Abstract PR002: A pilot study of a MUC1 vaccine in current and former smokers at high risk for lung cancer

Background: Smoking is the most common etiology for lung cancer and smoking cessation does not eliminate the risk. An emerging area of interest for risk reduction is immunoprevention. MUC1 glycoprotein is aberrantly expressed in adenocarcinomas, including lung cancer and their premalignant lesions. MUC1 vaccine in the premalignant or high-risk setting may be effective in halting neoplastic development and progression. Trial design: Through the NCI-funded Cancer Prevention Network (CPN), we conducted a two-center pilot trial to evaluate immunogenicity of the MUC1 vaccine (assessed at 12 weeks), and safety (assessed at up to 24 weeks) in current and former heavy smokers. 87 participants were screened in order to have at least 40 evaluable for baseline and 12-week immunogenicity assessments. Smoking history of ≥30 pack-years and either current (still smoking or quit < 1 year prior to pre-registration) or former smoker (quit 1-15 years prior to pre-registration); ages 55-80 years; ECOG performance status ≤1; CT scan of the chest done ≤ 6 months prior to pre-registration showing either negative findings (no nodules) or solid or part-solid nodules < 6 mm in size (consistent with < 1% probability of malignancy, Lung-RADs Version 1.0). Exclusion criteria were standard for lung cancer screening. Methods: MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant (Hiltonol) vaccine was given at week 0, 2 and 10. Blood was collected for safety tests and immune assays pre and 2 weeks post each vaccine, and at week 24. Anti-MUC1 IgG titer was evaluated by ELISA. Based on previous studies of this vaccine, 40 evaluable participants would provide 96% power to detect immune response rate of 15% versus 40%, using a 2-sided test of proportions with type I error rate of 0.05. PBMC were assayed for the presence of regulatory T cells (Treg) and myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) (secondary endpoint). Circulating levels of inflammatory cytokines and hsCRP were evaluated using commercially available tests (exploratory endpoint). AEs and toxicities were monitored for up to 24 weeks from the first vaccine. Results: 87 individuals were screened and 50 registered. 45 completed the study, 26 current and 19 former smokers (time since last smoked: average 7.8 years; 11 months -13 years). The vaccine was well-tolerated with injection site reactions being the most common AE. Immune response to the vaccine was lower than expected, with 2 current and 2 former smokers developing anti-MUC1 IgG titers ≥2 fold higher at week 12 over baseline (10%). We found high circulating levels of MDSCs in PBMC of both current and former smokers and very low or no serum cytokines. Conclusions: A preventative vaccine trial was feasible in individuals at high risk for lung cancer. However, we discovered a high level of immune suppression, previously documented only in advanced lung cancer. Mitigating the development of lung cancer in heavy smokers through vaccine administration may be limited by related immunosuppression.

Citation Format: Olivera J. Finn, Julie Ward, Tami Krpata, Samantha Fatis, John McKolanis, Jia Xue, Pamela Beatty, Camille Jacqueline, Sharon Kaufman, Colleen Akerley, April Felt, Karrie Fursa, Anne Holland, Liz S. Ambulay, Nathan Foster, Ryan McMurray, Carrie Strand, Andres M. Salazar, Lisa Bengtson, Eva Szabo, Paul Limburg, Malgorzata Wojtowicz, David E. Midthun, Arjun Pennathur. A pilot study of a MUC1 vaccine in current and former smokers at high risk for lung cancer. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Precision Prevention, Early Detection, and Interception of Cancer; 2022 Nov 17-19; Austin, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2023;16(1 Suppl): Abstract nr PR002.

Abstract CT222: A pilot study of a MUC1 vaccine in current and former smokers at high risk for lung cancer

Background: Smoking is the most common etiology for lung cancer. Smoking cessation, even when successful, does not eliminate risk of lung cancer. With inconsistent results of lung chemoprevention trials, an emerging area of interest is immunoprevention, in particular vaccines. MUC1 is a transmembrane glycoprotein aberrantly overexpressed in adenocarcinomas, including lung cancer. Abnormal MUC1 expression is also characteristic of premalignant lesions, including bronchial dysplasia and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia. This suggests that immunization with a MUC1 vaccine in the premalignant or high-risk setting, before the tumor and cytotoxic therapy could suppress the immune system, might be effective in inducing strong immunity and reducing cancer risk.

Trial design: Leveraging the infrastructure of the NCI-funded Cancer Prevention Network (CPN) consortium, we are conducting a two-center pilot trial to evaluate co-primary endpoints: immunogenicity of the MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant vaccine (assessed at 12 weeks) and safety (assessed at up to 24 weeks) in current and former smokers who are at high risk for lung cancer. 50 participants will be screened in order to have 40 evaluable participants for baseline and 12-week immunogenicity assessments.

Eligibility: Smoking history of ≥30 pack-years and either current smoker (still smoking or quit < 1 year prior to pre-registration) or former smoker (quit 1-15 years prior to pre-registration); ages 55-80 years; ECOG performance status ≤1; CT scan of the chest done ≤ 6 months prior to pre-registration showing either negative findings (no nodules) or solid or part-solid nodules < 6 mm in size (consistent with < 1% probability of malignancy, Lung-RADs Version 1.0). Exclusion criteria are standard.

