Approaches to improve development methods for therapeutic cancer vaccines.

Therapeutic cancer vaccines are an immunotherapy that amplify or induce an active immune response against tumors. Notably, limitations in the methodology for existing anti-cancer drugs may subsist while applying them to cancer vaccine therapy. A retrospective analysis was performed using information obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and published articles. Our research evaluated the optimal methodologies for therapeutic cancer vaccines based on (1) patient populations, (2) immune monitoring, (3) tumor response evaluation, and (4) supplementary therapies. Failure to optimize these methodologies at an early phase may impact development at later stages; thus, we have proposed some points to be considered during the early phase. Moreover, we compared our proposal with the guidance for industry issued by the US Food and Drug Administration in October 2011 entitled "Clinical Considerations for Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines". Consequently, while our research was aligned with the guidance, we hope it provides further insights in order to predict the risks and benefits and facilitate decisions for a new technology. We identified the following points for consideration: (1) include in the selection criteria the immunological stage with a prognostic value, which is as important as the tumor stage; (2) select immunological assays such as phenotype analysis of lymphocytes, based on their features and standardize assay methods; (3) utilize optimal response criteria for immunotherapy in therapeutic cancer vaccine trials; and (4) consider supplementary therapies, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, for future therapeutic cancer vaccines.

New concepts of biomarkers and clinical outcomes for therapeutic cancer vaccines in clinical trials.

AIM: This study aimed to derive meaningful parameters for immune monitoring during cancer vaccine development by analysis of the literature. METHODS: This retrospective study was based on analysis of clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and published data available on PubMed. RESULTS: The most common sample evaluated in immune monitoring was peripheral blood. All trials employed ELISA for detecting a humoral immune response; however, cellular immune assays were not used across trials. Most cellular immune assays failed to correlate with clinical outcome, although results of other methods did. CONCLUSION: Standardization of the cellular immune assays across trials is important for predicting the effects of therapeutic cancer vaccines when considering the reliability and characteristics of the methods. Currently, assays mostly target detection of T-cell function, such as proliferation and cytokine release; however, T-cell phenotype analysis in peripheral blood and/or tumor sites may also be considered in the future.

Immunological monitoring of anticancer vaccines in clinical trials.

Therapeutic anticancer vaccines operate by eliciting or enhancing an immune response that specifically targets tumor-associated antigens. Although intense efforts have been made for developing clinically useful anticancer vaccines, only a few Phase III clinical trials testing this immunotherapeutic strategy have achieved their primary endpoint. Here, we report the results of a retrospective research aimed at clarifying the design of previously completed Phase II/III clinical trials testing therapeutic anticancer vaccines and at assessing the value of immunological monitoring in this setting. We identified 17 anticancer vaccines that have been investigated in the context of a completed Phase II/III clinical trial. The immune response of patients receiving anticancer vaccination was assessed for only 8 of these products (in 15 distinct studies) in the attempt to identify a correlation with clinical outcome. Of these studies, 13 were supported by a statistical correlation study (Log-rank test), and no less than 12 identified a positive correlation between vaccine-elicited immune responses and disease outcome. Six trials also performed a Cox proportional hazards analysis, invariably demonstrating that vaccine-elicited immune responses have a positive prognostic value. However, despite these positive results in the course of early clinical development, most therapeutic vaccines tested so far failed to provide any clinical benefit to cancer patients in Phase II/III studies. Our research indicates that evaluating the immunological profile of patients at enrollment might constitute a key approach often neglected in these studies. Such an immunological monitoring should be based not only on peripheral blood samples but also on bioptic specimens, whenever possible. The evaluation of the immunological profile of cancer patients enrolled in early clinical trials will allow for the identification of individuals who have the highest chances to benefit from anticancer vaccination, thus favoring the rational design of Phase II and Phase III studies. This approach will undoubtedly accelerate the clinical development of therapeutic anticancer vaccines.

Clinical evaluation of therapeutic cancer vaccines.

Therapeutic cancer vaccines are an immunotherapy that targets tumor antigens to induce an active immune response. To date, Provenge® is the only therapeutic cancer vaccine approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Although therapeutic cancer vaccines have not been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), they have been approved in several countries other than the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). Provenge® is the only approved cancer vaccine that showed significant primary endpoint efficacy in a phase III study at the time of approval. Retrospective analysis of 23 completed or terminated phase III studies showed that 74% (17/23) failed to demonstrate significant efficacy in the primary endpoint. The reasons for failure were surveyed in 13 of the 17 studies. Despite efforts to minimize tumor burden, including surgery and induction chemotherapy before therapeutic cancer vaccine therapy, 69% (9/13) of the phase III studies failed. These findings indicate that tumor burden may not be the only prognostic factor. Immunological response has often been used as a predictive factor, and a small number of sub-group analyses have succeeded in showing that immunological response is associated with the efficacy of therapeutic cancer vaccines. Being a prognostic factor, inclusion of immunological response in addition to tumor stage in the eligibility criteria or sub-group analysis may minimize study population heterogeneity, a key factor in the success of phase III studies.