A Phase IIb Randomized Controlled Trial of the TLPLDC Vaccine as Adjuvant Therapy After Surgical Resection of Stage III/IV Melanoma: A Primary Analysis

Utility of cell-based vaccines as cancer therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Cell-based therapeutic cancer vaccines use autologous patient-derived tumor cells, allogeneic cancer cell lines or autologous antigen presenting cells to mimic the natural immune process and stimulate an adaptive immune response against tumor antigens. The primary objective of this study is to perform a systematic literature review with an embedded meta-analysis of all published Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials of cell-based cancer vaccines in human subjects. The secondary objective of this study is to review trials demonstrating biological activity of cell-based cancer vaccines that could uncover additional hypotheses, which could be used in the design of future studies. We performed the systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The final review included 36 studies - 16 single-arm studies, and 20 controlled trials. Our systematic review of the existing literature revealed largely negative trials and our meta-analysis did not show evidence of clinical benefit from cell-based cancer-vaccines. However, as we looked beyond the stringent inclusion criteria of our systematic review, we identified significant examples of biological activity of cell-based cancer vaccines that are worth highlighting. In conclusion, the existing literature on cell-based cancer vaccines is highly variable in terms of cancer type, vaccine therapies and the clinical setting with no overall statistically significant clinical benefit, but there are individual successes that represent the promise of this approach. As cell-based vaccine technology continues to evolve, future studies can perhaps fulfill the potential that this exciting field of anti-cancer therapy holds.

Recent progress in cancer vaccines and nanovaccines

Vaccine science, nanotechnology, and immunotherapy are at the forefront of cancer treatment strategies, each offering significant potential for enhancing tumor-specific immunity and establishing long-lasting immune memory to prevent tumor recurrence. Despite the promise of these personalized and precision-based anti-cancer approaches, challenges such as immunosuppression, suboptimal immune activation, and T-cell exhaustion continue to hinder their effectiveness. The limited clinical success of cancer vaccines often stems from difficulties in identifying effective antigens, efficiently targeting immune cells, lymphoid organs, and the tumor microenvironment, overcoming immune evasion, enhancing immunogenicity, and avoiding lysosomal degradation. However, numerous studies have demonstrated that integrating nanotechnology with immunotherapeutic strategies in vaccine development can overcome these challenges, leading to potent antitumor immune responses and significant progress in the field. This review highlights the critical components of cancer vaccine and nanovaccine strategies for immunomodulatory antitumor therapy. It covers general vaccine strategies, types of vaccines, antigen forms, nanovaccine platforms, challenges faced, potential solutions, and key findings from preclinical and clinical studies, along with future perspectives. To fully unlock the potential of cancer vaccines and nanovaccines, precise immunological monitoring during early-phase trials is essential. This approach will help identify and address obstacles, ultimately expanding the available options for patients who are resistant to conventional cancer immunotherapies.

Neoantigen-specific stimulation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes enables effective TCR isolation and expansion while preserving stem-like memory phenotypes

BACKGROUND

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) targeting neoantigens can effectively treat a selected set of metastatic solid cancers. However, harnessing TILs for cancer treatments remains challenging because neoantigen-reactive T cells are often rare and exhausted, and ex vivo expansion can further reduce their frequencies. This complicates the identification of neoantigen-reactive T-cell receptors (TCRs) and the development of TIL products with high reactivity for patient treatment.

METHODS

We tested whether TILs could be in vitro stimulated against neoantigens to achieve selective expansion of neoantigen-reactive TILs. Given their prevalence, mutant p53 or RAS were studied as models of human neoantigens. An in vitro stimulation method, termed "NeoExpand", was developed to provide neoantigen-specific stimulation to TILs. 25 consecutive patient TILs from tumors harboring p53 or RAS mutations were subjected to NeoExpand.

