Subgroup analysis of nelipepimut-S plus GM-CSF combined with trastuzumab versus trastuzumab alone to prevent recurrences in patients with high-risk, HER2 low-expressing breast cancer.

HER2-targeted therapy has not benefited patients with low levels of HER2 expression; however, combination therapy may be effective. Primary analysis of a phase IIb trial investigating the HER2-derived vaccine nelipepimut-S (NPS) did not benefit the intention-to-treat population, but subset analysis showed a benefit in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. The subset analysis of this multicenter, randomized, single-blind, phase IIb trial identified significant improvement in 36-month disease-free survival (DFS) between NPS (n = 55) and placebo (n = 44) in TNBC (HR 0.25, p = 0.01) and those who express HLA-A24 (HR 0.41, p = 0.05). The TNBC cohort demonstrated improved 36-month DFS in those with HER2 1+ expression (HR 0.17, p = 0.01), HLA-A24 positivity (HR 0.08, p < 0.01), or in those who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.21, p < 0.01). NPS vaccination with trastuzumab was associated with improved 36-month DFS among patients with TNBC. The observed benefit to this high-risk subgroup warrants confirmation in a phase III trial.

Initial safety analysis of a randomized phase II trial of nelipepimut-S + GM-CSF and trastuzumab compared to trastuzumab alone to prevent recurrence in breast cancer patients with HER2 low-expressing tumors.

The development of HER2-targeted therapy has decreased recurrence rates and improved survival, transforming the natural history of HER2-positive breast cancer. However only a minority of breast cancer patients benefit as these agents are not used in patients with tumors expressing low levels of HER2. Preclinical data suggests a synergistic action of HER2-targeted vaccination with trastuzumab. We report the initial safety interim analysis of a phase II trial that enrolled patients with HER2 low-expressing (IHC 1+/2+) breast cancer who were clinically disease-free after standard therapy. Patients were randomized to receive the HER2-peptide vaccine nelipepimut-S + GM-CSF with trastuzumab (vaccine arm) or trastuzumab + GM-CSF (control arm) and were followed for recurrence. A planned analysis that occurred after enrollment of 150 patients showed no significant differences in toxicity between the two arms, including cardiac toxicity. The clinical efficacy of this combination will be reported 6 months after the final patient was enrolled.

Intravenous Cetirizine Premedication to Mitigate Infusion-Related Reactions.

Infusion-related reactions (IRRs) are a recognized concern for chemotherapy, biologic agents, and newer immunotherapies. Antihistamines are frequently recommended to prevent or manage these reactions. For over 60 years, diphenhydramine has been the only H1 antihistamine for intravenous (IV) administration. It has been considered the standard of care as part of premedication regimens to prevent IRRs associated with these therapies despite the lack of a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indication and no evidence of efficacy data. Intravenous cetirizine was approved in 2019 for acute urticaria treatment, making it the only second-generation H1 antihistamine that can be administered intravenously. Compared with diphenhydramine, cetirizine has an improved safety profile with less sedation, fewer contraindications, lower incidence of anticholinergic side effects, and minimal risk of adverse events in elderly patients. A head-to-head study demonstrated that IV cetirizine is as effective as IV diphenhydramine in reducing IRRs and may decrease chair time, treatment center visits, and the need for rescue medication. Over the past 3 decades, the FDA has addressed the issue of IRRs by mandating language regarding the requirement or recommendation for premedication in the label of over 50 FDA-approved infusion products. As more therapeutics have premedication required or recommended, IV cetirizine should be considered an antihistamine for preventing and treating IRRs. In this article, we describe a patient whose IRR was successfully managed with IV cetirizine and discuss first- vs. second-generation H1 antihistamines and their use in treating and preventing IRRs.

Results of a phase I/IIa trial of SV-BR-1-GM inoculation with low-dose cyclophosphamide and interferon alpha (Bria-IMT) in metastatic breast cancer.

