Search

Simple Summary: Therapeutic options for rare cancers are frequently limited and less effective than for common cancers. Therefore, novel therapeutic strategies to treat rare cancers are urgently required. Our clinical study on rare cancers showed that the biweekly WT1 Trio peptide vaccine comprising two WT1-cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)-peptides and one WT1-helper T lymphocyte-peptide induced more robust immune responses targeting WT1 than the weekly WT1-CTL peptide (WT1-235) vaccine. In addition, the safety of WT1 Trio was confirmed without severe treatment-related adverse events, except grade 3 myasthenia gravis-like symptoms observed in a patient with thymic cancer (TC). Fifteen (33.3%) of the 45 patients with recurrent or advanced rare cancers, including malignant glioma, soft-tissue sarcoma, TC, and malignant pleural mesothelioma, achieved stable disease after 3 months of protocol treatment. Therefore, since WT1 is widely overexpressed in rare cancers, WT1-targeted immunotherapy may be a therapeutic strategy for rare cancers. No standard treatment has been established for most rare cancers. Here, we report a clinical trial of a biweekly WT1 tri-peptide-based vaccine for recurrent or advanced rare cancers. Due to the insufficient number of patients available for a traditional clinical trial, the trial was designed for rare cancers expressing shared target molecule WT1. The recruitment criteria included WT1-expressing tumors as well as HLA-A*24:02 or 02:01. The primary endpoints were immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody (Ab) production against the WT1-235 cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) epitope and delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin reactions to targeted WT1 CTL epitopes. The secondary endpoints were safety and clinical efficacy. Forty-five patients received WT1 Trio, and 25 (55.6%) completed the 3-month protocol treatment. WT1-235 IgG Ab was positive in 88.0% of patients treated with WT1 Trio at 3 months, significantly higher than 62.5% of the weekly WT1-235 CTL peptide vaccine. The DTH positivity rate in WT1 Trio was 62.9%, which was not significantly different from 60.7% in the WT1-235 CTL peptide vaccine. The WT1 Trio safety was confirmed without severe treatment-related adverse events, except grade 3 myasthenia gravis-like symptoms observed in a patient with thymic cancer. Fifteen (33.3%) patients achieved stable disease after 3 months of treatment. In conclusion, the biweekly WT1 Trio vaccine containing the WT1-332 helper T lymphocyte peptide induced more robust immune responses targeting WT1 than the weekly WT1-235 CTL peptide vaccine. Therefore, WT1-targeted immunotherapy may be a potential therapeutic strategy for rare cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessment of tumor response during treatment is one of the most important purposes of imaging. Before the appearance of immunotherapy, response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) and positron emission tomography response criteria in solid tumors (PERCIST) were, respectively, the established morphologic and metabolic response criteria, and cessation of treatment was recommended when progressive disease was detected according to these criteria. However, various types of immunotherapy have been developed over the past 20 years, which show novel false positive findings on images, as well as distinct response patterns from conventional therapies. Antitumor immune response itself causes 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake in tumor sites, known as "flare phenomenon", so that positron emission tomography using FDG can no longer accurately identify remaining tumors. Furthermore, tumors often initially increase, followed by stability or decrease resulting from immunotherapy, which is called "pseudoprogression", so that progressive disease cannot be confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at a single time point. As a result, neither RECIST nor PERCIST can accurately predict the response to immunotherapy, and therefore several new response criteria fixed for immunotherapy have been proposed. However, these criteria are still controversial, and also require months for response confirmation. The establishment of optimal response criteria and the development of new imaging technologies other than FDG are therefore urgently needed. In this review, we summarize the false positive images and the revision of response criteria for each immunotherapy, in order to avoid discontinuation of a truly effective immunotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]