RESULTS

We show that neoantigenic stimulation achieved selective expansion of neoantigen-reactive TILs and broadened the neoantigen-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ TIL clonal repertoire. This allowed the effective isolation of novel neoantigen-reactive TCRs. Out of the 25 consecutive TIL samples, neoantigenic stimulation enabled the identification of 16 unique reactivities and 42 TCRs, while conventional TIL expansion identified 9 reactivities and 14 TCRs. Single-cell transcriptome analysis revealed that neoantigenic stimulation increased neoantigen-reactive TILs with stem-like memory phenotypes expressing IL-7R, CD62L, and KLF2. Furthermore, neoantigenic stimulation improved the in vivo antitumor efficacy of TILs relative to the conventional OKT3-induced rapid TIL expansion in p53-mutated or KRAS-mutated xenograft mouse models.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, neoantigenic stimulation of TILs selectively expands neoantigen-reactive TILs by frequencies and by their clonal repertoire. NeoExpand led to improved phenotypes and functions of neoantigen-reactive TILs. Our data warrant its clinical evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00068003, NCT01174121, and NCT03412877.

Dendritic Cells in Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy

Cancer immunotherapy modulates the immune system, overcomes immune escape and stimulates immune defenses against tumors. Dendritic cells (DCs) are professional promoters of immune responses against tumor antigens with the outstanding ability to coordinate the innate and adaptive immune systems. Evidence suggests that there is a decrease in both the number and function of DCs in cancer patients. Therefore, they represent a strong scaffold for therapeutic interventions. DC vaccination (DCV) is safe, and the antitumoral responses induced are well established in solid tumors. Although the addition of checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) to chemotherapy has provided new options in the treatment of cancer, they have shown no clinical benefit in immune desert tumors or in those tumors with dysfunctional or exhausted T-cells. In this way, DC-based therapy has demonstrated the ability to modify the tumor microenvironment for immune enriched tumors and to potentiate systemic host immune responses as an active approach to treating cancer patients. Application of DCV in cancer seeks to obtain long-term antitumor responses through an improved T-cell priming by enhancing previous or generating de novo immune responses. To date, DCV has induced immune responses in the peripheral blood of patients without a significant clinical impact on outcome. Thus, improvements in vaccines formulations, selection of patients based on biomarkers and combinations with other antitumoral therapies are needed to enhance patient survival. In this work, we review the role of DCV in different solid tumors with their strengths and weaknesses, and we finally mention new trends to improve the efficacy of this immune strategy.

Understanding yeast shells: structure, properties and applications

Background and purpose

The employment of yeasts for biomedical purposes has become increasingly frequent for the delivery of prophylactic and therapeutic products. Its structural components, such as β-glucans, mannan, and chitin, can be explored as immunostimulators that show safety and low toxicity. Besides, this system minimizes antigen degradation after administration, facilitating the delivery to the target cells.

Review approach

This review sought to present molecules derived from yeast, called yeast shells (YS), and their applications as carrier vehicles for drugs, proteins, and nucleic acids for immunotherapy purposes. Furthermore, due to the diversity of information regarding the production and immunostimulation of these compounds, a survey of the protocols and immune response profiles generated was presented.

Key results

The use of YS has allowed the development of strategies that combine efficiency and effectiveness in antigen delivery. The capsular structure can be recognized and phagocytized by dendritic cells and macrophages. In addition, the combination with different molecules, such as nanoparticles or even additional adjuvants, improves the cargo loading, enhancing the system. Activation by specific immune pathways can also be achieved by different administration routes.

Conclusion

Yeast derivatives combined in different ways can increase immunostimulation, enhancing the delivery of medicines and vaccine antigens. These aspects, combined with the simplicity of the production steps, make these strategies more accessible to be applied in the prevention and treatment of various diseases.

The Potential of Dendritic Cell Subsets in the Development of Personalized Immunotherapy for Cancer Treatment

Since the discovery of dendritic cells (DCs) in 1973 by Ralph Steinman, a tremendous amount of knowledge regarding these innate immunity cells has been accumulating. Their role in regulating both innate and adaptive immune processes is gradually being uncovered. DCs are proficient antigen-presenting cells capable of activating naive T-lymphocytes to initiate and generate effective anti-tumor responses. Although DC-based immunotherapy has not yielded significant results, the substantial number of ongoing clinical trials underscores the relevance of DC vaccines, particularly as adjunctive therapy or in combination with other treatment options. This review presents an overview of current knowledge regarding human DCs, their classification, and the functions of distinct DC populations. The stepwise process of developing therapeutic DC vaccines to treat oncological diseases is discussed, along with speculation on the potential of combined therapy approaches and the role of DC vaccines in modern immunotherapy.

