Anticancer immune reactivity and long-term survival after treatment of metastatic ovarian cancer with dendritic cells

Dendritic Cell Vaccines in Ovarian Cancer

Ovarian cancer (OC) is one of the most lethal malignant gynecologic tumors, characterized by an uncertain presentation and poor outcomes. With or without neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery followed by platinum-based chemotherapy and maintenance therapy are the basis for the treatment of ovarian cancer patients, but the outcome is still highly restricted by their advanced stage when diagnosed and high recurrence rate after chemotherapy. To enhance the anti-tumor effect and postpone recurrence, anti-VEGF agents and PARP inhibitors are suggested as maintenance therapy, but the population that can benefit from these treatments is small. Based on the interactions of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, immunotherapies are being explored for ovarian cancer treatment. Disappointingly, the immune checkpoint inhibitors show relatively low responses in ovarian cancer. As shown in several studies that have uncovered a relationship between DC infiltration and outcome in ovarian cancer patients, dendritic cell (DC)-based treatments might have a potential effect on ovarian cancer. In this review, we summarize the functions of dendritic cells (DCs) in the tumor microenvironment, as well as the responses and drawbacks of existing clinical studies to draw a comprehensive picture of DC vaccine treatment in ovarian cancer and to discuss the promising future of immune biomarkers.

Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of the review first published in the Cochrane Library (2010, Issue 2) and later updated (2014, Issue 9).Despite advances in chemotherapy, the prognosis of ovarian cancer remains poor. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy aims to induce tumour antigen-specific anti-tumour immune responses as an alternative treatment for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective• To assess the clinical efficacy of antigen-specific active immunotherapy for the treatment of ovarian cancer as evaluated by tumour response measured by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) and/or cancer antigen (CA)-125 levels, response to post-immunotherapy treatment, and survival differences◦ In addition, we recorded the numbers of observed antigen-specific humoral and cellular responsesSecondary objective• To establish which combinations of immunotherapeutic strategies with tumour antigens provide the best immunological and clinical results SEARCH METHODS: For the previous version of this review, we performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2009, Issue 3), in the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE and Embase databases, and clinicaltrials.gov (1966 to July 2009). We also conducted handsearches of the proceedings of relevant annual meetings (1996 to July 2009).For the first update of this review, we extended the searches to October 2013, and for this update, we extended the searches to July 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised studies (NRSs), that included participants with epithelial ovarian cancer, irrespective of disease stage, who were treated with antigen-specific active immunotherapy, irrespective of type of vaccine, antigen used, adjuvant used, route of vaccination, treatment schedule, and reported clinical or immunological outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews authors independently extracted the data. We evaluated the risk of bias for RCTs according to standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, and for NRSs by using a selection of quality domains deemed best applicable to the NRS.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 67 studies (representing 3632 women with epithelial ovarian cancer). The most striking observations of this review address the lack of uniformity in conduct and reporting of early-phase immunotherapy studies. Response definitions show substantial variation between trials, which makes comparison of trial results unreliable. Information on adverse events is frequently limited. Furthermore, reports of both RCTs and NRSs frequently lack the relevant information necessary for risk of bias assessment. Therefore, we cannot rule out serious biases in most of the included trials. However, selection, attrition, and selective reporting biases are likely to have affected the studies included in this review. GRADE ratings were high only for survival; for other primary outcomes, GRADE ratings were very low.The largest body of evidence is currently available for CA-125-targeted antibody therapy (17 studies, 2347 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Non-randomised studies of CA-125-targeted antibody therapy suggest improved survival among humoral and/or cellular responders, with only moderate adverse events. However, four large randomised placebo-controlled trials did not show any clinical benefit, despite induction of immune responses in approximately 60% of participants. Time to relapse with CA-125 monoclonal antibody versus placebo, respectively, ranged from 10.3 to 18.9 months versus 10.3 to 13 months (six RCTs, 1882 participants; high-certainty evidence). Only one RCT provided data on overall survival, reporting rates of 80% in both treatment and placebo groups (three RCTs, 1062 participants; high-certainty evidence). Other small studies targeting many different tumour antigens have presented promising immunological results. As these strategies have not yet been tested in RCTs, no reliable inferences about clinical efficacy can be made. Given the promising immunological results and the limited side effects and toxicity reported, exploration of clinical efficacy in large well-designed RCTs may be worthwhile.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that despite promising immunological responses, no clinically effective antigen-specific active immunotherapy is yet available for ovarian cancer. Results should be interpreted cautiously, as review authors found a significant dearth of relevant information for assessment of risk of bias in both RCTs and NRSs.

Gene Electrotransfer: A Mechanistic Perspective

Gene electrotransfer is a powerful method of DNA delivery offering several medical applications, among the most promising of which are DNA vaccination and gene therapy for cancer treatment. Electroporation entails the application of electric fields to cells which then experience a local and transient change of membrane permeability. Although gene electrotransfer has been extensively studied in in vitro and in vivo environments, the mechanisms by which DNA enters and navigates through cells are not fully understood. Here we present a comprehensive review of the body of knowledge concerning gene electrotransfer that has been accumulated over the last three decades. For that purpose, after briefly reviewing the medical applications that gene electrotransfer can provide, we outline membrane electropermeabilization, a key process for the delivery of DNA and smaller molecules. Since gene electrotransfer is a multipart process, we proceed our review in describing step by step our current understanding, with particular emphasis on DNA internalization and intracellular trafficking. Finally, we turn our attention to in vivo testing and methodology for gene electrotransfer.

Antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in chemotherapy, prognosis of ovarian cancer remains poor. Antigen-specific active immunotherapy aims to induce tumour-antigen-specific anti-tumour immune responses as an alternative treatment for ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of antigen-specific active immunotherapy for ovarian cancer. Primary outcomes are clinical efficacy and antigen-specific immunogenicity with carrier-specific immunogenicity and side effects as secondary outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For the previous version of this review, a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2009, Issue 3, Cochrane Gynaecological Cancer Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and clinicaltrials.gov was performed (1966 to July 2009). We conducted handsearches of the proceedings of relevant annual meetings (1996 to July 2009).For this update of the review the searches were extended to October 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomised non-controlled studies that included participants with epithelial ovarian cancer, irrespective of stage of disease, and treated with antigen-specific active immunotherapy, irrespective of type of vaccine, antigen used, adjuvant used, route of vaccination, schedule, and reported clinical or immunological outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviews authors independently performed the data extraction. Risk of bias was evaluated for RCTs according to standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collabororation or for non-RCTs using a selection of quality domains deemed best applicable to the non-randomised non-controlled studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were included (representing 3051 women with epithelial ovarian cancer). Response definitions showed substantial variation between trials, which makes comparison of trial results unreliable. Information on adverse events was frequently limited. Furthermore, reports of both RCTs and non-RCTs frequently lacked the relevant information necessary to assess risk of bias. Serious biases in most of the included trials can therefore not be ruled out.The largest body of evidence is currently available for CA-125 targeted antibody therapy (16 studies: 2339 participants). Non-RCTs of CA-125 targeted antibody therapy suggests increased survival in humoral and/or cellular responders. However, four large randomised placebo-controlled trials did not show any clinical benefit despite induction of immune responses in approximately 60% of participants.Other small studies targeting many different tumour antigens showed promising immunological results. As these strategies have not yet been tested in RCTs, no reliable inferences about clinical efficacy can be made. Given the promising immunological results, limited side effects and toxicity exploration of clinical efficacy in large well-designed RCTs may be worthwhile.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that despite promising immunological responses, no clinically effective antigen-specific active immunotherapy is yet available for ovarian cancer. Results should be interpreted cautiously as there was a significant lack of relevant information for the assessment of risk of bias in both RCTs and non-RCTs.

Therapeutic DC vaccination with IL-2 as a consolidation therapy for ovarian cancer patients: a phase I/II trial

While ovarian cancer (OvCa) responds well to surgery and conventional chemotherapy, a high recurrence rate of advanced OvCa is observed. In this phase I/II study, 10 OvCa patients with minimal residual disease were treated with autologous dendritic cells (DCs) and IL-2 to evaluate the safety and feasibility of this therapeutic strategy and to characterize the antigen-specific immune alterations induced through this treatment. Approximately 4 months after initial debulking and chemotherapy, patients received two subcutaneous doses of autologous monocyte-derived DCs pulsed with autologous tumor lysate and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) at 4-week intervals. After each DC inoculation, low-dose (200 mIU) IL-2 was introduced for 14 consecutive days as an immune adjuvant. The vaccination was well tolerated. In three out of 10 patients, the inclusion status after the initial therapy showed the maintenance of complete remission (CR) after DC vaccination for 83, 80.9 and 38.2 months without disease relapse. One patient with stable disease (SD) experienced the complete disappearance of tumor after DC vaccination, and this status was maintained for 50.8 months until tumor recurrence. In two patients with partial response (PR) was not responding to DC vaccination and their disease recurred. In the three patients with disease free long-term survival, significant immune alterations were observed, including increased natural killer (NK) activity, IFN-γ-secreting T cells, immune-stimulatory cytokine secretion and reduced immune-suppressive factor secretion after DC vaccination. Thus, in patients with NED status and increased overall survival, DC vaccination induced tumor-related immunity, potentially associated with long-term clinical responses against OvCa.

Effects of poly (ADP-ribosyl) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor on cisplatin resistance & proliferation of the ovarian cancer C13* cells

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

Drug resistance is the primary cause of failure in the treatment of cancers. It has been suggested that the enhancement of DNA repair capability may be responsible for the drug resistance of the tumour cells, and poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation plays an important role in DNA repair. This study investigated the effect of PARP inhibitor 3-aminobenzamide (3-AB) on the cisplatin resistance and proliferation of the cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer C13 FNx01 cells in vitro.

METHODS

C13 FNx01 cells were treated with various concentrations of 3-AB in vitro. MTT assay was used to determine the effect of 3-AB on the cisplatin sensitivity and proliferation of cells. The expression levels of PARP-1 mRNA and protein in the C13 FNx01 cells were examined using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and Western blot, and changes caused by 3-AB treatment were investigated. Immunofluorescence microscopy was used to detect the localization and expression of the PARP-1 proteins before and after treatment with 5 mmol/l 3-AB.

RESULTS

The inhibitory ratio and the cisplatin sensitivity of C13 FNx01 cells significantly increased with the increase of the concentration of 3-AB (P<0.05). The RT-PCR analysis revealed that the expression of PARP-1 mRNA was decreased when platinum (Pt) and 3-AB were combined. The expression levels of PARP-1 protein were decreased by 23.15 ± 2.53, 59.11 ± 2.23 and 73.24 ± 3.88 per cent, respectively, in C13 FNx01 cells with the increase of the concentration of 3-AB (P<0.05). The immunofluorescence microscopy results indicated that the expression level of PARP-1 protein was significantly decreased after treatment with 3-AB (P,<0.05).

INTERPRETATION & CONCLUSIONS

3-AB inhibited the proliferation activity of C13 FNx01 cells, and increased the cellular sensitivity to cisplatin. Our findings show that the PARP inhibitor 3-AB can downregulate the expression of PARP-1 at transcriptional and translational levels in C13 FNx01 cells.