Mammaglobin A DNA vaccine(GSK)

ImmunotherapyVol. 7, No. 7 EditorialFree AccessDeveloping a clinical development paradigm for translation of a mammaglobin-A DNA vaccineLijin Li, S Peter Goedegebuure, Timothy P Fleming & William E GillandersLijin Li Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA, S Peter Goedegebuure Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA The Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital & Washington University School of Medicine, MO, USA, Timothy P Fleming Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA The Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital & Washington University School of Medicine, MO, USA & William E Gillanders*Author for correspondence: E-mail Address: gillandersw@wustl.edu Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO 63110, USA The Alvin J Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital & Washington University School of Medicine, MO, USAPublished Online:7 Aug 2015https://doi.org/10.2217/imt.15.40AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit Keywords: breast cancerclinical trialDNA vaccineimmunotherapymammaglobin-ABreast cancer is the most common cancer and is second only to lung cancer as the leading cause of cancer death among American women. The latest Cancer Facts & Figures 2015 [1] estimates that 231,840 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2015, representing 29% of all new cancer cases among women in the USA. Although the number of deaths from breast cancer has declined in recent years, 40,290 women are predicted to die of breast cancer in 2015 [1]. Clearly, innovative strategies for breast cancer prevention and therapy must be considered a public health priority.Cancer vaccine therapyIt has long been known that there is a dynamic relationship between the immune system and cancer. This dynamic relationship has been studied in detail, ultimately resulting in the establishment of the cancer immunoediting concept [2]. Evading immune destruction has been recognized as an emerging hallmark of cancer [3]. Recent successes in cancer immunotherapy have highlighted the importance of the immune system in controlling cancer, and cancer immunotherapy was identified by Science magazine as the 2013 breakthrough of the year [4]. Both immune checkpoint blockade (anti-CTLA-4 and anti-PD-1) therapy and chimeric antigen receptor therapy have demonstrated spectacular results in clinical trials [5,6].These dramatic successes in cancer immunotherapy have renewed interest in cancer vaccine therapy [7]. Cancer vaccines are typically designed to stimulate the immune system to mount a cell-mediated immune response against one or more tumor-associated antigens. Cancer vaccines have excellent safety profiles and several have now received US FDA approval including Gardasil and Cervarix for prevention of cervical cancer and Provenge for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Investigators are now pursuing several different cancer vaccine platforms including autologous cellular vaccines, DNA vaccines and protein or peptide vaccines, often in combination with conventional cancer treatment regimens. We recently completed an open-label Phase I clinical trial (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00807781) evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of a DNA vaccine designed to express the human breast cancer-associated mammaglobin-A antigen. Results of the trial demonstrate the safety of the mammaglobin-A DNA vaccine, with preliminary evidence to suggest that the mammaglobin-A vaccine is able to induce mammaglobin-A-specific IFN-γ-secreting CD8 T cells in treated patients. These patients also had improved progression-free survival [8].Mammaglobin-A is an exceptional target for breast cancer vaccine therapyMammaglobin-A is a member of the secretoglobin superfamily (family 2A member 2). The mammaglobin-A gene (SCGB2A2) was first identified using a differential screening approach directed at the isolation of novel human breast cancer-associated genes [9]. Since its original identification, mammaglobin-A has proven to be an important molecular marker for the detection of metastatic breast cancer, and it has been the focus of over 300 publications in the medical literature. The exquisite tissue specificity and near universal overexpression of mammaglobin-A makes it an attractive target for a breast cancer vaccine with potential for use in a breast cancer prevention and/or treatment setting. Evidence of preexisting immunity to mammaglobin-A in breast cancer patients, and strong preclinical data provided additional rationale for clinical translation of a DNA vaccine targeting mammaglobin-A.Phase I clinical trial of a mammaglobin-A DNA vaccine demonstrates the safety of the vaccine, with strong preliminary evidence of biologic efficacyA total of 53 patients met all of the eligibility criteria and were enrolled in a Phase I clinical trial between December 2009 and May 2013 [8]. After enrollment, 39 patients were considered screen failures and 14 patients were vaccinated. The mammaglobin-A DNA vaccine was remarkably safe, and no significant adverse events were observed. Eight of the 14 vaccinated patients were HLA-A2+ and were studied with in-depth immune monitoring analyses using peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected before, during and after vaccination. Following vaccination there was a significant increase in the frequency of CD8/MAM-A2.1+ T cells as measured by flow cytometry (0.9 ± 0.5% vs 3.8 ± 1.2%; p < 0.001). ELISPOT analysis similarly demonstrated a significant increase in the number of mammaglobin-A specific IFN-γ producing CD8 T cells (41 ± 32 vs 215 ± 67 spm; p < 0.001). A comparison between vaccinated patients and patients who were screen failures based on HLA type suggested