Immunogenicity and safety: MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant vaccine will be administered at week 0, 2 and 10. The primary endpoint is anti-MUC1 IgG titer that is ≥2 fold higher at week 12 compared to baseline. Based on previous studies of this vaccine, we expect that 40 evaluable participants will provide 96% power to detect immunogenicity response rate of 15% versus 40% using a 2-sided test of proportions with type I error rate of 0.05. AEs and toxicities will be monitored for up to 24 weeks from the first vaccine.

Secondary Objectives: We will explore differences, if any, in vaccine immunogenicity in current vs. former smokers. Smoking induces chronic inflammation (hallmark of cancer) associated with immunosuppression. We will evaluate pre-vaccination levels of circulating myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and correlate with the response to the vaccine. We will explore the impact, if any, of this vaccine on the markers of inflammation (hsCRP, IL-6) and the effect of baseline levels of these markers on the ability to successfully vaccinate. We will also assess the relationship between COPD status and immune response in current versus former smokers.

The trial is open to accrual.

Citation Format: Olivera J. Finn, Julie Ward, Tami Krpata, Lisa Bengtson, John McKolanis, Sharon Kaufman, Colleen Akerley, April Felt, Karrie Fursa, Anne Holland, Nathan Foster, Andres Salazar, Malgorzata Wojtowicz, Eva Szabo, Paul Limburg, David Midthun, Arjun Pennathur. A pilot study of a MUC1 vaccine in current and former smokers at high risk for lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT222.

The accuracy of natriuretic peptides (brain natriuretic peptide and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic) in the differentiation between transfusion-related acute lung injury and transfusion-related circulatory overload in the critically ill

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic workup of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI) requires an exclusion of transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO). Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic (NT-pro-BNP) accurately diagnosed TACO in preliminary studies that did not include patients with TRALI.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, two critical care experts blinded to serum levels of BNP and NT-pro-BNP determined the diagnosis of TRALI, TACO, and possible TRALI based on the consensus conference definitions. The accuracy of BNP and NT-pro-BNP was assessed based on the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Of 115 patients who developed acute pulmonary edema after transfusion, 34 were identified with TRALI, 31 with possible TRALI, and 50 with TACO. Median BNP was 375 pg per mL (interquartile range [IQR], 123 to 781 pg/mL) in TRALI, 446 pg per mL (IQR, 128 to 743 pg/mL) in possible TRALI, and 559 pg per mL (IQR, 288 to 1348 pg/mL) in TACO patients (p = 0.038). The NT-pro-BNP levels among patients with TRALI, possible TRALI, and TACO differed significantly with a median value of 1559 pg per mL (IQR, 629 to 5114 pg/mL), 2349 pg/mL (IQR, 919 to 4610 pg/mL), and 5197 pg/mL (IQR, 1695 to 15,714 pg/mL; p = 0.004), respectively. The accuracy of BNP and NT-pro-BNP to diagnose TACO was moderate with an AUC of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.74) and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.80).

CONCLUSIONS

Natriuretic peptides are of limited diagnostic value in a differential diagnosis of pulmonary edema after transfusion in the critically ill patients.

Effect of 24-hour mandatory versus on-demand critical care specialist presence on quality of care and family and provider satisfaction in the intensive care unit of a teaching hospital

OBJECTIVE

The benefit of continuous on-site presence by a staff academic critical care specialist in the intensive care unit of a teaching hospital is not known. We compared the quality of care and patient/family and provider satisfaction before and after changing the staffing model from on-demand to continuous 24-hr critical care specialist presence in the intensive care unit.

DESIGN

Two-year prospective cohort study of patient outcomes, processes of care, and family and provider survey of satisfaction, organization, and culture in the intensive care unit.

SETTING

Intensive care unit of a teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Consecutive critically ill patients, their families, and their caregivers.

INTERVENTIONS

Introduction of night-shift coverage to provide continuous 24-hr on-site, as opposed to on-demand, critical care specialist presence.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 2,622 patients included in the study, 1,301 were admitted before and 1,321 after the staffing model change. Baseline characteristics and adjusted intensive care unit and hospital mortality were similar between the two groups. The nonadherence to evidence-based care processes improved from 24% to 16% per patient-day after the staffing change (p = .002). The rate of intensive care unit complications decreased from 11% to 7% per patient-day (p = .023). When adjusted for predicted hospital length of stay, admission source, and do-not-resuscitate status, hospital length of stay significantly decreased during the second period (adjusted mean difference -1.4, 95% confidence interval -0.3 to -2.5 days, p = .017). The new model was considered optimal for patient care by the majority of the providers (78% vs. 38% before the intervention, p < .001). Family satisfaction was excellent during both study periods (mean score 5.87 +/- 1.7 vs. 5.95 +/- 2.0, p = .777).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of continuous (24-hr) on-site presence by a staff academic critical care specialist was associated with improved processes of care and staff satisfaction and decreased intensive care unit complication rate and hospital length of stay.