Hyaluronic acid-antigens conjugates trigger potent immune response in both prophylactic and therapeutic immunization in a melanoma model

Immunotherapy of advanced melanoma has encountered significant hurdles in terms of clinical efficacy. Here, we designed a clinically translatable hyaluronic acid (HA)-based vaccine delivering a combination of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I- and class II-restricted melanoma antigens (TRP2 and Gp100, respectively) conjugated to HA. HA-nanovaccine (HA-TRP2-Gp100 conjugate) exhibited tropism in the lymph nodes and promoted stimulation of the immune response (2.3-fold higher than the HA+TRP2+Gp100). HA-nanovaccine significantly delayed the growth of B16F10 melanoma and extended survival in both the prophylactic and therapeutic settings (median survival of 22 and 27, respectively, vs 17 days of the untreated group). Moreover, mice prophylactically treated with the HA-nanovaccine displayed significantly higher CD8+ and CD4+ T-cell/Treg ratios in both the spleen and tumor at day 16, suggesting that the HA-nanovaccine overcame the immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment. Superior infiltration of active CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was observed at the endpoint. This study supports the conclusion that HA potentiates the effect of a combination of MHC I and MHC II antigens via a potent immune response against melanoma.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind phase 2B trial of the TLPO and TLPLDC vaccines to prevent recurrence of resected stage III/IV melanoma: a prespecified 36-month analysis

BACKGROUND

The tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is made by ex vivo priming matured autologous dendritic cells (DCs) with yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) loaded with autologous tumor lysate (TL). The tumor lysate, particle only (TLPO) vaccine uses autologous TL-loaded YCWPs coated with silicate for in vivo DC loading. Here we report the 36-month prespecified analyses of this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial investigating the ability of the TLPO and TLPLDC (±granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)) vaccines to prevent melanoma recurrence in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients with clinically disease-free stage III/IV melanoma were randomized 2:1 initially to TLPLDC versus placebo (n=124) and subsequently TLPO versus TLPLDC (n=63). All patients were randomized and blinded; however, the placebo control arm was replaced in the second randomization scheme with another novel vaccine; some analyses in this paper therefore reflect a combination of the two randomization schemes. Patients receiving the TLPLDC vaccine were further divided by their method of DC harvest (with or without G-CSF pretreatment); this was not randomized. The use of standard of care checkpoint inhibitors was not stratified between groups. Safety was assessed and Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses compared disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

After combining the two randomization processes, a total of 187 patients were allocated between treatment arms: placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=103), or TLPO (n=43). The allocation among arms created by the addition of patients from the two separate randomization schemes does not reflect concurrent randomization among all treatment arms. TLPLDC was further divided by use of G-CSF in DC harvest: no G-CSF (TLPLDC) (n=47) and with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G) (n=56). Median follow-up was 35.8 months. Only two patients experienced a related adverse event ≥grade 3, one each in the TLPLDC+G and placebo arms. DFS was 27.2% (placebo), 55.4% (TLPLDC), 22.9% (TLPLDC+G), and 60.9% (TLPO) (p<0.001). OS was 62.5% (placebo), 93.6% (TLPLDC), 57.7% (TLPLDC+G), and 94.6% (TLPO) (p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines were associated with improved DFS and OS in this clinical trial. Given production and manufacturing advantages, the efficacy of the TLPO vaccine will be confirmed in a phase 3 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02301611.

Beneficial insights into postbiotics against colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent and life-threatening cancer types with limited therapeutic options worldwide. Gut microbiota has been recognized as the pivotal determinant in maintaining gastrointestinal (GI) tract homeostasis, while dysbiosis of gut microbiota contributes to CRC development. Recently, the beneficial role of postbiotics, a new concept in describing microorganism derived substances, in CRC has been uncovered by various studies. However, a comprehensive characterization of the molecular identity, mechanism of action, or routes of administration of postbiotics, particularly their role in CRC, is still lacking. In this review, we outline the current state of research toward the beneficial effects of gut microbiota derived postbiotics against CRC, which will represent the key elements of future precision-medicine approaches in the development of novel therapeutic strategies targeting gut microbiota to improve treatment outcomes in CRC.

Comparison of efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant therapy for resected high-risk stage III-IV cutaneous melanoma: a systemic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background

Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and targeted therapies have been widely used as adjuvant treatment for resected melanoma, the optimal therapy remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this updated network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy and tolerability of adjuvant therapies for cutaneous melanoma.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for relevant literatures published in the last 30 years. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and serious adverse events were considered as the efficacy and tolerability outcomes.

