Dendritic cell vaccination combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel for metastatic endometrial cancer patients: results of a phase I/II trial.

Background: Metastatic endometrial cancer (mEC) continues to have a poor prognosis despite the introduction of several novel therapies including immune checkpoints inhibitors. Dendritic cell (DC) vaccination is known to be a safe immunotherapeutic modality that can induce immunological and clinical responses in patients with solid tumors. Platinum-based chemotherapy is known to act synergistically with immunotherapy by selectively depleting suppressive immune cells. Therefore, we investigated the immunological efficacy of combined chemoimmunotherapy with an autologous DC vaccine and carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy. Study design: This is a prospective, exploratory, single-arm phase I/II study (NCT04212377) in 7 patients with mEC. The DC vaccine consisted of blood-derived conventional and plasmacytoid dendritic cells, loaded with known mEC antigens Mucin-1 and Survivin. Chemotherapy consisted of carboplatin/paclitaxel, given weekly for 6 cycles and three-weekly for 3 cycles. The primary endpoint was immunological vaccine efficacy; secondary endpoints were safety and feasibility. Results: Production of DC vaccines was successful in five out of seven patients. These five patients started study treatment and all were able to complete the entire treatment schedule. Antigen-specific responses could be demonstrated in two of the five patients who were treated. All patients had at least one adverse event grade 3 or higher. Treatment-related adverse events grade ≥3 were related to chemotherapy rather than DC vaccination; neutropenia was most common. Suppressive myeloid cells were selectively depleted in peripheral blood after chemotherapy. Conclusion: DC vaccination can be safely combined with carboplatin/paclitaxel in patients with metastatic endometrial cancer and induces antigen-specific responses in a minority of patients. Longitudinal immunological phenotyping is suggestive of a synergistic effect of the combination.

Phenotype-guided targeted therapy based on functional signal transduction pathway activity in recurrent ovarian cancer patients: The STAPOVER study protocol.

Objective: Ovarian cancer is the fifth cause of cancer-related death among women. The benefit of targeted therapy for ovarian cancer patients is limited even if treatment is stratified by molecular signature. There remains a high unmet need for alternative diagnostics that better predict targeted therapy, as current diagnostics are generally inaccurate predictors. Quantitative assessment of functional signal transduction pathway (STP) activity from mRNA measurements of target genes is an alternative approach. Therefore, we aim to identify aberrantly activated STPs in tumour tissue of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer and start phenotype-guided targeted therapy to improve survival without compromising quality of life. Study design: Patients with recurrent ovarian cancer and either 1) have platinum-resistant disease, 2) refrain from standard therapy or 3) are asymptomatic and not yet eligible for standard therapy will be included in this multi-centre prospective cohort study with multiple stepwise executed treatment arms. Targeted therapy will be available for patients with aberrantly high functional activity of the oestrogen receptor, androgen receptor, phosphoinositide 3-kinase or Hedgehog STP. The primary endpoint of this study is the progression-free survival (PFS) ratio (PFS2/PFS1 ratio) according to RECIST 1.1 determined by the PFS on matched targeted therapy (PFS2) compared to PFS on prior therapy (PFS1). Secondary endpoints include among others best overall response, overall survival, side effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Conclusion: The results of this study will show the clinical applicability of STP activity in selecting recurrent ovarian cancer patients for effective therapies.

Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: While shared decision making (SDM) is advocated for ethical reasons and beneficial outcomes, SDM might also negatively affect patients with incurable cancer. The current study explored whether SDM, and an oncologist training in SDM, are associated with adverse outcomes (i.e., patient anxiety, tension, helplessness/hopelessness, decisional uncertainty, and reduced fighting spirit). DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of SDM interventions in the context of advanced cancer. The relations between observed SDM (OPTION12), specific SDM elements (4SDM), oncologist SDM training, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. We modeled adverse outcomes as a multivariate phenomenon, followed by univariate regressions if significant. RESULTS: In total, 194 patients consulted by 31 oncologists were included. In a multivariate analysis, observed SDM and adverse outcomes were significantly related. More specifically, more observed SDM in the consultation was related to patients reporting more tension (P = 0.002) and more decisional uncertainty (P = 0.004) at 1 wk after the consultation. The SDM element "informing about the options" was especially found to be related to adverse outcomes, specifically to more helplessness/hopelessness (P = 0.002) and more tension (P = 0.016) at 1 wk after the consultation. Whether the patient consulted an oncologist who had received SDM training or not was not significantly related to adverse outcomes. No relations with long-term adverse outcomes were found. CONCLUSIONS: It is important for oncologists to realize that for some patients, SDM may temporarily be associated with negative emotions. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and whether and how burden may be minimized for patients. HIGHLIGHTS: Observed shared decision making was related to more tension and uncertainty postconsultation in advanced cancer patientsHowever, training oncologists in SDM did not affect adverse outcomes.Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and how burden may be minimized.