This Phase I/IIa open-label, single-arm clinical trial addressing advanced, refractory, metastatic breast cancer was conducted at six medical centers in the United States. We repeated inoculations with irradiated SV-BR-1-GM, a breast cancer cell line with antigen-presenting activity engineered to release granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), with pre-dose low-dose cyclophosphamide and post-dose local interferon alpha. Twenty-six patients were enrolled; 23 (88.5%) were inoculated, receiving a total of 79 inoculations. There were six Grade 4 and one Grade 5 adverse events noted (judged unrelated to SV-BR-1-GM). Disease control (stable disease [SD]) occurred in 8 of 16 evaluable patients; 4 showed objective regression of metastases, including 1 patient with near-complete regressions in 20 of 20 pulmonary lesions. All patients with regressions had human leukocyte antigen (HLA) matches with SV-BR-1-GM; non-responders were equally divided between matching and nonmatching (p = .01, Chi-squared), and having ≥2 HLA matches with SV-BR-1-GM (n = 6) correlated with clinical benefit. Delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) testing to candida antigen and SV-BR-1-GM generated positive responses (≥5 mm) in 11 (42.3%) and 13 (50%) patients, respectively. Quantifying peripheral circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and cancer-associated macrophage-like cells (CAMLs) showed that a drop in CAMLs was significantly correlated with an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS; 4.1 months vs. 1.8 months, p = .0058). Eight of 10 patients significantly upregulated programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on CTCs/CAMLs with treatment (p = .0012). These observations support the safety of the Bria-IMT regimen, demonstrate clinical regressions, imply a role for HLA matching, and identify a possible value for monitoring CAMLs in peripheral blood.

Clinical trial results of the HER-2/neu (E75) vaccine to prevent breast cancer recurrence in high-risk patients: from US Military Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Group Study I-01 and I-02.

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted exploratory phase 1-2 clinical trials vaccinating breast cancer patients with E75, a human leukocyte antigen (HLA) A2/A3-restricted HER-2/neu (HER2) peptide, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. The vaccine is given as adjuvant therapy to prevent disease recurrence. They previously reported that the vaccine is safe and effective in stimulating expansion of E75-specific cytotoxic T cells. Here, they report 24-month landmark analyses of disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS: These dose escalation/schedule optimization trials enrolled lymph node-positive and high-risk lymph node-negative patients with HER2 (immunohistochemistry [IHC] 1-3(+) ) expressing tumors. HLA-A2/A3(+) patients were vaccinated; others were followed prospectively as controls for recurrence. DFS was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier curves; groups were compared using log-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 195 enrolled patients, 182 were evaluable: 106 (58.2%) in the vaccinated group and 76 (41.8%) in the control group. The 24-month landmark analysis DFS was 94.3% in the vaccinated group and 86.8% in the control group (P = .08). Importantly, because of trial design, 65% of patients received a lower than optimal vaccine dose. In subset analyses, patients who benefited most from vaccination (vaccinated group vs control group) had lymph node-positive (DFS, 90.2% vs 79.1%; P = .13), HER2 IHC 1+-2+ (DFS, 94.0% vs 79.4%; P = .04), or grade 1 or 2 (DFS, 98.4% vs 86.0%; P = .01) tumors and were optimally dosed (DFS, 97.3% vs 86.8%; P = .08). A booster program has been initiated; no patients receiving booster inoculations have recurred. CONCLUSIONS: The E75 vaccine has clinical efficacy that is more prominent in certain patients. A phase 3 trial enrolling lymph node-positive patients with HER2 low-expressing tumors is warranted.

The GP2 peptide: a HER2/neu-based breast cancer vaccine.

Preclinical studies suggest that GP2, a HER2/neu-derived peptide, is immunogenic. Subsequent phase I clinical trials demonstrated that GP2-based vaccines are safe and effective in stimulating peptide-specific immunity. A GP2 peptide vaccine is currently being evaluated in a phase II efficacy trial enrolling breast cancer patients. This article reviews initial studies characterizing GP2, clinical trials investigating GP2-based vaccines, and novel immunotherapy strategies incorporating GP2 in combination with other peptides or with the monoclonal antibody trastuzumab.

