Long-term follow-up of anti-PD-1 naïve patients with metastatic melanoma treated with IDO/PD-L1 targeting peptide vaccine and nivolumab.

BACKGROUND: We have previously published initial efficacy of the indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO)/anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) vaccine in combination with nivolumab in 30 anti-PD-1 therapy naïve patients with metastatic melanoma (cohort A). We now report long-term follow-up of patients in cohort A. Further, we report results from cohort B, where the peptide vaccine was added to anti-PD-1 therapy for patients with progressive disease during anti-PD-1 treatment. METHODS: All patients were treated with a therapeutic peptide vaccine in Montanide targeting IDO and PD-L1 combined with nivolumab (NCT03047928). A long-term follow-up of safety, response rates, and survival rates were performed in cohort A including patient subgroup analyses. Safety and clinical responses were analyzed for cohort B. RESULTS: Cohort A: At data cut-off, January 5, 2023, the overall response rate (ORR) was 80%, and 50% of the 30 patients obtained a complete response (CR). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 25.5 months (95% CI 8.8 to 39), and median overall survival (mOS) was not reached (NR) (95% CI 36.4 to NR). The minimum follow-up time was 29.8 months, and the median follow-up was 45.3 months (IQR 34.8-59.2). A subgroup evaluation further revealed that cohort A patients with unfavorable baseline characteristics, including either PD-L1 negative tumors (n=13), elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels (n=11), or M1c (n=17) obtained both favorable response rates and durable responses. The ORR was 61.5%, 79%, and 88% for patients with PD-L1- tumors, elevated LDH, and M1c, respectively. The mPFS was 7.1 months for patients with PD-L1- tumors, 30.9 months for patients with elevated LDH, and 27.9 months for M1c patients. Cohort B: At data cut-off, the best overall response was stable disease for 2 of the 10 evaluable patients. The mPFS was 2.4 months (95% CI 1.38 to 2.52), and the mOS was 16.7 months (95% CI 4.13 to NR). CONCLUSION: This long-term follow-up confirms the promising and durable responses in cohort A. Subgroup analyses of patients with unfavorable baseline characteristics revealed that high response rates and survival rates were also found in patients with either PD-L1 negative tumors, elevated LDH levels, or M1c. No meaningful clinical effect was demonstrated in cohort B patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03047928.

First in man study: Bcl-Xl_42-CAF®09b vaccines in patients with locally advanced prostate cancer.

Background: The B-cell lymphoma-extra-large (Bcl-XL) protein plays an important role in cancer cells' resistance to apoptosis. Pre-clinical studies have shown that vaccination with Bcl-XL-derived peptides can induce tumor-specific T cell responses that may lead to the elimination of cancer cells. Furthermore, pre-clinical studies of the novel adjuvant CAF®09b have shown that intraperitoneal (IP) injections of this adjuvant can improve the activation of the immune system. In this study, patients with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (PC) received a vaccine consisting of Bcl-XL-peptide with CAF®09b as an adjuvant. The primary aim was to evaluate the tolerability and safety of IP and intramuscular (IM) administration, determine the optimal route of administration, and characterize vaccine immunogenicity. Patients and methods: Twenty patients were included. A total of six vaccinations were scheduled: in Group A (IM to IP injections), ten patients received three vaccines IM biweekly; after a three-week pause, patients then received three vaccines IP biweekly. In Group B (IP to IM injections), ten patients received IP vaccines first, followed by IM under a similar vaccination schedule. Safety was assessed by logging and evaluating adverse events (AE) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v. 4.0). Vaccines-induced immune responses were analyzed by Enzyme-Linked Immunospot and flow cytometry. Results: No serious AEs were reported. Although an increase in T cell response against the Bcl-XL-peptide was found in all patients, a larger proportion of patients in group B demonstrated earlier and stronger immune responses to the vaccine compared to patients in group A. Further, we demonstrated vaccine-induced immunity towards patient-specific CD4, and CD8 T cell epitopes embedded in Bcl-XL-peptide and an increase in CD4 and CD8 T cell activation markers CD107a and CD137 following vaccination. At a median follow-up of 21 months, no patients had experienced clinically significant disease progression. Conclusion: The Bcl-XL-peptide-CAF®09b vaccination was feasible and safe in patients with l hormone-sensitive PC. In addition, the vaccine was immunogenic and able to elicit CD4 and CD8 T cell responses with initial IP administration eliciting early and high levels of vaccine-specific responses in a higher number og patients. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT03412786.

Arginase-1 targeting peptide vaccine in patients with metastatic solid tumors - A phase I trial.

