Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting.

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design setting and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa.

Immunological responses to adjuvant vaccination with combined CD1c+ myeloid and plasmacytoid dendritic cells in stage III melanoma patients.

We evaluated the immunological responses of lymph-node involved (stage III) melanoma patients to adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination with subsets of naturally occurring dendritic cells (nDCs). Fifteen patients with completely resected stage III melanoma were randomized to receive adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination with CD1c+ myeloid dendritic cells (cDC2s), plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) or the combination. Immunological response was the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints included safety and survival. In 80% of the patients, antigen-specific CD8+ T cells were detected in skin test-derived T cells and in 55% of patients, antigen-specific CD8+ T cells were detectable in peripheral blood. Functional interferon-γ-producing T cells were found in the skin test of 64% of the patients. Production of nDC vaccines meeting release criteria was feasible for all patients. Vaccination only induced grade 1-2 adverse events, mainly consisting of fatigue. In conclusion, adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination with cDC2s and/or pDCs is feasible, safe and induced immunological responses in the majority of stage III melanoma patients.

Autologous monocyte-derived DC vaccination combined with cisplatin in stage III and IV melanoma patients: a prospective, randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Autologous dendritic cell (DC) vaccines can induce tumor-specific T cells, but their effect can be counteracted by immunosuppressive mechanisms. Cisplatin has shown immunomodulatory effects in vivo which may enhance efficacy of DC vaccination. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, open-label phase 2 study (NCT02285413) including stage III and IV melanoma patients receiving 3 biweekly vaccinations of gp100 and tyrosinase mRNA-loaded monocyte-derived DCs with or without cisplatin. Primary objectives were to study immunogenicity and feasibility, and secondary objectives were to assess toxicity and survival. RESULTS: Twenty-two stage III and 32 stage IV melanoma patients were analyzed. Antigen-specific CD8+ T cells were found in 44% versus 67% and functional T cell responses in 28% versus 19% of skin-test infiltrating lymphocytes in patients receiving DC vaccination with and without cisplatin, respectively. Four patients stopped cisplatin because of toxicity and continued DC monotherapy. No therapy-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred due to DC monotherapy. During combination therapy, one therapy-related grade 3 adverse event, decompensated heart failure due to fluid overload, occurred. The clinical outcome parameters did not clearly suggest significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of DC vaccination and cisplatin in melanoma patients is feasible and safe, but does not seem to result in more tumor-specific T cell responses or improved clinical outcome, when compared to DC vaccination monotherapy.

Response and survival of metastatic melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibition for recurrent disease on adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination.

Vaccination with autologous dendritic cells (DC) loaded ex vivo with melanoma-associated antigens is currently being tested as an adjuvant treatment modality for resected locoregional metastatic (stage III) melanoma. Based on its mechanism of action, DC vaccination might potentiate the clinical efficacy of concurrent or sequential immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of ICI administered following recurrent disease during, or after, adjuvant DC vaccination. To this end, we retrospectively analyzed clinical responses of 51 melanoma patients with either irresectable stage III or stage IV disease treated with first- or second-line ICI following recurrence on adjuvant DC vaccination. Patients were analyzed according to the form of ICI administered: PD-1 inhibition monotherapy (nivolumab or pembrolizumab), ipilimumab monotherapy or combined treatment with ipilimumab and nivolumab. Treatment with first- or second-line PD-1 inhibition monotherapy after recurrence on adjuvant DC vaccination resulted in a response rate of 52%. In patients treated with ipilimumab monotherapy and ipilimumab-nivolumab response rates were 35% and 75%, respectively. In conclusion, ICI is effective in melanoma patients with recurrent disease on adjuvant DC vaccination.

Adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination induces tumor-specific immune responses in the majority of stage III melanoma patients.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of adjuvant dendritic cell (DC) vaccination to induce tumor-specific immunological responses in stage III melanoma patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of stage III melanoma patients, vaccinated with autologous monocyte-derived DC loaded with tumor-associated antigens (TAA) gp100 and tyrosinase after radical lymph node dissection. Skin-test infiltrating lymphocytes (SKILs) obtained from delayed-type hypersensitivity skin-test biopsies were analyzed for the presence of TAA-specific CD8(+) T cells by tetrameric MHC-peptide complexes and by functional TAA-specific T cell assays, defined by peptide-recognition (T2 cells) and/or tumor-recognition (BLM and/or MEL624) with specific production of Th1 cytokines and no Th2 cytokines. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were analyzed: 21 with stage IIIA, 34 with stage IIIB, and 42 had stage IIIC disease. Tetramer-positive CD8(+) T cells were present in 68 patients (70%), and 24 of them showed a response against all 3 epitopes tested (gp100:154-162, gp100:280-288, and tyrosinase:369-377) at any point during vaccinations. A functional T cell response was found in 62 patients (64%). Rates of peptide-recognition of gp100:154-162, gp100:280-288, and tyrosinase:369-377 were 40%, 29%, and 45%, respectively. Median recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival of the whole study population were 23.0 mo and 36.8 mo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DC vaccination induces a functional TAA-specific T cell response in the majority of stage III melanoma patients, indicating it is more effective in stage III than in stage IV melanoma patients. Furthermore, performing multiple cycles of vaccinations enhances the chance of a broader immune response.