that mammaglobin-A DNA vaccination was associated with improved progression-free survival [8].Future perspectiveRecent experience has provided significant insights into the challenges associated with clinical translation of cancer vaccines. Initial cancer vaccine studies were typically performed in the context of metastatic cancer, using response criteria that were developed for cytotoxic therapies. In addition, surrogates for vaccine efficacy remain imperfect. We have tried to address these limitations in our ongoing studies of the mammaglobin-A DNA vaccine.First, cancer vaccines are very different from cytotoxic chemotherapies, and the clinical development paradigm for cancer vaccines is very different. The clinical development paradigm for cytotoxic agents involves initial testing in patients with metastatic disease to determine the maximum tolerated dose (Phase I), and then to assess biologic efficacy (Phase II). However, it is now commonly believed that generation of an effective antitumor immune response will be difficult in patients with metastatic cancer [10]. Metastatic breast cancer is no exception; metastatic breast cancer is associated with an increase in the prevalence of regulatory T cells [11,12] and immature myeloid cells [13,14] in the peripheral blood and in the tumor microenvironment, and these cells are capable of inhibiting endogenous or elicited antitumor immune responses. Patients with metastatic breast cancer may also have compromised immune systems related to prior cytotoxic therapy. The current clinical development paradigm in the cancer vaccine field emphasizes the early assessment of vaccine efficacy in an appropriate clinical context [15], and this paradigm has been endorsed by the FDA. As detailed below, vaccination in the context of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy is an appropriate clinical context to assess breast cancer vaccine efficacy.Second, current surrogates for vaccine efficacy are imperfect. Many cancer vaccines have successfully induced immune responses in the peripheral blood, but have failed to induce an antitumor response. It is now known that regulatory networks present in the tumor microenvironment restrain antitumor immune responses. One of the limitations of almost all current cancer vaccine trials is that assessment of biologic efficacy is dependent on imperfect surrogates (immune response in the peripheral blood), and a detailed analysis of antitumor immune responses in the primary tumor is not possible. We believe that there is an excellent opportunity to test the efficacy of breast cancer vaccines in the setting of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. Breast cancer patients with clinical T2 N0 estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer are often treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy (aromatase inhibitors) with the goal of decreasing tumor size and facilitating breast conservation therapy. This provides an excellent window of opportunity to treat patients with an investigational breast cancer vaccine and then rigorously assess antitumor immune responses both in the peripheral blood and in the primary tumor.Finally, the DNA vaccine platform is a remarkably flexible platform as DNA vaccines are relatively easy to manufacture, with the ability to genetically manipulate the encoded antigens, and/or incorporate other genes to amplify the immune response. Of note, the recent development of electroporation devices that can be used in human clinical trials has increased the potential for clinical translation of DNA vaccines, as electroporation can dramatically increase DNA uptake by muscle cells, antigen expression and immunogenicity [16–19]. The importance of electroporation to the successful clinical translation of DNA vaccines was recently highlighted and emphasized in a high-profile review [20], and in the introduction to a special issue of Vaccine [21].Building on the success of our Phase I clinical trial, we have recently initiated a Phase Ib clinical trial of the mammaglobin-A DNA vaccine in patients receiving neoadjuvant endocrine therapy. We will use immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry and molecular analyses to study the impact of mammaglobin-A DNA vaccination on the primary tumor. To date, very few cancer vaccine trials have been performed in the neoadjuvant setting, and we are convinced that analysis of the immune response in the primary tumor following vaccination is likely to be significantly more informative than studies of the immune response in the peripheral blood, providing important insights into how to improve current cancer vaccine platforms.Financial & competing interests disclosureWE Gillanders was supported by research grants DOD/CDMRP-BCRP W81XWH-06–1–0677 and Gateway for Cancer Research P-06–016. SP Goedegebuure was supported by the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital. TP Fleming holds a patent on mammaglobin-A that is owned by Washington University. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.References1 American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2015. Atlanta: American Cancer Society (2015).Google Scholar2 Vesely MD, Schreiber RD. Cancer immunoediting: antigens, mechanisms, and implications to cancer immunotherapy. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 1284, 1–5 (2013).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar3 Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5), 646–674 (2011).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar4 Couzin-Frankel J. Breakthrough of the year 2013. Cancer immunotherapy. Science 342(6165), 1432–1433 (2013).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar5 Maude SL, Frey N, Shaw PA et al. Chimeric antigen receptor T cells for sustained remissions in leukemia. N. Engl. J. Med. 371(16), 1507–1517 (2014).