Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Immunotherapy’

Brain Cancer Vaccine in Development and other considerations

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

GEN News Highlights   Mar 3, 2016

Advanced Immunotherapeutic Method Shows Promise against Brain Cancer

http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/advanced-immunotherapeutic-method-shows-promise-against-brain-cancer/81252433/

 

http://www.genengnews.com/Media/images/GENHighlight/Mar3_2016_LeuvenLab_CellDeathMouseBrain6232214015.jpg

The researchers induced a specific type of cell death in brain cancer cells from mice. The dying cancer cells were then incubated together with dendritic cells, which play a vital role in the immune system. The researchers discovered that this type of cancer cell killing releases “danger signals” that fully activate the dendritic cells. “We re-injected the activated dendritic cells into the mice as a therapeutic vaccine,” Professor Patrizia Agostinis explains. “That vaccine alerted the immune system to the presence of dangerous cancer cells in the body. As a result, the immune system could recognize them and start attacking the brain tumor.” [©KU Leuven Laboratory of Cell Death Research & Therapy, Dr. Abhishek D. Garg]

 

Scientists from KU Leuven in Belgium say they have shown that next-generation cell-based immunotherapy may offer new hope in the fight against brain cancer.

Cell-based immunotherapy involves the injection of a therapeutic anticancer vaccine that stimulates the patient’s immune system to attack the tumor. Thus far, the results of this type of immunotherapy have been mildly promising. However, Abhishek D. Garg and Professor Patrizia Agostinis from the KU Leuven department of cellular and molecular medicine believe they have found a novel way to produce more effective cell-based anticancer vaccines.

The researchers induced a specific type of cell death in brain cancer cells from mice. The dying cancer cells were then incubated together with dendritic cells, which play a vital role in the immune system. The investigators discovered that this type of cancer cell killing releases “danger signals” that fully activate the dendritic cells.

“We re-injected the activated dendritic cells into the mice as a therapeutic vaccine,” explains Prof. Agostinis. “That vaccine alerted the immune system to the presence of dangerous cancer cells in the body. As a result, the immune system could recognize them and start attacking the brain tumor.”

Combined with chemotherapy, this novel cell-based immunotherapy drastically increased the survival rates of mice afflicted with brain tumors. Almost 50% of the mice were completely cured. None of the mice treated with chemotherapy alone became long-term survivors.

“The major goal of any anticancer treatment is to kill all cancer cells and prevent any remaining malignant cells from growing or spreading again,” says Professor Agostinis. “This goal, however, is rarely achieved with current chemotherapies, and many patients relapse. That’s why the co-stimulation of the immune system is so important for cancer treatments. Scientists have to look for ways to kill cancer cells in a manner that stimulates the immune system. With an eye on clinical studies, our findings offer a feasible way to improve the production of vaccines against brain tumors.”

The team published its study (“Dendritic Cell Vaccines Based on Immunogenic Cell Death Elicit Danger Signals and T Cell–Driven Rejection of High-Grade Glioma”) in Science Translational Medicine.

 

Dendritic cell vaccines based on immunogenic cell death elicit danger signals and T cell–driven rejection of high-grade glioma

 

SLC7A11 expression is associated with seizures and predicts poor survival in patients with malignant glioma

 

Cortical GABAergic excitation contributes to epileptic activities around human glioma

 

Spherical Nucleic Acid Nanoparticle Conjugates as an RNAi-Based Therapy for Glioblastoma

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a neurologically debilitating disease that culminates in death 14 to 16 months after diagnosis. An incomplete understanding of how cataloged genetic aberrations promote therapy resistance, combined with ineffective drug delivery to the central nervous system, has rendered GBM incurable. Functional genomics efforts have implicated several oncogenes in GBM pathogenesis but have rarely led to the implementation of targeted therapies. This is partly because many “undruggable” oncogenes cannot be targeted by small molecules or antibodies. We preclinically evaluate an RNA interference (RNAi)–based nanomedicine platform, based on spherical nucleic acid (SNA) nanoparticle conjugates, to neutralize oncogene expression in GBM. SNAs consist of gold nanoparticles covalently functionalized with densely packed, highly oriented small interfering RNA duplexes. In the absence of auxiliary transfection strategies or chemical modifications, SNAs efficiently entered primary and transformed glial cells in vitro. In vivo, the SNAs penetrated the blood-brain barrier and blood-tumor barrier to disseminate throughout xenogeneic glioma explants. SNAs targeting the oncoprotein Bcl2Like12 (Bcl2L12)—an effector caspase and p53 inhibitor overexpressed in GBM relative to normal brain and low-grade astrocytomas—were effective in knocking down endogenous Bcl2L12 mRNA and protein levels, and sensitized glioma cells toward therapy-induced apoptosis by enhancing effector caspase and p53 activity. Further, systemically delivered SNAs reduced Bcl2L12 expression in intracerebral GBM, increased intratumoral apoptosis, and reduced tumor burden and progression in xenografted mice, without adverse side effects. Thus, silencing antiapoptotic signaling using SNAs represents a new approach for systemic RNAi therapy for GBM and possibly other lethal malignancies.

 

Rapid, Label-Free Detection of Brain Tumors with Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy

Surgery is an essential component in the treatment of brain tumors. However, delineating tumor from normal brain remains a major challenge. We describe the use of stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) microscopy for differentiating healthy human and mouse brain tissue from tumor-infiltrated brain based on histoarchitectural and biochemical differences. Unlike traditional histopathology, SRS is a label-free technique that can be rapidly performed in situ. SRS microscopy was able to differentiate tumor from nonneoplastic tissue in an infiltrative human glioblastoma xenograft mouse model based on their different Raman spectra. We further demonstrated a correlation between SRS and hematoxylin and eosin microscopy for detection of glioma infiltration (κ = 0.98). Finally, we applied SRS microscopy in vivo in mice during surgery to reveal tumor margins that were undetectable under standard operative conditions. By providing rapid intraoperative assessment of brain tissue, SRS microscopy may ultimately improve the safety and accuracy of surgeries where tumor boundaries are visually indistinct.

 

Neural Stem Cell–Mediated Enzyme/Prodrug Therapy for Glioma: Preclinical Studies

 

Magnetic Resonance Metabolic Imaging of Glioma

 

Exploiting the Immunogenic Potential of Cancer Cells for Improved Dendritic Cell Vaccines

Cancer immunotherapy is currently the hottest topic in the oncology field, owing predominantly to the discovery of immune checkpoint blockers. These promising antibodies and their attractive combinatorial features have initiated the revival of other effective immunotherapies, such as dendritic cell (DC) vaccinations. Although DC-based immunotherapy can induce objective clinical and immunological responses in several tumor types, the immunogenic potential of this monotherapy is still considered suboptimal. Hence, focus should be directed on potentiating its immunogenicity by making step-by-step protocol innovations to obtain next-generation Th1-driving DC vaccines. We review some of the latest developments in the DC vaccination field, with a special emphasis on strategies that are applied to obtain a highly immunogenic tumor cell cargo to load and to activate the DCs. To this end, we discuss the effects of three immunogenic treatment modalities (ultraviolet light, oxidizing treatments, and heat shock) and five potent inducers of immunogenic cell death [radiotherapy, shikonin, high-hydrostatic pressure, oncolytic viruses, and (hypericin-based) photodynamic therapy] on DC biology and their application in DC-based immunotherapy in preclinical as well as clinical settings.

Cancer immunotherapy has gained considerable momentum over the past 5 years, owing predominantly to the discovery of immune checkpoint inhibitors. These inhibitors are designed to release the brakes of the immune system that under physiological conditions prevent auto-immunity by negatively regulating cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) function. Following the FDA approval of the anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) monoclonal antibody (mAb) ipilimumab (Yervoy) in 2011 for the treatment of metastatic melanoma patients (1), two mAbs targeting programed death (PD)-1 receptor signaling (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) have very recently joined the list of FDA-approved checkpoint blockers (respectively, for the treatment of metastatic squamous non-small cell lung cancer and relapsed/refractory melanoma patients) (2, 3).

However, the primary goal of cancer immunotherapy is to activate the immune system in cancer patients. This requires the induction of tumor-specific T-cell-mediated antitumor immunity. Checkpoint blockers are only able to abrogate the brakes of a functioning antitumoral immune response, implying that only patients who have pre-existing tumor-specific T cells will benefit most from checkpoint blockade. This is evidenced by the observation that ipilimumab may be more effective in patients who have pre-existing, albeit ineffective, antitumor immune responses (4). Hence, combining immune checkpoint blockade with immunotherapeutic strategies that prime tumor-specific T cell responses might be an attractive and even synergistic approach. This relatively new paradigm has lead to the revival of existing, and to date disappointing (as monotherapies), active immunotherapeutic treatment modalities. One promising strategy to induce priming of tumor-specific T cells is dendritic cell (DC)-based immunotherapy.

Dendritic cells are positioned at the crucial interface between the innate and adaptive immune system as powerful antigen-presenting cells capable of inducing antigen-specific T cell responses (5). Therefore, they are the most frequently used cellular adjuvant in clinical trials. Since the publication of the first DC vaccination trial in melanoma patients in 1995, the promise of DC immunotherapy is underlined by numerous clinical trials, frequently showing survival benefit in comparison to non-DC control groups (68). Despite the fact that most DC vaccination trials differ in several vaccine parameters (i.e., site and frequency of injection, nature of the DCs, choice of antigen), DC vaccination as a monotherapy is considered safe and rarely associates with immune-related toxicity. This is in sharp contrast with the use of mAbs or cytokine therapies. Ipilumumab has, for instance, been shown to induce immune-related serious adverse events in up to one-third of treated melanoma patients (1). The FDA approval of Sipuleucel-T (Provenge), an autologous DC-enriched vaccine for hormone-resistant metastatic prostate cancer, in 2010 is really considered as a milestone in the vaccination community (9). After 15 years of extensive clinical research, Sipileucel-T became the first cellular immunotherapy ever that received FDA approval, providing compelling evidence for the substantial socio-economic impact of DC-based immunotherapy. DC vaccinations have most often been applied in patients with melanoma, prostate cancer, high-grade glioma, and renal cell cancer. Although promising objective responses and tumor-specific T cell responses have been observed in all these cancer-types (providing proof-of-principle for DC-based immunotherapy), the clinical success of this treatment is still considered suboptimal (6). This poor clinical efficacy can in part be attributed to the severe tumor-induced immune suppression and the selection of patients with advanced disease status and poor survival prognostics (6, 1012).

There is a consensus in the field that step-by-step optimization and standardization of the production process of DC vaccines, to obtain a Th1-driven immune response, might enhance their clinical efficacy (13). In this review, we address some recent DC vaccine adaptations that impact DC biology. Combining these novel insights might bring us closer to an ideal DC vaccine product that can trigger potent CTL- and Th1-driven antitumor immunity.

One factor requiring more attention in this production process is the immunogenicity of the dying or dead cancer cells used to load the DCs. It has been shown in multiple preclinical cancer models that the methodology used to prepare the tumor cell cargo can influence the in vivo immunogenic potential of loaded DC vaccines (1419). Different treatment modalities have been described to enhance the immunogenicity of cancer cells in the context of DC vaccines. These treatments can potentiate antitumor immunity by inducing immune responses against tumor neo-antigens and/or by selectively increasing the exposure/release of particular damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) that can trigger the innate immune system (14, 1719). The emergence of the concept of immunogenic cell death (ICD) might even further improve the immunogenic potential of DC vaccines. Cancer cells undergoing ICD have been shown to exhibit excellent immunostimulatory capacity owing to the spatiotemporally defined emission of a series of critical DAMPs acting as potent danger signals (20, 21). Thus far, three DAMPs have been attributed a crucial role in the immunogenic potential of nearly all ICD inducers: the surface-exposed “eat me” signal calreticulin (ecto-CRT), the “find me” signal ATP and passively released high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) (21). Moreover, ICD-experiencing cancer cells have been shown in various mouse models to act as very potent Th1-driving anticancer vaccines, already in the absence of any adjuvants (21, 22). The ability to reject tumors in syngeneic mice after vaccination with cancer cells (of the same type) undergoing ICD is a crucial hallmark of ICD, in addition to the molecular DAMP signature (21).

Here, we review the effects of three frequently used immunogenic modalities and four potent ICD inducers on DC biology and their application in DC vaccines in preclinical as well as clinical settings (Tables (Tables11 and and2).2). Moreover, we discuss the rationale for combining different cell death-inducing regimens to enhance the immunogenic potential of DC vaccines and to ensure the clinical relevance of the vaccine product.

A list of prominent enhancers of immunogenicity and ICD inducers applied in DC vaccine setups and their associations with DAMPs and DC biology.
A list of preclinical tumor models and clinical studies for evaluation of the in vivo potency of DC vaccines loaded with immunogenically killed tumor cells.
The Impact of DC Biology on the Efficacy of DC Vaccines

Over the past years, different DC vaccine parameters have been shown to impact the clinical effectiveness of DC vaccinations. In the next section, we will elaborate on some promising adaptations of the DC preparation protocol.

Given the labor-intensive ex vivo culturing protocol of monocyte-derived DCs and inspired by the results of the Provenge study, several groups are currently exploiting the use of blood-isolated naturally circulating DCs (7678). In this context, De Vries et al. evaluated the use of antigen-loaded purified plasmacytoid DCs for intranodal injection in melanoma patients (79). This strategy was feasible and induced only very mild side effects. In addition, the overall survival of vaccinated patients was greatly enhanced as compared to historical control patients. However, it still remains to be determined whether this strategy is more efficacious than monocyte-derived DC vaccine approaches (78). By contrast, experiments in the preclinical GL261 high-grade glioma model recently showed that vaccination with tumor antigen-loaded myeloid DCs resulted in more robust Th1 responses and a stronger survival benefit as compared to mice vaccinated with their plasmacytoid counterparts (80).

In view of their strong potential to stimulate cytotoxic T cell responses, several groups are currently exploring the use of Langerhans cell-like DCs as sources for DC vaccines (8183). These so-called IL-15 DCs can be derived from CD14+monocytes by culturing them with IL-15 (instead of the standard IL-4). Recently, it has been shown that in comparison to IL-4 DCs, these cells have an increased capacity to stimulate antitumor natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity in a contact- and IL-15-dependent manner (84). NK cells are increasingly being recognized as crucial contributors to antitumor immunity, especially in DC vaccination setups (85, 86). Three clinical trials are currently evaluating these Langerhans cell-type DCs in melanoma patients (NCT00700167, NCT 01456104, and NCT01189383).

Targeting cancer stem cells is another promising development, particularly in the setting of glioma (87). Glioma stem cells can foster tumor growth, radio- and chemotherapy-resistance, and local immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment (87, 88). Furthermore, glioma stem cells may express higher levels of tumor-associated antigens and MHC complex molecules as compared to non-stem cells (89, 90). A preclinical study in a rodent orthotopic glioblastoma model has shown that DC vaccines loaded with neuropsheres enriched in cancer stem cells could induce more immunoreactivity and survival benefit as compared to DCs loaded with GL261 cells grown under standard conditions (91). Currently there are four clinical trials ongoing in high-grade glioma patients evaluating this approach (NCT00890032, NCT00846456, NCT01171469, and NCT01567202).

With regard to the DC maturation status of the vaccine product, a phase I/II clinical trial in metastatic melanoma patients has confirmed the superiority of mature antigen-loaded DCs to elicit immunological responses as compared to their immature counterparts (92). This finding was further substantiated in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and recurrent high-grade glioma (93, 94). Hence, DCs need to express potent costimulatory molecules and lymph node homing receptors in order to generate a strong T cell response. In view of this finding, the route of administration is another vaccine parameter that can influence the homing of the injected DCs to the lymph nodes. In the context of prostate cancer and renal cell carcinoma it has been shown that vaccination routes with access to the draining lymph nodes (intradermal/intranodal/intralymphatic/subcutaneous) resulted in better clinical response rates as compared to intravenous injection (93). In melanoma patients, a direct comparison between intradermal vaccination and intranodal vaccination concluded that, although more DCs reached the lymph nodes after intranodal vaccination, the melanoma-specific T cells induced by intradermal vaccination were more functional (95). Furthermore, the frequency of vaccination can also influence the vaccine’s immunogenicity. Our group has shown in a cohort-comparison trial involving relapsed high-grade glioma patients that shortening the interval between the four inducer DC vaccines improved the progression-free survival curves (58, 96).

Another variable that has been systematically studied is the cytokine cocktail that is applied to mature the DCs. The current gold standard cocktail for DC maturation contains TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and PGE2 (97, 98). Although this cocktail upregulates DC maturation markers and the lymph node homing receptor CCR7, IL-12 production by DCs could not be evoked (97, 98). Nevertheless, IL-12 is a critical Th1-driving cytokine and DC-derived IL-12 has been shown to associate with improved survival in DC vaccinated high-grade glioma and melanoma patients (99, 100). Recently, a novel cytokine cocktail, including TNF-α, IL-1β, poly-I:C, IFN-α, and IFN-γ, was introduced (101, 102). The type 1-polarized DCs obtained with this cocktail produced high levels of IL-12 and could induce strong tumor-antigen-specific CTL responses through enhanced induction of CXCL10 (99). In addition, CD40-ligand (CD40L) stimulation of DCs has been used to mature DCs in clinical trials (100, 103). Binding of CD40 on DCs to CD40L on CD4+ helper T cells licenses DCs and enables them to prime CD8+ effector T cells.

A final major determinant of the vaccine immunogenicity is the choice of antigen to load the DCs. Two main approaches can be applied: loading with selected tumor antigens (tumor-associated antigens or tumor-specific antigens) and loading with whole tumor cell preparations (13). The former strategy enables easier immune monitoring, has a lower risk of inducing auto-immunity, and can provide “off-the-shelf” availability of the antigenic cargo. Whole tumor cell-based DC vaccines, on the other hand, are not HLA-type dependent, have a reduced risk of inducing immune-escape variants, and can elicit immunity against multiple tumor antigens. Meta-analytical data provided by Neller et al. have demonstrated enhanced clinical efficacy in several tumor types of DCs loaded with whole tumor lysate as compared to DCs pulsed with defined tumor antigens (104). This finding was recently also substantiated in high-grade glioma patients, although this study was not set-up to compare survival parameters (105).

Toward a More Immunogenic Tumor Cell Cargo

The majority of clinical trials that apply autologous whole tumor lysate to load DC vaccines report the straightforward use of multiple freeze–thaw cycles to induce primary necrosis of cancer cells (8, 93). Freeze–thaw induced necrosis is, however, considered non-immunogenic and has even been shown to inhibit toll-like receptor (TLR)-induced maturation and function of DCs (16). To this end, many research groups have focused on tackling this roadblock by applying immunogenic modalities to induce cell death.

Immunogenic Treatment Modalities

Tables Tables11 and and22 list some frequently applied treatment methods to enhance the immunogenic potential of the tumor cell cargo that is used to load DC vaccines in an ICD-independent manner (i.e., these treatments do not meet the molecular and/or cellular determinants of ICD). Immunogenic treatment modalities can positively impact DC biology by inducing particular DAMPs in the dying cancer cells (Table (Table1).1). Table Table22 lists the preclinical and clinical studies that investigated their in vivo potential. Figure Figure11 schematically represents the application and the putative modes of action of these immunogenic enhancers in the setting of DC vaccines.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fimmu-06-00663-g001.jpg

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4712296/bin/fimmu-06-00663-g001.jpg

A schematic representation of immunogenic DC vaccines. Cancer cells show enhanced immunogenicity upon treatment with UV irradiation, oxidizing treaments, and heat shock, characterized by the release of particular danger signals and the (increased) production of tumor (neo-)antigens. Upon loading onto DCs, DCs undergo enhanced phagocytosis and antigen uptake and show phenotypic and partial functional maturation. Upon in vivo immunization, these DC vaccines elicit Th1- and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)-driven tumor rejection.

Ultraviolet Irradiation ….

Oxidation-Inducing Modalities

In recent years, an increasing number of data were published concerning the ability of oxidative stress to induce oxidation-associate molecular patterns (OAMPs), such as reactive protein carbonyls and peroxidized phospholipids, which can act as DAMPs (28, 29) (Table (Table1).1). Protein carbonylation, a surrogate indicator of irreversible protein oxidation, has for instance been shown to improve cancer cell immunogenicity and to facilitate the formation of immunogenic neo-antigens (30, 31).

One prototypical enhancer of oxidation-based immunogenicity is radiotherapy (21,23). In certain tumor types, such as high-grade glioma and melanoma, clinical trials that apply autologous whole tumor lysate to load DC vaccines report the random use of freeze–thaw cycles (to induce necrosis of cancer cells) or a combination of freeze–thaw cycles and subsequent high-dose γ-irradiation (8, 18) (Table (Table2).2). However, from the available clinical evidence, it is unclear which of both methodologies has superior immunogenic potential. In light of the oxidation-based immunogenicity that is associated with radiotherapy, we recently demonstrated the superiority of DC vaccines loaded with irradiated freeze–thaw lysate (in comparison to freeze–thaw lysate) in terms of survival advantage in a preclinical high-grade glioma model (18) (Table (Table2).2). ….

Heat Shock Treatment

Heat shock is a term that is applied when a cell is subjected to a temperature that is higher than that of the ideal body temperature of the organisms of which the cell is derived. Heat shock can induce apoptosis (41–43°C) or necrosis (>43°C) depending on the temperature that is applied (110). The immunogenicity of heat shock treated cancer cells largely resides within their ability to produce HSPs, such as HSP60, HSP70, and HSP90 (17, 32) (Table (Table1).1). …

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is fimmu-06-00663-g002.jpg

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/core/lw/2.0/html/tileshop_pmc/tileshop_pmc_inline.html?title=Click%20on%20image%20to%20zoom&p=PMC3&id=4712296_fimmu-06-00663-g002.jpg

Figure 2

A schematic representation of immunogenic cell death (ICD)-based DC vaccines. ICD causes cancer cells to emit a spatiotemporally defined pattern of danger signals. Upon loading of these ICD-undergoing cancer cells onto DCs, they induce extensive phagocytosis and antigen uptake. Loaded DCs show enhanced phenotypic and functional maturation and immunization with these ICD-based DC vaccines instigates Th1-, Th17-, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)-driven antitumor immunity in vivo.
Inducers of Immunogenic Cell Death

Immunogenic cell death is a cell death regimen that is associated with the spatiotemporally defined emission of immunogenic DAMPs that can trigger the immune system (20, 21, 113). ICD has been found to depend on the concomitant induction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and activation of endoplasmatic reticulum (ER) stress (111). Besides the three DAMPs that are most crucial for ICD (ecto-CRT, ATP, and HMGB1), other DAMPs such as surface-exposed or released HSPs (notably HSP70 and HSP90) have also been shown to contribute to the immunogenic capacity of ICD inducers (20, 21). The binding of these DAMPs to their respective immune receptors (CD91 for HSPs/CRT, P2RX7/P2RY2 for ATP, and TLR2/4 for HMGB1/HSP70) leads to the recruitment and/or activation of innate immune cells and facilitates the uptake of tumor antigens by antigen-presenting cells and their cross-presentation to T cells eventually leading to IL-1β-, IL-17-, and IFN-γ-dependent tumor eradiation (22). This in vivo tumor rejecting capacity induced by dying cancer cells in the absence of any adjuvant, is considered as a prerequisite for an agent to be termed an ICD inducer. …

Although the list of ICD inducers is constantly growing (113), only few of these immunogenic modalities have been tested in order to generate an immunogenic tumor cell cargo to load DC vaccines (Tables (Tables11 and and2).2). Figure Figure22 schematically represents the preparation of ICD-based DC vaccines and their putative modes of action.