Results

In all, 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 16,709 stage III-IV melanoma patients were enrolled in this NMA. For BRAF wild-type melanoma, our analysis showed that both nivolumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated significantly better DFS and tolerability than ipilimumab (10 mg/kg). Nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab (3 mg/kg), and ipilimumab (10 mg/kg) all appeared to be effective in prolonging OS, but no therapy demonstrated significantly better OS than ipilimumab (10 mg/kg). Nivolumab + ipilimumab showed the best DFS, but did not appear to be effective in improving OS and ranked only seventh in tolerability. Vaccines and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor therapies were well tolerated, but all failed to improve the DFS or OS in stage III melanoma patients. In terms of BRAF mutation-positive melanoma, ICIs (nivolumab + ipilimumab, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ipilimumab; 10 mg/kg) exhibited comparable efficacy to dabrafenib + trametinib, and all these therapies showed significantly better DFS than placebo.

Conclusion

Considering efficacy and tolerability, nivolumab and pembrolizumab seem to be preferable adjuvant therapies for patients with stage III-IV melanoma. For BRAF mutation-positive patients, more RCTs are still required to determine which is better between ICIs and targeted therapy.

Divergent clinical outcomes in a phase 2B trial of the TLPLDC vaccine in preventing melanoma recurrence and the impact of dendritic cell collection methodology: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2b trial of the tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine was conducted in patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma. Dendritic cells (DCs) were harvested with and without granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). This analysis investigates differences in clinical outcomes and RNA gene expression between DC harvest methods.

METHODS

The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) and exposing them to phagocytosis by DCs. For DC harvest, patients had a direct blood draw or were pretreated with G-CSF before blood draw. Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPLDC or placebo. Differences in disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. RNA-seq analysis was performed on the total RNA of TLPLDC + G and TLPLDC vaccines to compare gene expression between groups.

RESULTS

144 patients were randomized: 103 TLPLDC (47 TLPLDC/56 TLPLDC + G) and 41 placebo (19 placebo/22 placebo + G). Median follow-up was 27.0 months. Both 36-month DFS (55.8% vs. 24.4% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.010) and OS (94.2% vs. 69.8% vs. 70.9%, p = 0.024) were improved in TLPLDC compared to TLPLDC + G or placebo, respectively. When compared to TLPLDC + G vaccine, RNA-seq from TLPLDC vaccine showed upregulation of genes associated with DC maturation and downregulation of genes associated with DC suppression or immaturity.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving TLPLDC vaccine without G-CSF had improved OS and DFS. Outcomes remained similar between patients receiving TLPLDC + G and placebo. Direct DC harvest without G-CSF had higher expression of genes linked to DC maturation, likely improving clinical efficacy.

Therapeutic strategies for gastric cancer targeting immune cells: Future directions

Gastric cancer (GC) is a malignancy with a high incidence and mortality, and the emergence of immunotherapy has brought survival benefits to GC patients. Compared with traditional therapy, immunotherapy has the advantages of durable response, long-term survival benefits, and lower toxicity. Therefore, targeted immune cells are the most promising therapeutic strategy in the field of oncology. In this review, we introduce the role and significance of each immune cell in the tumor microenvironment of GC and summarize the current landscape of immunotherapy in GC, which includes immune checkpoint inhibitors, adoptive cell therapy (ACT), dendritic cell (DC) vaccines, reduction of M2 tumor-associated macrophages (M2 TAMs), N2 tumor-associated neutrophils (N2 TANs), myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), effector regulatory T cells (eT_regs), and regulatory B cells (B_regs) in the tumor microenvironment and reprogram TAMs and TANs into tumor killer cells. The most widely used immunotherapy strategies are the immune checkpoint inhibitor programmed cell death 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) antibody, cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) antibody, and chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) in ACT, and these therapeutic strategies have significant anti-tumor efficacy in solid tumors and hematological tumors. Targeting other immune cells provides a new direction for the immunotherapy of GC despite the relatively weak clinical data, which have been confirmed to restore or enhance anti-tumor immune function in preclinical studies and some treatment strategies have entered the clinical trial stage, and it is expected that more and more effective immune cell–based therapeutic methods will be developed and applied.