Ipilimumab administered to metastatic melanoma patients who progressed after dendritic cell vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab has proven to be effective in metastatic melanoma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients who showed progressive disease upon experimental dendritic cell (DC) vaccination. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 48 stage IV melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab after progression upon DC vaccination earlier in their treatment. DC vaccination was given either as adjuvant treatment for stage III disease (n = 18) or for stage IV disease (n = 30). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) was administered every 3 weeks for up to 4 cycles. RESULTS: Median time between progression upon DC vaccination and first gift of ipilimumab was 5.4 mo. Progression-free survival (PFS) rates for patients that received ipilimumab after adjuvant DC vaccination, and patients that received DC vaccination for stage IV melanoma, were 35% and 7% at 1 y and 35% and 3% at 2 y, while the median PFS was 2.9 mo and 3.1 mo, respectively. Median overall survival of patients pre-treated with adjuvant DC vaccination for stage III melanoma was not reached versus 8.0 mo (95% CI, 5.2-10.9) in the group pre-treated with DC vaccination for stage IV disease (HR of death, 0.36; p = 0.017). Grade 3 immune-related adverse events occurred in 19% of patients and one death (2%) was related to ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical responses to ipilimumab were found in a considerable number of advanced melanoma patients with progression after adjuvant DC vaccination for stage III disease, while the effect was very limited in patients who showed progression after DC vaccination for stage IV disease.

Dendritic cell vaccination in melanoma patients: From promising results to future perspectives.

Dendritic cells (DCs) play an important role in the induction of antitumor immunity. Therefore, they are used as anti-cancer vaccines in clinical studies in various types of cancer. DC vaccines are generally well tolerated and able to induce antigen-specific T cell responses in melanoma patients. After DC vaccinations, functional tumor-specific T cells are more frequently detected in stage III melanoma patients, as compared to patients with advanced melanoma, indicating that the tumor load influences immunological responses. Furthermore, long-lasting clinical responses were rarely seen in metastatic melanoma patients after DC vaccination. Since more potent treatment options are available, e.g. immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy, DC vaccination as monotherapy may not be preferred in the treatment of advanced melanoma. However, encouraging results of DC vaccines combined with ipilimumab have been reported in advanced melanoma patients with an objective response rate of 38%. DC vaccines show promising clinical results in stage III patients, although clinical efficacy still needs to be proven in a phase 3 trial. The clinical and immunological results of DC vaccination in stage III melanoma patients might be further improved by using naturally circulating DCs (myeloid DCs and plasmacytoid DCs) and neoantigens to load DCs.

Immune-related Adverse Events of Dendritic Cell Vaccination Correlate With Immunologic and Clinical Outcome in Stage III and IV Melanoma Patients.

The purpose of this study was to determine the toxicity profile of dendritic cell (DC) vaccination in stage III and IV melanoma patients, and to evaluate whether there is a correlation between side effects and immunologic and clinical outcome. This is a retrospective analysis of 82 stage III and 137 stage IV melanoma patients, vaccinated with monocyte-derived or naturally circulating autologous DCs loaded with tumor-associated antigens gp100 and tyrosinase. Median follow-up time was 54.3 months in stage III patients and 12.9 months in stage IV patients. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 84% of patients; grade 3 toxicity was present in 3% of patients. Most common adverse events were flu-like symptoms (67%) and injection site reactions (50%), and both correlated with the presence of tetramer-positive CD8 T cells (both P<0.001). In stage III melanoma patients experiencing flu-like symptoms, median overall survival (OS) was not reached versus 32.3 months in patients without flu-like symptoms (P=0.009); median OS in patients with an injection site reaction was not reached versus 53.7 months in patients without an injection site reaction (P<0.05). In stage IV melanoma patients (primary uveal and mucosal melanomas excluded), median OS in patients with or without flu-like symptoms was 13.1 versus 8.9 months, respectively (P=0.03); median OS in patients with an injection site reaction was 15.7 months versus 9.8 months in patients without an injection site reaction (P=0.003). In conclusion, DC vaccination is safe and tolerable and the occurrence of the immune-related side effects, such as flu-like symptoms and injection site reactions, correlates with immunologic and clinical outcome.