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar6 Wolchok JD, Kluger H, Callahan MK et al. Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 369(2), 122–133 (2013).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar7 Senovilla L, Vacchelli E, Garcia P et al. Trial watch: DNA vaccines for cancer therapy. Oncoimmunology 2(4), e23803 (2013).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 Tiriveedhi V, Tucker N, Herndon J et al. Safety and preliminary evidence of biologic efficacy of a mammaglobin-a DNA vaccine in patients with stable metastatic breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 20(23), 5964–5975 (2014).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar9 Watson MA, Fleming TP. Isolation of differentially expressed sequence tags from human breast cancer. Cancer Res. 54(17), 4598–4602 (1994).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar10 Finn OJ. Cancer vaccines: between the idea and the reality. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 3(8), 630–641 (2003).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar11 Liyanage UK, Moore TT, Joo HG et al. Prevalence of regulatory T cells is increased in peripheral blood and tumor microenvironment of patients with pancreas or breast adenocarcinoma. J. Immunol. 169(5), 2756 (2002).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar12 Wolf AM, Wolf D, Steurer M, Gastl G, Gunsilius E, Grubeck-Loebenstein B. Increase of regulatory T cells in the peripheral blood of cancer patients. Clin. Cancer Res. 9(2), 606–612 (2003).Medline, Google Scholar13 Almand B, Clark JI, Nikitina E et al. Increased production of immature myeloid cells in cancer patients: a mechanism of immunosuppression in cancer. J. Immunol. 166(1), 678–689 (2001).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar14 Almand B, Resser JR, Lindman B et al. Clinical significance of defective dendritic cell differentiation in cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 6(5), 1755–1766 (2000).Medline, CAS, Google Scholar15 Hoos A, Parmiani G, Hege K et al. A clinical development paradigm for cancer vaccines and related biologics. J. Immunother. (1997) 30(1), 1–15 (2007).Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar16 Aihara H, Miyazaki J. Gene transfer into muscle by electroporation in vivo. Nat Biotechnol 16(9), 867–870 (1998).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar17 Mathiesen I. Electropermeabilization of skeletal muscle enhances gene transfer in vivo. Gene Ther. 6(4), 508–514 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar18 Mir LM, Bureau MF, Gehl J et al. High-efficiency gene transfer into skeletal muscle mediated by electric pulses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96(8), 4262–4267 (1999).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar19 Widera G, Austin M, Rabussay D et al. Increased DNA vaccine delivery and immunogenicity by electroporation in vivo. J. Immunol. 164(9), 4635–4640 (2000).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar20 Rice J, Ottensmeier CH, Stevenson FK. DNA vaccines: precision tools for activating effective immunity against cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer 8(2), 108–120 (2008).Crossref, Medline, CAS, Google Scholar21 Weiner DB. DNA vaccines: crossing a line in the sand introduction to special issue. Vaccine 26(40), 5073–5074 (2008).Crossref, Medline, Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 7, No. 7 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 7 August 2015 Published in print July 2015 Information© Future Medicine LtdKeywordsbreast cancerclinical trialDNA vaccineimmunotherapymammaglobin-AFinancial & competing interests disclosureWE Gillanders was supported by research grants DOD/CDMRP-BCRP W81XWH-06–1–0677 and Gateway for Cancer Research P-06–016. SP Goedegebuure was supported by the Foundation for Barnes-Jewish Hospital. TP Fleming holds a patent on mammaglobin-A that is owned by Washington University. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.PDF download

Purpose: Mammaglobin-A (MAM-A) is overexpressed in 40% to 80% of primary breast cancers. We initiated a phase I clinical trial of a MAM-A DNA vaccine to evaluate its safety and biologic efficacy.Experimental Design: Patients with breast cancer with stable metastatic disease were eligible for enrollment. Safety was monitored with clinical and laboratory assessments. The CD8 T-cell response was measured by ELISPOT, flow cytometry, and cytotoxicity assays. Progression-free survival (PFS) was described using the Kaplan–Meier product limit estimator.Results: Fourteen subjects have been treated with the MAM-A DNA vaccine and no significant adverse events have been observed. Eight of 14 subjects were HLA-A2+, and the CD8 T-cell response to vaccination was studied in detail. Flow cytometry demonstrated a significant increase in the frequency of MAM-A–specific CD8 T cells after vaccination (0.9% ± 0.5% vs. 3.8% ± 1.2%; P &lt; 0.001), and ELISPOT analysis demonstrated an increase in the number of MAM-A–specific IFNγ-secreting T cells (41 ± 32 vs. 215 ± 67 spm; P &lt; 0.001). Although this study was not powered to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), preliminary evidence suggests that subjects treated with the MAM-A DNA vaccine had improved PFS compared with subjects who met all eligibility criteria, were enrolled in the trial, but were not vaccinated because of HLA phenotype.Conclusion: The MAM-A DNA vaccine is safe, capable of eliciting MAM-A–specific CD8 T-cell responses, and preliminary evidence suggests improved PFS. Additional studies are required to define the potential of the MAM-A DNA vaccine for breast cancer prevention and/or therapy. Clin Cancer Res; 20(23); 5964–75. ©2014 AACR.