Recent Advances and Challenges in Cancer Immunotherapy

Simple Summary

Immunotherapy helps a person’s immune system to target tumor cells. Recent advances in cancer immunotherapy, including immune checkpoint inhibition, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and cancer vaccination, have changed the landscape of cancer treatment. These approaches have had profound success in certain cancer types but still fail in the majority of cases. This review will cover both successes and current challenges in cancer immunotherapy, as well as recent advances in the field of basic tumor immunology that will allow us to overcome resistance to existing treatments.

Abstract

Cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the field of oncology in recent years. Harnessing the immune system to treat cancer has led to a large growth in the number of novel immunotherapeutic strategies, including immune checkpoint inhibition, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy and cancer vaccination. In this review, we will discuss the current landscape of immuno-oncology research, with a focus on elements that influence immunotherapeutic outcomes. We will also highlight recent advances in basic aspects of tumor immunology, in particular, the role of the immunosuppressive cells within the tumor microenvironment in regulating antitumor immunity. Lastly, we will discuss how the understanding of basic tumor immunology can lead to the development of new immunotherapeutic strategies.

Trial watch: Dendritic cell (DC)-based immunotherapy for cancer

Dendritic cell (DC)-based vaccination for cancer treatment has seen considerable development over recent decades. However, this field is currently in a state of flux toward niche-applications, owing to recent paradigm-shifts in immuno-oncology mobilized by T cell-targeting immunotherapies. DC vaccines are typically generated using autologous (patient-derived) DCs exposed to tumor-associated or -specific antigens (TAAs or TSAs), in the presence of immunostimulatory molecules to induce DC maturation, followed by reinfusion into patients. Accordingly, DC vaccines can induce TAA/TSA-specific CD8+/CD4+ T cell responses. Yet, DC vaccination still shows suboptimal anti-tumor efficacy in the clinic. Extensive efforts are ongoing to improve the immunogenicity and efficacy of DC vaccines, often by employing combinatorial chemo-immunotherapy regimens. In this Trial Watch, we summarize the recent preclinical and clinical developments in this field and discuss the ongoing trends and future perspectives of DC-based immunotherapy for oncological indications.

Cancer vaccines as promising immuno-therapeutics: platforms and current progress

Research on tumor immunotherapy has made tremendous progress in the past decades, with numerous studies entering the clinical evaluation. The cancer vaccine is considered a promising therapeutic strategy in the immunotherapy of solid tumors. Cancer vaccine stimulates anti-tumor immunity with tumor antigens, which could be delivered in the form of whole cells, peptides, nucleic acids, etc. Ideal cancer vaccines could overcome the immune suppression in tumors and induce both humoral immunity and cellular immunity. In this review, we introduced the working mechanism of cancer vaccines and summarized four platforms for cancer vaccine development. We also highlighted the clinical research progress of the cancer vaccines, especially focusing on their clinical application and therapeutic efficacy, which might hopefully facilitate the future design of the cancer vaccine.

Multi-institutional, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb trial of the tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine to prevent recurrence in high-risk melanoma patients: A subgroup analysis

Background

Checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with cell‐based vaccines may produce synergistic antitumor immunity. The primary analysis of the randomized and blinded phase IIb trial in resected stage III/IV melanoma demonstrated TLPLDC is safe and improved 24‐month disease‐free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) analysis. Here, we examine efficacy within pre‐specified and exploratory subgroups.

Methods

Stage III/IV patients rendered disease‐free by surgery were randomized 2:1 to TLPLDC vaccine versus placebo. The pre‐specified PT analysis included only patients completing the primary vaccine/placebo series at 6 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare 24‐month DFS among subgroups.

Results

There were no clinicopathologic differences between subgroups except stage IV patients were more likely to receive CPI. In stage IV patients, 24‐month DFS was 43% for vaccine versus 0% for placebo (p = 0.098) in the ITT analysis and 73% versus 0% (p = 0.002) in the PT analysis. There was no significant difference in 24‐month DFS when stratified by use of immunotherapy or CPI. For patients with resected recurrent disease, 24‐month DFS was 88.9% versus 33.3% (p = 0.013) in the PT analysis. All benefit from vaccination was in the PT analysis; no benefit was found in patients receiving up to three doses.

Conclusion

The TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the primary vaccine series, particularly in the resected stage IV patients. The efficacy of the TLPLDC vaccine will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI versus Placebo + CPI in resected stage IV melanoma patients.