Radiotherapy

Ionizing X-ray or γ-ray irradiation exerts its anticancer effect predominantly via its capacity to induce DNA double-strand breaks leading to intrinsic cancer cell apoptosis (114). The idea that radiotherapy could also impact the immune system was derived from the observation that radiotherapy could induce T-cell-mediated delay of tumor growth in a non-irradiated lesion (115). This abscopal (ab-scopus, away from the target) effect of radiotherapy was later explained by the ICD-inducing capacity (116). Together with anthracyclines, γ-irradiation was one of the first treatment modalities identified to induce ICD. …

Shikonin

The phytochemical shikonin, a major component of Chinese herbal medicine, is known to inhibit proteasome activity. It serves multiple biological roles and can be applied as an antibacterial, antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer treatment. …

High-hydrostatic pressure

High-hydrostatic pressure (HHP) is an established method to sterilize pharmaceuticals, human transplants, and food. HHP between 100 and 250 megapascal (MPa) has been shown to induce apoptosis of murine and human (cancer) cells (121123). While DNA damage does not seem to be induced by HHP <1000 MPa, HHP can inhibit enzymatic functions and the synthesis of cellular proteins (122). Increased ROS production was detected in HHP-treated cancer cell lines and ER stress was evidenced by the rapid phosphorylation of eIF2α (42).  …

Oncolytic Viruses

Oncolytic viruses are self-replicating, tumor selective virus strains that can directly lyse tumor cells. Over the past few years, a new oncolytic paradigm has risen; entailing that, rather than utilizing oncolytic viruses solely for direct tumor eradication, the cell death they induce should be accompanied by the elicitation of antitumor immune responses to maximize their therapeutic efficacy (128). One way in which these oncolytic viruses can fulfill this oncolytic paradigm is by inducing ICD (128).

Thus far, three oncolytic virus strains can meet the molecular requirements of ICD; coxsackievirus B3 (CVB3), oncolytic adenovirus and Newcastle disease virus (NDV) (Table (Table1)1) (113). Infection of tumor cells with these viruses causes the production of viral envelop proteins that induce ER stress by overloading the ER. Hence, all three virus strains can be considered type II ICD inducers (113). …

Photodynamic therapy

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is an established, minimally invasive anticancer treatment modality. It has a two-step mode of action involving the selective uptake of a photosensitizer by the tumor tissue, followed by its activation by light of a specific wavelength. This activation results in the photochemical production of ROS in the presence of oxygen (129131). One attractive feature of PDT is that the ROS-based oxidative stress originates in the particular subcellular location where the photosensitizer tends to accumulate, ultimately leading to the destruction of the tumor cell (132). …

Combinatorial Regimens

In DC vaccine settings, cancer cells are often not killed by a single treatment strategy but rather by a combination of treatments. In some cases, the underlying rationale lies within the additive or even synergistic value of combining several moderately immunogenic modalities. The combination of radiotherapy and heat shock has, for instance, been shown to induce higher levels of HSP70 in B16 melanoma cells than either therapy alone (16). In addition, a combination therapy consisting of heat shock, γ-irradiation, and UV irradiation has been shown to induce higher levels of ecto-CRT, ecto-HSP90, HMGB1, and ATP in comparison to either therapy alone or doxorubicin, a well-recognized inducer of ICD (57). ….

Triggering antitumor immune responses is an absolute requirement to tackle metastatic and diffusely infiltrating cancer cells that are resistant to standard-of-care therapeutic regimens. ICD-inducing modalities, such as PDT and radiotherapy, have been shown to be able to act as in situ vaccines capable of inducing immune responses that caused regression of distal untreated tumors. Exploiting these ICD inducers and other immunogenic modalities to obtain a highly immunogenic antigenic tumor cell cargo for loading DC vaccines is a highly promising application. In case of the two prominent ICD inducers, Hyp-PDT and HHP, preclinical studies evaluating this relatively new approach are underway and HHP-based DC vaccines are already undergoing clinical testing. In the preclinical testing phase, more attention should be paid to some clinically driven considerations. First, one should consider the requirement of 100% mortality of the tumor cells before in vivo application. A second consideration from clinical practice (especially in multi-center clinical trials) is the fact that most tumor specimens arrive in the lab in a frozen state. This implies that a significant number of cells have already undergone non-immunogenic necrosis before the experimental cell killing strategies are applied. ….

 

Read Full Post »

Checkpoint inhibitors for gastrointestinal cancers

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

Updated 5/03/2019

Modern Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Advanced Gastrointestinal Cancers –

Oncology Journal, Gastrointestinal Cancer    January 15, 2016

http://www.cancernetwork.com/oncology-journal/modern-immunotherapy-treatment-advanced-gastrointestinal-cancers?GUID=08B7ACA4-07B7-4253-8ACC-0C9AAFF0371A&XGUID=&rememberme=1&ts=11022016#sthash.NdRaifcd.dpuf

 

Since the first immune checkpoint–blocking monoclonal antibody was approved in the United States in 2011 for the treatment of advanced cancer, the rate of progress in the field of cancer immunotherapy has only accelerated. This mode of cancer treatment has yielded durable complete responses in a subset of patients with metastatic cancer for whom no other treatment was effective. It is a class of therapy that is not inherently cancer type–specific, and investigators are only beginning to understand why some cancers, such as melanoma, are more sensitive to immunotherapy than others. Although immunotherapy is not yet approved for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancers, it is already clear that many gastrointestinal cancers can be sensitive to it. We will review recent clinical trial results demonstrating this, and offer our perspective on the role that immunotherapy might play in the treatment of advanced gastrointestinal malignancies in the years ahead.

Introduction Immunotherapy can be defined as a therapeutic intervention that is focused on the immune system, as opposed to the cancer itself. Thus, it becomes the patient’s own immune response, rather than an exogenous drug, that acts directly against the disease. This approach to the treatment of cancer is viewed by many as a modern paradigm shift in oncology, in part because of recent successes of immune checkpoint blockade in diverse cancers.[1-3] It is important to keep in mind, however, that attempts to recruit the immune system in the effort against cancer are not new, and there is much to learn from early experiences in the field.

Immunotherapy has long been part of the standard treatment for early-stage cancers. For example, the intravesical Bacillus Calmette-Guérin vaccine and topical imiquimod are used to treat non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer and superficial basal cell carcinoma, respectively. Both of these agents are immunostimulants that function by activating immune cells in an antigen-nonspecific manner.[4,5] Their efficacy suggests that directing the immune response to a specific target is unnecessary in some cases, presaging disappointing efforts in therapeutic cancer vaccination designed to direct the immune system to targets associated with malignant cells.[6,7]

The experience with systemic immunotherapy for cancer in prior decades has been more controversial. High-dose interleukin (IL)-2 treatment for renal cell carcinoma and melanoma has led to extremely durable responses for a minority of patients, but has also led to excessive toxicity for others.[8] Without evidence of improved overall survival (OS) in a large randomized clinical trial, the precise setting for this therapy in patient care has been disputed. Nevertheless, IL-2 allowed the oncology community to glimpse both the potential efficacy and the potential harms of using the immune system to treat metastatic cancer.

 

 

Immune Checkpoint Blockade

Immune checkpoint blockade represents a class of anticancer agents that function by blocking inhibitory immune cell receptors. Among the most important members of this category are monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) that block cytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand PD-L1. After an antigen-presenting cell (APC) captures a tumor-associated antigen, it presents a portion of the antigen as a peptide to naive T cells in the context of a so-called immunologic synapse. Both stimulatory and inhibitory signaling between the T cell and the APC occur at this synapse. One inhibitory T-cell receptor that functions in this context is CTLA-4; therapeutically blocking CTLA-4 strengthens the immunogenic signal that the APC transmits to the T cell. Once the T cell is activated by the APC, it can then encounter a malignant cell presenting a cognate peptide and mediate its lysis. It is at this phase that the T cell encounters another set of inhibitory signals, including PD-L1 and PD-L2, which are both recognized by PD-1 on T cells. Anti–PD-1 mAbs block this interaction and thus enhance the ability of the activated T cell to lyse its target cell.

Immune checkpoint blockade as a means of treating cancer rose to prominence in 2010 when the anti–CTLA-4 mAb ipilimumab was found to improve median OS for patients with metastatic melanoma from 6.4 to 10 months.[7] This result was important for a number of reasons. First, ipilimumab was the first therapy to improve OS in this patient population in a phase III clinical trial. Second, since an independent study arm incorporated a therapeutic vaccine, it showed that such antigen-directed therapy did not add benefit in this context. Finally, it demonstrated that anti–CTLA-4 therapy can result in durable remissions.[9]

Following the unprecedented activity of CTLA-4 blockade, PD-1 blockade quickly rose to prominence. In fact, anti–PD-1 axis (ie, anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1) therapy showed response rates of over 40% in some melanoma studies,[1,10] and it has shown activity in a host of other malignancies, including non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; response rate of 20%),[11,12] bladder cancer (response rate of over 40% in select patients),[3] and gastrointestinal malignancies, as discussed below.

The marked, but non-uniform, responses to checkpoint blockade triggered an international effort to identify biomarkers of response. PD-L1 expression in the tumor, whether on malignant cells or tumor-associated cells, was found to correlate with response to PD-1 axis blockade across a range of malignancies.[3,13,14] It should be noted, however, that a subset of tumors found to be PD-L1–negative did benefit from anti–PD-1 axis therapy, highlighting the fact that PD-L1 should not necessarily be used as a binary biomarker to predict response to therapy.

Although baseline PD-L1 expression correlates with response to PD-1 axis blockade, there is now evidence that genomic alterations may predict for response to checkpoint blockade more broadly. Whole-exome sequencing has demonstrated that mutation burden correlates with response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma,[15] and similar work revealed that mutation burden also correlates with response to PD-1 blockade in NSCLC.[16] It is not yet clear, however, that specific mutated sequences (so-called neoepitopes) reliably predict for response to any form of immunotherapy.[17] Such a finding, if prospectively validated, would enable clinicians to administer immunotherapy in much the same way that modern targeted therapies are used—based on the presence of discreet and predefined genetic lesions.

In addition, tumors that were responsive to checkpoint blockade were found to be more inflamed at baseline. For example, tumors rich in infiltrating T cells, and T helper 1 (Th1)-associated cytokines, were found to be particularly responsive.[18,19]

These findings do not only further our understanding of why immunotherapy is effective for some patients, but they also impact how immunotherapy will be used in the future. Therefore, they are of major significance as the field of immunotherapy begins to expand into gastrointestinal malignancies.

 

Pancreatic Cancer

Despite its historic intransigence, there are multiple lines of evidence indicating that pancreatic cancer can be responsive to immunotherapy. Pancreatic tumors have been found to exclude T cells at baseline in a manner that can be reversed.[20] Combination regimens designed to stimulate T cells with PD-L1 blockade and overcome T-cell exclusion via inhibition of the chemokine C-X-C ligand 12 (CXCL12) mediated tumor regression in an autochthonous animal model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.[21]

Based on clinical data, considering the paucity of responses to date, it is unlikely that anti–CTLA-4 therapy alone will have a role in the care of pancreatic cancer patients in the future. Nevertheless, there is instructive anecdotal evidence that even single-agent ipilimumab has activity among patients with pancreatic cancer. ….

 

Gastric Cancer

As with pancreatic cancer, responses to anti–CTLA-4 monotherapy in gastric carcinoma are rare and can be quite delayed. For example, in a phase II study of the anti–CTLA-4 mAb tremelimumab, 1 of 18 gastric cancer patients achieved a PR after 25 months on treatment.[30]

Consistent with other cancers, responses to PD-1 axis blockade in gastric cancer appear to be more frequent than responses to CTLA-4 blockade. Such results were anticipated by preclinical data showing that PD-L1 expression on gastric carcinoma cells, but not healthy gastric tissue or gastric adenomas, could induce T-cell apoptosis in a manner that was reversible with PD-L1–blocking mAbs.[31]

The anti–PD-1 mAb pembrolizumab is currently being tested in an ongoing phase I study of patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction.[32] Preliminary results were presented at the European Society for Medical Oncology 2014 Congress. ….

 

Colorectal Cancer

There is extensive circumstantial data suggesting that colorectal cancer can respond to immune modulation. For example, colorectal cancer is generally associated with a relatively high mutation burden similar to other immune-responsive cancers, such as gastric and head and neck cancers.[33] In addition, there are reports associating immune signatures (eg, increased lymphocytes, especially cytotoxic and Th1 T cells, within the tumor or at the invasive margin) with improved prognosis.[34-36]

It is now apparent that two distinct immunologic subtypes of colorectal cancer exist, according to their mismatch repair (MMR) status. MMR deficiency occurs in approximately 4% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.[37] Tumors with MMR deficiency are rich in mutations that may be recognized as neoepitopes when presented to the adaptive immune system.[38,39] As would therefore be expected, MMR-deficient colorectal cancers are enriched for tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes.[40] This immunologic subtype of colorectal cancer represents an inherently sensitive population for T-cell stimulatory therapy. In a recently published phase II study of pembrolizumab,[41] 4 of 10 MMR-deficient patients had an immune-related objective response[23] vs 0 of 18 MMR-proficient patients. In an update presented at the 2015 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, which reported on 13 MMR-deficient and 25 MMR-proficient patients,[42] objective response rates were 62% and 0%, respectively. It is against this background that patients with MMR-deficient colorectal cancer will be evaluated for their response to pembrolizumab in phase II (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02460198) and phase III (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02563002) clinical trials; as well as for their response to durvalumab in an ongoing phase II study (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02227667) we are currently conducting.

 

The Future of Immunotherapy in Gastrointestinal Cancers 

We are optimistic that immunotherapy will become standard of care in at least a subset of gastrointestinal malignancies. In the near term, we anticipate that PD-1 axis blockade will be incorporated into the care of patients with gastroesophageal cancer and MMR-deficient colorectal cancer, and perhaps others, as it has been for patients with NSCLC and melanoma.

CTLA-4 and PD-1 are only two receptors among over a dozen known inhibitory and stimulatory T-cell receptors that can be targeted to augment antitumor T-cell activity.[45] There are thus innumerable combination regimens that can be designed to boost the already notable activity of checkpoint blockade. Furthermore, receptors on other immune cell populations can be activated or blocked to synergize with T-cell stimulatory therapy.[46] For example, current clinical trials are coupling the blockade of an inhibitory killer-cell immunoglobulin-like receptor on natural killer (NK) cells with anti–CTLA-4 (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01750580) and anti–PD-1 (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01714739) mAbs.

Given that tumor antigen–targeting mAbs (eg, cetuximab, trastuzumab) are approved or in clinical development for several types of gastrointestinal cancers,[47-49] there is interest in enhancing their efficacy through stimulation of immune cells. NK cells represent an attractive target for such a strategy, as they can mediate antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity of malignant cells bound by tumor-targeting mAbs. In one such study that includes colorectal cancer patients, cetuximab is being combined with the anti-CD137 agonist mAb urelumab, which is designed to stimulate NK cells, in addition to T cells (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02110082).  …..

Although adoptive T-cell therapy is not yet ready for widespread clinical application, it has immense potential significance. Tran et al have effectively treated a patient with metastatic cholangiocarcinoma using CD4 T cells selected to recognize the product of a mutation specific to the patient’s tumor.[54] This type of adoptive transfer of selected, but unmodified, T cells has the notable limitation of being restricted to cancer-specific epitopes presented within patient-specific major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules. ….

The need for ex vivo manipulation to direct T cells to malignant cells in an MHC-independent manner can be circumvented using so-called bispecific T-cell engager (BiTE) technology. With this approach a therapeutic protein is constructed using mAb fragments specific to CD3 (present on the surface of T cells) and a molecule on the surface of the malignant cell. As with CAR technology, BiTEs have been studied primarily for the treatment of hematologic malignancies.[57] However, BiTEs that recognize the colorectal cancer–associated carcinoembryonic antigen have been developed,[58] and they will soon undergo clinical testing.

 

Most modern cancer immunotherapy is not inherently disease-specific. Furthermore, such treatments offer patients a chance at durable remissions, something not typically associated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or so-called targeted therapies. For these two reasons it is clear that, despite the remarkable successes to date, we are only at the start of an era in which the patient’s own immune system—with its unique combination of potency, specificity, and memory—begins to take the place of therapies that are designed to be directly toxic to malignant cells.

– See more at: http://www.cancernetwork.com/oncology-journal/modern-immunotherapy-treatment-advanced-gastrointestinal-cancers/page/0/2?GUID=08B7ACA4-07B7-4253-8ACC-0C9AAFF0371A&XGUID=&rememberme=1&ts=11022016#sthash.EnRTDdFt.dpuf

-see also

Immune-Oncology Molecules In Development & Articles on Topic in @pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Curators: Stephen J Williams, PhD and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2016/01/11/articles-on-immune-oncology-molecules-in-development-pharmaceuticalintelligence-com/

Updated 5/02/2019

Lack of microsatellite instability in colon cancer dooms a Combination MEK/PD-L1 Inhibitor Trial

IMblaze370 a ‘great disappointment’ following promise in preclinical models

by Ian Ingram, Deputy Managing Editor, MedPage Today April 24, 2019

 

An immunotherapy and targeted therapy combination failed to improve survival over standard third-line therapy for patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) and microsatellite-stable disease, a phase III trial found.

Median overall survival with the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus MEK inhibitor cobimetinib (Cotellic) was no better than treatment with regorafenib (Stivarga) for these patients (8.9 vs 8.5 months; HR 1.00, 95% Cl 0.73-1.38, P=0.99), reported Fortunato Ciardiello, MD, PhD, of Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli in Naples, Italy, and colleagues.

And with a median overall survival of 7.1 months, atezolizumab alone was numerically worse than regorafenib (HR 1.19, 95% Cl 0.83-1.71, P=0.34), the researchers wrote in Lancet Oncology.

Median progression-free survival was 1.9 months in each of the atezolizumab arms versus 2.0 months in the regorafenib arm, and objective responses occurred in 3% of patients treated with atezolizumab-cobimetinib and in 2% of patients treated with each of the single agents.

“Although many patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have tumors with high microsatellite instability benefit from clinical improvement after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy, patients with microsatellite-stable tumors do not,” Ciardiello’s group wrote.

Only about 3% to 5% of CRC patients have microsatellite instability, a genetic marker for immunotherapy response that led to the FDA approval of the anti-PD-1 agents pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and nivolumab (Opdivo) and the anti–CTLA-4/PD-1 combination of ipilimumab (Yervoy) plus nivolumab for all solid tumor patients who harbor this genetic abnormality and have previously been treated with chemotherapy.

Mouse models of cobimetinib showed anti-tumor activity “while promoting the effector phenotype and longevity of tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells,” and an anti-MEK/PD-L1 combination had a synergistic effect that led to durable treatment responses and complete regression in some cases. A phase Ib trial that reported objective responses in 8% of CRC patients with microsatellite stable disease led to development of the phase III IMblaze370 trial.

“Despite the rationale supported by preclinical data, our results suggest that dual inhibition of the PD-L1 immune checkpoint and MAPK-mediated immune suppression is insufficient to generate anti-tumor immune responses in immune-excluded tumors, such as microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer,” the authors wrote. “This failure to generate a response could be because of alternative mechanisms to bypass the inhibition of the MAPK pathway by a MEK inhibitor.”

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Francesco Sclafani, MD, of the Institut Jules in Brussels, said the findings appear to put an end to the suggestion that MEK inhibition can overcome immune resistance in CRC patients with microsatellite-stable disease.

“There is great disappointment for the negative results of the IMblaze370 trial because of the scientific interest and general enthusiasm for the underlying biological rationale and supportive preliminary clinical findings,” he wrote. “Dwelling on potential reasons for such an unexpected failure is therefore imperative.”

Sclafani noted that the immunomodulatory effects of MEK inhibition are not actually a settled matter, with some data reporting “suppression of T lymphocyte proliferative response and antigen-specific expansion and impairment of antigen processing by dendritic cells,” which could account for the trial’s negative findings.

He also questioned the trial’s lack of a biomarker strategy and said that heterogeneous tumor characteristics in microsatellite-stable CRC may require “distinct immunomodulatory strategies” to restore immunogenicity and generate anti-tumor immune responses.

The investigators noted that a limitation of the study was that it was not designed to examine patient subgroups that may have been more likely to respond to the combination therapy.

From 2016 to 2017, the IMblaze370 study randomized 363 adult CRC patients 2:1:1 to the combination of 840-mg atezolizumab (IV every 2 weeks) plus 60-mg oral cobimetinib daily (days 1-21 of 28-day cycles), 1200-mg atezolizumab monotherapy (IV every 3 weeks), or 160-mg regorafenib monotherapy (days 1-21 of 28-day cycles). Patients were eligible if they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had progressed or were intolerant of ≥2 prior lines of systemic therapy. Enrollment of patients with microsatellite instability–high CRC was allowed, but capped at 5%.

Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) in the combination arm were twice as frequent as in the atezolizumab monotherapy arm (61% vs 31%, respectively), but similar to the regorafenib arm (58%). Common grade 3/4 AEs (>5%) in the combination arm included diarrhea (11%), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (7%), and anemia (6%).

Serious AEs occurred in 40% of patients in the combination arm versus 23% with regorafenib and 17% with atezolizumab alone. There were two therapy-related deaths with the combination arm due to sepsis and one in the regorafenib arm due to intestinal perforation.

The study was funded by Roche/Genentech.

Ciardiello disclosed financial relationships with Roche/Genentech, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Amgen, Servier, Lilly, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Celgene. Co-authors reported relationships with Roche/Genentech and various other industry entities.

Other posts on the correlation of Microsatellite Instability with PDL1 efficacy on this Open Access Journal include:

Collaboration With Bristol Myers Squib Led to Successful Launch of Ono Pharmaceutical’s Cancer Immune Therapy (Opdivo®)

Immunotherapy Resistance Rears Its Ugly Head: PD-1 Resistant Metastatic Melanoma and More

First Drug in Checkpoint Inhibitor Class of Cancer Immunotherapies has demonstrated Superiority over Standard of care in the treatment of First-line Lung Cancer Patients: Merck’s Keytryda

 

 

Read Full Post »

Will President Obama’ s Cancer Immunotherapy Colloquium (dubbed Moonshot) mean Government is Fully Behind the War on Cancer or have we heard this before?

 

UPDATED on 12/13/2016

Greg Simon, White House Cancer Moonshot Task Force: Interview Q&A

Dec 12, 2016 | AnnouncementsQ&ASpeaker spotlights |

The following is an interview recently conducted by PMWC with Greg Simon, Executive Director at the White House Cancer Moonshot Task Force. The discussion focused on the future of the Cancer Moonshot with the upcoming change of administration.

A status update on the Cancer Moonshot will be presented at the upcoming Precision Medicine World Conference (PMWC) 2017 Silicon Valley. To registerclick here.

http://www.pmwcintl.com/greg-simon-qa/

 

SOURCE:

From: Tal Behar <talb=pmwcintl.com@mail61.atl161.mcsv.net> on behalf of Tal Behar <talb@pmwcintl.com>

Reply-To: Tal Behar <talb@pmwcintl.com>

Date: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 1:40 PM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: PMWC News – Late Breaking Interview – The White House Cancer Moonshot in Limbo

 

 

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D

potusmoonshotannouncementsotus

President Obama announces a “Moonshot” Program to create collaborations aimed at developing immunotherapies to cure cancer by 2020 at his last State of the Union Address. Vice President Biden will lead the effort.

 

From Cancer Letters

  • Obama Announces Moonshot to Cure Cancer
  • When Moonshots Collide
  • Soon-Shiong Says FDA & NCI are Onboard For His Moonshot; Feds Deny Involvement

Obama Announces Moonshot to Cure Cancer

President Barack Obama announced a moonshot aimed at curing cancer, a project to be led by Vice President Joe Biden.

The United States can do “so much more,” Obama said in his seventh and final State of the Union address Jan. 12. “Last year, Vice President Biden said that with a new moonshot, America can cure cancer. Last month, he worked with this Congress to give scientists at the National Institutes of Health the strongest resources they’ve had over a decade.

“Tonight, I’m announcing a new national effort to get it done. And because he’s gone to the mat for all of us, on so many issues over the past 40 years, I’m putting Joe in charge of mission control. For the loved ones we’ve all lost, for the family we can still save—let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.”

  When Moonshots Collide

Did Patrick Soon-Shiong attempt to scoop President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address?

Several days before Obama announced the federal government’s moonshot to cure cancer, Soon-Shiong put out a draft press release, claiming that the White House, NIH, FDA and pharmaceutical companies have united in “Cancer MoonShot 2020,” an immunotherapy clinical trials program he devised.

