Background Clinical benefit of cellular immunotherapy has been shown in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We investigated the immunological response and clinical outcome of vaccination with blood-derived CD1c⁺ myeloid dendritic cells (mDCs; cDC2) and plasmacytoid DCs (pDCs). Methods In this randomized phase IIa trial, 21 chemo-naive CRPC patients received maximally 9 vaccinations with mature mDCs, pDCs or a combination of mDCs plus pDCs. DCs were stimulated with protamine/mRNA and loaded with tumor-associated antigens NY-ESO-1, MAGE-C2 and MUC1. Primary endpoint was the immunological response after DC vaccination, which was monitored in peripheral blood and in T cell cultures of biopsies of post-treatment delayed-type hypersensitivity-skin tests. Main secondary endpoints were safety, feasibility, radiological PFS (rPFS) and overall survival. Radiological responses were assessed by MRIs and contrast-enhanced ⁶⁸Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT, according to RECIST 1.1, PCWG2 criteria and immune-related response criteria. Results Both tetramer/dextramer-positive (dm⁺) and IFN-γ-producing (IFN-γ⁺) antigen specific T cells were detected more frequently in skin biopsies of patients with radiological non-progressive disease (5/13 patients; 38%) compared to patients with progressive disease (0/8 patients; 0%). In these patients with vaccination enhanced dm⁺ and IFN-γ⁺ antigen-specific T cells median rPFS was 18.8 months (n = 5) vs. 5.1 months (n = 16) in patients without IFN-γ-producing antigen-specific T cells (p = 0.02). The overall median rPFS was 9.5 months. All DC vaccines were well tolerated with grade 1–2 toxicity. Conclusions Immunotherapy with blood-derived DC subsets was feasible and safe and induced functional antigen-specific T cells. The presence of functional antigen-specific T cells correlated with an improved clinical outcome. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02692976, registered 26 February 2016, retrospectively registered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Westdorp et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: