NY-ESO-1 Vaccination in Combination with Decitabine Induces Antigen-Specific T-lymphocyte Responses in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome.

Purpose: Treatment options are limited for patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The azanucleosides, azacitidine and decitabine, are first-line therapy for MDS that induce promoter demethylation and gene expression of the highly immunogenic tumor antigen NY-ESO-1. We demonstrated that patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving decitabine exhibit induction of NY-ESO-1 expression in circulating blasts. We hypothesized that vaccinating against NY-ESO-1 in patients with MDS receiving decitabine would capitalize upon induced NY-ESO-1 expression in malignant myeloid cells to provoke an NY-ESO-1-specific MDS-directed cytotoxic T-cell immune response.Experimental Design: In a phase I study, 9 patients with MDS received an HLA-unrestricted NY-ESO-1 vaccine (CDX-1401 + poly-ICLC) in a nonoverlapping schedule every four weeks with standard-dose decitabine.Results: Analysis of samples serially obtained from the 7 patients who reached the end of the study demonstrated induction of NY-ESO-1 expression in 7 of 7 patients and NY-ESO-1-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-lymphocyte responses in 6 of 7 and 4 of 7 of the vaccinated patients, respectively. Myeloid cells expressing NY-ESO-1, isolated from a patient at different time points during decitabine therapy, were capable of activating a cytotoxic response from autologous NY-ESO-1-specific T lymphocytes. Vaccine responses were associated with a detectable population of CD141Hi conventional dendritic cells, which are critical for the uptake of NY-ESO-1 vaccine and have a recognized role in antitumor immune responses.Conclusions: These data indicate that vaccination against induced NY-ESO-1 expression can produce an antigen-specific immune response in a relatively nonimmunogenic myeloid cancer and highlight the potential for induced antigen-directed immunotherapy in a group of patients with limited options. Clin Cancer Res; 24(5); 1019-29. ©2017 AACRSee related commentary by Fuchs, p. 991.

Treatment of male infertility.

Major difficulties exist in the accurate and meaningful diagnosis of male reproductive dysfunction, and our understanding of the epidemiology and etiology of male infertility has proven quite complex.The numerous spermatozoa produced in mammals and other species provides some degree of protection against adverse environmental conditions represented by physical and chemical factors that can reduce reproductive function and increase gonadal damage even resulting in testicular cancer or congenital malformations. The wide fluctuations of sperm production in men, both geographical and temporal, may reflect disparate environmental exposures, occurring on differing genetic backgrounds, in varying psychosocial conditions, and leading to the diversified observed outcomes.Sperm analysis is still the cornerstone in diagnosis of male factor infertility, indeed, individually compromised semen paramaters while adequately address therapeutic practices is progressively flanked by additional tests. Administration of drugs, IUI, correction of varicocele, and, to a certain extent, IVF although they may not be capable of restoring fertility itself often result in childbearing.