Preclinical exploration of combining plasmacytoid and myeloid dendritic cell vaccination with BRAF inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is the most lethal type of skin cancer and its incidence is progressively increasing. The introductions of immunotherapy and targeted therapies have tremendously improved the treatment of melanoma. Selective inhibition of BRAF by vemurafenib results in objective clinical responses in around 50 % of patients suffering from BRAFV600 mutated melanoma. However, drug resistance often results in hampering long-term tumor control. Alternatively, immunotherapy by vaccination with natural dendritic cells (nDCs) demonstrated long-term tumor control in a proportion of patients. We postulate that the rapid tumor debulking by vemurafenib can synergize the long-term tumor control of nDC vaccination to result in an effective treatment modality in a large proportion of patients. Here, we investigated the feasibility of this combination by analyzing the effect of vemurafenib on the functionality of nDCs. METHODS: Plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs) and myeloid DCs (mDCs) were isolated from PBMCs obtained from buffy coats from healthy volunteers or vemurafenib-treated melanoma patients. Maturation of pDCs, mDCs and immature monocyte-derived DCs was induced by R848 in the presence or absence of vemurafenib and analyzed by FACS. Cytokine production and T cell proliferation induced by mature DCs were analyzed. RESULTS: Vemurafenib inhibited maturation and cytokine production of highly purified nDCs of healthy volunteers resulting in diminished allogeneic T cell proliferation. This deleterious effect of vemurafenib on nDC functionality was absent when total PBMCs were exposed to vemurafenib. In patients receiving vemurafenib, nDC functionality and T cell allostimulatory capacity were unaffected. CONCLUSION: Although vemurafenib inhibited the functionality of purified nDC of healthy volunteers, this effect was not observed when nDCs were matured in the complete PBMC fraction. This might have been caused by increased vemurafenib uptake in absence of other cell types. In accordance, nDCs isolated from patients on active vemurafenib treatment showed no negative effects. In conclusion, our results pave the way for a combinatorial treatment strategy and, we propose that combining vemurafenib with nDC vaccination represent a powerful opportunity that deserves more investigation in the clinic.

Case series: indoor-photosensitivity caused by fluorescent lamps in patients treated with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Vemurafenib, a selective inhibitor of genetically activated BRAF, is registered for unresectable stage III and stage IV melanomas harboring a BRAF mutation. Photosensitivity related to exposure to sunlight is a common side-effect. We here present three cases of indoor-photosensitivity due to fluorescent lamps, whilst undergoing treatment with vemurafenib. CASE PRESENTATION: Patient A is a 45-year-old Caucasian female, patient B a 32-year-old Caucasian male and patient C a 53-year-old male. They are all undergoing treatment with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma. Patient A developed indoor-photosensitivity due to fluorescent lamps at work. Her employer changed the lighting to LED light and her complaints disappeared. Patient B is a biology teacher and in classrooms he is exposed to fluorescent lamps. He developed alopecia and subsequently indoor-photosensitivity. This was solved by wearing a baseball cap at work during the day. Patient C developed red and burning skin after working under fluorescent lamps in his shed. This side-effect disappeared completely after avoiding the lamps. CONCLUSION: Photosensitivity is a known adverse event of vemurafenib. This is known to be an UVA-depended photosensitivity. Until now it was thought to be solely related to sunlight exposure. These cases illustrate that patients, whilst undergoing treatment with vemurafenib, can develop indoor-photosensitivity as a result of exposure to fluorescent lamps with a relatively high UV content of the emitted spectrum (low permissible exposure time). Awareness of this side-effect is important to take appropriate measures in the future.

Thirty-minute compared to standardised office blood pressure measurement in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Although blood pressure measurement is one of the most frequently performed measurements in clinical practice, there are concerns about its reliability. Serial, automated oscillometric blood pressure measurement has the potential to reduce measurement bias and white-coat effect'. AIM: To study agreement of 30-minute office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) with standardised OBPM, and to compare repeatability. DESIGN AND SETTING: Method comparison study in two general practices in The Netherlands. METHOD: Thirty-minute and standardised OBPM was carried out with the same, validated device in 83 adult patients, and the procedure was repeated after 2 weeks. During 30-minute OBPM, blood pressure was measured automatically every 3 minutes, with the patient in a sitting position, alone in a quiet room. Agreement between 30-minute and standardised OBPM was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis. Repeatability of the blood pressure measurement methods after 2 weeks was expressed as the mean difference in combination with the standard deviation of difference (SDD). RESULTS: Mean 30-minute OBPM readings were 7.6/2.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.1 to 9.1/1.5 to 3.4 mmHg) lower than standardised OBPM readings. The mean difference and SDD between repeated 30-minute OBPMs (mean difference = 3/1 mmHg, 95% CI = 1 to 5/0 to 2 mmHg; SDD 9.5/5.3 mmHg) were lower than those of standardised OBPMs (mean difference = 6/2 mmHg, 95% CI = 4 to 8/1 to 4 mmHg; SDD 10.9/6.3 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Thirty-minute OBPM resulted in lower readings than standardised OBPM and had a better repeatability. These results suggest that 30-minute OBPM better reflects the patient's true blood pressure than standardised OBPM does.