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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |