Search

The interpretation of the results obtained from immunomonitoring of clinical trials is a difficult task due to the variety of methods and protocols available to detect vaccine-specific T-cell responses. This heterogeneity as well as the lack of standards has led to significant scepticism towards published results. In February 2005, a working group was therefore founded under the aegis of the Association for Immunotherapy of Cancer (“CIMT”) in order to compare techniques and protocols applied for the enumeration of antigen-specific T-cell responses. Here we present the results from two consecutive phases of an international inter-laboratory testing project referred to as the “CIMT monitoring panel”. A total of 13 centers from six European countries participated in the study in which pre-tested PBMC samples, synthetic peptides and PE-conjugated HLA-tetramers were prepared centrally and distributed to participants. All were asked to determine the number of antigen-specific T-cells in each sample using tetramer staining and one functional assay. The results of the first testing round revealed that the total number of cells analyzed was the most important determinant for the sensitive detection of antigen-specific CD8+ T-cells by tetramer staining. Analysis by ELISPOT was influenced by a combination of cell number and a resting phase after thawing of peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Therefore, the experiments were repeated in a second phase but now the participants were asked to change their protocols according to the new guidelines distilled from the results of the first phase. The recommendations improved the number of antigen-specific T-cell responses that were detected and decreased the variability between the laboratories. We conclude that a two-step approach in inter-laboratory testing allows the identification of distinct variables that influence the sensitivity of different T-cell assays and to formally show that a defined correction to the protocols successfully increases the sensitivity and reduces the inter-center variability. Such “two-step” inter-laboratory projects could define rational bases for accepted international guidelines and thereby lead to the harmonization of the techniques used for immune monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how the immunotherapy community can best achieve immune assay harmonization. According to the authors, the goals of harmonization are to identify crucial protocol choices that influence the outcome of an applied assay and to standardize those choices across laboratories throughout the entire field for optimal performance and consistent results.

Background Ridaforolimus is an inhibitor of mTOR with evidence of antitumor activity in an I.V. formulation. This multicenter, open-label, 3 + 3 design nonrandomized, dose-escalation, phase I/IIa trial was conducted to determine the safety, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic parameters, maximum tolerated dose, and antitumor activity of oral ridaforolimus. Patients and methods Patients with metastatic or unresectable solid tumors refractory to therapy were eligible. Seven different continuous and intermittent dosing regimens were examined. Results One hundred and forty-seven patients were enrolled in this study among which 85 were patients with sarcoma. Stomatitis was the most common DLT observed. The dosing regimen, 40 mg QD × 5 days/week, provided the best combination of cumulative dose, dose density, and cumulative exposure, and was the recommended dosing regimen for subsequent clinical development. PK was nonlinear, with less than proportional increases in day-1 blood AUC0–∞ and Cmax, particularly with doses >40 mg. The terminal half-life estimate of ridaforolimus (QD × 5 40 mg) was 42.0 h, and the mean half-life ∼30–60 h. The clinical benefit rate, (complete response, partial response, or stable disease for ≥4 months was 24.5% for all patients and 27.1% for patients with sarcoma. Conclusion Oral ridaforolimus had an acceptable safety profile and exhibited antitumor activity in patients with sarcoma and other malignancies. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00112372. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Cancer is a disease caused by DNA mutations. Cancer therapies targeting defined functional mutations have shown clinical benefit. However, as 95% of the mutations in a tumour are unique to that single patient and only a small number of mutations are shared between patients, the addressed medical need is modest. A rapidly determined patient-specific tumour mutation pattern combined with a flexible mutation-targeting drug platform could generate a mutation-targeting individualised therapy, which would benefit each single patient. Next-generation sequencing enables the rapid identification of somatic mutations in individual tumours (the mutanome). Immunoinformatics enables predictions of mutation immunogenicity. Mutation-targeting RNA-based vaccines can be rapidly and affordably synthesised as custom GMP drug products. Integration of these cutting-edge technologies into a clinically applicable process holds the promise of a disruptive innovation benefiting cancer patients. Here, we describe our translation of the individualised RNA-based cancer vaccine concept into clinic trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]