Improved Endpoints for Cancer Immunotherapy Trials

Unlike chemotherapy, which acts directly on the tumor, cancer immunotherapies exert their effects on the immune system and demonstrate new kinetics that involve building a cellular immune response, followed by changes in tumor burden or patient survival. Thus, adequate design and evaluation of some immunotherapy clinical trials require a new development paradigm that includes reconsideration of established endpoints. Between 2004 and 2009, several initiatives facilitated by the Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium of the Cancer Research Institute and partner organizations systematically evaluated an immunotherapy-focused clinical development paradigm and created the principles for redefining trial endpoints. On this basis, a body of clinical and laboratory data was generated that supports three novel endpoint recommendations. First, cellular immune response assays generate highly variable results. Assay harmonization in multicenter trials may minimize variability and help to establish cellular immune response as a reproducible biomarker, thus allowing investigation of its relationship with clinical outcomes. Second, immunotherapy may induce novel patterns of antitumor response not captured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or World Health Organization criteria. New immune-related response criteria were defined to more comprehensively capture all response patterns. Third, delayed separation of Kaplan–Meier curves in randomized immunotherapy trials can affect results. Altered statistical models describing hazard ratios as a function of time and recognizing differences before and after separation of curves may allow improved planning of phase III trials. These recommendations may improve our tools for cancer immunotherapy trials and may offer a more realistic and useful model for clinical investigation

Results and harmonization guidelines from two large-scale international Elispot proficiency panels conducted by the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC/SVI)

The Cancer Vaccine Consortium of the Sabin Vaccine Institute (CVC/SVI) is conducting an ongoing large-scale immune monitoring harmonization program through its members and affiliated associations. This effort was brought to life as an external validation program by conducting an international Elispot proficiency panel with 36 laboratories in 2005, and was followed by a second panel with 29 participating laboratories in 2006 allowing for application of learnings from the first panel. Critical protocol choices, as well as standardization and validation practices among laboratories were assessed through detailed surveys. Although panel participants had to follow general guidelines in order to allow comparison of results, each laboratory was able to use its own protocols, materials and reagents. The second panel recorded an overall significantly improved performance, as measured by the ability to detect all predefined responses correctly. Protocol choices and laboratory practices, which can have a dramatic effect on the overall assay outcome, were identified and lead to the following recommendations: (A) Establish a laboratory SOP for Elispot testing procedures including (A1) a counting method for apoptotic cells for determining adequate cell dilution for plating, and (A2) overnight rest of cells prior to plating and incubation, (B) Use only pre-tested serum optimized for low background: high signal ratio, (C) Establish a laboratory SOP for plate reading including (C1) human auditing during the reading process and (C2) adequate adjustments for technical artifacts, and (D) Only allow trained personnel, which is certified per laboratory SOPs to conduct assays. Recommendations described under (A) were found to make a statistically significant difference in assay performance, while the remaining recommendations are based on practical experiences confirmed by the panel results, which could not be statistically tested. These results provide initial harmonization guidelines to optimize Elispot assay performance to the immunotherapy community. Further optimization is in process with ongoing panels

Validation of a HLA-A2 tetramer flow cytometric method, IFNgamma real time RT-PCR, and IFNgamma ELISPOT for detection of immunologic response to gp100 and MelanA/MART-1 in melanoma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>HLA-A2 tetramer flow cytometry, IFNγ real time RT-PCR and IFNγ ELISPOT assays are commonly used as surrogate immunological endpoints for cancer immunotherapy. While these are often used as research assays to assess patient's immunologic response, assay validation is necessary to ensure reliable and reproducible results and enable more accurate data interpretation. Here we describe a rigorous validation approach for each of these assays prior to their use for clinical sample analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Standard operating procedures for each assay were established. HLA-A2 (A*0201) tetramer assay specific for gp100_209(210M)and MART-1_26–35(27L), IFNγ real time RT-PCR and ELISPOT methods were validated using tumor infiltrating lymphocyte cell lines (TIL) isolated from HLA-A2 melanoma patients. TIL cells, specific for gp100 (TIL 1520) or MART-1 (TIL 1143 and TIL1235), were used alone or spiked into cryopreserved HLA-A2 PBMC from healthy subjects. TIL/PBMC were stimulated with peptides (gp100₂₀₉, gp100_pool, MART-1_27–35, or influenza-M1 and negative control peptide HIV) to further assess assay performance characteristics for real time RT-PCR and ELISPOT methods. Validation parameters included specificity, accuracy, precision, linearity of dilution, limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ). In addition, distribution was established in normal HLA-A2 PBMC samples. Reference ranges for assay controls were established.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The validation process demonstrated that the HLA-A2 tetramer, IFNγ real time RT-PCR, and IFNγ ELISPOT were highly specific for each antigen, with minimal cross-reactivity between gp100 and MelanA/MART-1. The assays were sensitive; detection could be achieved at as few as 1/4545–1/6667 cells by tetramer analysis, 1/50,000 cells by real time RT-PCR, and 1/10,000–1/20,000 by ELISPOT. The assays met criteria for precision with %CV < 20% (except ELISPOT using high PBMC numbers with %CV < 25%) although flow cytometric assays and cell based functional assays are known to have high assay variability. Most importantly, assays were demonstrated to be effective for their intended use. A positive IFNγ response (by RT-PCR and ELISPOT) to gp100 was demonstrated in PBMC from 3 melanoma patients. Another patient showed a positive MART-1 response measured by all 3 validated methods.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results demonstrated the tetramer flow cytometry assay, IFNγ real-time RT-PCR, and INFγ ELISPOT met validation criteria. Validation approaches provide a guide for others in the field to validate these and other similar assays for assessment of patient T cell response. These methods can be applied not only to cancer vaccines but to other therapeutic proteins as part of immunogenicity and safety analyses.</p

