Abagovomab

CA125, the most widely used ovarian cancer biomarker, was first identified approximately 35 years ago in an antibody screen against ovarian cancer antigen. Two decades later, it was cloned and characterized to be a transmembrane mucin, MUC16. Since then, several studies have investigated its expression, functional, and mechanistic involvement in multiple cancer types. Antibody-based therapeutic approaches primarily using antibodies against the tandem repeat domains of MUC16 (e.g., oregovomab and abagovomab) have been the modus operandi for MUC16-targeted therapy, but have met with very limited success. In addition, efforts have been also made to disrupt the functional cooperation of MUC16 and its interacting partners; for example, use of a novel immunoadhesin HN125 to interfere MUC16 binding to mesothelin. Since the identification of CA125 to be MUC16, it is hypothesized to undergo proteolytic cleavage, a process that is considered to be critical in determining the kinetics of MUC16 shedding as well as generation of a cell-associated carboxyl-terminal fragment with potential oncogenic functions. In addition to our experimental demonstration of MUC16 cleavage, recent studies have demonstrated the functional importance of carboxyl terminal fragments of MUC16 in multiple tumor types. Here, we provide how our understanding of the basic biologic processes involving MUC16 influences our approach toward MUC16-targeted therapy. Cancer Res; 75(22); 4669–74. ©2015 AACR.

To determine whether abagovomab induces protective immune responses in ovarian cancer patients in first clinical remission. The present analysis is a substudy of monoclonal antibody immunotherapy for malignancies of the ovary by subcutaneous abagovomab trial (NCT00418574).

The study included 129 patients, 91 in the abagovomab arm and 38 in the placebo arm. Circulating CA125-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) were measured by a flow cytometry-based interferon-γ producing assay. Human antimouse antibody and anti-anti-idiotypic (Ab3) were assessed by ELISA. Patients were evaluated before starting the treatment and at different time points during induction and maintenance phases.

A similar percentage of patients in both the placebo and abagovomab arms had CA125-specific CTL (26.3 and 31.8 %, respectively; p = 0.673 by Fisher's exact test). Patients with CA125-specific CTL in both arms tended to have an increased relapse-free survival (RFS, log-rank test p = 0.095) compared to patients without. Patients (n = 27) in the abagovomab arm without CA125-specific CTL but that developed Ab3 above the cutoff (defined as median Ab3 level at week 22) had a prolonged RFS compared to patients (n = 24) that did not develop Ab3 above the cutoff (log-rank test p = 0.019).

Abagovomab does not induce CA125-specific CTL. However, patients with CA125-specific CTL perform better than patients without, irrespective of abagovomab treatment. Abagovomab-induced Ab3 associate with prolonged RFS in patients without CA125-specific CTL. Further studies are needed to confirm these data and to assess the potential utility of these immunological findings as a tool for patient selection in clinical trial.