Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial involving 542 patients with relapsed urothelial cancer, treatment with pembrolizumab resulted in overall survival of more than 10 months, as compared with 7 months with chemotherapy. Urothelial cancer is highly lethal in the metastatic state. 1 Platinum-based combination chemotherapy remains the standard first-line treatment for metastatic disease. Carboplatin-based combinations are associated with a median overall survival of 9 months, 2 and cisplatin-based combinations with a median overall survival of 12 to 15 months. 3 However, after platinum-based chemotherapy, there is no internationally accepted standard of care. Single-agent paclitaxel and docetaxel are commonly used worldwide, 4 , 5 and in Europe, vinflunine has been approved on the basis of an overall survival advantage of 2 months over best supportive care. 6 , 7 Because the median overall survival with second-line therapy is only 6 . . .

Immune checkpoint inhibitors propelled the field of oncology with clinical responses in many different tumor types. Superior overall survival over chemotherapy has been reported in various metastatic cancers. Furthermore, prolonged disease-free and overall survival have been reported in the adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma. Unfortunately, a substantial portion of patients do not obtain a durable response. Therefore, additional strategies for the treatment of cancer are still warranted. One of the numerous options is dendritic cell vaccination, which employs the central role of dendritic cells in activating the innate and adaptive immune system. Over the years, dendritic cell vaccination was shown to be able to induce an immunologic response, to increase the number of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes and to provide overall survival benefit for at least a selection of patients in phase II studies. However, with the success of immune checkpoint inhibition in several malignancies and considering the plethora of other treatment modalities being developed, it is of utmost importance to delineate the position of dendritic cell therapy in the treatment landscape of cancer. In this review, we address some key questions regarding the integration of dendritic cell vaccination in future cancer treatment paradigms.

Key Points Development of vaccines for the treatment of cancer has posed many challenges, but results from some recent studies have confirmed the potential for clinical benefit Progress has been driven by advances in our understanding of cancer immunology and, in particular, the nature and dynamics of the tumour microenvironment Many clinical trials may have failed to adequately account for how vaccines differ from other cancer therapies, and for immunosuppressive mechanisms that operate in the tumour microenvironment Predictive biomarkers that can identify subpopulations of patients most likely to benefit from active immunotherapy are needed Evidence from clinical trials suggest that clinical benefit might be greatest in patients with less advanced-stage malignancies Future strategies should include steps to modify the tumour microenvironment to optimize tumour-specific immune responses Active immunotherapy is emerging as an important addition to conventional cancer treatments, but many important questions remain. Optimal combinations of antigens, adjuvants and delivery vehicles need to be determined and effective strategies for overcoming tumour-associated immunosuppression ought to be developed. This Review provides an overview of new results from clinical studies of therapeutic cancer vaccines directed against tumour-associated antigens and discusses their implications for the use of active immunotherapy. The therapeutic potential of host-specific and tumour-specific immune responses is well recognized and, after many years, active immunotherapies directed at inducing or augmenting these responses are entering clinical practice. Antitumour immunization is a complex, multi-component task, and the optimal combinations of antigens, adjuvants, delivery vehicles and routes of administration are not yet identified. Active immunotherapy must also address the immunosuppressive and tolerogenic mechanisms deployed by tumours. This Review provides an overview of new results from clinical studies of therapeutic cancer vaccines directed against tumour-associated antigens and discusses their implications for the use of active immunotherapy.

The granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-transduced allogeneic prostate cancer cells vaccine (GVAX) has antitumour activity against prostate cancer; preclinical studies have shown potent synergy when combined with ipilimumab, an antibody that blocks cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4. We aimed to assess the safety of combined treatment with GVAX and ipilimumab in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We did an open-labelled, single-centre, dose-escalation study of ipilimumab concurrent with a fixed dose of GVAX, with a subsequent expansion phase, both at the VU University Medical Centre (Amsterdam, Netherlands). Eligible patients had documented mCRPC and had not been previously treated with chemotherapy. All patients received a 5×108 cell priming dose of GVAX intradermally on day 1 with subsequent intradermal injections of 3×108 cells every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The vaccinations were combined with intravenous ipilimumab every 4 weeks. We enrolled patients in cohorts of three; each cohort received an escalating dose of ipilimumab at 0·3, 1·0, 3·0, or 5·0 mg/kg. Our primary endpoint was safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01510288. We enrolled 12 patients into our dose-escalation cohort. We did not record any severe immune-related adverse events at the first two dose levels. At the 3·0 mg/kg dose level, one patient had grade 2 and two patients grade 3 hypophysitis; at the 5·0 mg/kg dose level, two patients had grade 3 hypophysitis and one patient developed grade 4 sarcoid alveolitis (a dose-limiting toxic effect). Due to observed clinical activity and toxic events, we decided to expand the 3·0 mg/kg dose level, rather than enrol a further three patients at the 5·0 mg/kg level. 16 patients were enrolled in the expansion cohort, two of whom developed grade 2 hypophysitis, three colitis (one grade 1 and two grade 2), and one grade 3 hepatitis—all immune-related adverse events. The most common adverse events noted in all 28 patients were injection-site reactions (grade 1–2 events seen in all patients), fatigue (grade 1–2 in 20 patients, grade 3 in two), and pyrexia (grade 1–2 in 15 patients, grade 3 in one). 50% or greater declines in prostate-specific antigen from baseline was recorded in seven patients (25%); all had received 3·0 mg/kg or 5·0 mg/kg ipilimumab. GVAX combined with 3·0 mg/kg ipilimumab is tolerable and safe for patients with mCRPC. Further research on the combined treatment of patients with mCRPC with vaccination and ipilimumab is warranted. Cell Genesys Inc, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Dutch Cancer Society (KWF-VU 2006-3697), and Foundation Stichting VUmc Cancer Center Amsterdam.

Homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD) can be observed in virtually all cancer types. Although HRD sensitizes tumors to DNA-damaging chemotherapy and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, all patients ultimately develop resistance to these therapies. Therefore, it is necessary to identify therapeutic regimens with a more durable efficacy. HRD tumors have been suggested to be more immunogenic and, therefore, more susceptible to treatment with checkpoint inhibitors. In this review, we describe how HRD might mechanistically affect antitumor immunity and summarize the available translational evidence for an association between HRD and antitumor immunity across multiple tumor types. In addition, we give an overview of all available clinical data on the efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors in HRD tumors and describe the evidence for using treatment strategies that combine checkpoint inhibitors with PARP inhibitors.

Two novel oral drugs that target androgen signaling have recently become available for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Abiraterone acetate inhibits the synthesis of the natural ligands of the androgen receptor, whereas enzalutamide directly inhibits the androgen receptor by several mechanisms. Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide appear to be equally effective for patients with mCRPC pre- and postchemotherapy. Rational decision making for either one of these drugs is therefore potentially driven by individual patient characteristics. In this review, an overview of the pharmacokinetic characteristics is given for both drugs and potential and proven drug–drug interactions are presented. Additionally, the effect of patient-related factors on drug disposition are summarized and the limited data on the exposure–response relationships are described. The most important pharmacological feature of enzalutamide that needs to be recognized is its capacity to induce several key enzymes in drug metabolism. The potency to cause drug–drug interactions needs to be addressed in patients who are treated with multiple drugs simultaneously. Abiraterone has a much smaller drug–drug interaction potential; however, it is poorly absorbed, which is affected by food intake, and a large interpatient variability in drug exposure is observed. Dose reductions of abiraterone or, alternatively, the selection of enzalutamide, should be considered in patients with hepatic dysfunction. Understanding the pharmacological characteristics and challenges of both drugs could facilitate decision making for either one of the drugs.

IntroductionThe undiminished need for more effective cancer treatments stimulates the development of novel cancer immunotherapy candidates. The archetypical cancer immunotherapy would induce robust, targeted and long-lasting immune responses while simultaneously circumventing immunosuppression in the tumour microenvironment. For this purpose, we developed a novel immunomodulatory nanomedicine: PRECIOUS-01. As a PLGA-based nanocarrier, PRECIOUS-01 encapsulates a tumour antigen (NY-ESO-1) and an invariant natural killer T cell activator to target and augment specific antitumour immune responses in patients with NY-ESO-1-expressing advanced cancers.Methods and analysisThis open-label, first-in-human, phase I dose-escalation trial investigates the safety, tolerability and immune-modulatory activity of increasing doses of PRECIOUS-01 administered intravenously in subjects with advanced NY-ESO-1-expressing solid tumours. A total of 15 subjects will receive three intravenous infusions of PRECIOUS-01 at a 3-weekly interval in three dose-finding cohorts. The trial follows a 3+3 design for the dose-escalation steps to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Depending on the toxicity, the two highest dosing cohorts will be extended to delineate the immune-related parameters as a readout for pharmacodynamics. Subjects will be monitored for safety and the occurrence of dose-limiting toxicities. If the MTD is not reached in the planned dose-escalation cohorts, the RP2D will be based on the observed safety and immune-modulatory activity as a pharmacodynamic parameter supporting the RP2D. The preliminary efficacy will be evaluated as an exploratory endpoint using the best overall response rate, according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors V.1.1.Ethics and disseminationThe Dutch competent authority (CCMO) reviewed the trial application and the medical research ethics committee (CMO Arnhem-Nijmegen) approved the trial under registration number NL72876.000.20. The results will be disseminated via (inter)national conferences and submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT04751786.