Soon-Shiong, founder and CEO of NantWorks and the Chan Soon-Shiong Institute of Molecular Medicine, ultimately announced his moonshot on Jan. 11, a day before Obama announced his.

Conversation with The Cancer Letter

Soon-Shiong Says FDA & NCI are Onboard For His Moonshot; Feds Deny Involvement

Government agencies said the biotechnology billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong had overstated the extent of their involvement in “Cancer MoonShot 2020,” the immunotherapy clinical trials program he put together.

In an in-depth conversation with Matthew Bin Han Ong, a reporter with The Cancer Letter, Soon-Shiong said that while his program doesn’t seek federal funds, it has the support of NCI and FDA officials.

Soon-Shiong said he and Vice President Joe Biden met to discuss their interlocking missions and are now pursuing them.

 

From the AACR website

AACR Thanks President Obama and Vice President Biden for Their Strong Commitment to Cancer Research and Biomedical Science in State of the Union Address

1/12/2016

PHILADELPHIA — The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) applauds and commends President Obama and Vice President Biden for their dedication in the fight against cancer discussed during tonight’s State of the Union address.

The AACR looks forward to working with the administration and Congress to make faster progress against cancer so that we might achieve the goal that Vice President Biden outlined during his speech in the Rose Garden Oct. 21, 2015, specifically that now is the time to make an “absolute national commitment to end cancer as we know it today.”

“We have indeed reached an inflection point, where the number of discoveries that are being made at such an accelerated pace are saving lives and bringing enormous hope for cancer patients, even those with advanced disease,” said AACR President José Baselga, MD, PhD, physician-in-chief and chief medical officer at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. “Now is the time for a major new initiative in cancer science that supports and builds upon our basic science foundation while translating these exciting scientific discoveries into improved treatments for cancer patients, such as in the areas of genomics, precision medicine, and immuno-oncology. Tonight’s State of the Union address underscores the importance of collaborations if we are to achieve the vision that President Obama has outlined.”

To that end, on Jan. 8, a group of 15 AACR members, led by Baselga and comprising a number of AACR Board Members, and other AACR leaders from nine states and 10 of the top cancer centers and medical institutions in the U.S., met with Vice President Biden’s senior staff to discuss the state of cancer research, as well as Vice President Biden’s commitment to leading in this important issue.

From Philly.com

Biden to open effort to fight cancer Friday at Penn

 

011316_Biden-SOTU

US Vice President Biden will meet with University of Pennsylvania researchers to discuss the new Moonshot program to eliminate cancer. Photo from http://www.philly.com

 

Jonathan Tamari

Posted: Wednesday, January 13, 2016, 4:14 PM

image: http://media.philly.com/designimages/partnerIcon-Inquirer-2014.jpg

WASHINGTON – Vice President Biden will launch his effort to find a cure for cancer Friday in Philadelphia, with a visit to Penn’s Abramson Cancer Center at the school’s Perelman School of Medicine.

Biden announced the visit in an online post Tuesday night, when the call to cure the disease was one of the highlights of President Obama’s State of the Union speech.

“It’s personal for me. But it’s also personal for nearly every American, and millions of people around the world,” said Biden’s post on Medium. The vice president’s son Beau died of brain cancer at the age of 46 last year.

Biden compared the effort to President Kennedy’s call to go to the moon.

“From my own personal experience, I’ve learned that research and therapies are on the cusp of incredible breakthroughs,” Biden wrote. “The goal of this initiative — this “Moonshot” — is to seize this moment.”
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Biden-to-open-effort-to-fight-cancer-Friday-at-Penn.html#sQFbeebwSDM17S0d.99

 

Biden to tour labs, meet cancer researchers at Penn

 

Vice President Biden is scheduled to spend part of Friday afternoon at the University of Pennsylvania’s Abramson Cancer Center, the first stop on his quest for the United States to cure cancer. President Obama announced the new “Moon Shot” mission during his State of the Union address Tuesday night, comparing it with John F. Kennedy’s 1961 declaration to Congress that the nation would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.Biden’s 3 p.m. visit includes a tour of laboratories and a roundtable discussion with researchers at the Smilow Center for Translational Research and the Perelman Center for Advanced Medicine, both 3400 Civic Center Blvd. The events are not open to the public but are likely to cause some disruption.

In an internal e-mail Thursday afternoon, Garry Scheib, CEO of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, told employees that parts of the building would be emptied for security reasons from 11 a.m. through evening. “In addition, the Secret Service will temporarily close roadways near our campus to allow for secure transport of the Vice President,” Scheib wrote.

– Don Sapatkin
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20160115_Biden_to_visit_Penn_cancer_center_Friday_afternoon.html#vCpr4Hfu2AGYLSoX.99

 

Billionaire pulls together drugmakers, IBX for cancer collaboration

A billionaire medical entrepreneur has pulled together several drugmakers and Philadelphia-based Independence Blue Cross to speed development of what researchers hope could be a powerful weapon against cancers – potent combinations of new drugs that harness the body’s immune system.

So-called immunotherapies help disease-fighting cells attack tumors. Yet researchers believe they may work best when two, three, or more of the drugs are used together – overwhelming a tumor’s cellular defenses with attacks from all sides.

The group – called the National Immunotherapy Coalition – brought together by Patrick Soon-Shiong calls itself Moon Shot 2020. The name spun out of conversations Soon-Shiong had last year with Vice President Biden, whose son Beau died of cancer in May. In his October announcement that he was not running for president, Biden suggested a project of moon-shot proportions would be needed to defeat cancer.

A controversial figure in oncology research circles because of his self-promotion, Soon-Shiong made his fortune by inventing the cancer drug Abraxane in the early 1990s. California-based Amgen and New Jersey-based Celgene have joined the effort. Early reports suggested Pfizer, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline might participate, but other reports indicated they had not as of Monday.

Independence Blue Cross said in a statement Monday that it entered into an agreement with NantHealth, one of Soon-Shiong’s companies, to cover next-generation whole genome sequencing, which is a test designed to detect gene mutations that may serve as markers to help doctors choose cancer treatment.

Independence said its agreement with NantHealth involves a “very specific and complex lab study” related to certain types of cancer. The test will be covered for members with “specific conditions including rare cancers, tumors in children, metastatic cancer of unknown primary, primary brain cancer, triple negative breast cancer, and metastatic cancer where conventional therapies have been exhausted and patients remain candidates for further therapy. Coverage for the testing will be available to eligible members of Independence commercial plans in March 2016.”

As for the National Immunotherapy Coalition, Independence said members referred by their oncologist for participation in one of the approved Moon Shot 2020 clinical trials will be eligible for coverage for the routine patient care costs related to the trial. The coverage includes all routine services required for the patient – such as blood tests, supportive medications, and surgical interventions.

“Independence Blue Cross is committed to bringing state-of-the-art advances in oncology to our members and making care accessible and affordable,” Daniel J. Hilferty, president and CEO, Independence Blue Cross, said in the statement. “Decisions around cancer care are complex and personal. We’re focused on supporting Independence members and their oncologists by offering coverage for this innovative approach to treating cancer. Whole genome sequencing is one more option to help inform a personalized, effective treatment plan.”
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20160112_Billionaire_pulls_together_drugmakers__IBX_for_cancer_collaboration.html#XuXeFCydClgRsX0W.99

 

This is a Great Announcement But What is the History of the Government and THE WAR on CANCER? (Have we heard this before?)

 

The War on Cancer (launced by US President Nixon in the early 1970’s) has been discussed on this site from a historical perspective

2013 Perspective on “War on Cancer” on December 23, 1971

 

as well as the further needs the cancer field needs from this governmental effort

War on Cancer Needs to Refocus to Stay Ahead of Disease Says Cancer Expert

World facing cancer ‘tidal wave’, warns WHO

 

A summation of these efforts would say we have achieved great results in reducing the burden of cancer (through smoking cessation, early screening programs, better education, as well as therapeutic advances) however as the worldwide populace ages we are, and will see, a “rising tidal wave” of cancer incidence across the globe, and cancer researchers are feeling we are at an important precipice on this war, one which could be lost.

And the program which both President Obama and Vice President Biden are suggesting, the power would be a massive collaboration between government, academia, industry, and patient advocacy will certainly produce positive results.

However these efforts have been ongoing as with the University of Pennsylvania-Novartis deal to work together on CAR-T therapies for leukemias as well as other cancers

New Facility Poised to Accelerate the Research and Development of Personalized Cellular Cancer Therapies

 

as well as other academic-industry partnerships in immuno-oncology.

There have been other such announcements in recent years (mainly to draw in research $ or assist in forming academia-industry partnerships) such as:

NCI sets goal of eliminating suffering and death due to cancer by 2015.

 

In 2003 then NCI president Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach announced, after discussions with leaders in the field, that

“I have proposed a challenge goal for the field of cancer research- to eliminate suffering and death due to cancer by 2015. I issued this challenge because I believe we are at a ‘strategic inflection’ in oncology…”

Later in early decade of 2010 another program began to help make a push to recoup some of the government research $ lost to budgetary constraints on the NIH

STAND UP TO CANCER

stand-up-2-cancer

This program has met much success in raising money, awareness, and clinical trial enrollment (following shows current stats from the organization site)

Founded: May 28, 2008
Funds Pledged since inception: Over $370 Million
Number of scientists participating in SU2C-funded research: Over 1000
Clinical Trails funded by SU2C planned, initiated or completed: Over 160
Patients enrolled in SU2C supported Clinical Trials: Over 6,000 patients
Number of institutions joining in SU2C’s collaborative mission: 129

However, although it has grown the cancer research world encompasses a greater number than they can provide for.

 

In short, there has been no government effort much like Nixon’s War on Cancer, which took an obscure disease at the time and not only put it in the limelight but probably the most powerful result was the creation of the National Cancer Institute, thereby developing a framework to promote cancer research for the next century. President Obama should be applauded for this effort yet the real test for the Moonshot program will be to create, much like the NCI did, a self-perpetuating system by which continued further advancement can be made.

 

Read Full Post »

PD1 Inhibitor atezolizumab may show promise in bladder cancer in patients with high PDL1 expression

Reporter: Stephen J Williams

Updated 4/15/2016

Promising Immunotherapy Agents on Horizon in Bladder Cancer

Reported from OncLive

Virginia Powers, PhD

Published Online: Monday, November 16, 2015 at http://www.onclive.com/web-exclusives/promising-immunotherapy-agents-on-horizon-in-bladder-cancer

 

thompson

Thomas Powles, MD

The dramatic and often practice-changing findings demonstrated by trials of immunotherapies in melanoma and lung cancer may soon be reflected in the treatment of bladder cancer, according to a summary of ongoing studies1 presented at the 7th European Multidisciplinary Meeting on Urological Cancers (EMUC).

“Immune therapy is a promising new treatment in transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) of the bladder,” said Thomas Powles, MD, medical oncologist, director of St Bartholomew’s Cancer Centre, London. “Until recently, bladder cancer research has been somehow left behind.”

Powles underscored that immune checkpoint inhibitors are active in urothelial bladder cancer (UBC) and provided an overview of the emergence of immune therapy in bladder cancer that focused on agents targeting the immune checkpoint axis, especially the programed death receptor (PD1) and its ligand (PD-L1).

“Each drug has a unique companion diagnostic but the strongest data so far are seen with blocking PD-L1 and atezolizumab,” he said.

The confirmed overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST to atezolizumab are associated with PD-L1 expression levels in the tumor. In a phase I trial of second line atezolizumab (MPDL3280A) in TCC, a response was demonstrated in patients that had previously showed only a 10% response rate to chemotherapy. The ORRs were 43% for patients with tumors expressing high levels of PD-L1 (IHC 2/3) compared to 11% in patients with tumors having low expression (IHC 0 or 1).2

PD-L1 expression on the immune cells (IC) infiltrating the tumor has also been shown to be associated with response. The PD-L1 expression on ICs was evaluated as low, medium, and high in approximately one-third each of 311 patients with locally-advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) participating in the phase II IMvigor 210 trial, which corresponded to an ORR with atezolizumab of 9%, 10%, and 27% in the respective expression groups.

Overall survival (OS) at a median follow-up of 7 months (range, 0-11) also correlated with expression levels and was 6.7 months in low (IC0/1), not reached in high (IC2/3) expressing patients, and 7.9 months in overall population. However, no difference was seen in progression-free survival (PFS) according to expression levels; median PFS was 2.1 months in the overall population and in patients having both low (IC0/1) and high (IV2/3) expression levels, respectively. These data were emphasized as early response data that are expected to mature in further analyses.3

Powles commented that his team is beginning a phase III randomized trial of atezolizumab in 767 patients with locally-advanced UBC who were also chemotherapy-resistant following 1 to 2 prior lines of a platinum-based regimen. Patients have been stratified by chemotherapy regimen, PD-L1 expression, IHC status, risk factors, and the presence of liver metastasis. The primary endpoint is OS and secondary endpoints include ORR, PFS, and duration of response (DoR), safety, and tolerability. Other objectives include disease control rate and potential biomarkers.

“PD-L1 expression appears important but we need to find other biomarkers,” he remarked.

Powles moved on to discuss the KEYNOTE-012 phase Ib trial of pembrolizumab, an anti-PD1 antibody that blocks interaction with both PD-L1 and PD-L2. In KEYNOTE, pembrolizumab demonstrated anti-tumor activity in patients with recurrent or metastatic PD-L1–positive UBC in 64% of patients experiencing a decrease in target lesions from baseline.4

Combination and adjuvant studies are ongoing, according to Powles. A trial of atezolizumab as adjuvant therapy versus placebo is underway in patients with TCC whose tumors express PD-L1. The trial has a primary endpoint of disease-free survival (DFS).

“Next-generation combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab is a common sense approach that was tested in advanced melanoma and is now being evaluated in the Danube trial,” Powles said.

Nivolumab, a PD-1 blocking antibody, and ipilimumab, which blocks CTLA-4, will be evaluated in Danube, a randomized phase III study that will enroll 800 patients with untreated metastatic TCC. The endpoints are PFS and OS. Patients are required to have available tissue for PD-L1 testing and no contraindications for immune therapy.

The rationale for the combination was demonstrated in melanoma, where confirmed objective responses were seen in 61% of patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus 11% in patients receiving ipilimumab and placebo (P <0.001). Complete responses were reported in 16 patients (22%) with combination compared to no patients receiving ipilimumab monotherapy.5

“It looks like checkpoint inhibition works particularly well in node positive patients; in the future we can see treatment with first-line immunotherapeutic agents,” said Powles.

“We hope that immune therapy will identify a subset of patients who get long-term benefits from immune therapy,” Powles said. “The future looks bright for immunotherapy in bladder cancer.”

References

  1. Powles T. Update on systemic treatments in bladder cancer. Presented at: 7th European Multidisciplinary Meeting on Urological Cancers (EMUC), Barcelona, Spain, November 12–15, 2015.
  2. Powles T, Eder JP, Fine GD, et al. MPDL3280A (anti-PD-L1) treatment leads to clinical activity in metastatic bladder cancer. Nature. 2014;515(7528):558-562.
  3. Rosenberg J, Petrylak D, Abidoye O, et al. Atezolizumab in patients (pts) with locally-advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): Results from a pivotal multicenter phase II study (IMvigor 210). Presented at: 2015 European Cancer Congress; September 25-29; Vienna, Austria. Abstract 21LBA.
  4. Plimack ER, Bellmunt J, Gupta S, et al. Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) for advanced urothelial cancer: Updated results and biomarker analysis from KEYNOTE-012. J Clin Oncol 33, 2015 (suppl; abstr 4502).
  5. Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, et al. Combined nivolumab and ipilimumab or monotherapy in untreated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373:23-34.

– See more at: http://www.onclive.com/web-exclusives/promising-immunotherapy-agents-on-horizon-in-bladder-cancer#sthash.c63jReGo.dpuf

Speedy review for Merck’s Keytruda in head and neck cancer

DAILY NEWS | APRIL 14, 2016

SELINA MCKEE

Speedy review for Merck's Keytruda in head and neck cancer

US regulators have agreed to undertake a speedy review of Merck & Co’s application to market immunotherapy Keytruda for the treatment of certain patients with head and neck cancer, it third potential indication in the country.

 

The company is targeting the drug towards patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with disease progression on or after platinum-containing chemotherapy.

 

“We are encouraged by the data emerging from our program in this type of cancer, and welcome today’s news as this is an important step toward making Keytruda (pembrolizumab) available to these patients,” said Roger Dansey, senior vice president and therapeutic area head, oncology late-stage development, Merck Research Laboratories.

 

The US Food and Drug Administration has set an action date for Keytruda – an anti-PD-1 therapy dosed as a single agent intravenously every three weeks – of August 9.

 

Keytruda is a humanised monoclonal antibody that boosts the ability of the body’s immune system to help detect and fight tumour cells. The drug has already racked up approvals in melanoma and lung cancer in the US.

Read more at: http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/16-04-14/Speedy_review_for_Merck_s_Keytruda_in_head_and_neck_cancer.aspx#ixzz45uMyaCdc
Follow us: @PharmaTimes on Twitter

 

Read Full Post »

Renal (Kidney) Cancer: Connections in Metabolism at Krebs cycle  and Histone Modulation

Curator: Demet Sag, PhD, CRA, GCP

Through Histone Modulation

Renal cell carcinoma accounts for only 3% of total human malignancies but it is still the most common type of urological cancer with a high prevalence in elderly men (>60 years of age).

ICD10 C64
ICD9-CM 189.0
ICD-O M8312/3
OMIM 144700 605074
DiseasesDB 11245
MedlinePlus 000516
eMedicine med/2002

Most kidney cancers are renal cell carcinomas (RCC). RCC lacks early warning signs and 70 % of patients with RCC develop metastases. Among them, 50 % of patients having skeletal metastases developed a dismal survival of less than 10 % at 5 years.

There are three main histopathological entities:

  1. Clear cell RCC (ccRCC), dominant in histology (65%)
  2. Papillary (15-20%) and
  3. Chromophobe RCC (5%).

There are very rare forms of RCC shown in collecting duct, mucinous tubular, spindle cell, renal medullary, and MiTF-TFE translocation carcinomas.

Subtypes of clear cell and papillary RCC, and a new subtype, clear cell papillary http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399969/bin/nihms380694f6.jpg

Different subtypes of clear cell RCC can be defined by HIF patterns as well as by transcriptomic expression as defined by ccA and ccB subtypes. Papillary RCC also demonstrates distinct histological subtypes. A recently described variant denoted as clear cell papillary RCC is VHL wildtype (VHL WT), while other clear cell tumors are characterized by VHL mutation, loss, or inactivation (VHL MT).

KEY POINTS

  • Renal cell cancer is a disease in which malignant (cancer) cells form in tubules of the kidney.
  • Smoking and misuse of certain pain medicines can affect the risk of renal cell cancer.
  • Signs of renal cell cancer include
  • Blood in your urine, which may appear pink, red or cola colored
  • A lump in the abdomen.
  • Back pain just below the ribs that doesn’t go away
  • Weight loss
  • Fatigue
  • Intermittent fever

 

Factors that can increase the risk of kidney cancer include:

  • Older age.
  • High blood pressure (hypertension).
  • Treatment for kidney failure.(long-term dialysis to treat chronic kidney failure)
  • Certain inherited syndromes.
  • von Hippel-Lindau disease

Tests that examine the abdomen and kidneys are used to detect (find) and diagnose renal cell cancer.

The following tests and procedures may be used:

There are 3 treatment approaches for Renal Cancer:

Stages of Renal Cancer:

Stage I Tumour of a diameter of 7 cm (approx. 23⁄4 inches) or smaller, and limited to the kidney. No lymph node involvement or metastases to distant organs.
Stage II Tumour larger than 7.0 cm but still limited to the kidney. No lymph node involvement or metastases to distant organs.
Stage III
any of the following
Tumor of any size with involvement of a nearby lymph node but no metastases to distant organs. Tumour of this stage may be with or without spread to fatty tissue around the kidney, with or without spread into the large veins leading from the kidney to the heart.
Tumour with spread to fatty tissue around the kidney and/or spread into the large veins leading from the kidney to the heart, but without spread to any lymph nodes or other organs.
Stage IV
any of the following
Tumour that has spread directly through the fatty tissue and the fascia ligament-like tissue that surrounds the kidney.
Involvement of more than one lymph node near the kidney
Involvement of any lymph node not near the kidney
Distant metastases, such as in the lungs, bone, or brain.
Grade Level Nuclear Characteristics
Grade I Nuclei appear round and uniform, 10 μm; nucleoli are inconspicuous or absent.
Grade II Nuclei have an irregular appearance with signs of lobe formation, 15 μm; nucleoli are evident.
Grade III Nuclei appear very irregular, 20 μm; nucleoli are large and prominent.
Grade IV Nuclei appear bizarre and multilobated, 20 μm or more; nucleoli are prominent

 

GENETICS:

90% or more of kidney cancers are believed to be of epithelial cell origin, and are referred to as renal cell carcinoma (RCC), which are further subdivided based on histology into clear-cell RCC (75%), papillary RCC (15%),

chromophobe tumor (5%), and oncocytoma (5%).

Nephrectomy continues to be the cornerstone of treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Research is still underway to developed targeted agents against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) molecule and related pathways as well as inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR),

clear cell RCC (ccRCC) doesn’t respond well to radiation chemotherapy due to high radiation resistancy.  The hallmark genetic features of solid tumors such as KRAS or TP53 mutations are also absent. However, there is a well-designed association presented between ccRCC and mutations in the VHL gene

Hereditary RCC, accounts for around 4% of cases, has been a relatively dominant area of RCC genetics.

Causative genes have been identified in several familial cancer syndromes that predispose to RCC including

  • VHLmutations in von Hippel-Lindau disease that predispose to ccRCC and VHL is somatically mutated in up to 80% of ccRCC
  • METmutations in familial papillary renal cancer,
  • dominantly activating kinase domainMET mutation reported in 4–10% of sporadic papillary RCC[2].
  • FH (fumarate hydratase) mutations in hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer that predispose to papillary RCC
  • FLCN(folliculin) mutations in Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome that predispose to primarily chromophobe RCC.

In addition, there are germline mutations:

  • in theTSC1/2 genes predispose to tuberous sclerosis complex where approximately 3% of cases develop ccRCC,
  • in the SDHB(succinate dehydrogenase type B) in patients with paraganglioma syndrome shows elevated risk to develop multiple types of RCC.

GWAS in almost 6000 RCC cases demonstrated that loci on 2p21 and 11q13.3 play a role in RCC. Although EPAS1 gene encoding a transcription factor operative in hypoxia-regulated responses in  2p21 , 11q13.3 has no known coding genes.

There has been, however, comparatively less progress in the elaboration of the somatic genetics of sporadic RCC.

Absent mutations in sporadic RCC:

  • somaticFH mutations
  • somatic mutations ofTSC12 and SDHB

Present mutations in sporadic ccRCC (chromophobe RCC) are

  • TSC1mutations occur in 5% of ccRCCs and
  • somatic mutations inFLCN  rare
  • may predict for extraordinary sensitivity to mTORC1 inhibitors clinically.

The COSMIC database reports somatic point mutations in TP53 in 10% of cases, KRAS/HRAS/NRAS combined ≤1%, CDKN2A 10%, PTEN 3%, RB1 3%, STK11/LKB1 ≤1%, PIK3Ca ≤1%, EGFR1% and BRAF ≤1% in all histological samples. Further information can be found at (http://www.sanger.ac.uk/ genetics/CGP/cosmic/) for the  RCC somatic genetics.

HIF- and hypoxia-mediated epigenetic regulation work together due to histone modification because HIF activate several chromatin demethylases, including JMJD1A (KDM3A), JMJD2B (KDM4B), JMJD2C (KDM4C) and JARID1B (KDM5B), all of which are directly targeted by HIF.

Overview of Histone 3 modifications implicated in RCC genetics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399969/bin/nihms380694f1.jpg

A number of histone modifying genes are mutated in renal cell carcinoma. These include the H3K36 trimethylase SETD2, the H3K27 demethylase UTX/KDM6A, the H3K4 demethylase JARID1C/KDM5C and the SWI/SNF complex compenent PBRM1, shown in this cartoon to represent their relative activities on Histone H3.