Folate receptor α: a storied past and promising future in immunotherapy.

Folate receptor alpha (FR α) is a membrane-bound transport protein with several features which make it an attractive target for cancer immunotherapy. FR α is largely shielded from the immune system in normal tissue but exposed while expressed on a variety of malignancies; it is functionally active in cancer pathogenesis; and it is immunogenic. A variety of different immunotherapeutic methods targeting FR α are being explored to treat cancer. Passive immunotherapy includes monoclonal antibodies, antibodies modified to deliver treatments, and modified T cell therapy. Active immunotherapy has focused on using FR α to increase the immunogenicity of cancer or to generate active FR α-directed immunity through a range of vaccination techniques. We will review the rationale behind targeting immunotherapy to FR α and cover the various techniques designed to do this. Folate receptor alpha (FRα) is a unique tumor-associated antigen (TAA) with many characteristics that make it an attractive target for immunotherapy in cancer. Many different immunotherapeutic modalities utilizing FRα are being explored to treat cancer. The research is in various stages: some are just beyond conception, others have been tried and abandoned, and others still are progressing through human clinical trials. This review will cover immunotherapeutic methods, both active and passive, that target FRα.

Intravenous Cetirizine vs Intravenous Diphenhydramine for the Prevention of Hypersensitivity Infusion Reactions: Results of an Exploratory Phase 2 Study.

Pretreatment with antihistamines for the prevention of hypersensitivity infusion reactions is recommended for certain biologics and chemotherapies. Cetirizine is the first injectable second-generation antihistamine recently approved for acute urticaria. A randomized, exploratory phase 2 study evaluated intravenous (IV) cetirizine 10 mg versus IV diphenhydramine 50 mg as pretreatment in patients receiving an anti-CD20 agent or paclitaxel. In the overall population (N = 34) and an elderly subgroup (n = 21), IV cetirizine was as effective as IV diphenhydramine in preventing infusion reactions (primary outcome) and associated with less sedation at all time points, a shorter infusion center stay, and fewer treatment-related adverse events.

The impact of HER2/neu expression level on response to the E75 vaccine: from U.S. Military Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Group Study I-01 and I-02.

PURPOSE: HER2/neu, a source of immunogenic peptides, is expressed in >75% of breast cancer patients. We have conducted clinical trials with the HER2/neu E75 peptide vaccine in breast cancer patients with varying levels of HER2/neu expression. Vaccine response based on HER2/neu expression level was analyzed. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients were stratified by HER2/neu expression. Low expressors (n = 100) were defined as HER2/neu immunohistochemistry (IHC) 1(+) to 2(+) or fluorescence in situ hybridization < 2.0. Overexpressors (n = 51) were defined as IHC 3(+) or fluorescence in situ hybridization > or = 2.0. Additional analyses were done stratifying by IHC status (0-3(+)). Standard clinocopathlogic factors, immunologic response (in vivo delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions; ex vivo human leukocyte antigen A2:immunoglobulin G dimer assay), and clinical responses (recurrence; mortality) were assessed. RESULTS: Low-expressor (control, 44; vaccinated, 56) versus overexpressor patients (control, 22; vaccinated, 29) were assessed. Low expressors, overexpressors, and most IHC-status vaccinated groups responded immunologically. Vaccinated low-expressor patients had larger maximum immunologic responses compared with overexpressor patients (P = 0.04), and vaccinated IHC 1(+) patients had increased long-term immune response (P = 0.08). More importantly, compared with controls, low-expressor patients had a mortality reduction (P = 0.08). The largest decrease in mortality was seen in IHC 1(+) patients (P = 0.05). In addition, a subset of overexpressor patients (n = 7) received trastuzumab before vaccination, and this combination seems safe and immunologically beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with various levels of HER2/neu expression responded immunologically and seemed to benefit from vaccination. The low expressors, specifically IHC 1(+) patients, had more robust immunologic responses and may derive the greatest clinical benefit from the E75 vaccine.

