLA class I molecules on tumor may have contributed to relapse.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7204806
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72048062020-05-12 Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma Cebon, Jonathan S Gore, Martin Thompson, John F Davis, Ian D McArthur, Grant A Walpole, Euan Smithers, Mark Cerundolo, Vincenzo Dunbar, P Rod MacGregor, Duncan Fisher, Cyril Millward, Michael Nathan, Paul Findlay, Michael P N Hersey, Peter Evans, T R Jeffry Ottensmeier, Christian Hermann Marsden, Jeremy Dalgleish, Angus G Corrie, Pippa G Maria, Marples Brimble, Margaret Williams, Geoff Winkler, Sintia Jackson, Heather M Endo-Munoz, Liliana Tutuka, Candani S A Venhaus, Ralph Old, Lloyd J Haack, Dennis Maraskovsky, Eugene Behren, Andreas Chen, Weisan J Immunother Cancer Clinical/Translational Cancer Immunotherapy BACKGROUND: To compare the clinical efficacy of New York Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-1 (NY-ESO-1) vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in a randomized, double-blind phase II study in participants with fully resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. METHODS: Participants with resected stage IIc, IIIb, IIIc and IV melanoma expressing NY-ESO-1 were randomized to treatment with three doses of NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX or ISCOMATRIX adjuvant administered intramuscularly at 4-week intervals, followed by a further dose at 6 months. Primary endpoint was the proportion free of relapse at 18 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and two per-protocol populations. Secondary endpoints included relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), safety and NY-ESO-1 immunity. RESULTS: The ITT population comprised 110 participants, with 56 randomized to NY-ESO-1/ISCOMATRIX and 54 to ISCOMATRIX alone. No significant toxicities were observed. There were no differences between the study arms in relapses at 18 months or for median time to relapse; 139 vs 176 days (p=0.296), or relapse rate, 27 (48.2%) vs 26 (48.1%) (HR 0.913; 95% CI 0.402 to 2.231), respectively. RFS and OS were similar between the study arms. Vaccine recipients developed strong positive antibody responses to NY-ESO-1 (p≤0.0001) and NY-ESO-1-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) responses. Biopsies following relapse did not demonstrate differences in NY-ESO-1 expression between the study populations although an exploratory study demonstrated reduced (NY-ESO-1)(+)/Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) class I(+) double-positive cells in biopsies from vaccine recipients performed on relapse in 19 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccine was well tolerated, however, despite inducing antigen-specific immunity, it did not affect survival endpoints. Immune escape through the downregulation of NY-ESO-1 and/or HLA class I molecules on tumor may have contributed to relapse. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-04-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7204806/ /pubmed/32317292 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2019-000410 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Clinical/Translational Cancer Immunotherapy
Cebon, Jonathan S
Gore, Martin
Thompson, John F
Davis, Ian D
McArthur, Grant A
Walpole, Euan
Smithers, Mark
Cerundolo, Vincenzo
Dunbar, P Rod
MacGregor, Duncan
Fisher, Cyril
Millward, Michael
Nathan, Paul
Findlay, Michael P N
Hersey, Peter
Evans, T R Jeffry
Ottensmeier, Christian Hermann
Marsden, Jeremy
Dalgleish, Angus G
Corrie, Pippa G
Maria, Marples
Brimble, Margaret
Williams, Geoff
Winkler, Sintia
Jackson, Heather M
Endo-Munoz, Liliana
Tutuka, Candani S A
Venhaus, Ralph
Old, Lloyd J
Haack, Dennis
Maraskovsky, Eugene
Behren, Andreas
Chen, Weisan
Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma
title Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma
title_full Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma
title_fullStr Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma
title_full_unstemmed Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma
title_short Results of a randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial of NY-ESO-1 vaccine with ISCOMATRIX adjuvant versus ISCOMATRIX alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma
title_sort results of a randomized, double-blind phase ii clinical trial of ny-eso-1 vaccine with iscomatrix adjuvant versus iscomatrix alone in participants with high-risk resected melanoma
topic Clinical/Translational Cancer Immunotherapy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7204806/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32317292
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2019-000410
work_keys_str_mv AT cebonjonathans resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT goremartin resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT thompsonjohnf resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT davisiand resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT mcarthurgranta resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT walpoleeuan resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT smithersmark resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT cerundolovincenzo resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT dunbarprod resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT macgregorduncan resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT fishercyril resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT millwardmichael resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT nathanpaul resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT findlaymichaelpn resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT herseypeter resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT evanstrjeffry resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT ottensmeierchristianhermann resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT marsdenjeremy resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT dalgleishangusg resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT corriepippag resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT mariamarples resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT brimblemargaret resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT williamsgeoff resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT winklersintia resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT jacksonheatherm resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT endomunozliliana resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT tutukacandanisa resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT venhausralph resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT oldlloydj resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT haackdennis resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT maraskovskyeugene resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT behrenandreas resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma
AT chenweisan resultsofarandomizeddoubleblindphaseiiclinicaltrialofnyeso1vaccinewithiscomatrixadjuvantversusiscomatrixaloneinparticipantswithhighriskresectedmelanoma