Preclinical exploration of combining plasmacytoid and myeloid dendritic cell vaccination with BRAF inhibition

Contains fulltext : 171226.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)Background: Melanoma is the most lethal type of skin cancer and its incidence is progressively increasing. The introductions of immunotherapy and targeted therapies have tremendously improved the treatment of melanoma. Selective inhibition of BRAF by vemurafenib results in objective clinical responses in around 50 % of patients suffering from BRAFV600 mutated melanoma. However, drug resistance often results in hampering long-term tumor control. Alternatively, immunotherapy by vaccination with natural dendritic cells (nDCs) demonstrated long-term tumor control in a proportion of patients. We postulate that the rapid tumor debulking by vemurafenib can synergize the long-term tumor control of nDC vaccination to result in an effective treatment modality in a large proportion of patients. Here, we investigated the feasibility of this combination by analyzing the effect of vemurafenib on the functionality of nDCs. Methods: Plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs) and myeloid DCs (mDCs) were isolated from PBMCs obtained from buffy coats from healthy volunteers or vemurafenib-treated melanoma patients. Maturation of pDCs, mDCs and immature mono-cyte-derived DCs was induced by R848 in the presence or absence of vemurafenib and analyzed by FACS. Cytokine production and T cell proliferation induced by mature DCs were analyzed. Results: Vemurafenib inhibited maturation and cytokine production of highly purified nDCs of healthy volunteers resulting in diminished allogeneic T cell proliferation. This deleterious effect of vemurafenib on nDC functionality was absent when total PBMCs were exposed to vemurafenib. In patients receiving vemurafenib, nDC functionality and T cell allostimulatory capacity were unaffected. Conclusion: Although vemurafenib inhibited the functionality of purified nDC of healthy volunteers, this effect was not observed when nDCs were matured in the complete PBMC fraction. This might have been caused by increased vemurafenib uptake in absence of other cell types. In accordance, nDCs isolated from patients on active vemurafenib treatment showed no negative effects. In conclusion, our results pave the way for a combinatorial treatment strategy and, we propose that combining vemurafenib with nDC vaccination represent a powerful opportunity that deserves more investigation in the clinic

Case series: indoor-photosensitivity caused by fluorescent lamps in patients treated with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma

Contains fulltext : 139065.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Vemurafenib, a selective inhibitor of genetically activated BRAF, is registered for unresectable stage III and stage IV melanomas harboring a BRAF mutation. Photosensitivity related to exposure to sunlight is a common side-effect. We here present three cases of indoor-photosensitivity due to fluorescent lamps, whilst undergoing treatment with vemurafenib. CASE PRESENTATION: Patient A is a 45-year-old Caucasian female, patient B a 32-year-old Caucasian male and patient C a 53-year-old male. They are all undergoing treatment with vemurafenib for metastatic melanoma. Patient A developed indoor-photosensitivity due to fluorescent lamps at work. Her employer changed the lighting to LED light and her complaints disappeared. Patient B is a biology teacher and in classrooms he is exposed to fluorescent lamps. He developed alopecia and subsequently indoor-photosensitivity. This was solved by wearing a baseball cap at work during the day. Patient C developed red and burning skin after working under fluorescent lamps in his shed. This side-effect disappeared completely after avoiding the lamps. CONCLUSION: Photosensitivity is a known adverse event of vemurafenib. This is known to be an UVA-depended photosensitivity. Until now it was thought to be solely related to sunlight exposure. These cases illustrate that patients, whilst undergoing treatment with vemurafenib, can develop indoor-photosensitivity as a result of exposure to fluorescent lamps with a relatively high UV content of the emitted spectrum (low permissible exposure time). Awareness of this side-effect is important to take appropriate measures in the future

Ipilimumab administered to metastatic melanoma patients who progressed after dendritic cell vaccination

BACKGROUND: Ipilimumab has proven to be effective in metastatic melanoma patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients who showed progressive disease upon experimental dendritic cell (DC) vaccination. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 48 stage IV melanoma patients treated with ipilimumab after progression upon DC vaccination earlier in their treatment. DC vaccination was given either as adjuvant treatment for stage III disease (n = 18) or for stage IV disease (n = 30). Ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) was administered every 3 weeks for up to 4 cycles. RESULTS: Median time between progression upon DC vaccination and first gift of ipilimumab was 5.4 mo. Progression-free survival (PFS) rates for patients that received ipilimumab after adjuvant DC vaccination, and patients that received DC vaccination for stage IV melanoma, were 35% and 7% at 1 y and 35% and 3% at 2 y, while the median PFS was 2.9 mo and 3.1 mo, respectively. Median overall survival of patients pre-treated with adjuvant DC vaccination for stage III melanoma was not reached versus 8.0 mo (95% CI, 5.2-10.9) in the group pre-treated with DC vaccination for stage IV disease (HR of death, 0.36; p = 0.017). Grade 3 immune-related adverse events occurred in 19% of patients and one death (2%) was related to ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical responses to ipilimumab were found in a considerable number of advanced melanoma patients with progression after adjuvant DC vaccination for stage III disease, while the effect was very limited in patients who showed progression after DC vaccination for stage IV disease

