Search

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet clinical need for interventions to prevent disease progression in patients with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). OBJECTIVE: To determine the immunologic response to the PROSTVAC vaccine and the clinical indicators of disease progression in patients with localized prostate cancer on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a phase 2, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 154 men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer on AS. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized (2:1) to receive seven doses of subcutaneous PROSTVAC, a vaccinia/fowlpox viral vector-based immunotherapy containing a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) transgene and three T-cell co-stimulatory molecules, or an empty fowlpox vector (EV) over 140 d. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the change from baseline in CD4 and CD8 T-cell infiltration in biopsy tumor tissue. Key secondary outcomes were safety and changes in prostate biopsy tumor pathology, peripheral antigen-specific T cells, and serum PSA. Continuous variables were compared using nonparametric tests. Categorical variables were compared using Fishers exact test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The PROSTVAC/EV vaccination was well tolerated. All except one participant completed the vaccination series. Changes in CD4 or CD8 density in biopsy tumor tissue did not differ between the PROSTVAC and EV arms. The proportions of patients with Gleason upgrading to grade group 3 after treatment was similar between the arms. There were no differences in postvaccination peripheral T-cell responses or the PSA change from baseline to 6-mo post-treatment follow-up between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this first-of-kind trial of immunotherapy in patients on AS for prostate cancer, PROSTVAC did not elicit more favorable prostate tissue or peripheral T-cell responses than the EV. There was no difference between the arms in clinicopathologic effects. Despite the null findings, this is the first study reporting the feasibility and acceptability of an immunotherapy intervention in the AS setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at responses after an experimental prostate cancer vaccine in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). Participants who received the vaccine did not show more favorable outcomes than those receiving the control. Despite these findings, this is the first report showing the feasibility and acceptability of immunotherapy for prostate cancer in patients on AS.

The Immunotherapy to Prevent Progression on Active Surveillance Study is the first trial of immunotherapy for localized prostate cancer. We randomized active surveillance patients to PSA-TRICOM (PROSTVAC) or placebo for 5mo. Final results will be available in 2019.

PurposeDespite the strong interest in combining stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SAR) with immunotherapy, limited data characterizing the systemic immune response after SAR are available. We hypothesized that the systemic immune response to SAR would differ by irradiated site owing to inherent differences in the microenvironment of various organs.Methods and materialsPatients receiving SAR to any organ underwent prospective blood banking before and 1 to 2 weeks after SAR. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and serum were isolated. PBMCs were stained with fluorophore-conjugated antibodies against T and natural killer (NK) cell markers. Cells were interrogated by flow cytometry, and the results were analyzed using FlowJo software. Serum cytokine and chemokine levels were measured using Luminex. We analyzed the changes from before to after therapy using paired t tests or 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni's post-test.ResultsA total of 31 patients had evaluable PBMCs for flow cytometry and 37 had evaluable serum samples for Luminex analysis. The total number of NK cells and cytotoxic (CD56dimCD16+) NK cells decreased (P = .02) and T-cell immunoglobulin- and mucin domain-containing molecule-3-positive (TIM3+) NK cells increased (P = .04) after SAR to parenchymal sites (lung and liver) but not to bone or brain. The total memory CD4+ T cells, activated inducible co-stimulator-positive and CD25+CD4+ memory T cells, and activated CD25+CD8+ memory T cells increased after SAR to parenchymal sites but not bone or brain. The circulating levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (P = .04) and multiple chemokines, including RANTES (P = .04), decreased after SAR to parenchymal sites but not bone or brain.ConclusionsOur data suggest SAR to parenchymal sites induces systemic immune changes, including a decrease in total and cytotoxic NK cells, an increase in TIM3+ NK cells, and an increase in activated memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. SAR to nonparenchymal sites did not induce these changes. By comparing the immune response after radiation to different organs, our data suggest SAR induces systemic immunologic changes that are dependent on the irradiated site.

Background: With the rapid adoption of immunotherapy for the treatment of cancer comes the pressing need for readily accessible biomarkers to guide immunotherapeutic strategies and offer insights into outcomes with specific treatments. Regular sampling of solid tumour tissues outside of melanoma for immune monitoring is not often feasible; conversely, routine, frequent interrogation of circulating immune biomarkers is entirely possible. As immunotherapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors, in particular, are more widely used in first‐line, neoadjuvant, and metastatic settings, the discovery and validation of peripheral immune biomarkers are urgently needed across solid tumour types for improved prediction and prognostication of clinical outcomes in response to immunotherapy, as well as elucidation of mechanistic underpinnings of the intervention. Careful experimental design, encompassing both retrospective and prospective studies, is required in such biomarker identification studies, and concerted efforts are essential for their advancement into clinical settings. Conclusion: In this review, we summarize shared immune features between the tumour microenvironment and systemic circulation, evaluate exploratory peripheral immune biomarker studies, and discuss associations between candidate biomarkers with clinical outcomes. We also consider integration of multiple peripheral immune parameters for better prediction and prognostication and discuss considerations in study design to further evaluate the clinical utility of candidate peripheral immune biomarkers for immunotherapy of solid tumours. Highlights: Peripheral immune biomarkers are critical for improved prediction and prognostication of clinical outcomes for patients with solid tumours treated with immune checkpoint inhibition.Candidate peripheral biomarkers, such as cytokines, soluble factors, and immune cells, have potential as biomarkers to guide immunotherapy of solid tumours.Multiple peripheral immune parameters may be integrated to improve prediction and prognostication.The potential of peripheral immune biomarkers to guide immunotherapy of solid tumours requires critical work in biomarker discovery, validation, and standardization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]