Immunological effects of adjuvants in subsets of antigen presenting cells of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that HCC patients and healthy subjects are equally responsive to a RNAdjuvant®, a novel TLR-7/8/RIG-I agonist based on noncoding RNA developed by CureVac, by an ex vivo evaluation. However, the immunological effect of adjuvants on immune cells from cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy remains to be demonstrated. Different adjuvants currently used in cancer vaccine clinical trials were evaluated in the present study on immune cells from cancer patients before and after chemotherapy in an ex vivo setting. METHODS: PBMCs were obtained from 4 healthy volunteers and 23 patients affected by either colon (OMA) or lung cancer (OT). The effect of CpG, Poly I:C, Imiquimod and RNA-based adjuvant (RNAdjuvant®) was assessed using a multiparametric approach to analyze network dynamics of early immune responses. Evaluation of CD80, CD86 and HLA-DR expression as well as the downstream effect on CD4+ T cell phenotyping was performed by flow cytometry; cytokine and chemokine production was evaluated by Bio-Plex ProTM. RESULTS: Treatment with RNAdjuvant® induced the strongest response in cancer patients in terms of activation of innate and adoptive immunity. Indeed, CD80, CD86 and HLA-DR expression was found upregulated in circulating dendritic cells, which promoted a CD4+ T cell differentiation towards an effector phenotype. RNAdjuvant® was the only one to induce most of the cytokines/chemokines tested with a pronounced Th1 cytokine pattern. According to the different parameters evaluated in the study, no clear cut difference in immune response to adjuvants was observed between healthy subjects and cancer patients. Moreover, in the latter group, the chemotherapy treatment did not consistently correlate to a significant altered response in the different parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The present study is the first analysis of immunological effects induced by adjuvants in cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy, who are enrolled in the currently ongoing cancer vaccine clinical trials. The results show that the RNAdjuvant® is a potent and Th1 driving adjuvant, compared to those tested in the present study. Most importantly, it is demonstrated that chemotherapy does not significantly impair the immune system, implying that cancer patients are likely to respond to a cancer vaccine even after a chemotherapy treatment.

Heterogeneous disease and intermittent treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: A case report.

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death worldwide. RAS and BRAF mutational analyses are strongly recommended before beginning chemotherapy in the metastatic setting for their predictive role for the efficacy of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. In most of cases, mutational status coincides between primary tumor and metastases. In RAS and BRAF wild-type patients treated with anti-EGFRs, after an induction treatment period, recent evidence supports the role of a maintenance treatment with fluoropyrimidines and anti-EGFRs. However, skin toxicity is the most described and limiting side-effect of maintenance. Moreover, it is described that the continuous administration of these monoclonal antibodies leads to an acquired resistance to anti-EGFRs, with subsequent treatment failure. Intermittent strategy with chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR may help maintain treatment efficacy, delaying resistance. Case presentation: In this case report, we describe the case of a RAS-BRAF wild-type elderly patient undergoing first-line chemotherapy with FOLFOX + panitumumab, reporting response of disease on all metastatic sites except for a node. This node, surgically removed, revealed host BRAF V600 mutant clones. After surgery, patient continued chemotherapy with a stop-and-go strategy continuing to benefit from the same drugs after 4 years since diagnosis, and continuing to achieve response when on treatment, avoiding unacceptable anti-EGFR toxicity. This patient, still alive after 6 years since the diagnosis, represents the case of a good synergy between molecular profiling of disease, surgery, and intermittent treatment.

Phase I/II Multicenter Trial of a Novel Therapeutic Cancer Vaccine, HepaVac-101, for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) shows considerable promise in improving clinical outcomes. HepaVac-101 represents a single-arm, first-in-human phase I/II multicenter cancer vaccine trial for HCC (NCT03203005). It combines multipeptide antigens (IMA970A) with the TLR7/8/RIG I agonist CV8102. IMA970A includes 5 HLA-A*24 and 7 HLA-A*02 as well as 4 HLA-DR restricted peptides selected after mass spectrometric identification in human HCC tissues or cell lines. CV8102 is an RNA-based immunostimulator inducing a balanced Th1/Th2 immune response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 82 patients with very early- to intermediate-stage HCCs were enrolled and screened for suitable HLA haplotypes and 22 put on study treatment. This consisted in a single infusion of low-dose cyclophosphamide followed by nine intradermal coadministrations of IMA970A and CV8102. Only patients with no disease relapse after standard-of-care treatments were vaccinated. The primary endpoints of the HepaVac-101 clinical trial were safety, tolerability, and antigen-specific T-cell responses. Secondary or exploratory endpoints included additional immunologic parameters and survival endpoints. RESULTS: The vaccination showed a good safety profile. Transient mild-to-moderate injection-site reactions were the most frequent IMA970A/CV8102-related side effects. Immune responses against ≥1 vaccinated HLA class I tumor-associated peptide (TAA) and ≥1 vaccinated HLA class II TAA were respectively induced in 37% and 53% of the vaccinees. CONCLUSIONS: Immunotherapy may provide a great improvement in treatment options for HCC. HepaVac-101 is a first-in-human clinical vaccine trial with multiple novel HLA class I- and class II-restricted TAAs against HCC. The results are initial evidence for the safety and immunogenicity of the vaccine. Further clinical evaluations are warranted.