Cancer Vaccine Development Program collaborations.

Immunotherapy for cancer, which uses the body's immune system to fight the disease, is an increasingly active area of research. Successful therapies such as trastuzamab (Herceptin) for breast cancer and cytokine therapy for renal cell carcinoma and melanoma have validated the field as a viable area of investigation. However, the goal of developing an effective cancer vaccine has not yet been achieved. The military's Cancer Vaccine Development Program (CVDP) is collaborating with other military programs, along with civilian institutions, to advance scientific research surrounding cancer vaccines.

Results of a Randomized Phase IIb Trial of Nelipepimut-S + Trastuzumab versus Trastuzumab to Prevent Recurrences in Patients with High-Risk HER2 Low-Expressing Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Preclinical data provide evidence for synergism between HER2-targeted peptide vaccines and trastuzumab. The efficacy of this combination was evaluated in patients with HER2 low-expressing breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A phase IIb, multicenter, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial enrolled disease-free patients after standard therapy completion (NCT01570036). Eligible patients were HLA-A2, A3, A24, and/or A26+, and had HER2 IHC 1+/2+, FISH nonamplified breast cancer, that was node positive and/or hormone receptor-negative [triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)]. Patients received trastuzumab for 1 year and were randomized to placebo (GM-CSF, control) or nelipepimut-S (NPS) with GM-CSF. Primary outcome was 24-month disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary outcomes were 36-month DFS, safety, and immunologic response. RESULTS: Overall, 275 patients were randomized; 136 received NPS with GM-CSF, and 139 received placebo with GM-CSF. There were no clinicopathologic differences between groups. Concurrent trastuzumab and NPS with GM-CSF was safe with no additional overall or cardiac toxicity compared with control. At median follow-up of 25.7 (interquartile range, 18.4-32.7) months, estimated DFS did not significantly differ between NPS and control [HR, 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-1.25; P = 0.18]. In a planned exploratory analysis of patients with TNBC, DFS was improved for NPS versus control (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.81, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of NPS with trastuzumab is safe. In HER2 low-expressing breast cancer, no significant difference in DFS was seen in the intention-to-treat analysis; however, significant clinical benefit was seen in patients with TNBC. These findings warrant further investigation in a phase III randomized trial.

Combined clinical trial results of a HER2/neu (E75) vaccine for the prevention of recurrence in high-risk breast cancer patients: U.S. Military Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Group Study I-01 and I-02.

PURPOSE: E75 is an immunogenic peptide from the HER2/neu protein, which is overexpressed in many breast cancer patients. We have conducted two overlapping E75 vaccine trials to prevent recurrence in node-positive (NP) and node-negative (NN) breast cancer patients. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: E75 (HER2/neu 369-377) + granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor was given intradermally to previously treated, disease-free NP breast cancer patients in a dose escalation safety trial and to NN breast cancer patients in a dose optimization study. Local and systemic toxicity was monitored. Immunologic responses were assessed using in vitro assays and in vivo delayed-type hypersensitivity responses. Clinical recurrences were documented. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-six patients were enrolled in the two studies (NP, 95; NN, 91). Human leucocyte antigen A2 (HLA-A2) and HLA-A3 patients were vaccinated (n = 101), whereas all others (n = 85) were followed prospectively as controls. Toxicities were minimal, and a dose-dependent immunologic response to the vaccine was shown. Planned primary analysis revealed a recurrence rate of 5.6% in vaccinated patients compared with 14.2% in the controls (P = 0.04) at a median of 20 months follow-up. As vaccine-specific immunity waned over time, the difference in recurrence lost significance at 26 months median follow-up (8.3% versus 14.8%); however, a significant difference in the pattern of recurrence persisted. CONCLUSIONS: E75 is safe and effective in raising a dose-dependent HER2/neu immunity in HLA-A2 and HLA-A3 NP and NN breast cancer patients. More importantly, E75 may reduce recurrences in disease-free, conventionally treated, high-risk breast cancer patients. These findings warrant a prospective, randomized phase III trial of the E75 vaccine with periodic booster to prevent breast cancer recurrences.