Background: Arginase-1-producing cells inhibit T cell-mediated anti-tumor responses by reducing L-arginine levels in the tumor microenvironment. T cell-facilitated elimination of arginase-1-expressing cells could potentially restore L-arginine levels and improve anti-tumor responses. The activation of arginase-1-specific T cells may convert the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment and induce or strengthen local Th1 inflammation. In the current clinical study, we examined the safety and immunogenicity of arginase-1-based peptide vaccination. Methods: In this clinical phase I trial, ten patients with treatment-refractory progressive solid tumors were treated. The patients received an arginase-1 peptide vaccine comprising three 20-mer peptides from the ARG1 immunological "hot spot" region in combination with the adjuvant Montanide ISA-51. The vaccines were administered subcutaneously every third week (maximum 16 vaccines). The primary endpoint was to evaluate safety assessed by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0 and laboratory monitoring. Vaccine-specific immune responses were evaluated using enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot assays and intracellular cytokine staining on peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Clinical responses were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Results: The vaccination was feasible, and no vaccine-related grade 3-4 adverse events were registered. Nine (90%) of ten patients exhibited peptide-specific immune responses in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Six (86%) of the seven evaluable patients developed a reactive T cell response against at least one of the ARG1 peptides during treatment. A phenotypic classification revealed that arginase-1 vaccine-specific T cells were both CD4+ T cells and CD8+ T cells. Two (20%) of ten patients obtained stable disease for respectively four- and seven months on vaccination treatment. Conclusion: The peptide vaccine against arginase-1 was safe. Nine (90%) of ten patients had measurable peptide-specific responses in the periphery blood, and two (20%) of ten patients attained stable disease on protocol treatment. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03689192, identifier NCT03689192.

Clinical advances and ongoing trials on mRNA vaccines for cancer treatment.

Years of research exploring mRNA vaccines for cancer treatment in preclinical and clinical trials have set the stage for the rapid development of mRNA vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therapeutic cancer vaccines based on mRNA are well tolerated, and the inherent advantage in ease of production, which rivals the best available conventional vaccine manufacture methods, renders mRNA vaccines a promising option for cancer immunotherapy. Technological advances have optimised mRNA-based vaccine stability, structure, and delivery methods, and multiple clinical trials investigating mRNA vaccine therapy are now enrolling patients with various cancer diagnoses. Although therapeutic mRNA-based cancer vaccines have not yet been approved for standard treatment, encouraging results from early clinical trials with mRNA vaccines as monotherapy and in combination with checkpoint inhibitors have been obtained. This Review summarises the latest clinical advances in mRNA-based vaccines for cancer treatment and reflects on future perspectives and challenges for this new and promising treatment approach.

A phase 1/2 trial of an immune-modulatory vaccine against IDO/PD-L1 in combination with nivolumab in metastatic melanoma.

Anti-programmed death (PD)-1 (aPD1) therapy is an effective treatment for metastatic melanoma (MM); however, over 50% of patients progress due to resistance. We tested a first-in-class immune-modulatory vaccine (IO102/IO103) against indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) and PD ligand 1 (PD-L1), targeting immunosuppressive cells and tumor cells expressing IDO and/or PD-L1 (IDO/PD-L1), combined with nivolumab. Thirty aPD1 therapy-naive patients with MM were treated in a phase 1/2 study ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , NCT03047928). The primary endpoint was feasibility and safety; the systemic toxicity profile was comparable to that of nivolumab monotherapy. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and immunogenicity; an objective response rate (ORR) of 80% (confidence interval (CI), 62.7-90.5%) was reached, with 43% (CI, 27.4-60.8%) complete responses. After a median follow-up of 22.9 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 26 months (CI, 15.4-69 months). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. Vaccine-specific responses assessed in vitro were detected in the blood of >93% of patients during vaccination. Vaccine-reactive T cells comprised CD4+ and CD8+ T cells with activity against IDO- and PD-L1-expressing cancer and immune cells. T cell influx of peripherally expanded T cells into tumor sites was observed in responding patients, and general enrichment of IDO- and PD-L1-specific clones after treatment was documented. These clinical efficacy and favorable safety data support further validation in a larger randomized trial to confirm the clinical potential of this immunomodulating approach.

Adoptive cell therapy with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes supported by checkpoint inhibition across multiple solid cancer types.

BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) has shown remarkable results in malignant melanoma (MM), while studies on the potential in other cancer diagnoses are sparse. Further, the prospect of using checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) to support TIL production and therapy remains to be explored. STUDY DESIGN: TIL-based ACT with CPIs was evaluated in a clinical phase I/II trial. Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) was administered prior to tumor resection and nivolumab (3 mg/kg, every 2 weeks ×4) in relation to TIL infusion. Preconditioning chemotherapy was given before TIL infusion and followed by low-dose (2 10e6 international units (UI) ×1 subcutaneous for 14 days) interleukin-2 stimulation. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients covering 10 different cancer diagnoses were treated with in vitro expanded TILs. Expansion of TILs was successful in 97% of recruited patients. Five patients had sizeable tumor regressions of 30%-63%, including two confirmed partial responses in patients with head-and-neck cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Safety and feasibility were comparable to MM trials of ACT with the addition of expected CPI toxicity. In an exploratory analysis, tumor mutational burden and expression of the alpha-integrin CD103 (p=0.025) were associated with increased disease control. In vitro tumor reactivity was seen in both patients with an objective response and was associated with regressions in tumor size (p=0.028). CONCLUSION: High success rates of TIL expansion were demonstrated across multiple solid cancers. TIL ACTs were found feasible, independent of previous therapy. Tumor regressions after ACT combined with CPIs were demonstrated in several cancer types supported by in vitro antitumor reactivity of the TILs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03296137, and EudraCT No. 2017-002323-25.