Hyper-methylation is observed on RASSF1 highly (50% f RCC) yet less on VHL and CDKN2A, yet there is a methylation and silencing observed on TIMP3 and secreted frizzled-related protein 2.

RCC is ONE OF THE “CILIOPATHIES” among Polycystic Kidney Disease (PKD), Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) and VHL Syndrome. The main display of cysts is dysfunctional primary cilia.

Mol Cancer Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jan 1.

Mol Cancer Res. 2012 Jul; 10(7): 859–880. Published online 2012 May 25. doi:  10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-12-0117

pVHL mutants are categorized as Class A, B and C depending on the affected step in pVHL protein quality control http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399969/bin/nihms380694f2.jpg

VHL proteostasis involves the chaperone mediated translocation of nascent VHL peptide from the ribosome to the TRiC/CCT chaperonin, where folding occurs in an ATP dependent process. The VBC complex is formed while VHL is bound to TRiC, and the mature complex is then released. Three different classes of mutation exist: Class A mutations prevent binding of VHL to TRiC, and abrogate folding into a mature complex. Class B mutations prevent association of Elongins C and B to VHL. Class C mutations inhibit interaction between VHL and HIF1 a.

# 193300. VON HIPPEL-LINDAU SYNDROME; VHL ICD+, Links
VON HIPPEL-LINDAU SYNDROME, MODIFIERS OF, INCLUDED
Cytogenetic locations: 3p25.3 , 11q13.3
Matching terms: lindau, disease, von, hippellindau, hippel
  • Birt-Hogg-Dube syndrome,
# 135150. BIRT-HOGG-DUBE SYNDROME; BHD ICD+, Links
Cytogenetic location: 17p11.2 
Matching terms: birthoggdube, syndrome, birt, hogg, dube
  • tuberous sclerosis
# 191100. TUBEROUS SCLEROSIS 1; TSC1 ICD+, Links
Cytogenetic location: 9q34.13 
Matching terms: tuber, sclerosi, tuberous
  • familial papillary renal cell carcinoma.
# 144700. RENAL CELL CARCINOMA, NONPAPILLARY; RCC ICD+, Links
NONPAPILLARY RENAL CARCINOMA 1 LOCUS, INCLUDED
Cytogenetic locations: 3p25.3 3p25.3 3q21.1 8q24.13 12q24.31 17p11.2 17q12 
Matching terms: renal, familial, papillary, carcinoma, cell

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4358399/bin/467fig3.jpg

Model for the control of the fate of nephron progenitor cells. Eya1 lies genetically upstream of Six2. Six2 labels the nephron progenitor cells, which can either maintain a progenitor state and self-renew or differentiate via the Wnt4-mediated MET. Wnt4 expression is under the direct control of Wt1. β-Catenin is involved in both progenitor cell fates through activation of different transcriptional programs. Active nuclear phosphorylated Yap/Taz shifts the progenitor balance toward the self-renewal fate. Eya1 and Six2 interact directly with Mycn, leading to dephosphorylation of Mycn pT58, stabilization of the protein, increased proliferation, and potentially a shift of the nephron progenitor toward self-renewal. Genes activated in Wilms’ tumors are depicted in green, and inactivated genes are in blue. Deregulation of Yap/Taz in Wilms’ tumors results in phosphorylated Yap not being retained in the cytoplasm as it should, but it translocates to the nucleus and thus shifts the progenitor cell balance toward self-renewal. This model is likely a simplification, as it presumes that all Wilms’ tumors, regardless of causative mutation, are caused by the same mechanism.

Epigenetic aberrations associated with Wilms’ tumor

Chinese Case Study: PMCID: PMC4471788

They u8ndertook this study based on association of low circulating adiponectin concentrations with a higher risk of several cancers, including renal cell carcinoma. Thus they demonstrated that by case–control study that ADIPOQ rs182052 is significantly associated with ccRCC risk.

They investigated the frequency of three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), rs182052G>A, rs266729C>G, rs3774262G>A, in the adiponectin gene (ADIPOQ).  1004 registered patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) compared with 1108 healthy subjects (= 1108).

The first table presents the characteristics of 1004 patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma and 1108 cancer-free controls from a Chinese Han population. The Second and third table shows the SNP results.

Table 1: The characteristics of the examined population.

Variable Cases, n (%) Controls, n (%) P-value
1004 (100) 1108 (100)
Age, years
 ≤44 195 (19.4) 230 (20.8) 0.559
 45–64 580 (57.8) 644 (58.1)
 ≥65 229 (22.8) 234 (21.1)
Sex
 Male 711 (70.8) 815 (73.6) 0.160
 Female 293 (29.2) 293 (26.4)
BMI, kg/m2
 <25 480 (47.8) 589 (53.2) 0.014
 ≥25 524 (52.2) 519 (46.8)
Smoking status
 Never 455 (45.3) 529 (47.7) 0.265
 Ever/current 549 (54.7) 579 (52.3)
Hypertension
 No 639 (63.6) 780 (70.4) 0.001
 Yes 365 (36.4) 328 (29.6)
Fuhrman grade
 I 40 (4.0)
 II 380 (37.8)
 III 347 (34.6)
 IV 175 (17.4)
 Missing 62 (6.2)
Stage at diagnosis
 I 738 (73.5)
 II 71 (7.1)
 III 19 (1.9)
 IV 176 (17.5)

Pearson’s χ2-test.

Table 2:

Association between ADIPOQ single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma risk

SNP HWE Cases, n(%) Controls, n(%) Crude OR (95% CI) P-value Adjusted OR (95% CI) P-value
rs182052
 GG 0.636 249 (24.8) 315 (28.4) 1.00 1.00
 AG 485 (48.3) 544 (49.1) 1.13 (0.92–1.39) 0.253 1.11 (0.90–1.37) 0.331
 AA 270 (26.9) 249 (22.5) 1.37 (1.08–1.75) 0.010 1.36 (1.07–1.74) 0.013
 AG/AA versusGG 1.20 (0.99–1.46) 0.060 1.19 (0.98–1.45) 0.086
 AA versusGG/AG 1.28 (1.04–1.57) 0.019 1.27 (1.04–1.56) 0.019
rs266729
 CC 0.143 502 (50.0) 572 (51.6) 1.00 1.00
 CG 398 (39.6) 434 (39.2) 1.05 (0.88–1.25) 0.635 1.05 (0.87–1.26) 0.633
 GG 104 (10.4) 102 (9.2) 1.16 (0.86–1.57) 0.324 1.17 (0.86–1.58) 0.307
 CG/GG versusCC 1.07 (0.91–1.29) 0.456 1.07 (0.90–1.27) 0.445
 GG versus CC/CG 1.19 (0.83–1.59) 0.377 1.15 (0.86–1.54) 0.353
rs3774262
 GG 0.106 482 (48.0) 523 (47.2) 1.00 1.00
 AG 420 (41.8) 459 (41.4) 0.99 (0.83–1.20) 0.938 0.99 (0.82–1.19) 0.905
 AA 102 (10.2) 126 (11.4) 0.88 (0.66–1.17) 0.381 0.90 (0.67–1.20) 0.463
 AG/AA versusGG 0.98 (0.80–1.16) 0.711 0.97 (0.82–1.15) 0.722
 AA versusGG/AG 0.88 (0.67–1.18) 0.372 0.90 (0.68–1.19) 0.465

Bold values indicate significance.

Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, smoking status, and hypertension. CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

Table 3:

Association between ADIPOQ single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma risk

SNP HWE Cases, n(%) Controls, n(%) Crude OR (95% CI) P-value Adjusted OR (95% CI) P-value
rs182052
 GG 0.636 249 (24.8) 315 (28.4) 1.00 1.00
 AG 485 (48.3) 544 (49.1) 1.13 (0.92–1.39) 0.253 1.11 (0.90–1.37) 0.331
 AA 270 (26.9) 249 (22.5) 1.37 (1.08–1.75) 0.010 1.36 (1.07–1.74) 0.013
 AG/AA versusGG 1.20 (0.99–1.46) 0.060 1.19 (0.98–1.45) 0.086
 AA versusGG/AG 1.28 (1.04–1.57) 0.019 1.27 (1.04–1.56) 0.019
rs266729
 CC 0.143 502 (50.0) 572 (51.6) 1.00 1.00
 CG 398 (39.6) 434 (39.2) 1.05 (0.88–1.25) 0.635 1.05 (0.87–1.26) 0.633
 GG 104 (10.4) 102 (9.2) 1.16 (0.86–1.57) 0.324 1.17 (0.86–1.58) 0.307
 CG/GG versusCC 1.07 (0.91–1.29) 0.456 1.07 (0.90–1.27) 0.445
 GG versus CC/CG 1.19 (0.83–1.59) 0.377 1.15 (0.86–1.54) 0.353
rs3774262
 GG 0.106 482 (48.0) 523 (47.2) 1.00 1.00
 AG 420 (41.8) 459 (41.4) 0.99 (0.83–1.20) 0.938 0.99 (0.82–1.19) 0.905
 AA 102 (10.2) 126 (11.4) 0.88 (0.66–1.17) 0.381 0.90 (0.67–1.20) 0.463
 AG/AA versusGG 0.98 (0.80–1.16) 0.711 0.97 (0.82–1.15) 0.722
 AA versusGG/AG 0.88 (0.67–1.18) 0.372 0.90 (0.68–1.19) 0.465

Bold values indicate significance.

Adjusted for age, sex, BMI, smoking status, and hypertension. CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

Molecular Genetics Level for Physiology (Function):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4503866/bin/10585_2015_9731_Fig6_HTML.jpg

a The protein–protein interaction for the identified 8 proteins in STRING (10 necessary proteins/genes were added into the network so as to find the potential strong connection among them. The red dotted lines circled three main pathways. b The ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA) for all these 18 genes showing that oxidative phosphorylation, mitochondria dysfunction and granzyme A are the significantly activated pathways (fold change over 1.5, P < 0.05). c The possible mechanism related mitochondria functions: unspecific condition like inflammation, carcinogens, radiation (ionizing or ultraviolet), intermittent hypoxia, viral infections which is carcinogenesis in our study that damages a cell’s oxidative phosphorylation. Any of these conditions can damage the structure and function of mitochondria thus activating a respiratory chain changes (Complex I, II, III, IV) and also cytochrome c release. When the mitochondrial dysfunction persists, it produces genome instability (mtDNA mutation), and further lead to malignant transformation (metastasis) via increased ROS and apoptotic resistance. (Color figure online)

RENAL CELL CARCINOMA AND METABOLISM goes hand to hand in genes encoding enzymes of the Krebs cycle suppress tumor formation in kidney cells. This includes Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH), Fumarate hydratase (FH).  As a result of accumulation of succinate or fumarate causes the inhibition of a family of 2-oxoglutarate-dependent dioxygeneases.

The FH and SDH genes function as two-hit tumor suppressor genes.

SDH has a complex of 4 different polypeptides (SDHA-D) function in electron transfer, catalyzes the conversion of succinate to fumarate. Furthermore, heterozygous germline mutations in SDHsubunits predispose to pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma. FH function to convert fumarate to malate.  When its mutations presented as heterozygous germline, it predisposes hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer (HLRCC). Among them about 20–50% of HLRCC families are typically papillary-type 2 (pRCC-2) and overwhelmingly aggressive.RCC is increasingly being recognized as a metabolic disease, and key lesions in nutrient sensing and processing have been detected.

Regulation of Prolyl Hydroxylases and Keap1 by Krebs cycle http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399969/bin/nihms380694f4.jpg

Regulation of Prolyl Hydroxylases by Tricarboxylic Acid (TCA) Cycle Intermediates. Prolyl hydroxylases use TCA cycle intermediates to help catalyze the oxygen, iron and ascorbate dependent- addition of a hydroxyl side chain to a Pro402 and Pro564 of HIF alpha subunits, leading to VHL binding and degradation. Defects in either fumarate hydratase or succinate dehydrogenase will drive up levels of fumarate and succinate, which competitively bind prolyl hydroxylases, and prevent HIF prolyl hydroxylation. This results in higher intracellular HIF levels.

Regulation of mTORC1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399969/bin/nihms380694f5.jpg

HIF regulation and mTOR pathway connections. Hypoxia blocks HIF expression in a TSC1/2 and REDD dependent pathway [155]. HIF1α appears to be both TORC1 and TORC2 dependent, whereas HIF2α is only TORC2 dependent [275]. Signaling via TORC2 appears to upregulate HIF2α in an AKT dependent manner [69].

TREATMENT:

Based on the types of renal cancers the treatment method may vary but the general scheme is:

 

Drugs Approved for Kidney (Renal Cell) Cancer

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs for kidney (renal cell) cancer. Some of the drug names link to NCI’s Cancer Drug Information summaries.

T cell regulation in RCC http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399969/bin/nihms380694f7.jpg

Immune regulation of renal tumor cells. A: When an antigen presenting cell (APC) engages a T-cell via a cognate T-cell receptor (TCR) and CD28, T-cell cell activation occurs. B: Early and late T-cell inhibitory signals are mediated via CTLA-4 and PD-1 receptors, and this occurs via engagement of the APC via B7 and PD-L1, respectively. C: Inhibitory antibodies against CTLA-4 and PD-1 can overcome T-cell downregulation and once again allow cytokine production.

Phase III Trials of Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Trial Number
of
patients
Clinical setting RR (%) PFS (months) OS (months)
VEGF-Targeted Therapy
*AVOREN

Bevacizumab +
IFNa
vs.IFNa[270]

649 First-line 31 vs. 12 10.2 vs. 5.5
(p<0.001)
23.3 vs. 21.3
(p=0.129)
*CALBG 90206

Bevacizumab +
IFNa
vs.IFNa[271]

732 First-line 25.5 vs. 13 8.4 vs. 4.9
(p<0.001)
18.3 vs. 17.4
(p=0.069)
Sunitinib vs.
IFNa[248]
750 First-line 47 vs. 12 11 vs. 5
(p=0.0001)
26.4 vs. 21.8
(p=0.051)
*TARGET

Sorafenib vs.
Placebo[272]

903 Second-line

(post-cytokine)

10 vs. 2 5.5 vs. 2.8
(p<0.01)
17.8vs.15.2
(p=0.88)
Pazopanib vs.
placebo[273]
435 First line/second line

(post-cytokine)

30 vs. 3 9.2 vs. 4.2
(p<0.0001)
22.9 vs. 20.5
(p=0.224)
*AXIS

Axitinib vs.
sorafenib [269]

723 Second line

(post-sunitinib, cytokine,
bevacizumab or
temsirolimus)

19 vs. 9
(p=0.0001)
6.7 vs. 4.7
(p<0.0001)
Not reported
mTOR-Targeted Therapy
*ARCC
Temsirolimus
vs. Tem + IFNa
vs. IFNa[249]
624 First line, ≥ 3 poor risk
featuresa
9 vs. 5 3.8 vs. 1.9 for
IFNa
monotherapy
(p=0.0001)
10.9 vs. 7.3 for
IFNa(p=0.008)
*RECORD-1
Everolimus vs.
placebo [274]
410 Second line
(post sunitinib and/or
sorafenib)
2 vs. 0 4.9 vs. 1.9

(p<0.0001)

14.8 vs. 14.5

RCC renal cell carcinoma, RR response rate, OS overall survival, PFS progression free survival, VEGFvascular endothelial growth factor, IFNa interferon alphamTOR mammalian target of rapamycin. AVORENAVastin fOr RENal cell cancer, CALBG Cancer and Leukemia Group B. TARGET Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial. AXIS Axitinib in Second Line. ARCC Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma. RECORD-1 REnal Cell cancer treatment withOral RAD001 given Daily.

aIncluding serum lactate dehydrogenase level of more than 1.5 times the upper limit of the normal range, a hemoglobin level below the lower limit of the normal range; a corrected serum calcium level of more than 10 mg per deciliter (2.5 mmol per liter), a time from initial diagnosis of renal-cell carcinoma to randomization of less than 1 year, a Karnofsky performance score of 60 or 70, or metastases in multiple organs.

PMC full text: Open Access J Urol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jul 8.

Open Access J Urol. 2010 Aug; 2010(2): 125–141. doi:  10.2147/RRU.S7242

Table: RCC-Associated Antigens (RCCAA) Recognized by T Cells.

Antigen Antigen
Category
Frequency of
Expression
Among RCC
Tumors (%)
CD8+ T cell
recognition:
Patients with
HLA Class I
Allele(s)
CD4+ T cell
recognition:
Patients with
HLA Class II
Allele(s)
References found in Open Access J Urol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jul 8.
Survivina ML 100 Multiple Multiple 114
OFA-iLR OF 100 A2 NR 115116
IGFBP3ab ML 97 NR Multiple 117118
EphA2a ML > 90 A2 DR4 1744119
RU2AS Antisense
transcript
> 90 B7 NR 120
G250
(CA-IX) ab
RCC 90 A2, A24 Multiple 4751
EGFRab ML 85 A2 NR 121122
HIFPH3a ML 85 A24 NR 123
c-Meta ML > 80 A2 NR 124
WT-1a ML 80 A2, A24 NR 125128
MUC1ab ML 76 A2 DR3 46129130
5T4 ML 75 A2, Cw7 DR4 54131133
iCE aORF 75 B7 NR 134
MMP7a ML 75 A3 Multiple 117135136
Cyclin D1a ML 75 A2 Multiple 117137138
HAGE b CT 75 A2 DR4 139
hTERT ab ML > 70 Mutliple Multiple 140142
FGF-5 Protein splice variant > 60 A3 NR 143
mutVHLab ML > 60 NR NR 144
MAGE-A3 b CT 60 Multiple Multiple 145
SART-3 ML 57 Mulitple NR 146149
SART-2 ML 56 A24 NR 150
PRAME b CT 40 Multiple NR 151154
p53ab Mutant/WT
ML
32 Mutliple Multiple 155156
MAGE-A9b CT >30 A2 NR 157
MAGE-A6b CT 30 Mutliple DR4 18158
MAGE-D4b CT 30 A25 NR 159
Her2/neua ML 1030 Multiple Multiple 45160164
SART-1a ML 25 Multiple NR 165167
RAGE-1 CT (ORF2/5) 21 Mutliple Multiple 151157168169
TRP-1/ gp75 ML 11 A31 DR4 151170172

A summary is provided for RCCAA that have been defined at the molecular level. RCCAA are characterized with regard to their antigen category, their prevalence of (over)expression among total RCC specimens evaluated, whether RCCAA expression is modulated by hypoxia or tumor DNA methylation status, and which HLA class I and class II alleles have been reported to serve as presenting molecules for T cell recognition of peptides derived from a given RCCAA.

Abbreviations: CT = Cancer-Testis Antigens; ML = Multi-lineage Antigens; NR = Not Reported; OF = Oncofetal Antigen; aORF = altered open reading frame; ORF = open reading frame; RCC = Renal cell carcinoma; WT = Wild-Type;

aHypoxia-Induced;

bHypomethylation-Induced.

PMC full text: Open Access J Urol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jul 8.

Open Access J Urol. 2010 Aug; 2010(2): 125–141. doi:  10.2147/RRU.S7242

Expected Impact on Teff versus Suppressor Cells
Co-Therapeutic Agent Teff
priming
Teff
function
Teff
survival
Teff
(TME)
Treg/
MDSC
References found in Open Access J Urol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2013 Jul 8.
Cytokines
IL-2 +/− ↑ (Treg) 173175
IL-7 ↑ (Treg) 176178
IL-12 – (Treg), ↓ (MDSC) 179181
IL-15 ↑ (Treg)* 182183
IL-18 ↓ (Treg) 184186
IL-21 ? +/− (Treg) 187190
IFN-α +/− (Treg) 175191194
IFN-γ -? ? ↑ ↑ (Treg); ↑ ?(MDSC) 195197
GM-CSF ? ↑ (Treg); ↑(MDSC) 198202
Coinhibitory Antagonist
CTLA-4 ? ↓ (Treg) 203204
PD1/PD1L ↓ (Treg) 205207
Costimulatory Agonist
CD40/CD40L ↑ (Treg); ↑(MDSC) 208211
GITR/GITRL ↓ (Treg); ↓ (MDSC) 212213
OX40/OX86 ↑↓ (Treg); ↓ (MDSC) 214219
4-1BB/4-1BBL ↑ (Treg) 220224
TLR Agonists
Imiquimod (TLR7) ? 225227
Resiquimod (TLR8) ? ? 228229
CpG (TLR9) ↓ (Treg) 230232
Anti-Angiogenic
VEGF-Trap ? ? 233
Sunitinib ? ↓ (Treg/MDSC) 98100234
Sorafenib ? ↓ (MDSC) 235
Bevacizumab ? ? ↓ (MDSC) 236237
Gefitinib (IRESSA) ? ? ? ? ? 238239
Cetuximab ? ? ? ? 240
mTOR Inhibitors
Temsirolimus/Everolimus ? ↓ (Treg) 241
Treg/MDSC Inhibitors
Iplimumab (CTLA-4) ? ↓ (Treg) 242243
ONTAK (CD25) +/− +/− ? ? ↓ (Treg) 244
Anti-TGFβ/TGFβR ↓ (Treg) 245247
Anti-IL10/IL10R +/− ↓ (Treg) 248249
Anti-IL35/IL35R ↑? ↑? ↑? ↑? ↓ (Treg) 250
1-methyl trytophan ? ? ↓ (MDSC) 251
ATRA ? ? ↑ (Treg), ↓ (MDSC) 9093

Agents that are currently or soon-to-be in clinical trials are summarized with regard to their anticipated impact(s) on Type-1 anti-tumor T cell (Te) activation, function, survival and recruitment into the TME. Additional anticipated effects of drugs on suppressor cells (Treg and MDSC) are also summarized. Key: ↑, agent is expected to increase parameter; ↓, agent is expected to inhibit parameter; +/−, minimal increase or decrease is expected in parameter as a consequence of treatment with agent; ?, unknown effect of agent on parameter.