Quantification and phenotypic characterization of circulating tumor cells for monitoring response to a preventive HER2/neu vaccine-based immunotherapy for breast cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Ongoing cancer vaccine trials are limited by the inability of immunologic assays to monitor clinically relevant surrogates of response. Recent advances in the ability to quantify and phenotype circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in breast cancer patients may lead to a role for CTCs in monitoring response to vaccine-based immunotherapy. METHODS: The CellSearch System (Veridex-LLC, Warren, NJ) was used to enumerate total and HER2/neu+ CTCs in 20 mL of blood from all 16 node-positive (NP) breast cancer patients active in our NP HER2/neu E75 peptide vaccine trial at the initiation of this pilot study. These patients were vaccinated with E75 (1000 microg)/GM-CSF (250 microg) monthly x 6 after completion of multimodality therapy. Mean (+/-SEM) number of CTCs and HER2/neu+ CTCs were compared in unmatched (n = 16) and matched (n = 9) prevaccination and postvaccination cases. RESULTS: CTCs were detected in 14 of 16 (88%) patients (mean: 3.4 +/- 0.2 CTC/20 mL). After vaccination, a reduction in CTC/20 mL (prevaccination 3.9 +/- 1.5 vs postvaccination 0.7 +/- 0.4, P = .077) and HER2/neu+ CTC/20 mL (prevaccination 2.8 +/- 1.0 vs postvaccination 0.5 +/- 0.2, P = .048) was demonstrated. A significant delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) response suggesting that vaccination was effective in eliciting a peptide-specific immune response was confirmed (22.3 +/- 4.1 vs 3.0 +/- 2.2 [controls] mm, P < .01). All nine patients followed throughout the vaccination series also showed significant reduction in CTCs (4.8 +/- 1.5 vs 0.3 +/- 0.2, P < .01) and HER2/neu+ CTCs (3.0 +/- 0.9 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2, P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: CTCs are readily demonstrated in posttreatment, clinically disease-free NP breast cancer patients. E75+GM-CSF vaccination appears to reduce the number of CTCs. These data suggest a potential role for this clinically validated CTC assay in assessing response to preventive vaccine-based immunotherapy, and further validation studies are underway.

Use of booster inoculations to sustain the clinical effect of an adjuvant breast cancer vaccine: from US Military Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Group Study I-01 and I-02.

BACKGROUND: The authors are conducting clinical trials of the HER-2/neu E75-peptide vaccine in clinically disease-free breast cancer (BC) patients. Their phase 1-2 trials revealed that the E75 + granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) vaccine is safe and effective in stimulating clonal expansion of E75-specific CD8(+) T cells. They assessed the need for and response to a booster after completion of primary vaccination series. METHODS: BC patients enrolled in the E75 vaccine trials who were ≥6 months from completion of their primary vaccination series were offered boosters with E75 + GM-CSF. Patients were monitored for toxicity. E75-specific CD8(+) T cells were quantified using the human leukocyte antigen-A2:immunoglobulin G dimer before and after boosting. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients received the vaccine booster. Median time from primary vaccination series was 9 months (range, 6-35 months), and median residual E75-specific immunity was 0.70% (range, 0-3.49%) CD8(+) lymphocytes. Elevated residual immunity (ERI) (CD8(+) E75-specific T cells >0.5%) was seen in 94.4% of patients at 6 months from primary vaccination series versus 48% of patients at >6 months (P = .002). The booster was well tolerated, with only grade 1 and 2 toxicity observed. Local reactions were more robust in patients receiving the booster at 6 months from primary vaccination series compared with those at >6 months (99.4 ± 6.1 mm vs 81.8 ± 4.1 mm, P = .01). In patients lacking ERI, 85% had increased ERI after vaccination (P = .0014). CONCLUSIONS: The HER-2/neu E75 peptide vaccine E75 stimulates specific immunity in disease-free BC patients. However, immunity wanes with time. A vaccine booster is safe and effective in stimulating E75-specific immunity in those patients without ERI. These results suggest that the booster may be most effective at 6 months after completion of the primary vaccination series.