Minimal information about T cell assays: the process of reaching the community of T cell immunologists in cancer and beyond

Many assays to evaluate the nature, breadth, and quality of antigen-specific T cell responses are currently applied in human medicine. In most cases, assay-related protocols are developed on an individual laboratory basis, resulting in a large number of different protocols being applied worldwide. Together with the inherent complexity of cellular assays, this leads to unnecessary limitations in the ability to compare results generated across institutions. Over the past few years a number of critical assay parameters have been identified which influence test performance irrespective of protocol, material, and reagents used. Describing these critical factors as an integral part of any published report will both facilitate the comparison of data generated across institutions and lead to improvements in the assays themselves. To this end, the Minimal Information About T Cell Assays (MIATA) project was initiated. The objective of MIATA is to achieve a broad consensus on which T cell assay parameters should be reported in scientific publications and to propose a mechanism for reporting these in a systematic manner. To add maximum value for the scientific community, a step-wise, open, and field-spanning approach has been taken to achieve technical precision, user-friendliness, adequate incorporation of concerns, and high acceptance among peers. Here, we describe the past, present, and future perspectives of the MIATA project. We suggest that the approach taken can be generically applied to projects in which a broad consensus has to be reached among scientists working in fragmented fields, such as immunology. An additional objective of this undertaking is to engage the broader scientific community to comment on MIATA and to become an active participant in the project

Harmonization of the intracellular cytokine staining assay

Active immunotherapy for cancer is an accepted treatment modality aiming to reinforce the T-cell response to cancer. T-cell reactivity is measured by various assays and used to guide the clinical development of immunotherapeutics. However, data obtained across different institutions may vary substantially making comparative conclusions difficult. The Cancer Immunotherapy Immunoguiding Program organizes proficiency panels to identify key parameters influencing the outcome of commonly used T-cell assays followed by harmonization. Our successes with IFNγ-ELISPOT and peptide HLA multimer analysis have led to the current study on intracellular cytokine staining (ICS). We report the results of three successive panels evaluating this assay. At the beginning, 3 out of 9 participants (33 %) were able to detect >6 out of 8 known virus-specific T-cell responses in peripheral blood of healthy individuals. This increased to 50 % of the laboratories in the second phase. The reported percentages of cytokine-producing T cells by the different laboratories were highly variable with coefficients of variation well over 60 %. Variability could partially be explained by protocol-related differences in background cytokine production leading to sub-optimal signal-to-noise ratios. The large number of protocol variables prohibited identification of prime guidelines to harmonize the assays. In addition, the gating strategy used to identify reactive T cells had a major impact on assay outcome. Subsequent harmonization of the gating strategy considerably reduced the variability within the group of participants. In conclusion, we propose that first basic guidelines should be applied for gating in ICS experiments before harmonizing assay protocol variables

Modeling flow cytometry data for cancer vaccine immune monitoring

Flow cytometry (FCM) is widely used in cancer research for diagnosis, detection of minimal residual disease, as well as immune monitoring and profiling following immunotherapy. In all these applications, the challenge is to detect extremely rare cell subsets while avoiding spurious positive events. To achieve this objective, it helps to be able to analyze FCM data using multiple markers simultaneously, since the additional information provided often helps to minimize the number of false positive and false negative events, hence increasing both sensitivity and specificity. However, with manual gating, at most two markers can be examined in a single dot plot, and a sequential strategy is often used. As the sequential strategy discards events that fall outside preceding gates at each stage, the effectiveness of the strategy is difficult to evaluate without laborious and painstaking back-gating. Model-based analysis is a promising computational technique that works using information from all marker dimensions simultaneously, and offers an alternative approach to flow analysis that can usefully complement manual gating in the design of optimal gating strategies. Results from model-based analysis will be illustrated with examples from FCM assays commonly used in cancer immunotherapy laboratories