Abbreviations: ATRA, all-trans retinoic acid; CTLA-4, cytotoxic T Lymphocyte antigen 4; GITR(L), glucocorticoid-induced TNF receptor (ligand); GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor; IFN, interferon; IL, interleukin; MDSC, myeloid-derived suppressor cell; PD1/PD1L, programmed cell death 1 (ligand); TGF-β(R), tumor necrosis factor-β(receptor); TLR, Toll-like receptor; TME, tumor microenvironment; Treg, regulatory T cell; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

Alternative and Complementary Therapies for Cancer:

  • Art therapy
  • Dance or movement therapy
  • Exercise
  • Meditation
  • Music therapy
  • Relaxation exercises

Mol Cancer Res. 2012 Jul; 10(7): 859–880. Published online 2012 May 25. doi:  10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-12-0117 PMCID: PMC3399969 NIHMSID: NIHMS380694

State-of-the-science: An update on renal cell carcinoma

Eric Jonasch,1 Andrew Futreal,1 Ian Davis,2 Sean Bailey,2 William Y. Kim,2 James Brugarolas,3 Amato Giaccia,4 Ghada Kurban,5 Armin Pause,6 Judith Frydman,4 Amado Zurita,1 Brian I. Rini,7 Pam Sharma,8Michael Atkins,9 Cheryl Walker,8,* and W. Kimryn Rathmell2,*

Go to:

REFERENCES

Germline and somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the MET proto-oncogene in papillary renal carcinomas.[Nat Genet. 1997]

Germline mutations in FH predispose to dominantly inherited uterine fibroids, skin leiomyomata and papillary renal cell cancer.[Nat Genet. 2002]

Mutations in a novel gene lead to kidney tumors, lung wall defects, and benign tumors of the hair follicle in patients with the Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome.[Cancer Cell. 2002]

Tuberous sclerosis-associated renal cell carcinoma. Clinical, pathological, and genetic features.[Am J Pathol. 1996]

Tumor risks and genotype-phenotype-proteotype analysis in 358 patients with germline mutations in SDHB and SDHD.[Hum Mutat. 2010]

Genome-wide association study of renal cell carcinoma identifies two susceptibility loci on 2p21 and 11q13.3.[Nat Genet. 2011]

Mutations of the VHL tumour suppressor gene in renal carcinoma.[Nat Genet. 1994]

Germline and somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the MET proto-oncogene in papillary renal carcinomas.[Nat Genet. 1997]

Few FH mutations in sporadic counterparts of tumor types observed in hereditary leiomyomatosis and renal cell cancer families.[Cancer Res. 2002]

Interplay between pVHL and mTORC1 pathways in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.[Mol Cancer Res. 2011]

Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing.[N Engl J Med. 2012]

Exome sequencing identifies frequent mutation of the SWI/SNF complex gene PBRM1 in renal carcinoma.[Nature. 2011]

Systematic sequencing of renal carcinoma reveals inactivation of histone modifying genes.[Nature. 2010]

Histone methyltransferase gene SETD2 is a novel tumor suppressor gene in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.[Cancer Res. 2010]

The von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein regulates gene expression and tumor growth through histone demethylase JARID1C.[Oncogene. 2012]

HIFalpha targeted for VHL-mediated destruction by proline hydroxylation: implications for O2 sensing.[Science. 2001]

Targeting of HIF-alpha to the von Hippel-Lindau ubiquitylation complex by O2-regulated prolyl hydroxylation.[Science. 2001]

Hypoxia induces trimethylated H3 lysine 4 by inhibition of JARID1A demethylase.[Cancer Res. 2010]

Silencing of the VHL tumor-suppressor gene by DNA methylation in renal carcinoma.[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994]

Inactivation of the von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) tumour suppressor gene and allelic losses at chromosome arm 3p in primary renal cell carcinoma: evidence for a VHL-independent pathway in clear cell renal tumourigenesis.[Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 1998]

DNA methylation and histone modifications cause silencing of Wnt antagonist gene in human renal cell carcinoma cell lines.[Int J Cancer. 2008]

Global levels of histone modifications predict prognosis in different cancers.[Am J Pathol. 2009]

A phase II trial of panobinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, in the treatment of patients with refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma.[Cancer Invest. 2011]

Review Oxygen sensing by metazoans: the central role of the HIF hydroxylase pathway.[Mol Cell. 2008]

Review Targeting HIF-1 for cancer therapy.[Nat Rev Cancer. 2003]

Review Hypoxia-inducible factors: central regulators of the tumor phenotype.[Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2007]

Review Role of VHL gene mutation in human cancer.[J Clin Oncol. 2004]

Systematic sequencing of renal carcinoma reveals inactivation of histone modifying genes.[Nature. 2010]

Genetic and functional studies implicate HIF1α as a 14q kidney cancer suppressor gene.[Cancer Discov. 2011]

HIF-alpha effects on c-Myc distinguish two subtypes of sporadic VHL-deficient clear cell renal carcinoma.[Cancer Cell. 2008]

Software and database for the analysis of mutations in the VHL gene.[Nucleic Acids Res. 1998]

Genetic analysis of von Hippel-Lindau disease.[Hum Mutat. 2010]

The von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor protein is required for proper assembly of an extracellular fibronectin matrix.[Mol Cell. 1998]

pVHL modification by NEDD8 is required for fibronectin matrix assembly and suppression of tumor development.[Mol Cell Biol. 2004]

Contrasting effects on HIF-1alpha regulation by disease-causing pVHL mutations correlate with patterns of tumourigenesis in von Hippel-Lindau disease.[Hum Mol Genet. 2001]

Characterization of a von Hippel Lindau pathway involved in extracellular matrix remodeling, cell invasion, and angiogenesis.[Cancer Res. 2006]

The von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor gene inhibits hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor-induced invasion and branching morphogenesis in renal carcinoma cells.[Mol Cell Biol. 1999]

A role for mitochondrial enzymes in inherited neoplasia and beyond.[Nat Rev Cancer. 2003]

Mitochondrial tumour suppressors: a genetic and biochemical update.[Nat Rev Cancer. 2005]

Mitochondrial tumour suppressors: a genetic and biochemical update.[Nat Rev Cancer. 2005]

Identification of the von Hippel-Lindau disease tumor suppressor gene.[Science. 1993]

Vascular tumors in livers with targeted inactivation of the von Hippel-Lindau tumor suppressor.[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001]

mTOR: from growth signal integration to cancer, diabetes and ageing.[Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2011]

Genomic expression and single-nucleotide polymorphism profiling discriminates chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma.[BMC Cancer. 2010]

Classification of renal neoplasms based on molecular signatures.[J Urol. 2006]

Genetic subtyping of renal cell carcinoma by comparative genomic hybridization.[Recent Results Cancer Res. 2003]

Papillary renal cell carcinoma. Prognostic value of morphological subtypes in a clinicopathologic study of 43 cases.[Virchows Arch. 2003]

Prognostic impact of carbonic anhydrase IX expression in human renal cell carcinoma.[BJU Int. 2007]

Survivin expression in renal cell carcinoma.[Cancer Invest. 2008]

High expression levels of survivin protein independently predict a poor outcome for patients who undergo surgery for clear cell renal cell carcinoma.[Cancer. 2006]

Mcm2, Geminin, and KI67 define proliferative state and are prognostic markers in renal cell carcinoma.[Clin Cancer Res. 2005]

Prognostic impacts of cytogenetic findings in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: gain of 5q31-qter predicts a distinct clinical phenotype with favorable prognosis.[Cancer Res. 2001]

Chromosome 14q loss defines a molecular subtype of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma associated with poor prognosis.[Mod Pathol. 2011]

Loss of chromosome 9p is an independent prognostic factor in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma.[Mod Pathol. 2008]

Chromosome 9p deletions identify an aggressive phenotype of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.[Cancer. 2010]

Gene expression profiling predicts survival in conventional renal cell carcinoma.[PLoS Med. 2006]

Biomarkers predicting outcome in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma: Results from sorafenib phase III Treatment Approaches in Renal Cancer Global Evaluation Trial.[Clin Cancer Res. 2010]

Interleukin-8 mediates resistance to antiangiogenic agent sunitinib in renal cell carcinoma.[Cancer Res. 2010]

Therapeutic vaccination against metastatic renal cell carcinoma by autologous dendritic cells: preclinical results and outcome of a first clinical phase I/II trial.[Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2002]

Immunotherapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma.[BJU Int. 2007]

Results of treatment of 255 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received high-dose recombinant interleukin-2 therapy.[J Clin Oncol. 1995]

Phase II study of vinorelbine in patients with androgen-independent prostate cancer.[Ann Oncol. 2001]

CD28-mediated signalling co-stimulates murine T cells and prevents induction of anergy in T-cell clones.[Nature. 1992]

CD28 and CTLA-4 have opposing effects on the response of T cells to stimulation.[J Exp Med. 1995]

 Mechanisms of T-cell inhibition: implications for cancer immunotherapy.[Expert Rev Vaccines. 2010]

Enhancement of antitumor immunity by CTLA-4 blockade.[Science. 1996]

Combination immunotherapy of B16 melanoma using anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-producing vaccines induces rejection of subcutaneous and metastatic tumors accompanied by autoimmune depigmentation.[J Exp Med. 1999]

Biologic activity of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 antibody blockade in previously vaccinated metastatic melanoma and ovarian carcinoma patients.[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]

Preoperative CTLA-4 blockade: tolerability and immune monitoring in the setting of a presurgical clinical trial.[Clin Cancer Res. 2010]

Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4 antibody) causes regression of metastatic renal cell cancer associated with enteritis and hypophysitis.[J Immunother. 2007]

PD-1 and its ligands in tolerance and immunity.[Annu Rev Immunol. 2008]

New strategies in kidney cancer: therapeutic advances through understanding the molecular basis of response and resistance.[Clin Cancer Res. 2010]

Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial.[Lancet. 2008]

Comparative effectiveness of axitinib versus sorafenib in advanced renal cell carcinoma (AXIS): a randomised phase 3 trial.[Lancet. 2011]

Efficacy of everolimus in advanced renal cell carcinoma: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase III trial.[Lancet. 2008]

American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2014. 2014. http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2014/. Accessed Oct. 1, 2014.

Amin A, Plimack ER, Infante JR, Ernstoff MS, Rini BI, Mcdermott DF, Knox JJ, Pal SK, Voss MH, Sharma P, Kollmannsberger CK, Heng DYC, Sprattin JL, Shen Y, Kurland JF, Gagnier P, Hammers HJ. Nivolumab (anti-PD-1; BMS-936558, ONO-4538) in combination with sunitinib or pazopanib in patients (pts) with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). J Clin Oncol 32:5s (suppl; abstr 5010), 2014.

Atkins MB, Kudchadkar RR, Sznol M, Mcdermott DF, Lotem M, Schacther J, Wolchok JD, Urba WJ, Kuzel T, Schuchter LM, Slingluff CL, Ernstoff MS, Fay JW, Friedlander PA, Gajewski T, Zarour H, Rotem-Yehudar R, Sosman JA. Phase 2, multicenter, safety and efficacy study of pidilizumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 32:5s (suppl; abstr 9001), 2014.

Beck KE, Blansfield JA, Tran KQ, Feldman AL, Hughes MS, Royal RE, Kammula US, Topalian SL, Sherry RM, Kleiner D, Quezado M, Lowy I, Yellin M, Rosenberg SA, Yang JC. Enterocolitis in patients with cancer after antibody blockade of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4. J Clin Oncol 24(15):2283-2289, 2006.

Berger R, Rotem-Yehudar R, Slama G, Landes S, Kneller A, Leiba M, Koren-Michowitz M, Shimoni A, Nagler A. Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study of CT-011, a humanized antibody interacting with PD-1, in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Clin Cancer Res 14(10):3044-3051, 2008.

Brahmer JR, Drake CG, Wollner I, Powderly JD, Picus J, Sharfman WH, Stankevich E, Pons A, Salay TM, Mcmiller TL, Gilson MM, Wang C, Selby M, Taube JM, Anders R, Chen L, Korman AJ, Pardoll DM, Lowy I, Topalian SL. Phase I study of single-agent anti-programmed death-1 (MDX-1106) in refractory solid tumors: safety, clinical activity, pharmacodynamics, and immunologic correlates. J Clin Oncol 28(19):3167-3175, 2010.

Camacho LH, Antonia S, Sosman J, Kirkwood JM, Gajewski TF, Redman B, Pavlov D, Bulanhagui C, Bozon VA, Gomez-Navarro J, Ribas A. Phase I/II trial of tremelimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 27(7):1075-1081, 2009.

Cho DC, Sosman JA, Sznol M, Gordon MS, Hollebecque A, Mcdermott DF, Delord JP, Rhee IP, Mokatrin A, Kowantez M, Funke RP, Fine GD, Powles T. Clinical activity, safety, and biomarkers of MPDL3280A, an engineered PD-L1 antibody in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). J Clin Oncol 31 (suppl; abstr 4505), 2013.

Choueiri TK, Fishman MN, Escudier B, Kim JJ, Kluger H, Stadler WM, Perez-Gracia JL, Mcneel DG, Curti BD, Harrison MR, Plimack ER, Appleman LJ, Fong L, Drake CG, Cohen LJ, Srivastava S, Jure-Kunkel M, Hong Q, Kurland JF, Sznol M. Immunomodulatory activity of nivolumab in previously treated and untreated metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): Biomarker-based results from a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 32:5s (suppl; abstr 5012), 2014.

Coppin C, Porzsolt F, Awa A, Kumpf J, Coldman A, Wilt T. Immunotherapy for advanced renal cell cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD001425, 2005.

Downey SG, Klapper JA, Smith FO, Yang JC, Sherry RM, Royal RE, Kammula US, Hughes MS, Allen TE, Levy CL. Prognostic factors related to clinical response in patients with metastatic melanoma treated by CTL-associated antigen-4 blockade. Clin Cancer Res 13(22):6681-6688, 2007.

Drake CG, Mcdermott DF, Sznol M. Survival, safety, and response duration results of nivolumab (Anti-PD-1; BMS-936558; ONO-4538) in a phase I trial in patients with previously treatedmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): long-term patient followup. J Clin Oncol 31 (suppl; abstr 4514), 2013.

Dunn GP, Bruce AT, Ikeda H, Old LJ, Schreiber RD. Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape. Nat Immunol 3(11):991-998, 2002.

Elfiky AA, Sonpavde G. Novel molecular targets for the therapy of renal cell carcinoma. Discov Med13(73):461-471, 2012.

FDA. Pembrolizumab. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ApprovedDrugs/ucm412861.htm. 2014. Accessed Oct. 16, 2014.

Fyfe G, Fisher RI, Rosenberg SA, Sznol M, Parkinson DR, Louie AC. Results of treatment of 255 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who received high-dose recombinant interleukin-2 therapy. J Clin Oncol 13(3):688-696, 1995.

Gupta K, Miller JD, Li JZ, Russell MW, Charbonneau C. Epidemiologic and socioeconomic burden of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a literature review. Cancer Treat Rev 34(3):193-205, 2008.

Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Wolchok JD, Hersey P, Joseph RW, Weber JS, Dronca R, Gangadhar TC, Patnaik A, Zarour H, Joshua AM, Gergich K, Elassaiss-Schaap J, Algazi A, Mateus C, Boasberg P, et al. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med 369(2):134-144, 2013.

Hammers H, Plimack ER, Infante JR, Ernstoff MS, Rini BI, Mcdermott B, Razak AR, Pal SK, Voss MH, Sharma P, Kollmannsberger C, Heng DY, Spratlin J, Shen Y, Kurland J, Gagnier P, Amin A. Phase I study of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. ASCO Annual Meeting. J Clin Oncol 32:5s (suppl; abstr 4504), 2014.

Hodi FS, O’day SJ, Mcdermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, Gonzalez R, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Hassel JC. Improved survival with ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma.N Engl J Med 363(8):711-723, 2010.

Infante JR, Powderly JD, Burris HA, Kittaneh M, Grice JH, Smothers JF, Brett S, Fleming ME, May R, Marshall S, Devenport M, Pillemer S, Pardoll DM, Chen L, Langermann S, Lorusso P. Clinical and pharmacodynamic (PD) results of a phase I trial with AMP-224 (B7-DC Fc) that binds to the PD-1 receptor. J Clin Oncol 31 (suppl; abstr 3044), 2013.

Intlekofer AM, Thompson CB. At the bench: preclinical rationale for CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade ascancer immunotherapyJ Leukoc Biol 94(1):25-39, 2013.

Keir ME, Butte MJ, Freeman GJ, Sharpe AH. PD-1 and its ligands in tolerance and immunity. Annu Rev Immunol 26:677-704, 2008.

Kirkwood JM, Lorigan P, Hersey P, Hauschild A, Robert C, Mcdermott D, Marshall MA, Gomez-Navarro J, Liang JQ, Bulanhagui CA. Phase II trial of tremelimumab (CP-675,206) in patients with advanced refractory or relapsed melanoma. Clin Cancer Res 16(3):1042-1048, 2010.

Lieu C, Bendell J, Powderly JD, Pishvaian MJ, Hochster H, Eckhardt SG, Funke RP, Rossi C, Waterkamp D, Hurwitz H. Safety and efficacy of MPDL3280A (anti-PDL1) in combination with bevacizumab (bev) and/or chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors. Ann Oncol 25 (suppl 4; abstr 1049o), 2014.

McDermott DF, Regan MM, Clark JI, Flaherty LE, Weiss GR, Logan TF, Kirkwood JM, Gordon MS, Sosman JA, Ernstoff MS, Tretter CP, Urba WJ, Smith JW, Margolin KA, Mier JW, Gollob JA, Dutcher JP, Atkins MB. Randomized phase III trial of high-dose interleukin-2 versus subcutaneous interleukin-2 and interferon in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 23(1):133-141, 2005.

McDermott DF, Sznol M, Sosman JA, Soria JC, Gordon MS, Hamid O, Delord JP, Fasso M, Wang Y, Bruey J, Fine GD, Powles T. Immune correlates and long term follow up of a phase Ia study of MPDL3280A, an engineered PD-L1 antibody, in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Ann Oncol 25 (Suppl 4; abstr 809o), 2014.

Melero I, Hervas-Stubbs S, Glennie M, Pardoll DM, Chen L. Immunostimulatory monoclonal antibodies for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 7(2):95-106, 2007.

Millward M, Underhill C, Lobb S, Mcburnie J, Meech SJ, Gomez-Navarro J, Marshall MA, Huang B, Mather CB. Phase I study of tremelimumab (CP-675 206) plus PF-3512676 (CPG 7909) in patients with melanoma or advanced solid tumours. Br J Cancer 108(10):1998-2004, 2013.

Motzer RJ, Hutson TE, Cella D, Reeves J, Hawkins R, Guo J, Nathan P, Staehler M, De Souza P, Merchan JR, Boleti E, Fife K, Jin J, Jones R, Uemura H, De Giorgi U, Harmenberg U, Wang J, Sternberg CN, Deen K, et al. Pazopanib versus sunitinib in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 369(8):722-731, 2013.

Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Kidney Cancer. Version 1. 2015. National Comprehensive Cancer Network.http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed Oct. 1, 2014.

Motzer RJ, Rini BI, McDermott DF, Redman BG, Kuzel TM, Harrison MR, Vaishampayan UN, Drabkin HA, George S, Logan TF, Margolin KA, Plimack ER, Lambert AM, Waxman IM, Hammers HJ. Nivolumab for Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial. J Clin Oncol, epub ahead of print, Dec. 1, 2014.

National Cancer Institute. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Kidney and renal pelvis cancer. Surveillance,Epidemiology, and End Results Program. 2014. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/kidrp.html. Accessed Oct. 1, 2014.

Negrier S, Escudier B, Lasset C, Douillard JY, Savary J, Chevreau C, Ravaud A, Mercatello A, Peny J, Mousseau M, Philip T, Tursz T. Recombinant human interleukin-2, recombinant human interferon alfa-2a, or both in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma. Groupe Francais d’Immunotherapie. N Engl J Med 338(18):1272-1278, 1998.

O’Day SJ, Hamid O, Urba WJ. Targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4). Cancer110(12):2614-2627, 2007.

Page DB, Postow MA, Callahan MK, Allison JP, Wolchok JD. Immune modulation in cancer with antibodies. Annu Rev Med 65:185-202, 2014.

Pages C, Gornet JM, Monsel G, Allez M, Bertheau P, Bagot M, Lebbe C, Viguier M. Ipilimumab-induced acute severe colitis treated by infliximab. Melanoma Res 23(3):227-230, 2013.

Pardoll DM. The blockade of immune checkpoints in cancer immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer12(4):252-264, 2012.

Park J-J, Omiya R, Matsumura Y, Sakoda Y, Kuramasu A, Augustine MM, Yao S, Tsushima F, Narazaki H, Anand S. B7-H1/CD80 interaction is required for the induction and maintenance of peripheral T-cell tolerance. Blood 116(8):1291-1298, 2010.

Patnaik A, Kang SP, Tolcher AW, Rasco DW, Papadopoulos KP, Beeram M, Drengler R, Chen C, Smith L, Perez C, Gergich K, Lehnert M. Phase I study of MK-3475 (anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody) in patients with advanced solid tumors. J Clin Oncol 30 (suppl; abstr 2512), 2012.

Ribas A, Hodi FS, Kefford R, Hamid O, Daud A, Wolchok JD, Hwu WJ, Gangadhar TC, Patnaik A, Joshua AM, Hersey P, Weber JS, Dronca R, Zarour H, Gergich K, Li XN, Iannone R, Kang SP, Ebbinghaus SW, Robert C. Efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody MK-3475 in 411 patients (pts) with melanoma (MEL). J Clin Oncol 32:5s (suppl; abstr LBA9000), 2014.

Ribas A, Kefford R, Marshall MA, Punt CJ, Haanen JB, Marmol M, Garbe C, Gogas H, Schachter J, Linette G, Lorigan P, Kendra KL, Maio M, Trefzer U, Smylie M, Mcarthur GA, Dreno B, Nathan PD, Mackiewicz J, Kirkwood JM, et al. Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing tremelimumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol 31(5):616-622, 2013.

Rini BI, Stein M, Shannon P, Eddy S, Tyler A, Stephenson JJ Jr, Catlett L, Huang B, Healey D, Gordon M. Phase 1 dose-escalation trial of tremelimumab plus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 117(4):758-767, 2011.

Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD, Hodi FS, Hamid O, Kefford R, Weber JS, Joshua AM, Hwu WJ, Gangadhar TC, Patnaik A, Dronca R, Zarour H, Joseph RW, Boasberg P, Chmielowski B, Mateus C, Postow MA, Gergich K, Elassaiss-Schaap J, et al. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet 384(9948):1109-1117, 2014.

Robert C, Thomas L, Bondarenko I, O’day S, M DJ, Garbe C, Lebbe C, Baurain JF, Testori A, Grob JJ, Davidson N, Richards J, Maio M, Hauschild A, Miller WH Jr, Gascon P, Lotem M, Harmankaya K, Ibrahim R, Francis S, et al. Ipilimumab plus dacarbazine for previously untreated metastatic melanoma. N Engl J Med 364(26):2517-2526, 2011.

Sheridan C. Cautious optimism surrounds early clinical data for PD-1 blocker. Nat Biotechnol30(8):729-730, 2012.

Tarhini AA, Cherian J, Moschos SJ, Tawbi HA, Shuai Y, Gooding WE, Sander C, Kirkwood JM. Safety and efficacy of combination immunotherapy with interferon alfa-2b and tremelimumab in patients with stage IV melanoma. J Clin Oncol 30(3):322-328, 2012.

Topalian SL, Drake CG, Pardoll DM. Targeting the PD-1/B7-H1(PD-L1) pathway to activate anti-tumor immunityCurr Opin Immunol 24(2):207-212, 2012a.

Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, Gettinger SN, Smith DC, Mcdermott DF, Powderly JD, Carvajal RD, Sosman JA, Atkins MB, Leming PD, Spigel DR, Antonia SJ, Horn L, Drake CG, Pardoll DM, Chen L, Sharfman WH, Anders RA, Taube JM, et al. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med 366(26):2443-2454, 2012b.

Waterhouse P, Penninger JM, Timms E, Wakeham A, Shahinian A, Lee KP, Thompson CB, Griesser H, Mak TW. Lymphoproliferative disorders with early lethality in mice deficient in Ctla-4. Science270(5238):985-988, 1995.

Weber JS, Kähler KC, Hauschild A. Management of immune-related adverse events and kinetics of response with ipilimumab. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2691-2697, 2012.

Weber JS, Minor DR, D’Angelo S, Hodi FS, Gutzmer R, Neyns B, Hoeller C, Khushalani NI, Miller WH, Grob J, Lao C, Linette G, Grossmann K, Hassel J, Lorigan P, Maio M, Sznol M, Lambert A, Yang A, Larkin J. A phase 3 randomized, open-label study of nivolumab (anti-PD-1; BMS-936558; ONO-4538) versus investigator’s choice chemotherapy (ICC) in patients with advanced melanoma after prior anti-CTLA-4 therapy. ESMO Annual Meetings. Abstract #LBA3_PR. 2014.

Westin JR, Chu F, Zhang M, Fayad LE, Kwak LW, Fowler N, Romaguera J, Hagemeister F, Fanale M, Samaniego F, Feng L, Baladandayuthapani V, Wang Z, Ma W, Gao Y, Wallace M, Vence LM, Radvanyi L, Muzzafar T, Rotem-Yehudar R, et al. Safety and activity of PD1 blockade by pidilizumab in combination with rituximab in patients with relapsed follicular lymphoma: a single group, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 15(1):69-77, 2014.

Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK, Postow MA, Rizvi NA, Lesokhin AM, Segal NH, Ariyan CE, Gordon RA, Reed K, Burke MM, Caldwell A, Kronenberg SA, Agunwamba BU, Zhang X, Lowy I, Inzunza HD, Feely W, Horak CE, Hong Q, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab in advanced melanoma.N Engl J Med 369(2):122-133, 2013.

Yang JC, Hughes M, Kammula U, Royal R, Sherry RM, Topalian SL, Suri KB, Levy C, Allen T, Mavroukakis S, Lowy I, White DE, Rosenberg SA. Ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4 antibody) causes regression of metastatic renal cell cancer associated with enteritis and hypophysitis. J Immunother30(8):825-830, 2007.

Zou W, Chen L. Inhibitory B7-family molecules in the tumour microenvironment. Nat Rev Immunol8(6):467-477, 2008.