Comparison of different HER2/neu vaccines in adjuvant breast cancer trials: implications for dosing of peptide vaccines.

We have performed multiple adjuvant clinical trials using immunogenic peptides from the HER2/neu protein (AE37/E75/GP2) plus (GM-CSF) given intradermally to breast cancer patients. Four trials were performed with similar dose-escalation design with increasing doses of peptide (AE37/E75/GP2) and varying amounts of GM-CSF. Dose reductions (DRs) were made for significant local and/or systemic toxicity by decreasing GM-CSF for subsequent inoculations. Ex vivo and in vivo immunologic responses were used to compare groups. Of 132 patients, 39 required DR (30 for robust local reactions [DR-L]). DR patients, particularly DR-L, had greater immune responses both ex vivo and in vivo. Postvaccine delayed-type hypersensitivity in DR-L patients compared with all others was larger for E75 (p = 0.001), AE37 (p = 0.077) and GP2 (p = 0.076). All three peptide vaccines were safe and well-tolerated. These findings have led to a clinically relevant optimal vaccine dosing strategy, which may be applicable to other peptide-based cancer vaccines.

AE37: a novel T-cell-eliciting vaccine for breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Immunotherapy, including vaccines targeting the human EGFR2 (HER-2/neu) protein, is an active area of investigation in combatting breast cancer. Several vaccines are currently undergoing clinical trials, most of which are CD8(+) T-cell-eliciting vaccines. AE37 is a promising primarily CD4(+) T-cell-eliciting HER-2/neu breast cancer vaccine currently in clinical trials. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews preclinical investigations as well as findings from completed and ongoing Phase I and Phase II clinical trials of the AE37 vaccine. EXPERT OPINION: Clinical trials have shown the AE37 vaccine to be safe and capable of generating peptide-specific, durable immune responses. This has been shown in patients with any level of HER-2/neu expression. Early clinical findings suggest there may be benefit to AE37 vaccination in preventing breast cancer recurrence.

Results of the first phase 1 clinical trial of the HER-2/neu peptide (GP2) vaccine in disease-free breast cancer patients: United States Military Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Group Study I-04.

BACKGROUND: HER-2/neu, overexpressed in breast cancer, is a source of immunogenic peptides that include GP2 and E75. Phase 2 testing of E75 as an adjuvant vaccine has suggested a clinical benefit. GP2, derived from the transmembrane portion of HER-2/neu, has differing binding characteristics and may be more immunogenic than E75. Results of the first phase 1 trial of GP2 peptide vaccine are presented. METHODS: Disease-free, lymph node-negative, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A2(+) breast cancer patients were enrolled. This dose escalation trial included 4 groups to determine safety and optimal GP2 peptide/granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) dose. Toxicities were monitored. Immunologic response was assessed ex vivo via the HLA-A2:immunoglobulin dimer assay to detect GP2-specific CD8(+) T cells (and E75-specific CD8(+) T cells to assess epitope spreading) and in vivo via delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) reaction (medians/ranges). RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled. All toxicities were grade < or =2. Eight (88.9%) of 9 patients in the first 3 dose groups required GM-CSF dose reductions for local reactions > or =100 mm or grade > or =2 systemic toxicity. GM-CSF dose was reduced to 125 microg for the final dose group. All patients responded immunologically ex vivo (GP2-specific CD8(+) T cells from prevaccination to maximum, 0.4% [0.0%-2.0%] to 1.1% [0.4%-3.6%], P < .001) and in vivo (GP2 pre- to postvaccination DTH, 0 mm [0.0-19.5 mm] to 27.5 mm [0.0-114.5 mm, P < .001). E75-specific CD8(+) T cells also increased in response to GP2 from prevaccination to maximum (0.8% [0.0%-2.41%] to 1.6% [0.86%-3.72%], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The GP2 peptide vaccine appears safe and well tolerated with minimal local/systemic toxicity. GP2 elicited HER-2/neu-specific immune responses, including epitope spreading, in high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer patients. These findings support further investigation of the GP2 vaccine for the prevention of breast cancer recurrence.

