Immunologic and dose dependent effects of rapamycin and its evolving role in chemoprevention.

Rapamycin inhibits the mechanistic (formally mammalian) target of rapamycin (mTOR), an evolutionarily conserved intracellular kinase that influences activation of growth signaling pathways and immune responses to malignancy. Rapamycin has been found to have both immunosuppressant and immunostimulatory effects throughout the innate and adaptive responses based on the inhibition of mTOR signaling. While the immunosuppressant properties of rapamycin and mTOR inhibition explain rapamycin's success in the prevention of transplant rejection, the immunostimulatory characteristics are likely partially responsible for rapamycin's anti-neoplastic effects. The immunologic response to rapamycin is at least partially dependent on the dose and administration schedule, with lower doses inducing immunostimulation and intermittent dosing promoting immune function while limiting metabolic and immunosuppressant toxicities. In addition to its FDA-approved application in advanced malignancies, rapamycin may be effective as a chemopreventive agent, suspending progression of low-grade cancers, preventing invasive conversion of in situ malignancy, or delaying malignant transformation of established pre-malignant conditions.

Correlation of tumor microenvironment from biopsy and resection specimens in untreated colorectal cancer patients: a surprising lack of agreement.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) tumor microenvironment (TME) characteristics, such as tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TIL) densities and PD-L1 status, are predictive of recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. In many malignancies, TME characteristics are also predictive of response to immunotherapy. As window of opportunity studies using neoadjuvant immunotherapy become more common and treatment guidelines incorporate TME features, accurate assessment of the pre-treatment TME using the biopsy specimen is critical. However, no study has thoroughly evaluated the correlation between the TMEs of the biopsy and resection specimens. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with stage I-III CRC with matched biopsy and resection specimens. CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and FoxP3+ lymphocyte populations at the center of tumor (CT) and invasive margin (IM) and tumor PD-L1 status in the biopsy and resection specimens were evaluated. TIL populations were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests or Student's t tests and correlated using Pearson r. RESULTS: CD3+ and CD4+ densities were significantly higher in the CT of the biopsy relative to the resection specimen Comparing biopsy and resection specimens, no TIL population at either the CT or IM had a correlation coefficient > 0.5. Determining PD-L1 status based on biopsy tissue resulted in a sensitivity of 37.1%, specificity of 81.4%, and accuracy of 61.5%. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate significant discordance between the TME of the biopsy and resection specimens. Caution should be used when basing treatment decisions on pre-treatment endoscopic biopsy findings and when interpreting changes in the TME between pre-treatment biopsy and resection specimens after neoadjuvant therapy.

A Phase IIb Randomized Controlled Trial of the TLPLDC Vaccine as Adjuvant Therapy After Surgical Resection of Stage III/IV Melanoma: A Primary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma therapy has changed dramatically over the last decade with improvements in immunotherapy, yet many patients do not respond to current therapies. This novel vaccine strategy may prime a patient's immune system against their tumor and work synergistically with immunotherapy against advanced-stage melanoma. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb trial of the tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine administered to prevent recurrence in patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma. Patients were enrolled and randomized 2:1 to the TLPLDC vaccine or placebo (empty yeast cell wall particles and autologous dendritic cells). Both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per treatment (PT) analyses were predefined, with PT analysis including patients who remained disease-free through the primary vaccine/placebo series (6 months). RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were randomized (103 vaccine, 41 control). Therapy was well-tolerated with similar toxicity between treatment arms; one patient in each group experienced related serious adverse events. While disease-free survival (DFS) was not different between groups in ITT analysis, in PT analysis the vaccine group showed improved 24-month DFS (62.9% vs. 34.8%, p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: This phase IIb trial of TLPLDC vaccine administered to patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma shows TLPLDC is well-tolerated and improves DFS in patients who complete the primary vaccine series. This suggests patients who do not recur early benefit from TLPLDC in preventing future recurrence from melanoma. A phase III trial of TLPLDC + checkpoint inhibitor versus checkpoint inhibitor alone in patients with advanced, surgically resected melanoma is under development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02301611.

Chemoprevention in familial adenomatous polyposis: past, present and future.