Immunological responses to adjuvant vaccination with combined CD1c+ myeloid and plasmacytoid dendritic cells in stage III melanoma patients

We evaluated the immunological responses of lymph-node involved (stage III) melanoma patients to adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination with subsets of naturally occurring dendritic cells (nDCs). Fifteen patients with completely resected stage III melanoma were randomized to receive adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination with CD1c+ myeloid dendritic cells (cDC2s), plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDCs) or the combination. Immunological response was the primary endpoint and secondary endpoints included safety and survival. In 80% of the patients, antigen-specific CD8+ T cells were detected in skin test-derived T cells and in 55% of patients, antigen-specific CD8+ T cells were detectable in peripheral blood. Functional interferon-γ-producing T cells were found in the skin test of 64% of the patients. Production of nDC vaccines meeting release criteria was feasible for all patients. Vaccination only induced grade 1–2 adverse events, mainly consisting of fatigue. In conclusion, adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination with cDC2s and/or pDCs is feasible, safe and induced immunological responses in the majority of stage III melanoma patients

Adjuvant dendritic cell vaccination induces tumor-specific immune responses in the majority of stage III melanoma patients

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of adjuvant dendritic cell (DC) vaccination to induce tumor-specific immunological responses in stage III melanoma patients. Experimental design: Retrospective analysis of stage III melanoma patients, vaccinated with autologous monocyte-derived DC loaded with tumor-associated antigens (TAA) gp100 and tyrosinase after radical lymph node dissection. Skin-test infiltrating lymphocytes (SKILs) obtained from delayed-type hypersensitivity skin-test biopsies were analyzed for the presence of TAA-specific CD8(+) T cells by tetrameric MHC-peptide complexes and by functional TAA-specific T cell assays, defined by peptide-recognition (T2 cells) and/or tumor-recognition (BLM and/or MEL624) with specific production of Th1 cytokines and no Th2 cytokines. Results: Ninety-seven patients were analyzed: 21 with stage IIIA, 34 with stage IIIB, and 42 had stage IIIC disease. Tetramer-positive CD8(+) T cells were present in 68 patients (70%), and 24 of them showed a response against all 3 epitopes tested (gp100: 154-162, gp100: 280-288, and tyrosinase: 369-377) at any point during vaccinations. A functional T cell response was found in 62 patients (64%). Rates of peptide-recognition of gp100: 154-162, gp100: 280-288, and tyrosinase: 369-377 were 40%, 29%, and 45%, respectively. Median recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival of the whole study population were 23.0 mo and 36.8 mo, respectively. Conclusions: DC vaccination induces a functional TAA-specific T cell response in the majority of stage III melanoma patients, indicating it is more effective in stage III than in stage IV melanoma patients. Furthermore, performing multiple cycles of vaccinations enhances the chance of a broader immune respons

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa

Genetic Aspects and Molecular Testing in Prostate Cancer: A Report from a Dutch Multidisciplinary Consensus Meeting

Background: Germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) is becoming more broadly accepted, but testing indications and clinical consequences for carriers in each disease stage are not yet well defined. Objective: To determine the consensus of a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel on the indication and application of germline and tumour genetic testing in PCa. Design, setting, and participants: The panel consisted of 39 specialists involved in PCa management. We used a modified Delphi method consisting of two voting rounds and a virtual consensus meeting. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was reached if ≥75% of the panellists chose the same option. Appropriateness was assessed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Results and limitations: Of the multiple-choice questions, 44% reached consensus. For men without PCa having a relevant family history (familial PCa/BRCA-related hereditary cancer), follow-up by prostate-specific antigen was considered appropriate. For patients with low-risk localised PCa and a family history of PCa, active surveillance was considered appropriate, except in case of the patient being a BRCA2 germline pathogenic variant carrier. Germline and tumour genetic testing should not be done for nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive PCa in the absence of a relevant family history of cancer. Tumour genetic testing was deemed most appropriate for the identification of actionable variants, with uncertainty for germline testing. For tumour genetic testing in metastatic castration-resistant PCa, consensus was not reached for the timing and panel composition. The principal limitations are as follows: (1) a number of topics discussed lack scientific evidence, and therefore the recommendations are partly opinion based, and (2) there was a small number of experts per discipline. Conclusions: The outcomes of this Dutch consensus meeting may provide further guidance on genetic counselling and molecular testing related to PCa. Patient summary: A group of Dutch specialists discussed the use of germline and tumour genetic testing in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, indication of these tests (which patients and when), and impact of these tests on the management and treatment of PCa