Use of GM-CSF as an adjuvant with cancer vaccines: beneficial or detrimental?

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) has been utilized in the clinical management of multiple disease processes. Most recently, GM-CSF has been incorporated into the treatment of malignancies as a sole therapy, as well as a vaccine adjuvant. While the benefits of GM-CSF in this arena have been promising, recent reports have suggested the potential for GM-CSF to induce immune suppression and, thus, negatively impact outcomes in the management of cancer patients. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate these reports, while considering the most recent clinical data on immunotherapies. We aim to demonstrate the utility of this adjuvant, elucidate those instances in which GM-CSF may induce immune suppression and identify potential explanations for these recent findings.

Clinical and immunologic responses of HLA-A3+ breast cancer patients vaccinated with the HER2/neu-derived peptide vaccine, E75, in a phase I/II clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: We have treated disease-free breast cancer patients with an HER2/neu-derived peptide, E75, as an adjuvant vaccine. E75 was originally described as HLA-A2-restricted and has been previously tested in this population. Based on computer modeling, E75 is predicted to bind to HLA-A3, and preclinical data support this. We conducted a clinical trial of E75 in HLA-A3(+), A2(-) (A3) patients. STUDY DESIGN: Disease-free breast cancer patients were enrolled after standard therapy in phase I/II trials. A3 patients were enrolled in parallel with A2 patients and vaccinated with E75 and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor immunoadjuvant. A2(-), A3(-) patients were followed as controls. Toxicities were graded. Immunologic responses were assessed by delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions and E75-specific interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay. Clinical recurrences were documented. RESULTS: Thirteen A3 patients completed the vaccine schedule. Clinicopathologic features were similar between A3, A2, and control patients, except for more HER2/neu-overexpressing tumors in the A2 group and more estrogen-receptor/progesterone-receptor-negative tumors in A2 and A3 groups. Toxicity profiles and postvaccination delayed-type hypersensitivity were similar in A3 and A2 patients. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay results varied, but A3 patients' median spots increased pre- to postvaccination (p = 0.2). Recurrences were lower in the A3 group (7.7%) at 30-month median follow-up compared with published recurrence in A2-vaccinated (8.3%) and control groups (14.8%) at 26-month median follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: HLA restriction limits potential use of peptide-based cancer vaccines. This trial demonstrates that HLA-A3 patients respond similarly to E75 vaccination as HLA-A2 patients, suggesting the potential use of the E75 vaccine in up to 76% of the population.

Circulating regulatory T cells (CD4+CD25+FOXP3+) decrease in breast cancer patients after vaccination with a modified MHC class II HER2/neu (AE37) peptide.

Regulatory T cells (T(Reg)), CD4(+)CD25(+)FOXP3(+), are implicated in suppressing tumor immune responses. We analyzed peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBL) from breast cancer patients receiving a modified HLA class II HER2/neu peptide (AE37) vaccine for T(Reg) cells and correlated their levels with vaccine-specific immune responses. The mean CD4(+)CD25(+)FOXP3(+) T(Reg) cells decreased in patients with vaccination with no significant difference in serum TGF-ß levels. IFN-γ ELISPOT and DTH increased after vaccination with a good correlation between T(Reg) cell reduction and size of DTH to AE37. The T(Reg) cell reduction and associated immune response suggest that AE37 may be clinically useful.