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a hereditary colorectal cancer syndrome characterized by colorectal adenomas and a near 100% lifetime risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Prophylactic colectomy, usually by age 40, is the gold-standard therapy to mitigate this risk. However, colectomy is associated with morbidity and fails to prevent extra-colonic disease manifestations, including gastric polyposis, duodenal polyposis and cancer, thyroid cancer, and desmoid disease. Substantial research has investigated chemoprevention medications in an aim to prevent disease progression, postponing the need for colectomy and temporizing the development of extracolonic disease. An ideal chemoprevention agent should have a biologically plausible mechanism of action, be safe and easily tolerated over a prolonged treatment period, and produce a durable and clinically meaningful effect. To date, no chemoprevention agent tested has fulfilled these criteria. New agents targeting novel pathways in FAP are needed. Substantial preclinical literature exists linking the molecular target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway to FAP. A single case report of rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor, used as chemoprevention in FAP patients exists, but no formal clinical studies have been conducted. Here, we review the prior literature on chemoprevention in FAP, discuss the rationale for rapamycin in FAP, and outline a proposed clinical trial testing rapamycin as a chemoprevention agent in patients with FAP.

Phase I Trial of Encapsulated Rapamycin in Patients with Prostate Cancer Under Active Surveillance to Prevent Progression.

No approved medical therapies prevent progression of low-grade prostate cancer. Rapamycin inhibits cell proliferation and augments immune responses, producing an antitumor effect. Encapsulated rapamycin (eRapa) incorporates rapamycin into a pH-sensitive polymer, ensuring consistent dosing. Here, we present results from a phase I trial evaluating the safety and tolerability of eRapa in patients with prostate cancer. Patients with Gleason ≤7 (3+4) disease (low and intermediate risk) under active surveillance were enrolled in a 3+3 study with three eRapa dosing cohorts (cohort 1, 0.5 mg/week; cohort 2, 1 mg/week; and cohort 3, 0.5 mg/day). Patients were treated for 3 months and followed for an additional 3 months to assess safety, pharmacokinetics, quality of life (QoL), immune response, and disease progression. Fourteen patients (cohort 1, n = 3; cohort 2, n = 3; and cohort 3, n = 8) were enrolled. In cohort 3, one dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; neutropenia) and two non-DLT grade 1-2 adverse events (AE) occurred that resulted in patient withdrawal. All AEs in cohorts 1 and 2 were grade 1. Peak serum rapamycin concentration was 7.1 ng/mL after a 1 mg dose. Stable trough levels (∼2 ng/mL) developed after 48-72 hours. Daily dosing mildly worsened QoL, although QoL recovered after treatment cessation in all categories, except fatigue. Weekly dosing increased naïve T-cell populations. Daily dosing increased central memory cell populations and exhaustion markers. No disease progression was observed. In conclusion, treatment with eRapa was safe and well-tolerated. Daily dosing produced higher frequencies of lower grade toxicities and transient worsening of QoL, while weekly dosing impacted immune response. Future studies will verify clinical benefit and long-term tolerability.Prevention Relevance: There is an unmet medical need for a well-tolerated treatment capable of delaying progression of newly diagnosed low-grade prostate cancer. This treatment would potentially obviate the need for future surgical intervention and improve the perception of active surveillance as a more acceptable option among this patient population.

Multi-institutional, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb trial of the tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine to prevent recurrence in high-risk melanoma patients: A subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with cell-based vaccines may produce synergistic antitumor immunity. The primary analysis of the randomized and blinded phase IIb trial in resected stage III/IV melanoma demonstrated TLPLDC is safe and improved 24-month disease-free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) analysis. Here, we examine efficacy within pre-specified and exploratory subgroups. METHODS: Stage III/IV patients rendered disease-free by surgery were randomized 2:1 to TLPLDC vaccine versus placebo. The pre-specified PT analysis included only patients completing the primary vaccine/placebo series at 6 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare 24-month DFS among subgroups. RESULTS: There were no clinicopathologic differences between subgroups except stage IV patients were more likely to receive CPI. In stage IV patients, 24-month DFS was 43% for vaccine versus 0% for placebo (p = 0.098) in the ITT analysis and 73% versus 0% (p = 0.002) in the PT analysis. There was no significant difference in 24-month DFS when stratified by use of immunotherapy or CPI. For patients with resected recurrent disease, 24-month DFS was 88.9% versus 33.3% (p = 0.013) in the PT analysis. All benefit from vaccination was in the PT analysis; no benefit was found in patients receiving up to three doses. CONCLUSION: The TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the primary vaccine series, particularly in the resected stage IV patients. The efficacy of the TLPLDC vaccine will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI versus Placebo + CPI in resected stage IV melanoma patients.