BackgroundClinical benefit of cellular immunotherapy has been shown in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We investigated the immunological response and clinical outcome of vaccination with blood-derived CD1c+ myeloid dendritic cells (mDCs; cDC2) and plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs).MethodsIn this randomized phase IIa trial, 21 chemo-naive CRPC patients received maximally 9 vaccinations with mature mDCs, pDCs or a combination of mDCs plus pDCs. DCs were stimulated with protamine/mRNA and loaded with tumor-associated antigens NY-ESO-1, MAGE-C2 and MUC1. Primary endpoint was the immunological response after DC vaccination, which was monitored in peripheral blood and in T cell cultures of biopsies of post-treatment delayed-type hypersensitivity-skin tests. Main secondary endpoints were safety, feasibility, radiological PFS (rPFS) and overall survival. Radiological responses were assessed by MRIs and contrast-enhanced 68Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT, according to RECIST 1.1, PCWG2 criteria and immune-related response criteria.ResultsBoth tetramer/dextramer-positive (dm+) and IFN-γ-producing (IFN-γ+) antigen specific T cells were detected more frequently in skin biopsies of patients with radiological non-progressive disease (5/13 patients; 38%) compared to patients with progressive disease (0/8 patients; 0%). In these patients with vaccination enhanced dm+ and IFN-γ+ antigen-specific T cells median rPFS was 18.8 months (n = 5) vs. 5.1 months (n = 16) in patients without IFN-γ-producing antigen-specific T cells (p = 0.02). The overall median rPFS was 9.5 months. All DC vaccines were well tolerated with grade 1–2 toxicity.ConclusionsImmunotherapy with blood-derived DC subsets was feasible and safe and induced functional antigen-specific T cells. The presence of functional antigen-specific T cells correlated with an improved clinical outcome.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02692976, registered 26 February 2016, retrospectively registered.

Timing of radium-223 (Ra-223) in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) remains challenging due to alternative options and short window of opportunity. : Ra-223 treated patients in the CAPRI-registry were included. Outcomes were evaluated based on treatment line of Ra-223. Out of 285 patients, 49% received Ra-223 in line ≥3. 51% completed six Ra-223 injections and 34% had a symptomatic skeletal event after first Ra-223 without differences between subgroups. After correction of known prognostic factors Ra-223 in line ≥3 (HR: 3.267; 95% CI: 1.689–6.317; p < 0.01) remained associated with worse OS. : In the Netherlands, Ra-223 was mainly started as second or third mCRPC-treatment in 2014–2018. Later timing of Ra-223 did affect OS, but not treatment completion and occurrence of symptomatic skeletal events.

Background The positive impact of physical activity programmes has been recognised, but the current uptake is low. Authorities believe delivering these programmes in a shared-care model is a future perspective. The present study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators affecting physical activity programme implementation in a shared-care model delivered with the cooperation of all the types of healthcare professionals involved. Methods Thirty-one individual interviews with primary healthcare professionals (PHPs) and four focus group interviews with 39 secondary healthcare professionals (SHPs) were undertaken. We used Grol and Flottorp’s theoretical models to identify barriers and facilitators in six domains: (1) physical activity programmes, (2) patients, (3) healthcare professionals, (4) social setting, (5) organisation and (6) law and governance. Results In the domain of physical activity programmes, those physical activity programmes that were non-tailored to the patients’ needs impeded successful implementation. In the domain of healthcare professionals, the knowledge and skills pertaining to physical activity programmes and non-commitment of healthcare professionals impeded implementation. HCPs expressed their concerns about the negative influence of the patient’s social network. Most barriers occurred in the domain of organisation. The PHPs and SHPs raised concerns about ineffective collaboration and networks between hospitals. Only the PHPs raised concerns about poor communication, indeterminate roles, and lack of collaboration with SHPs. Insufficient and unclear insurance coverage of physical activity programmes was a barrier in the domain of law and governance. Conclusions Improving the domain of organisation seems the most challenging because the collaboration, communication, networks, and interactive roles between the PHPs and SHPs are all inadequate. Survivor care plans, more use of health information technology, improved rehabilitation guidelines, and better networks might benefit implementing physical activity programmes.