Validation of a HLA-A2 tetramer flow cytometric method, IFNgamma real time RT-PCR, and IFNgamma ELISPOT for detection of immunologic response to gp100 and MelanA/MART-1 in melanoma patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>HLA-A2 tetramer flow cytometry, IFNγ real time RT-PCR and IFNγ ELISPOT assays are commonly used as surrogate immunological endpoints for cancer immunotherapy. While these are often used as research assays to assess patient's immunologic response, assay validation is necessary to ensure reliable and reproducible results and enable more accurate data interpretation. Here we describe a rigorous validation approach for each of these assays prior to their use for clinical sample analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Standard operating procedures for each assay were established. HLA-A2 (A*0201) tetramer assay specific for gp100_209(210M)and MART-1_26–35(27L), IFNγ real time RT-PCR and ELISPOT methods were validated using tumor infiltrating lymphocyte cell lines (TIL) isolated from HLA-A2 melanoma patients. TIL cells, specific for gp100 (TIL 1520) or MART-1 (TIL 1143 and TIL1235), were used alone or spiked into cryopreserved HLA-A2 PBMC from healthy subjects. TIL/PBMC were stimulated with peptides (gp100₂₀₉, gp100_pool, MART-1_27–35, or influenza-M1 and negative control peptide HIV) to further assess assay performance characteristics for real time RT-PCR and ELISPOT methods. Validation parameters included specificity, accuracy, precision, linearity of dilution, limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ). In addition, distribution was established in normal HLA-A2 PBMC samples. Reference ranges for assay controls were established.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The validation process demonstrated that the HLA-A2 tetramer, IFNγ real time RT-PCR, and IFNγ ELISPOT were highly specific for each antigen, with minimal cross-reactivity between gp100 and MelanA/MART-1. The assays were sensitive; detection could be achieved at as few as 1/4545–1/6667 cells by tetramer analysis, 1/50,000 cells by real time RT-PCR, and 1/10,000–1/20,000 by ELISPOT. The assays met criteria for precision with %CV < 20% (except ELISPOT using high PBMC numbers with %CV < 25%) although flow cytometric assays and cell based functional assays are known to have high assay variability. Most importantly, assays were demonstrated to be effective for their intended use. A positive IFNγ response (by RT-PCR and ELISPOT) to gp100 was demonstrated in PBMC from 3 melanoma patients. Another patient showed a positive MART-1 response measured by all 3 validated methods.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results demonstrated the tetramer flow cytometry assay, IFNγ real-time RT-PCR, and INFγ ELISPOT met validation criteria. Validation approaches provide a guide for others in the field to validate these and other similar assays for assessment of patient T cell response. These methods can be applied not only to cancer vaccines but to other therapeutic proteins as part of immunogenicity and safety analyses.</p

An integrative paradigm to impart quality to correlative science

Correlative studies are a primary mechanism through which insights can be obtained about the bioactivity and potential efficacy of candidate therapeutics evaluated in early-stage clinical trials. Accordingly, well designed and performed early-stage correlative studies have the potential to strongly influence further clinical development of candidate therapeutic agents, and correlative data obtained from early stage trials has the potential to provide important guidance on the design and ultimate successful evaluation of products in later stage trials, particularly in the context of emerging clinical trial paradigms such as adaptive trial design

Performance of serum-supplemented and serum-free media in IFNγ Elispot Assays for human T cells

The choice of serum for supplementation of media for T cell assays and in particular, Elispot has been a major challenge for assay performance, standardization, optimization, and reproducibility. The Assay Working Group of the Cancer Vaccine Consortium (CVC-CRI) has recently identified the choice of serum to be the leading cause for variability and suboptimal performance in large international Elispot proficiency panels. Therefore, a serum task force was initiated to compare the performance of commercially available serum-free media to laboratories’ own medium/serum combinations. The objective of this project was to investigate whether a serum-free medium exists that performs as well as lab-own serum/media combinations with regard to antigen-specific responses and background reactivity in Elispot. In this way, a straightforward solution could be provided to address the serum challenge. Eleven laboratories tested peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) from four donors for their reactivity against two peptide pools, following their own Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Each laboratory performed five simultaneous experiments with the same SOP, the only difference between the experiments was the medium used. The five media were lab-own serum-supplemented medium, AIM-V, CTL, Optmizer, and X-Vivo. The serum task force results demonstrate compellingly that serum-free media perform as well as qualified medium/serum combinations, independent of the applied SOP. Recovery and viability of cells are largely unaffected by serum-free conditions even after overnight resting. Furthermore, one serum-free medium was identified that appears to enhance antigen-specific IFNγ-secretion