Efficacy of a Dual-Epitope Dendritic Cell Vaccine as Part of Combined Immunotherapy for HER2-Expressing Breast Tumors.

Previous work from our group and others has shown that patients with breast cancer can generate a T cell response against specific human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) epitopes. In addition, preclinical work has shown that this T cell response can be augmented by Ag-directed mAb therapy. This study evaluated the activity and safety of a combination of dendritic cell (DC) vaccination given with mAb and cytotoxic therapy. We performed a phase I/II study using autologous DCs pulsed with two different HER2 peptides given with trastuzumab and vinorelbine to a study cohort of patients with HER2-overexpressing and a second with HER2 nonoverexpressing metastatic breast cancer. Seventeen patients with HER2-overexpressing and seven with nonoverexpressing disease were treated. Treatment was well tolerated, with one patient removed from therapy because of toxicity and no deaths. Forty-six percent of patients had stable disease after therapy, with 4% achieving a partial response and no complete responses. Immune responses were generated in the majority of patients but did not correlate with clinical response. However, in one patient, who has survived >14 y since treatment in the trial, a robust immune response was demonstrated, with 25% of her T cells specific to one of the peptides in the vaccine at the peak of her response. These data suggest that autologous DC vaccination when given with anti-HER2-directed mAb therapy and vinorelbine is safe and can induce immune responses, including significant T cell clonal expansion, in a subset of patients.

Clinical subtype, treatment response, and survival in De Novo and recurrent metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated whether patients with de novo metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have superior outcomes compared to those with recurrent MBC in a contemporary treatment era and examined factors related to outcome differentials. METHODS: Using an institutional database, we examined patient and tumor characteristics, treatment response, and outcome among 232 patients with de novo and 612 patients with recurrent MBC diagnosed between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS: De novo MBC had 9-month (m) longer overall survival (OS) than recurrent MBC (36.4 vs 27.4 m, p < 0.001). Contributions to this difference included nearly twofold more HER2-positive (29.3% vs 15.2%) and significantly fewer triple-negative breast cancers (20.3% vs 32.4%, both p < 0.001) in de novo compared with recurrent MBC cohorts. Stratified by clinical subtype, progression-free survival (PFS) on first-line therapy was significantly longer in de novo MBC in all but the triple-negative subtype, 25.5 vs 11.6 m (p < 0.001) among 390 patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, 11.4 vs 5.4 m (p = 0.002) among 142 patients with HER2-positive, and 4.0 vs 3.0 m (p = 0.121) among 162 with triple-negative MBC. In multivariable analysis, de novo status remained independently associated with improved OS (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.49-0.80), regardless of subtype and other features. CONCLUSION: Patients with de novo MBC have better outcomes than those with recurrent MBC. Differences in clinical subtype and response to therapy in the metastatic setting contribute to, but do not fully explain, this difference. Longer PFS to first-line therapy in de novo MBC suggests biologic differences compared to recurrent MBC, which may be intrinsic or due to acquired resistance from treatment for prior localized breast cancer in recurrent disease.

Cutaneous adverse reactions in B-RAF positive metastatic melanoma following sequential treatment with B-RAF/MEK inhibitors and immune checkpoint blockade or vice versa. A single-institutional case-series.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors and targeted treatments (TT), there have been unprecedented response rates and survival in advanced melanoma, but the optimal sequencing of these two treatments modalities is unknown. Combining or sequencing these agents could potentially result in unique toxicities. Cutaneous adverse events (CAE) after sequential exposure to these agents represents one toxicity that needs further description. METHODS: After retrospectively reviewing charts of patients from 2015 to 2018, we identified six patients who experienced CAEs after recent exposure to sequential immunotherapy and TT or vice versa for the treatment for metastatic melanoma at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Skin biopsies were available in five patients. RESULTS: Five patients received TT after immunotherapy, and one patient received immunotherapy after TT. TT consisted of vemurafenib/cobimetinib (V/C) in five patients with four patients starting V/C immediately before manifesting with a CAE. In patients receiving V/C after immunotherapy, the median time from beginning V/C to development of CAE was 14.5 days. The clinical presentation of diffuse morbilliform rash, fevers, hypotension, and end-organ damage raised concern for Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) syndrome. Histopathological features of lympho-eosinophilic infiltrate were supportive of a drug eruption. Immunotherapy or TT were re-initiated in five patients within 1-8 weeks after resolution of the index CAE. This resulted in two patients re-experiencing the CAE. Both of these patients were off prednisone at the time of therapy re-initiation, whereas none of the patients who were restarted on targeted therapy with a steroid overlap had a rash recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential treatment using immunotherapy and TT, especially the sequence of V/C after immunotherapy appears to be the most common trigger for CAE with a median time to onset of approximately 2 weeks. Although the clinical presentation of these CAEs can be dramatic, they respond well to prednisone therapy. This unique presentation suggests that it may be reasonably safe to re-challenge certain patients with a steroid overlap after rash resolution.