[Discovery Medicine; ISSN: 1539-6509; Discov Med 18(101):341-350, December 2014.Copyright © Discovery Medicine. All rights reserved.]

 

Related Articles

Read Full Post »

Upcoming Meetings on Cancer Immunogenetics

 

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Below is a curation of upcoming 2014-15 Cancer Immunogenetics symposia. Some listed have CME credits.

August 2014

Target Discovery for T Cell Therapy Symposium
Next Step to Advance Immunotherapies
August 14, 2014 | Part of ImVacS – The Immunotherapies and Vaccine Summit
Learn more | View Agenda PDF | Register by July 18 & SAVE up to $200

 

Q&A with Dr. Adrian Bot of Kite Pharma

 

SITC 2014 Meetings

The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit society of medical professionals. Recent advances in immunology and biology have opened up new horizons in the field of cancer therapy, with an upsurge in the integration of new biologic agents into clinical practice. With several high-caliber scientific meetings with a focus on clinical and translational aspects of biologic approaches to cancer treatment and numerous networking opportunities unique to this organization, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) has developed into the premier destination for interaction and innovation in the cancer biologics community.

Upcoming SITC Meetings and Activities

sitc banner

Advances in Cancer Immunotherapy™ (ACI™) Regional CME-Certified Programs

  • La Jolla, CA – Friday, August 22, 2014
  • Portland, OR – Friday, October 3, 2014
    Charlotte, NC – Friday, October 3, 2014
  • Tampa, FL – Friday, December 5, 2014

 ACI

September 2014

 

 aacrmeetinghemoto2014

  Hematologic Malignancies: Translating Discoveries to Novel Therapies
    September 20-23, 2014 • Sheraton Philadelphia Downtown • Philadelphia, PA

The AACR is proud to announce our conference focused on the blood-based cancers and associated disorders categorized as hematologic malignancies. Sessions will include presentations on leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, myelodysplastic syndrome, and myeloproliferative neoplasms.

 

Advances in Melanoma: From Biology to Therapy

Loews Philadelphia • Philadelphia, PA • September 20-23, 2014

With so many recent advances in treating metastatic melanoma, including approaches like immunotherapies, targeted therapies, and combination therapies, melanoma research is at a critical point where it is extremely important for the field to have a continuous exchange of information. Despite the success of various “targeted” inhibitors, therapeutic responses in melanoma patients are often short-lived due to rapidly acquired drug resistance. Therefore, it is essential that melanoma researchers translate the novel understanding of melanoma biology to decipher the mechanisms of innate and acquired drug resistance for the development of improved therapeutic options. To bridge the gap between scientists and clinician-scientists’ professional practice, this conference will provide a platform for discussion and potential collaborations for the discovery of new therapeutic targets.

 

 proimmunegif

The 4th Mastering Immunogenicity Summit

September 15-16, 2014

British Consulate-General, Boston MA, USA

Join leaders in the immunogenicity field for a two day conference to learn what constitutes a successful strategy for managing immunogenicity risk, and explore the business case for introducing immunogenicity assessment into your program.

  • Learn about the latest strategies and exciting new technologies
  • Discuss current and developing challenges and exchange new ideas
  • Improve the outcome of your R&D programs

Our 4th Mastering Immunogenicity Conference will continue to have a strong focus on immunogenicity sciences, particularly on what basic research needs to be carried out to improve our understanding of immune regulation to biotherapeutics. We will review progress made in correlating data from pre-clinical predictive tools to clinical outcomes, as well as continuing our discussions surrounding the benefits that Quality by Design has on reduced immunogenicity, considering subsequent patient benefits as well as competitive advantage. Presentations by experts will provide an overview of the wide range of technologies currently used for immunogenicity risk management and how they can be incorporated for a ‘quality by design’ approach.

 

Immunogenomics 2014

September 29 – October 1, 2014

HudsonAlpha Biotechnology Campus
Huntsville, Alabama, USA

The HudsonAlpha-Science Conference on Immunogenomics will bring together preeminent leaders and thinkers at the intersection of genomics and immunology.

October 2014

canerrersinstlogo

Cancer Immunotherapy: Out of the Gate

October 06, 2014 Grand Hyatt New York Hotel at Grand Central, New York, NY

The Cancer Research Institute (CRI) will host its 22nd Annual International Cancer Immunotherapy Symposium October 6-8, 2014 at The Grand Hyatt in New York City. Attracting clinicians, laboratory scientists, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students, the symposium will feature plenary presentations from leaders in immunology and cancer immunotherapy, a poster session, and numerous networking opportunities.

This year’s CRI symposium, entitled Cancer Immunotherapy: Out of the Gate, will harness the excitement and enthusiasm generated by recent clinical successes to explore new and emerging areas of basic, translational, and clinical research. Topics such as the use of genomic methods to catalogue cancer heterogeneity, mechanistic studies of checkpoint blockage antibodies, new views on immunosurveillance and immunoregulation, and emerging therapies that are altering the landscape of cancer treatment will be discussed.

– See more at: http://www.cancerresearch.org/grants-programs/conferences-meetings/annual-international-cancer-immunotherapy-symposia/2014-symposium#sthash.PnY56e5E.dpuf

Cytokines 2014

October 26–29, Melbourne, Australia

EMBO Conference: Innate Lymphoid Cells
September 29–October 1, Paris, France

Recommended reading

Laurie Dempsey

 

November 2014

SITC 2014 – November 6-9, 2014

  • Gaylord National Hotel & Convention Center, National Harbor, MD
  • SITC 29th Annual Meeting
  • SITC Workshop on Combination Immunotherapy: Where Do We Go From Here?
  • SITC Primer on Tumor Immunology and Cancer Immunotherapy™
  • SITC Hot Topic Symposium – including two topics explored concurrently:
    • Accelerating Tumor Immunity with Agonist Antibodies
    • Engineered T Cell Toxicities
  • Professional Development Session: A Roadmap for Thriving in Your Career

The Fourth International Conference on Regulatory T cells and TH Subsets and Clinical Application in Human Diseases
November 1–4, Shanghai, China

Recommended reading
Olive Leavy

 

eortspainmeeting

 

 

Keystone Symposium: Cell Death Signaling in Cancer and the Immune System
October 28-November 2, Sao Paolo, Brazil

Recommended reading

December 2014

Tumor Immunology and Immunotherapy: A New Chapter
Co-Chairpersons: Robert H. Vonderheide, Nina Bhardwaj, Stanley Riddell, and Cynthia L. Sears
December 1-4, 2014 • Orlando, FL

2015 Conferences

Keystone Symposia on Molecular and Cellular Biology

Tumor Immunology: Multidisciplinary Science Driving Combination Therapy 

February 8—13, 2015

Fairmont Banff Springs, Banff, Alberta, Canada

 

· March 2015

  1. 8–13, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  2. 22–27, Banff, Alberta, Canada
  3. 29–3 April, Snowbird, Utah, USA

9th World Immune Regulation Meeting

Keystone Symposium: The Golden Anniversary of B Cell Discovery
Recommended reading

Keystone Symposium: T Cells: Regulation and Effector Function
Recommended reading

 

Read Full Post »

Treatment for Endocrine Tumors and Side Effects

Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

Surgery

The purpose of surgery is typically to remove the entire tumor, along with some of the healthy tissue around it, called the margin. If the tumor cannot be removed entirely, “debulking” surgery may be performed. Debulking surgery is a procedure in which the goal is to remove as much of the tumor as possible. Side effects of surgery include weakness, fatigue, and pain for the first few days following the procedure.

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is the use of drugs to kill tumor cells, usually by stopping the cells’ ability to grow and divide. Systemic chemotherapy is delivered through the bloodstream to reach tumor cells throughout the body. A chemotherapy regimen (schedule) usually consists of a specific number of cycles given over a set period of time. A patient may receive one drug at a time or combinations of different drugs at the same time. The side effects of chemotherapy depend on the individual and the dose used, but they can include fatigue, risk of infection, nausea and vomiting, loss of appetite, and diarrhea. These side effects usually go away once treatment is finished.

Radiation therapy

Radiation therapy is the use of high-energy x-rays or other particles to kill tumor cells. The most common type of radiation treatment is called external-beam radiation therapy, which is radiation given from a machine outside the body. When radiation treatment is given using implants, it is called internal radiation therapy or brachytherapy. A radiation therapy regimen usually consists of a specific number of treatments given over a set period of time. Side effects from radiation therapy may include fatigue, mild skin reactions, upset stomach, and loose bowel movements. Most side effects go away soon after treatment is finished.

Hormone therapy

The goal of hormone therapy is often to lower the levels of hormones in the body. Hormone therapy may be given to help stop the tumor from growing or to relieve symptoms caused by the tumor. In addition, for thyroid cancer, hormone therapy will be given if the thyroid gland has been removed, to replace the hormone that is needed by the body to function properly.

Immunotherapy

Immunotherapy (also called biologic therapy) is designed to boost the body’s natural defenses to fight the tumor. It uses materials made either by the body or in a laboratory to bolster, target, or restore immune system function. Examples of immunotherapy include cancer vaccines, monoclonal antibodies, and interferons. Alpha interferon is a form of biologic therapy given as an injection under the skin. This is sometimes used to help relieve symptoms caused by the tumor, but it can have severe side effects including fatigue, depression, and flu-like symptoms.

Targeted therapy

Targeted therapy is a treatment that targets the tumor’s specific genes, proteins, or the tissue environment that contributes to cancer growth and survival. This type of treatment blocks the growth and spread of tumor cells while limiting damage to normal cells, usually leading to fewer side effects than other cancer medications.

Recent studies show that not all tumors have the same targets. To find the most effective treatment, the doctor may run tests to identify the genes, proteins, and other factors in the tumor. As a result, doctors can better match each patient with the most effective treatment whenever possible.

Depending on the type of endocrine tumor, targeted therapy may be a possible treatment option. For instance, targeted therapies, such as sunitinib (Sutent) and everolimus (Afinitor), have been approved for treating advanced islet cell tumors. Early results of clinical trials (research studies) with targeted therapy drugs for other types of endocrine tumors are promising, but more research is needed to prove they are effective.

Recurrent endocrine tumor

Once the treatment is complete and there is a remission (absence of symptoms; also called “no evidence of disease” or NED). Many survivors feel worried or anxious that the tumor will come back. If the tumor does return after the original treatment, it is called a recurrent tumor. It may come back in the same place (called a local recurrence), nearby (regional recurrence), or in another place (distant recurrence). When this occurs, a cycle of testing will begin again to learn as much as possible about the recurrence. Often the treatment plan will include the therapies described above (such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy) but may be used in a different combination or given at a different pace. People with a recurrent tumor often experience emotions such as disbelief or fear. Patients are encouraged to talk with their health care team about these feelings and ask about support services to help them cope.

Metastatic endocrine tumor

If a cancerous tumor has spread to another location in the body, it is called metastatic cancer. A treatment plan that includes a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy may be recommended if required.

In addition to treatment to slow, stop, or eliminate the cancer (also called disease-directed treatment), an important part of cancer care is relieving a person’s symptoms and side effects. It includes supporting the patient with his or her physical, emotional, and social needs, an approach called palliative or supportive care. People often receive disease-directed therapy and treatment to ease symptoms at the same time.

Source References:

http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/endocrine-tumor/treatment

 

http://www.macmillan.org.uk/Cancerinformation/Cancertypes/Endocrine/Endocrinetumours.aspx

 

http://cancer.osu.edu/patientsandvisitors/cancerinfo/cancertypes/endocrine/Pages/index.aspx

 

http://cancer.northwestern.edu/cancertypes/cancer_type.cfm?category=8

 

http://www.cancervic.org.au/about-cancer/cancer_types/endocrine_cancer

 

http://www.oncolink.org/types/types1.cfm?c=4

Read Full Post »

Immunomodulatory Therapeutic Antibodies for Cancer, August 13-15, 2013 – Boston, MA – Final Agenda

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Article ID #49: Immunomodulatory Therapeutic Antibodies for Cancer, August 13-15, 2013 – Boston, MA – Final Agenda. Published on 5/16/2013

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

Immunomodulatory Therapeutic Antibodies for Cancer

 

 http://www.immunotherapiescongress.com/Conferences_Overview.aspx?id=124174

ImmunotherapiesCongress.com

August 13-15, 2013 • Hilton Boston Back Bay Hotel • Boston, MA Final Agenda

Register by May 17 and Save up to $300!

Organized by:

Cambridge Healthtech Institute

Inaugural Immunomodulator Antibodies for Cancer

August 14-15

Inaugural Emerging Cancer Immunotherapies and Vaccines

August 13-14

Sessions Include:

Cancer Biology and Biomarkers

• Emerging Cancer

Immunotherapies & Vaccines

• Clinical Development of

Immunomodulatory Antibodies

• Bispecific Immunomodulatory

Antibodies

Keynote Presentations:

The Promise of T-Cell Engineering

Michel Sadelain, M.D., Ph.D., Director, Center

for Cell Engineering & Gene Transfer and

Gene Expression Laboratory, Memorial Sloan-

Kettering Cancer Center

Immune Monitoring on

Pre-Surgical Clinical Trials with

a Novel Checkpoint Blockade

Agent, Anti-CTLA-4

Padmanee Sharma, M.D., Associate Professor,

Genitourinary Medical Oncology, University of

Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Co-Located Event

Eighth Annual

Novel Vaccines:

Innovations & Adjuvants

To Advance the Science of Vaccines

Immuno The

Congress

herapies Immune System Modulation

for Novel Cancer Treatments

ImmunotherapiesCongress.com

Short Courses:

Melanoma Biology and Immunotherapies

Monday, August 12

Manufacturing Vaccines:

New Approaches, New Technologies

Wednesday, August 14

ImmunotherapiesCongress.com 2

Pre-Conference Short Course *

Monday, August 12 • 2:00-5:00PM

Melanoma Biology and

Immunotherapies

Significant advances have been made in the understanding of the molecular

underpinnings of melanoma development and progression and in elucidating

the mechanisms by which these tumors escape immune surveillance. This

session will address the current understanding of somatic genetic alterations

that serve as the fundamental building blocks for malignant transformation

in melanoma and as the basis for the first generation of molecular targeted

therapies. Immune recognition of melanoma has been long recognized and

underlies melanoma’s relatively unique responsiveness to cytokine-based

immunotherapy. However, understanding of the negative immunomodulatory

regulators that prevent elimination of melanoma has led to novel therapeutic

approaches that manipulate effector antitumor T cell function.

Instructors:

Keith T. Flaherty, M.D., Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical

School; Director, Termeer Center for Targeted Therapy, Cancer Center, Massachusetts

General Hospital

Jennifer Wargo, M.D., Surgical Oncologist, Massachusetts General Hospital; Instructor,

Harvard Medical School

Dinner Short Course*

Wednesday, August 14 • 6:30-9:30pm

Manufacturing Vaccines:

New Approaches, New Technologies

Novel vaccine production platforms are changing vaccines, affecting efficacy,

and steering manufacturing away from egg-based production. This course will

look at how vaccine production is being innovated, and how these innovations

are affecting the way vaccines work. New technologies, such as cell culturebased

production and using the BEVS (Baculovirus Expression Vector System),

are opening the door to improved vaccines. Join us for this intimate discussion

of how vaccine production is being revolutionized.

Instructors:

Sue Behrens, Ph.D., Consultant, Biologic, Vaccine & Sterile Products Manufacturing

Technology, SB Executive Consulting, LLC (former Senior Director of Biological Sciences

& Strategy, Vaccine & Sterile Operations at Merck)

Todd Talarico, Ph.D., Vice President, Manufacturing, Medicago-USA

*Separate registration required

Conference Hotel:

Hilton Boston Back Bay Hotel

40 Dalton Street

Boston, MA 02115

Phone: 617-236-1100

Discounted Room Rate: $195 s/d

Discounted Room Rate Cut-off Date: July 15, 2013

Please visit our conference website to make your

reservations online or call the hotel directly to

reserve your sleeping accommodations. Identify

yourself as a Cambridge Healthtech Institute

conference attendee to receive the reduced room

rate. Reservations made after the cut-off date

or after the group room block has been filled

(whichever comes first) will be accepted on a

space- and rate-availability basis. Rooms are

limited, so please book early.

HOTEL & TRAVEL INFORMATION

Flight Discounts:

To receive a 5% or greater discount on all American Airline flights please use one of the following

methods:

• Call 1-800-433-1790 use Conference code (8283BJ)

• Go online http://www.aa.com enter Conference code (8283BJ) in promotion

discount box

• Contact Rona Meizler, Great International Travel 1-617-559-3735

Car Rental Discounts:

Special discount rentals have been established with Hertz for this conference. Please use one of the

following methods:

• Call HERTZ, 800-654-3131 use our Hertz Convention Number (CV): 04KL0002

• Go online http://www.hertz.com use our Hertz Convention Number (CV): 04KL0002

3 ImmunotherapiesCongress.com

Inaugural

Emerging Cancer Immunotherapies and Vaccines

Next-Generation Targets and Strategies

August 13-14

Using lessons learned from early cancer vaccines and immunotherapeutics, a new wave of programs are underway that promise improved efficacy and

safety over a wider range of cancers. Emerging Cancer Immunotherapies and Vaccines will examine new targets and strategies in this space, along with

important studies in preclinical development associated with developing these programs into successful drug products. Speakers will offer approaches to

resolve the most challenging steps in the transition of these programs from research into clinical development.

TUESDAY , AUGUST 13, 2013

7:30 am Main Conference Registration and Morning Coffee

8:05 Chairperson’s Opening Remarks

T Cell Immunotherapy Strategies

»»8:15 Op ening Keynote Presentation

The Promise of T Cell Engineering

Michel Sadelain, M.D., Ph.D., Director, Center for Cell Engineering & Gene Transfer and

Gene Expression Laboratory, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

T cell engineering offers a unique means to overcome the immune escape

stratagems used by tumors to elude immune rejection. The genetic

reprogramming of patient T cells can thus be used to enforce tumor

recognition, improve T cell survival, augment T cell expansion, generate

memory lymphocytes and offset T cell anergy and immune suppression.

Using “second-generation chimeric antigen receptors” (CARs), recent clinical

studies support the merit of this novel immunotherapy.

9:00 It Takes Two to Tango: Fine Tuning of Tumor Cells and T

Lymphocytes for Maximized Anti-Tumor Activity

Daniel J. Powell, Jr., M.D., Assistant Professor, Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman

School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

Genetic engineering with chimeric immune receptors now allows for rapid

de novo generation of autologous T cells with potent anti-tumor activity for

adoptive cell transfer therapy for cancer. Still, low target antigen expression

by tumor cells and antigen expression on normal tissues may render therapy

ineffective or potentially toxic. We have identified agents that sensitize tumor

cells to immune attack and made advances in T cell engineering strategies to

better direct T cells to tumor antigen and confine T cell activity to tumor.

9:30 Improved Cancer Immunotherapy through CD134 plus

CD137 Dual Co-Stimulation

Adam J. Adler, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Immunology, University of Connecticut

T cell-mediated anti-tumor immunity is dampened by tolerance mechanisms

that evolved to prevent autoimmunity. Since tolerance largely results as

a consequence of insufficient co-stimulation during antigenic priming, costimulatory

receptor agonists can program tumor-specific T cell expansion and

effector differentiation. In particular, dual administration of agonists to CD134 plus

CD137 activates multiple immune cells with tumoricidal potential including NK

cells, cytotoxic CD8+ T cells, and surprisingly, cytotoxic CD4+ T cells.

10:00 Refreshment Break

Cancer Biology and Biomarkers

10:30 Vascular Normalization as an Emerging Strategy to

Enhance Cancer Immunotherapy

Rakesh K. Jain, Ph.D., Andrew Werk Cook Professor of Tumor Biology, Harvard Medical

School; Director, E.L. Steele Laboratory of Tumor Biology, Department of Radiation Oncology,

Massachusetts General Hospital

The immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment remains a limiting factor

for anti-cancer vaccine therapies. In addition, tumors systemically alter

immune cells’ function via secretion of cytokines such as VEGF, a major proangiogenic

cytokine. Hence, anti-angiogenic treatment may be an effective

modality to potentiate immunotherapy. I will discuss the effects of VEGF

on anti-tumor immune responses, and propose a potentially translatable

strategy to re-engineer the tumor immune microenvironment and improve

cancer immunotherapy.

11:00 Advances in Biomarker Validation and Trial Design for

Antitumor Immunotherapy

Susan R. Slovin, M.D., Ph.D., Genitourinary Oncology Service, Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate

and Urologic Cancers, Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center

Conventional imaging modalities have been the mainstay of assessing

treatment response. Recent data suggests that evaluating circulating tumor

cells may provide insight regarding changes in the tumor cells’ overall

behavior. Immunologic treatments often do not impact the cancer with

immediacy; a means of determining whether an immunologic target is hit

and whether it impacts the tumor’s biology remains a challenge. Changes in

T cell populations or myeloid suppressor cells may reflect potential impact on

the intra- and extra-tumoral milieu.

11:30 Exploring Synergy between Targeted Therapy and

Immunotherapy

Zachary Cooper, Ph.D., Postdoctoral Research Associate, Surgical Oncology, Massachusetts

General Hospital

Recent advances in the treatment of melanoma include the use of BRAFtargeted

therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors, though each of

these treatments alone has its limitation. There is increasing evidence

for synergy between these modalities. Treatment with a BRAF inhibitor

results in enhanced melanoma antigen expression and a more favorable

microenvironment. Exploring the potential synergy using mouse models is

necessary in overcoming monotherapy limitations.

12:00pm Sponsored Presentations (Opportunities Available:

Contact Suzanne Carroll at 781-972-5452 or scarroll@healthtech.com

for more information)

12:30 Luncheon Presentation (Opportunity Available)

or Lunch on Your Own

Emerging Cancer Immunotherapies

1:55 Chairperson’s Opening Remarks

2:00 Synergism Between Anti-Tumor Antibodies and PKExtended

IL-2

K. Dane Wittrup, Ph.D., Dubbs Professor, Chemical Engineering and Biological Engineering, Koch

Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

We have found that combination treatment with anti-tumor antibody and an

IL-2 Fc fusion exerts a significantly stronger suppression of tumor growth

than either agent alone. This effect depends on the presence of both CD8+

T cells and neutrophils, indicating a close cooperation between innate and

cellular immunity. Strong potential exists for further synergy between antitumor

antibodies and the new generation of T cell-directed immunotherapies.

ImmunotherapiesCongress.com 4

2:30 Identifying New Cancer Immunotherapy Targets for T Cells

Robert Holt, Ph.D., Senior Scientist and Head of Sequencing, British Columbia Cancer Agency,

Canada

Effective cancer immunotherapy relies on effective tumor antigens. However,

most variations that distinguish tumor cells from normal cells are sporadic,

and their immunogenicity is undetermined. High throughput genomic

analysis is a useful approach for evaluating the potential immunogenicity

of individual tumors and identifying new candidate antigens for follow-on

validation. We are using two methods for T cell antigen discovery that will be

described, including tumor genome sequencing and computational epitope

prediction, plus deep TCR sequencing of tumor-associated T cells.

3:00 Immunomodulatory Antibody-Fusion Proteins for Cancer

Immunotherapy

Dafne Müller, Ph.D., Researcher, Institute of Cell Biology and Immunology, University of Stuttgart,

Germany

Cytokines of the common cytokine receptor γ-chain family and costimulatory

members of the B7- and TNF-family have shown great potential

to support the generation and development of an antitumor immune

response. In order to improve the efficacy of such molecules at the tumor

site we designed antibody fusion proteins for therapeutic approaches,

focusing either on optimized presentation or a combined mode of action.

3:30 Refreshment Break

4:00 TIM (T Cell Immunoglobulin and Mucin)-3 as a Potential

Target for Cancer Immunotherapy

Ana Carrizosa Anderson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Neurology, Harvard Medical School

TIM-3 marks both “exhausted” CD8+ T cells and regulatory T cells (Treg) present

in solid tumors. TIM-3/PD-1 co-blockade down-modulates Treg suppressor

function in Tim-3+ Treg, restores function to exhausted CD8+ T cells, and is highly

effective in controlling tumor growth. Thus, TIM-3/PD-1 blockade down-modulates

two major mechanisms of immune suppression that are active in tumor-bearing

hosts, namely exhausted CD8+ T cells and Treg.

4:30 Allovectin: In vivo Studies and Potential Synergy with

other Advanced Melanoma Immunotherapeutics

John Doukas, Ph.D., Senior Director, Preclinical Safety and Efficacy, Vical, Inc.

Allovectin® is a cancer immunotherapeutic currently completing

evaluation in a pivotal Phase 3 metastatic melanoma study. Designed

for direct intratumoral administration, it is intended to induce antitumor

immune responses against both treated and distal lesions by stimulating

innate and adaptive immune responses. This presentation will review

Allovectin’s proposed mechanisms of action and potential synergy with

other immunotherapies, drawing supporting data from preclinical and

clinical studies.

5:00 Clinical Update of IL2 Adjunctive Co-Therapy for

Suppression of Solid Tumors with Designer T Cells

Richard P. Junghans, M.D., Professor, Department of Medicine, Boston University School of

Medicine; Roger Williams Medical Center

IL2, an essential adjunct in therapies with tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, has

not been widely applied in designer T cell interventions, although rationales

for supplementation would seem to bridge both settings. This discrepancy

may reflect the restricted set of investigators with IL2 experience rather than

a biologically motivated choice. Preclinical data establishesthe need for IL2

to eliminate established tumors with dTc, and early clinical data in prostate

cancer targeting may be interpreted similarly.

5:30-6:30 Reception in Exhibit Hall with Poster Viewing

WEDNESDAY , AUGUST 14, 2013

8:55am Chairperson’s Opening Remarks

Emerging Cancer Vaccines

9:00 Challenges in Vaccine Therapy for Hematological

Malignancies

David E. Avigan, M.D., Associate Professor, Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Director,

Hematologic Malignancy/Bone Marrow Transplant Program, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical

Center

We have developed a tumor vaccine in which patient-derived tumor cells

are fused with autologous dendritic cells. We have demonstrated that

vaccination during post-transplant lymphopoietic reconstitution results in the

significant expansion of myeloma-specific T cells. We are now integrating

vaccination with reversing critical elements of tumor-mediated immune

suppression. This includes vaccination in the context of blockade of the

PD-1/PDL-1 pathway.

9:30 Biomarkers Correlative of Clinical Response to Sipuleucel-T

James Trager, Ph.D., Vice President, Research, Dendreon

Sipuleucel-T is an autologous cellular immunotherapy approved in the

United States for the treatment of asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic

metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer. A variety of biomarkers,

both baseline and pharmacodynamic, are correlative of clinical response to

sipuleucel-T. We will discuss the biological interpretations of these markers

and in particular their implications in understanding the mechanism of action

for sipuleucel-T.

10:00 Partnering Therapeutic Vaccines with Large Pharma

Kevin Heller, Global Lead Oncology; Search, Evaluation and Diligence, Bristol-Myers Squibb

10:30 Refreshment Break in Exhibit Hall with Poster Viewing

11:15 Clinical Results of Pexa-Vec (JX-594): Multi-Mechanistic

Oncolytic Viruses as a Strategy for Cancer Immunotherapy

Anne Moon, Ph.D., Vice President, Product Development, Jennerex

Oncolytic immunotherapy is an emerging therapeutic approach designed

to induce acute tumor debulking as well as chronic suppression of tumor

outgrowth. Pexa-Vec (JX-594) is an oncolytic vaccinia virus engineered for

enhanced cancer targeting and immune stimulation. Recent preclinical and

clinical results demonstrate a multi-pronged MOA, including induction of

tumor-specific immunity, demonstrating the potential for Pexa-Vec to serve

as an active immunotherapy that is “personalized” yet “off-the-shelf.”

11:45 Clinical Update on PROSTVAC, a Therapeutic Vaccine

Candidate for Advanced Prostate Cancer

Alain Delcayre, Ph.D., Vice President, R&D, BN Immunotherapeutics

PROSTVAC® is a candidate cancer vaccine that demonstrated a statistically

significant overall survival benefit while displaying a favorable side effect

profile in patients with asymptomatic-to-minimally-symptomatic metastatic

castrate-resistant prostate cancer in a randomized, placebo-controlled Phase

II trial. A Phase III clinical trial is underway to confirm clinical benefit, as well

as expand our understanding of immune responses to cancer vaccines.

12:15 pm Close of Conference

Sponsoring Pubs

5 ImmunotherapiesCongress.com

The recent approval of BMS’s Yervoy (ipilumumab) and a succession of related programs advancing through clinical trials has generated increased interest

in the development of antibody-based immunomodulators for cancer. Immunomodulatory Therapeutic Antibodies for Cancer will provide updates of

clinical stage programs, and examine how these novel therapeutics influence trial design and the selection of clinical endpoints. Strategies for immune

modulation that are most appropriate for targeting with antibodies will be considered, along with where combination regimens and new therapeutic formats

can be effectively applied.

Inaugural

Immunomodulatory Antibodies for Cancer

Clinical Progress and Challenges in Drug Product Development

August 14-15

WEDNESDAY , AUGUST 14, 2013

1:40 pm Chairperson’s Opening Remarks

»»1:45 Keynote Presentation:

Immune Monitoring on Pre-Surgical Clinical Trials with a Novel

Checkpoint Blockade Agent, Anti-CTLA-4

Padmanee Sharma, M.D., Associate Professor, Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University

of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Biomarker studies for immunotherapies have typically involved monitoring

immunologic changes within the systemic circulation; however, recent

data indicates that immunological changes within tumor tissues are more

likely to predict clinical responses. We conducted a pre-surgical clinical trial

with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) in patients with localized bladder cancer, and

identified ICOS as the marker of a subset of effector T cells that is increased

in frequency after anti-CTLA-4 therapy. ICOS+ T cells are being explored

as pharmacodynamic markers for treatment with anti-CTLA-4 and as novel

targets to improve the efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 therapy.

Immune Checkpoint Blockades

2:30 Preliminary Clinical Efficacy and Safety of MK-3475

(Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody) in Patients with Advanced

Melanoma

Omid Hamid, M.D., Director, Melanoma Center, Angeles Clinic and Research Institute

The programmed death-1 (PD-1) pathway has emerged as an important

tumor-evasion mechanism. When PD-1 and PDL-1 join together, the T cell’s

ability to target the tumor cell is disarmed. Targeting either PD-1 or PDL-1

can stimulate the immune system and enhance T cells’ ability to lyse tumor

cells. Similar to, but distinct from cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4)

this pathway hold promise for many solid tumors.

3:00 Sponsored Presentations (Opportunities Available: Contact

Suzanne Carroll at 781-972-5452 or scarroll@healthtech.com for

more information)

3:30 Refreshment Break in the Exhibit Hall with Poster Viewing

4:15 Development of Immunomodulatory PD-1 Antibodies in

Renal Cell Carcinoma

Lauren Harshman, M.D., Assistant Professor, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

Targeting the immunosuppressive PD-1 pathway is an area of intense

investigation. RCC tumor cells may innately express the ligand of PD-1 or

they may acquire it from adaptive immunity. Expression has been associated

with worse outcomes. Attempts at countering this host immune system

evasion technique are underway with a variety of monoclonal antibodies

against PD-1 and its ligands.

4:45 Anti-PD-1 Antibody Therapy for B-Cell Lymphoma

Sattva S. Neelapu, M.D., Associate Professor, Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, Division

of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

In a phase II trial, the combination of pidilizumab, a humanized anti-PD-1

monoclonal antibody, and rituximab was active and non-toxic in patients with

relapsed follicular lymphoma. Activation of T and NK cells was observed in

both peripheral blood and tumor microenvironment after pidilizumab therapy

and predictors of clinical outcome based on the molecular features of tumorinfiltrating

immune cells at baseline were identified.

5:15 AMP-224, A Fusion Protein with Potential to Modulate

the PD-1 Pathway

Solomon Langermann, Ph.D., CSO, Amplimmune

AMP-224 is the first recombinant B7-DC-Fc fusion protein tested in patients

that binds to and modulates the PD-1 axis through a unique MOA. The

MOA hypothesis for AMP-224 is depletion of PD-1 high expressing T-cells

representing exhausted effector cells. The pharmacodynamic readouts

obtained to date demonstrate that AMP-224 is biologically active in its

target patient population. Data from the trial has been used to establish

hypotheses regarding the characteristics of patients most likely to respond

clinically to AMP-224 treatment.

5:45 Close of Sessions

THURSDAY , AUGUST 15, 2013

Emerging Targets

8:25 am Chairperson’s Opening Remarks

8:30 Immunocytokines: A Novel Potent Class of Armed Antibodies

Catherine Hutchinson, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Philochem, Switzerland

The severe toxicity of recombinant cytokines even at low doses limits

their therapeutic potential, but this can be mitigated by using monoclonal

antibodies to target their delivery. This talk will cover the latest advanced

preclinical and clinical data of the Philogen group, detailing the discovery and

development of armed antibodies against angiogenesis-specific markers,

which are attractive targets relevant to many angioproliferative diseases.

9:00 Mechanism of Action and Progress Update for MGA271:

An Fc-Enhanced mAb Targeting B7-H3 in Solid Tumors

Paul Moore, Ph.D., Vice President, Cell Biology & Immunology, Macrogenics

Characterization of murine monoclonal antibodies generated from cancer

cell and/or stem cell-based immunizations identified a panel targeting the

immunoregulatory protein B7-H3 displaying broad tumor reactivity but

limited binding to normal tissue. Preclinical evaluation of MGA271, an Fcenhanced

anti-B7H3 mAb, revealed strong ADCC activity against a broad

range of tumor cell types, potent antitumor activity in xenograft models

employing human FcR transgenic mice and a favorable safety profile in nonhuman

primate toxicology studies. A phase I/IIa clinical study of MGA271

in patients with B7-H3-positive metastatic or recurrent adenocarcinoma is

currently recruiting patients.

ImmunotherapiesCongress.com 6

9:30 Preclinical Update: Development of a Human Anti-CD27

Monoclonal Antibody as a Potential Cancer Therapy

Lawrence J. Thomas, Ph.D., DABT, CMAR, Senior Director, Preclinical Research and

Development, Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.

Agonist antibodies binding the co-stimulatory molecule CD27 have potent

antitumor activity in murine tumor models through boosting of durable T

cell antitumor immunity. Anti-CD27 antibodies have also been shown to

mediate the direct killing of CD27-expressing tumors. Such preclinical data

supports the therapeutic potential of this anti-CD27 monoclonal antibody as

a cancer immunotherapy.

10:00 Sponsored Presentation (Opportunity Available)

10:15 Refreshment Break in the Exhibit Hall with Poster Viewing

11:00 Targeting CD47-SIRPα Interactions for Potentiating

Antibody Therapy in Cancer

Timo van den Berg, Ph.D., Head, Blood Cell Research, Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation,

The Netherlands

We will present findings demonstrating that interactions between CD47

expressed on cancer cells and the myeloid inhibitory immunoreceptor SIRPα

form a barrier for the antibody-mediated destruction of cancer cells. These

findings identify the CD47-SIRPα interaction as a potential generic target for

improving the efficacy of cancer antibody therapeutics.

11:30 Presentation to be Announced

12:00 Sponsored Presentations (Opportunities Available)

12:30 Luncheon Presentation (Opportunity Available)

or Lunch on Your Own

Clinical Development of

Immunomodulatory Antibodies

1:55 Chairperson’s Opening Remarks

2:00 Clinical Trials Design for Cancer Immune Therapies

Harriet Kluger M.D., Associate Professor, Yale Cancer Center

Clinical development of immune therapies is challenging; standard drug

development paradigms are often not applicable. Modifications are

necessary in regard to dose escalation, management and definition of

toxicities, within-patient dose reduction, and radiographic assessment of

response to therapy. In later stage trials new definitions of study endpoints

are needed. Correlative biomarker studies are complex, and require

assessment of baseline immune function and tumor characteristics.

2:30 Characteristics and Management of Immune-Related

Adverse Effects Associated with Ipilimumab, a New

Immunotherapy for Metastatic Melanoma

Stephanie Andrews, Oncology Nurse Practitioner, Moffitt Cancer Center

Immune-Related Adverse Effects are a new phenomenon related to

advances in the use of the first FDA approved monoclonal antibody

Ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma. These side effects are different

than side effects of traditional cytotoxic regimens. These immunemediated

side effects include enterocolitis, hepatitis, dermatitis,

neuropathy andendocrinopathy.

Bispecific Immunomodulatory Antibodies

3:00 Safety Challenges to Development of Immune System

Activating Antibodies

Rakesh Dixit, Ph.D., DABT, Vice President, Research & Development, Global Head, Biologics

Safety Assessment, Pathology & LAR, MedImmune (AstraZeneca Biologics)

Immune system activating antibodies with abilities to harness and enhance

an individual patient’s immune system and target tumors are revolutionizing

the treatment of many deadly cancers. However, many immune-activating

biologics have serious dose-limiting toxicities, including cytokine stormassociated

critical toxicities and serious autoimmune diseases in multiple

key organs that may limit their long-term use. Nonclinical and clinical safety

challenges and risk mitigation opportunities will be discussed in the context

of immune activating antibodies, including bispecific BiTE antibodies.

3:30 Refreshment Break

3:45 MCLA-117: ABiclonics – ENGAGE Bispecific IgG Product

Lead Targeting CLEC12A and CD3 in AML

Lex Bakker, Ph.D., Chief Development Officer, Merus, The Netherlands

MCLA-117, a common light chain T cell-engaging full-length human bispecific

antibody (Biclonics – ENGAGE) was discovered that targets CD3 on T cells

and CLEC12A on acute myeloid leukemia (AML) blasts and leukemic stem

cells. Co-incubation of resting patient T cells and AML cells with MCLA-

117 results in efficient tumor cell lysis. Clinical application of MCLA-117

potentially provides a therapy in AML that more efficiently eradicates the

cancer cells and prevents relapse.

4:15 Bispecific Antibody Targeting CD47 Aiming at Increasing

Phagocytosis of Cancer Cells

Krzysztof Masternak, Ph.D., Head of Biology, Novimmune SA, Switzerland

CD47 is a ubiquitously expressed transmembrane receptor with multiple

functions in cell-to-cell communication. Its interaction with SIRPα expressed

in macrophages and DCs inhibits their phagocytic function. Overexpression

of CD47 in cancer cells is often observed and it is believed to help cancer

cells escape immune surveillance. We have generated bispecific antibodies

(BsAbs) that preferentially neutralize CD47-SIRPα interaction on cancer cells.

4:45 Close of Conference

7 ImmunotherapiesCongress.com

CHI offers comprehensive sponsorship packages which include presentation

opportunities, exhibit space and branding, as well as the use of the pre and

post-show delegate lists. Customizable sponsorship packages allow you to

achieve your objectives before, during, and long after the event. Signing on

early will allow you to maximize exposure to hard-to-reach decision makers!

Agenda Presentations

Showcase your solutions to a guaranteed, highly-targeted audience. Package

includes a 15 or 30-minute podium presentation within the scientific agenda, exhibit

space, on-site branding, and access to cooperative marketing efforts by CHI.

Breakfast & Luncheon Presentations

Opportunity includes a 30-minute podium presentation. Boxed lunches are

delivered into the main session room, which guarantees audience attendance

and participation. A limited number of presentations are available for

sponsorship and they will sell out quickly. Sign on early to secure your talk!

Invitation-Only VIP Dinner/Hospitality Suite

Sponsors will select their top prospects from the conference pre-registration

list for an evening of networking at the hotel or at a choice local venue. CHI

will extend invitations and deliver prospects. Evening will be customized

according to sponsor’s objectives:

• Purely social

• Focus group

• Reception style

• Plated dinner with specific conversation focus

Exhibit

Exhibitors will enjoy facilitated networking opportunities with high-level

conference delegates. Speak face-to-face with prospective clients and

showcase your latest product, service, or solution.

*Inquire about additional branding opportunities!

Looking for aditional ways to drive

leads to your sales team?

CHI can help!

We offer clients numerous options for custom lead generation programs to

address their marketing and sales needs, including:

Custom Lead Generation Programs:

• Targeted campaign promotion to unparalleled database of

800,000+ individuals in the life sciences

• Experienced marketing team promotes campaign, increasing

awareness and leads

Live Webinars:

• Assistance in procuring speakers

• Experienced moderators

• Dedicated operations team to coordinate all efforts

White Papers:

• Industry recognized authors, with vast editorial experience, available

to help write your white paper

CHI also offers market surveys, podcasts, and more!

To customize your participation at this event, please contact:

Suzanne Carroll – Senior Business Development Manager

781-972-5452 | scarroll@healthtech.com

Sponsorship, Exhibit, and Lead Generation Opportunities

Co-Located Event

August 13-15, 2013 • Hilton Boston Back Bay Hotel • Boston, MA

Eighth Annual

Novel Vaccines:

Innovations & Adjuvants

To Advance the Science of Vaccines

Additional registration details

Each registration includes all conference

sessions, posters and exhibits, food

functions, and access to the conference

proceedings link.

Handicapped Equal Access: In accordance

with the ADA, Cambridge Healthtech

Institute is pleased to arrange special

accommodations for attendees with

special needs. All requests for such

assistance must be submitted in writing

to CHI at least 30 days prior to the start

of the meeting.

To view our Substitutions/

Cancellations Policy, go to

http://www.healthtech.com/regdetails

Video and or audio recording of any kind

is prohibited onsite at all CHI events.

Receive a FREE eNewsletter by signing up

at chimediagroup.com

The latest industry news, commentary

and highlights from Bio-IT World

Innovative management in clinical trials

A series of diverse reports designed to

keep life science professionals informed

of the salient trends in pharmaceutical

technology, business, clinical development,

and therapeutic disease markets.

For a detailed list of reports, visit

InsightPharmaReports.com, or contact

Rose LaRaia, rlaraia@healthtech.com,

+1-781-972-5444.

Barnett is a recognized leader in clinical

education, training, and reference guides

for life science professionals involved in

the drug development process. For more

information, visit barnettinternational.com.

Cambridge Healthtech Associates™

(CHA™) leverages its extensive network

and unique collaborative model in

consulting, technology evaluations

and community-based communication

services to help clients in the life

sciences industry commercialize and

penetrate the marketplace to increase

revenue. Visit http://www.chacorporate.com.

Cambridge Healthtech Institute, 250 First Avenue, Suite 300, Needham, MA 02494 • http://www.healthtech.com • Fax: 781-972-5425

Pricing and Registration Information

short courses

Academic, Government,

(Includes access to short courses only) Commercial H ospital-affiliated

Single Short Course $699 $399

Two Short Courses $999 $699

Monday, August 12 • 2:00-5:00pm Wednesday, August 14 • 6:30-9:30pm

Melanoma Biology and Immunotherapies Manufacturing Vaccines: New Approaches, New Technologies

3 Day Pricing • August 13-15 Please Choose Package A or B

(Excludes short courses)

Package A – Novel Vaccines: Innovations & Adjuvants August 13-15

Early Registration Deadline until May 17, 2013 $2049 $1025

Advance Registration Deadline until July 19, 2013 $2199 $1099

Registrations after July 19, 2013 and on-site $2399 $1149

Package B – Emerging Cancer Immunotherapies and Vaccines August 13-14 + Immunomodulatory Antibodies for Cancer August 15-15

Early Registration Deadline until May 17, 2013 $2049 $1025

Advance Registration Deadline until July 19, 2013 $2199 $1099

Registrations after July 19, 2013 and on-site $2399 $1149

1.5 Day Pricing Please Choose Package C or D

(Excludes short courses)

Package C – Emerging Cancer Immunotherapies and Vaccines • August 13-14

Early Registration Deadline until May 17, 2013 $1399 $649

Advance Registration Deadline until July 19, 2013 $1599 $729

Registrations after July 19, 2013 and on-site $1799 $799

Package D – Immunomodulatory Antibodies for Cancer • August 14-15

Early Registration Deadline until May 17, 2013 $1399 $649

Advance Registration Deadline until July 19, 2013 $1599 $729

Registrations after July 19, 2013 and on-site $1799 $799

Conference Discounts

Poster Submission-Discount ($50 Off)

Poster abstracts are due by July 19, 2013. Once your registration has been fully processed, we will send an email containing a unique link allowing

you to submit your poster abstract. If you do not receive your link within 5 business days, please contact jring@healthtech.com. *CHI reserves the

right to publish your poster title and abstract in various marketing materials and products.

Alumni Discount-Discount (SAVE 20%)

Cambridge Healthtech Institute (CHI) appreciates your past participation at the ImVacS & the Immunotherapies Congress. As a result of the great

loyalty you have shown us, we are pleased to extend to you the exclusive opportunity to save an additional 20% off the registration rate.

REGI STER 3 –

4th IS FREE: Individuals must register for the same conference or conference combination and submit completed registration form together for

discount to apply.

Additional discounts are available for multiple attendees from the same organization. For more information on group rates contact

David Cunningham at +1-781-972-5472

If you are unable to attend but would like to purchase the ImVacS & the Immunotherapies Congress CD for $750 (plus shipping),

please visit ImVacS.com. Massachusetts delivery will include sales tax.

How to Register: ImmunotherapiesCongress.com

reg@healthtech.com • P: 781.972.5400 or Toll-free in the U.S. 888.999.6288

Please use keycode

IMT F

when registering!

(Alumni and Register 3 – 4th is free discounts cannot be combined)

Immuno The

Congress

herapies

August 13-15, 2013

Boston, MA

 

Immune Checkpoint Blockades

Keynote Presentation: Immune Monitoring on Pre-Surgical Clinical Trials with a Novel Checkpoint Blockade Agent, Anti-CTLA-4

Padmanee Sharma, M.D., Associate Professor, Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

 

Biomarker studies for immunotherapies have typically involved monitoring immunologic changes within the systemic circulation; however, recent data indicates that immunological changes within tumor tissues are more likely to predict clinical responses. We conducted a pre-surgical clinical trial with anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) in patients with localized bladder cancer, and identified ICOS as the marker of a subset of effector T cells that is increased in frequency after anti-CTLA-4 therapy. ICOS+ T cells are being explored as pharmacodynamic markers for treatment with anti-CTLA-4 and as novel targets to improve the efficacy of anti-CTLA-4 therapy.

 

Preliminary Clinical Efficacy and Safety of MK-3475 (Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody) in Patients with Advanced Melanoma

Omid Hamid, M.D., Director, Melanoma Center, Angeles Clinic and Research Institute

 

Sponsored Presentations (Opportunities Available: Contact Jason Gerardi at 781-972-5452 or jgerardi@healthtech.com for more information)

 

Development of Immunomodulatory PD-1 Antibodies in Renal Cell Carcinoma

Lauren Harshman, M.D., Assistant Professor, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

 

Anti-PD-1 Antibody Therapy for B-Cell Lymphoma

Sattva S. Neelapu, M.D., Associate Professor, Department of Lymphoma and Myeloma, Division of Cancer Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

 

AMP-224, A Fusion Protein with Potential to Modulate the PD-1 Pathway

Solomon Langermann, Ph.D., CSO, Amplimmune

 

Emerging Targets

 

Immunocytokines: A Novel Potent Class of Armed Antibodies

Catherine Hutchinson, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Philochem, Switzerland

 

Mechanism of Action and Progress Update for MGA271: An Fc-Enhanced mAb Targeting B7-H3 in Solid Tumors

Paul Moore, Ph.D., Vice President, Cell Biology & Immunology, Macrogenics

 

Preclinical Update: Development of a Human Anti-CD27 Monoclonal Antibody as a Potential Cancer Therapy

Lawrence J. Thomas, Ph.D., DABT, CMAR, Senior Director, Preclinical Research and Development, Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.

 

Targeting CD47-SIRPa Interactions for Potentiating Antibody Therapy in Cancer

Timo van den Berg, Ph.D., Head, Blood Cell Research, Sanquin Blood Supply Foundation, The Netherlands

 

Clinical Development of Immunomodulatory Antibodies

 

Clinical Trials Design for Cancer Immune Therapies

Harriet Kluger M.D., Associate Professor, Yale Cancer Center

 

Characteristics and Management of Immune-Related Adverse Effects Associated with Ipilimumab, a New Immunotherapy for Metastatic Melanoma

Stephanie Andrews, Oncology Nurse Practitioner, Moffitt Cancer Center

 

Bispecific Immunomodulatory Antibodies

 

Safety Challenges to Development of Immune System Activating Antibodies

Rakesh Dixit, Ph.D., DABT, Vice President, Research & Development, Global Head, Biologics Safety Assessment, Pathology & LAR, MedImmune (AstraZeneca Biologics)

 

MCLA-117: ABiclonics – ENGAGE Bispecific IgG Product Lead Targeting CLEC12A and CD3 in AML

Lex Bakker, Ph.D., Chief Development Officer, Merus, The Netherlands

 

Bispecific Antibody Targeting CD47 Aiming at Increasing Phagocytosis of Cancer Cells

Krzysztof Masternak, Ph.D., Head of Biology, Novimmune SA, Switzerland

 

View FInal Agenda | Pricing & Registration Details

 

Sponsorship & Exhibit Information

 

CHI offers comprehensive sponsorship packages which include presentation opportunities, exhibit space and branding, as well as the use of the pre and post show delegate list. Sponsorship allows you to achieve your objectives before, during, and long after the event. Any sponsorship can be customized to meet your company’s needs and budget. Signing on earlier will allow you to maximize exposure to hard-to-reach decision makers.

 

For sponsor & exhibitor information, please contact:

 

Jason Gerardi- Manager, Business Development

781-972-5452 | jgerardi@healthtech.com

 

ImmunotherapiesCongress.com/Immunomodulatory-Antibodies-Cancer

 

Cambridge Healthtech Institute, 250 First Avenue, Suite 300,  Needham, MA 02494 healthtech.com

http://www.immunotherapiescongress.com/Conferences_Overview.aspx?id=124174 

Read Full Post »

Author: Tilda Barliya PhD

Screen Shot 2021-07-19 at 7.33.05 PM

Word Cloud By Danielle Smolyar

Pancreatic cancer has been previously addressed here in our blog (I-IX) but a recent diagnosis of a colleague urged me to go back to the basics and search for more answers and updates hoping it would offer some peace.

Pancreatic cancer is the 4th leading cause of death in the united states with only 3% rate for 5-year survival rate (1). Due to lack of symptoms and limitation in diagnostic methods, patients are mostly diagnosed at mush advanced stages. When reach these stages, patients start to show symptoms of weight loss, abdominal pain, jaundice, by than, the cancer has already spread.

Several treatment options are available in which surgical resection (for the 15%-20% that are eligible for it) increase the 5-year survival rate by up to 20% , and that’s mainly because the cancer comes back about 85 percent of the time (1,2). These statistics are very hard to comprehend, especially with the progress been made in other types of cancer.

So Why pancreatic cancer is so deadly?

Pancreatic cancer biology and genetics

Pancreatic cancer biology and genetics. Nabeel Bardeesy & Ronald A. DePinho. Nature Reviews Cancer 2002: 2, 897-909

The pancreas is a highly vascularized 6 inch dual-function gland that plays a major role in the body. It secretes digestive enzymes and hormones (i.e; insulin, glucagon, somatostatin and pancreatic polypeptide) which assist in the digestion of fats and the absorption of nutrients. These enzymes help further digest carbohydrates, proteins and lipids in the chyme.

It is postulated that a tumor starts to overcome  the functionally of the pancreas;  causing reduction of important hormones (insulin) and enzymes (digestive enzymes) production thus impacting the overall ability of the body to absorb nutrients and get energy coins thus affecting  the overall performance of the body. Several studies were conducted to evaluate the connection between dietary factors and induction of pancreatic cancer, however no direct correlation was observed (11, 12)

More so, the pancreas is located at the junction of several organs; liver, gall bladder and intestines,  thus enabling metastatic cells to harbor multiple vital organ. Most patients die for liver failure due to liver metastases.

These factors; late- diagnosis, reduction in overall body function and failure of vital organs (such as the liver due to metastasis), cause the aggressive and fast death of these panvreatic patients.

A growing number of studies have identified common mutational profiles in simultaneous lesions, providing supportive evidence of the relationship between pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanINs) and the pathogenesis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Nabeel Bardeesy and Ronald A. DePinho summarized this data in Figure and table inserted herein. Intriguingly, there seems to be an ordered series of mutational events in association with specific neoplastic stages (1,4).

Pancreatic cancer biology and genetics. Nabeel Bardeesy & Ronald A. DePinho. Nature Reviews Cancer 2002, 2: 897-909.

The combination of these multiple mutations render pancreatic cancer cells resistant to current chemo and radiotherapy. More so, known pancreatic cancer antigens have generated relatively weak immune responses due to these combined mutagenesis (5, 16). These crucial somatic genetic mutations can generate pancreatic cancer proteins that are essentially altered self proteins

Therefore, in order to design a good  immunotherapeutic approach one must incorporate at least one agent against a pancreatic cancer target as well as one or more agents that will modify both local and systemic mechanisms of pancreatic-cancer-induced.

Another important element that needs to be taken into consideration are the immunological checkpoints. These checkpoints serve two  purposes:

  1. To help generate and maintain self-tolerance, by eliminating T cells that are specific for self-antigens.
  2. To restrain the amplitude of normal T-cell responses so that they do not ‘overshoot’ in their natural response to foreign pathogens

The prototypical immunological checkpoint is mediated by the cytotoxic-T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4) counter regulatory receptor that is expressed by T cells when they become activated (6).  CTLA4 binds two B7 FAMILY members on the surface APCs — B7.1 (also known as CD80) and B7.2 (also known as CD86): with roughly 20-fold higher affinity than the T-cell surface protein CD28 binds these molecules. CD28 is a co-stimulatory receptor that is constitutively expressed on naive T cells. Because of its higher affinity, CTLA4 out-competes CD28 for B7.1/B7.2 binding, resulting in the downmodulation of T-cell responses (7). Monoclonal antibodies that downregulate B7-H1 and B7-H4 are currently in clinical development. This is just one example of the potential use of targeted therapy for use in clinical trials.

Dan Laheru* and Elizabeth M. Jaffee have summarized the immunotherapy clinical trials  back in 2005:

Immunotherapy for pancreatic cancer |[mdash]| science driving clinical progress

Herein you can read about the latest summary of the NCI portfolio on Pancreatic cancer and research highlights : http://www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/reports/pancreatic-research-progress.pdf

Here’s their recommendation for future plans for clinical trials:

  • Perform well-designed Phase II studies to help define strategies likely to succeed in a Phase III setting.
  • Adopt consistent entry and evaluation criteria for Phase II trials.
  • Conduct high-priority Phase III trials as intergroup trials and include scientifically appropriate biorepositories.
  • Conduct trials on rational combinations of targeted agents and develop predictive biomarkers to assist in patient selection.
  • Explore use of immune therapies, particularly among those with earlier stage disease.
  • Share trial outcomes, including those of trials with negative results.

According to the NCI clinical trial results from two phase III clinical trials, the targeted therapies sunitinib (Sutent®) and everolimus (Afinitor®) increased the length of time patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (panNET) survived without the disease progressing. And, in the sunitinib trial, patients who received the drug also had better overall survival. The findings were published February 9, 2011, in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Although neuroadenoma is rare and presents only 2% of all pancreatic cancer, no effective treatment was available, now these results may offer some hope (9).

More so, a four-drug chemotherapy regimen has produced the longest improvement in survival ever seen in a phase III clinical trial of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest types of cancer (10). Patients who received the regimen, called FOLFIRINOX, lived approximately 4 months longer than patients treated with the current standard of caregemcitabine (11.1 months compared with 6.8 months).

In summary:

Remarkable progress has been made in understanding the  genetics and development biology pancreatic cancer have offered new potential targets for therapy. ” The availability of powerful new technologies and continued contributions of investigators in many related disciplines provides a measure of optimism towards future progress in treating this disease (1)”. Latest results of clinical trials may also shade some hope for patients suffering from this horrible disease.

On a personal note, I hope these new opportunities and clinical trials will offer another avenue to my colleague……

REFERENCES

1. Nabeel Bardeesy and Ronald A.DePinho. Pancreatic cancer biology and genetics. Nature Cancer reviews 2002, 2: 897-909. http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v2/n12/full/nrc949.html

2. Melinda Wenner. What makes pancreatic cancer so deadly. Scientific American 2008. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-pancreatic-cancer-gene-upshaw

3. Pancreas. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancreas

4. Jaffee, E. M., Hruban, R. H., Canto, M. & Kern, S.E. Focus on pancreas cancer. Cancer Cell 2, 25–28 (2002). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1535610802000934

5.  Dan Laheru* and Elizabeth M. Jaffee. Immunotherapy for pancreatic cancer – science driving clinical progress.  Nature Reviews: Cancer. 2005. 5: 459-467. http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v5/n6/full/nrc1630.html

6. Coyle, A. J. & Gutierrez-Ramos, J. C. The expanding B7 superfamily: increasing complexity in co-stimulatory signals regulating T cell function. Nature Immunol 2001. 2, 203–209. http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v2/n3/full/ni0301_203.html

7.  Walunas, T. L., Bakker, C. Y. & Bluestone, J. A. CTLA-4 ligation blocks CD28-dependent T cell activation. J. Exp. Med 1996. 183, 2541–2550. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2192609/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2192609/pdf/je18362541.pdf

8. Pancreatic Cancer: A summary of NCI’s portfolio and highlights of recent research progress 2010. http://www.cancer.gov/researchandfunding/reports/pancreatic-research-progress.pdf

9. NCI bulletin: Targeted Therapies May Be Effective Against Rare Pancreatic Cancer. http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/summary/2011/panNET-Therapy0411

10. NCI bulletin: Chemotherapy Regimen Extends Survival in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/results/summary/2011/pancreatic-chemo0611

11. Nilsen TI, Vatten LJ. A prospective study of lifestyle factors and the risk of pancreatic cancer in NordTrondelag, Norway. Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:645-52. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10977109

12. Marshall JR, Freudenheim J. Alcohol. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF Jr., eds. Cancer Epidemiology and  Prevention, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. P. 243-58. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195149616.001.0001/acprof-9780195149616

13. Alison P. Klein. Identifying people at a high risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 2012, 13: 66-74. http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v13/n1/full/nrc3420.html

14. John P. Morris, Sam C. Wang & Matthias Hebrok. KRAS, Hedgehog, Wnt and the twisted developmental biology of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Nature Reviews Cancer 2012. 10:683-695.  http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v10/n10/full/nrc2899.html

15. Patrick Goymer. Imaging: Early detection for pancreatic cancer. Nature Reviews Cancer 2008, 8: 408-409. http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v8/n6/full/nrc2407.html

16. Koido S, Homma S, Takahara A, Namiki Y, Tsukinaga S, Mitobe J, Odahara S, Yukawa T, Matsudaira H, Nagatsuma K, Uchiyama K, Satoh K, Ito M, Komita H, Arakawa H, Ohkusa T, Gong J, Tajiri H. Current Immunotherapeutic Approaches in Pancreatic Cancer, Clin Dev Immunol. 2011;2011:267539. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/cdi/2011/267539/

Other related articles on this open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:

I. Pancreatic cancer genomes: Axon guidance pathway genes – aberrations revealed.

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, 10/24/2012

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/24/pancreatic-cancer-genomes-axon-guidance-pathway-genes-aberrations-revealed/

II. Biomarker tool development for Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer: Van Andel Institute and Emory University.

Aviva Lev-Ari PhD,RN, 10/24/2012

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/24/biomarker-tool-development-for-early-diagnosis-of-pancreatic-cancer-van-andel-institute-and-emory-university/

III. Personalized Pancreatic Cancer Treatment Option.

Aviva Lev-Ari PhD, RN, 10/16/2012

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/10/16/personalized-pancreatic-cancer-treatment-option/

IV. Battle of Steve Jobs and Ralph Steinman with Pancreatic cancer: How we lost.

Ritu Saxena PhD, 5/21/2012

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/05/21/battle-of-steve-jobs-and-ralph-steinman-with-pancreatic-cancer-how-we-lost/

V.  Early Biomarker for Pancreatic Cancer Identified.

Prabodh Kandala, PhD, 5/17/2012

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/05/17/early-biomarker-for-pancreatic-cancer-identified/

VI. Usp9x: Promising therapeutic target for pancreatic cancer.

Ritu Saxen PhD, 5/14/2012

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/05/14/promising-therapeutic-target-discovered-for-pancreatic-cancer/

VII. Issues in Personalized Medicine in Cancer: Intratumor Heterogeneity and Branched Evolution Revealed by Multiregion Sequencing.

Stephen J. Williams, PhD, 10/4/2013

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/04/10/issues-in-personalized-medicine-in-cancer-intratumor-heterogeneity-and-branched-evolution-revealed-by-multiregion-sequencing/

VIII. In Focus: Targeting of Cancer Stem Cells.

Ritu Saxena, PhD, 3/27/2013

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/03/27/in-focus-targeting-of-cancer-stem-cells/

IIX. New Ecosystem of Cancer Research: Cross Institutional Team Science.

Aviva Lev-Ari. PhD, RN, 3/24/2013

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/03/24/new-ecosystem-of-cancer-research-cross-institutional-team-science/

IX. In Focus: Identity of Cancer Stem Cells.

Ritu Saxena, PhD, 3/22/2013

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2013/03/22/in-focus-identity-of-cancer-stem-cells/

 

Read Full Post »

In focus: Melanoma therapeutics

 

Author and Curator: Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.

In the last post of Melanoma titled “In focus: Melanoma Genetics”, I discussed the clinical characteristics and the genetics involved in Melanoma.  This post would discuss melanoma therapeutics, both current and novel.

According to the American Cancer Society, more than 76,000 new cases and more than 9100 deaths from melanoma were reported in the United States in 2012[1] Melanoma develops from the malignant transformation of melanocytes, the pigment-producing cells that reside in the basal epidermal layer in human skin. Although most melanomas arise in the skin, they may also arise from mucosal surfaces or at other sites to which neural crest cells migrate.

Melanoma therapeutics

Surgical treatment of cutaneous melanoma employs specific surgical margins depending on the depth of invasion of the tumor and there are specific surgical treatment guidelines of primary, nodal, and metastatic melanoma that surgeons adhere to while treatment. Melanoma researchers have been focusing on developing adjuvant therapies for that would increase the survival post-surgery.

Chemotherapy

Among traditional chemotherapeutic agents, only dacarbazine is FDA approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma (Eggermont AM and Kirkwood JM, Eur J Cancer, Aug 2004;40(12):1825-36). Dacarbazine is a triazene derivative and alkylates and cross-links DNA during all phases of the cell cycle, resulting in disruption of DNA function, cell cycle arrest, and apoptosis. Currently, 17 clinical trials are underway to test the efficacy and effectiveness of dacarbazine against melanoma as either a single agent or in combination chemotherapy regimens with other anti-cancer chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin, paclitaxel. Temozolomide is a triazene analog of dacarbazine and is approved for the treatment of malignant gliomas. At physiologic pH, it is converted to a short-lived active cytotoxic compound, monomethyl triazeno imidazole carboxamide (MTIC). MTIC methylates DNA at the O6 and N7 positions of guanine, resulting in inhibition of DNA replication. Unlike dacarbazine, which is metabolized to MITC only in the liver, temozolomide is metabolized to MITC at all sites. Temozolomide is administered orally and penetrates well into the central nervous system. Temozolomide is being tested in many combination regimens for patients with melanoma metastatic to the brain (Douglas JG and Margolin K, Semin Oncol, Oct 2002;29(5):518-24).

Immunotherapy

Melanoma and the immune system are closely related. Hence, immunotherapy has been explored in the treatment of the disease. The two most widely investigated immunotherapy drugs for melanoma are Interferon (IFN)-alpha and Interleukin-2 (IL-2).

The role of IFNalpha-2b in the adjuvant therapy of patients with localized melanoma at high risk for relapse was established by the results of three large randomized trials conducted by the US Intergroup; all three trials demonstrated an improvement in relapse-free survival and two in overall survival. One of these trials, a large randomized multicenter trial performed by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), in high-risk melanoma patients showed significant improvements in relapse-free and overall survival with adjuvant IFN-α-2b therapy, compared with standard observation (ECOG 1684). The results of the study led to FDA approval of IFN-α-2b for treatment of melanoma. This study was performed on patients with deep primary tumors without lymph node involvement and node-positive melanomas. In other studies, little antitumor activity has been demonstrated in IFN-α-2b–treated metastatic stage IV melanoma.

Recombinant IL-2 showed an overall response rate of 15-20% in metastatic melanoma and was capable of producing complete and durable remissions in about 6% of patients treated. Based upon these data, the US FDA has approved the use of high-dose IL-2 for the therapy of patients with metastatic melanoma. Aldesleukin (Brand name: Proleukin) is a recombinant analog of the endogenous cytokine interleukin-2 (IL-2). It binds to and activates the IL-2 receptor (IL-2R), followed by heterodimerization of the IL-2R beta and gamma(c) cytoplasmic chains; activation of Jak3; and phosphorylation of tyrosine residues on the IL-2R beta chain, resulting in an activated receptor complex (NCI). The activated complex recruits several signaling molecules that act as substrates for regulatory enzymes associated with the complex. It is administered intravenously and stimulates lymphokine-activating killer (LAK) cells, natural killer (NK) cells and the production of cytokines such as gamma interferon (nm|OK). Several clinical trials are currently underway using Aldesleukin to determine the efficacy of combination treatment in melanoma patients.

Another anti-cancer immunotherapeuty-based mechanism involved inhibition of inhibitory signal of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), a molecule on T-cells that plays a critical role in regulating natural immune responses. Ipilimumab (Brand name: Yervoy) was by FDA for melanoma treatment.  It is a human monoclonal antibody (MAb) T-cell potentiator that specifically blocks CTLA-4. It is approved for inoperable advanced (Stage III) or metastatic (Stage IV) melanoma in newly diagnosed or previously treated patients (nm|OK). The approval, March 25, 2011, was based on a randomized (3:1:1) double-blind double-dummy clinical trial (MDX010-20) in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one prior systemic treatment for melanoma. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either ipilimumab, 3 mg/kg intravenously, in combination with the tumor vaccine (n=403); ipilimumab plus vaccine placebo (n=137); or tumor vaccine with placebo (n=136). Patients treated with ipilimumab alone had a median overall survival (OS) of 10 months while those treated with tumor vaccine had a median OS of 6 months. The trial also demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with the combination of ipilimumab plus tumor vaccine compared with patients treated with tumor vaccine alone. For more information on the trial, check the clinical trials website, www.clinicaltrials.gov

Signaling pathway inhibitors

Approximately 90% of BRAF gene mutations involve valine (V) to glutamic acid (E) mutation at number 600 residue (V600E). The resulting oncogene product, BRAF (V600E) kinase is highly active and exhibits elevated MAPK pathway. The BRAF(V600E) gene mutation occurs in approximately 60% of melanomas indicating that it could be therapeutically relevant. Vemurafenib (Brand name: Zelboraf) is a novel small-molecule inhibitor of BRAF (V600E) kinase. It selectively binds to the ATP-binding site and inhibits the activity of BRAF (V600E) kinase. Vemurafebib inhibits over active MAPK pathway by inhibiting the mutated BRAF kinase, thereby reducing tumor cell proliferation (NCI). Encouraging results of phase III randomized, open-label, multicenter trial were reported recently at the 2011 ASCO meeting (Chapman PB, et al, ASCO 2011, Abstract LBA4).  The trial compared the novel BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib with dacarbazine in patients with BRAF-mutated melanoma. Previously untreated, unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma that tested positive for BRAF mutation were randomized (1:1) to vemurafenib or dacarbazine. The response rate (RR) was significantly high (48.4%) in vemurafenib treated patients as compared to 5.5% in dacarbazine among the 65% of patients evaluable for RR to date. In addition, vemurafenib was associated with significantly improved OS and PFS compared to dacarbazine in patients with previously untreated BRAF (V600E) mutation bearing patients with metastatic melanoma.

Biochemotherapy

Biochemothreapy combine traditional chemotherapy with immunotherapies, such as IL-2 and IFN-α-2b. These combination therapies seemed promising in phase II trials, however, seven large studies failed to show statistically significant increased overall survival rates for various biochemotherapy regimens in patients with stage IV metastasis (Margolin KA, et al, Cancer, 1 Aug 2004;101(3):435-8). Owing to inconsistent results of the available studies with regard to benefit including RR, OS and progression time, and consistently high toxicity rates, clinical practice guideline do not recommend biochemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic melanoma (Verma S, et al, Curr Oncol, April 2008; 15(2): 85–89).

Vaccines

The use of therapeutic vaccines is an ongoing area of research, and clinical trials of several types of vaccines (whole cell, carbohydrate, peptide) are being conducted in patients with intermediate and late-stage melanoma. Vaccines are also being tested in patients with metastatic melanoma to determine their immune effects and to define their activity in combination with other immunotherapeutic agents such as IL-2 or IFNalpha (Agarwala S, Am J Clin Dermatol, 2003;4(5):333-46). In fact, recently investigators at the Indiana University Health Goshen Center for Cancer Care (Goshen, IN) conducted a randomized, multicenter phase III trial involving 185 patients with stage IV or locally advanced stage III cutaneous melanoma. The patients were assigned into treatment groups with IL-2 alone or with vaccine (gp100) followed by IL-2. The vaccine-IL-2 group had a significantly improved OR as compared to the IL-2-only group (16% Vs. 6%) and longer progression free survival (2.2 months Vs. 1.6 months). The median overall survival was also longer in the vaccine-interleukin-2 group than in the interleukin-2-only group (17.8 months Vs. 11.1 months). Thus, a combination of vaccine and immunotherapy showed a better response rate and longer progression-free survival than with interleukin-2 alone in patients with advanced melanoma (Schwartzentruber DJ, et al, N Engl J Med, 2 Jun 2011;364(22):2119-27).

Which Treatment When?

Earlier, there were essentially two main options for patients suffering from advanced melanoma, dacarbazine and IL-2. Dacarbazine, a chemotherapeutic agent produces modest improvements in survival or symptomatic benefits in most patients. Interleukin-2 -based drugs, on the other hand, induce long-term remissions in a small group of patients but are highly toxic. Recently, FDA approved ipilimumab and vemurafenib for patients with metastatic melanoma. Apart from these, therapies are also aiming at starving the tumor by inhibiting angiogenesis or depleting nutrients essential for cancer growth. Of the antiangiogenic compounds, VEGFR inhibitors SU5416 and AG-013736 demonstrated broad-spectrum antitumor activity in mice bearing xenografts of human cancer cell lines originating from various tissues, including melanoma. In addition, several trials are currently underway to test the efficacy of the drugs in combination. In the future, personalized medicine-based recommendations of novel and existing drugs for melanoma patients might be the way to go.

Reference:

  1. Eggermont AM and Kirkwood JM, Eur J Cancer, Aug 2004;40(12):1825-36
  2. Douglas JG and Margolin K, Semin Oncol, Oct 2002;29(5):518-24
  3. Chapman PB, et al, ASCO 2011, Abstract LBA4
  4. Margolin KA, et al, Cancer, 1 Aug 2004;101(3):435-8
  5. Verma S, et al, Curr Oncol, April 2008; 15(2): 85–89
  6. Agarwala S, Am J Clin Dermatol, 2003;4(5):333-46
  7. Schwartzentruber DJ, et al, N Engl J Med, 2 Jun 2011;364(22):2119-27
  8. Chudnovsky Y, et al, J Clin Invest, Apr 2005;115(4):813-24.
  9. National Cancer Institute (National Institute of Health)
  10. Clinical Trials reported on the U.S. Institute of Health
  11. New Medicine Oncology KnowledgeBase (nm|OK)

Related articles on Melanoma on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal: 

  1. In focus: Melanoma Genetics Curator- Ritu Saxena, Ph.D.
  2. Thymosin alpha1 and melanoma Author/Editor- Tilda Barliya, Ph.D.
  3. A New Therapy for Melanoma  Reporter- Larry H Bernstein, M.D.
  4. Melanoma: Molecule in Immune System Could Help Treat Dangerous Skin Cancer Reporter: Prabodh Kandala, Ph.D.
  5. Why Braf inhibitors fail to treat melanoma. Reporter: Prabodh Kandala, Ph.D.

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »