Electrochemotherapy as a Trigger to Overcome Primary Resistance to Anti-PD-1 Treatment: A Case Report of Melanoma of the Scalp.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors is one of the main therapies for advanced melanoma. Nevertheless, albeit remarkable, immunotherapy results are still unsatisfactory as more than half of patients progress, and resistance to treatment still has a dramatic impact on clinical outcomes. Local treatments such as radiotherapy or electrochemotherapy (ECT), in addition to local control with palliative intent, have been shown to release tumoral neoantigens that can stimulate a robust systemic antitumor immune response. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a patient with multiple nodular melanoma lesions of the scalp initially treated with local ECT. Soon after the procedure, multiple new lesions appeared close to the treated ones, therefore the patient started a systemic treatment with the anti-PD-1 nivolumab. The lesions of the scalp did not respond to immunotherapy, presenting a loco-regional spreading. To control the bleeding and painful lesions, we performed a second ECT, while continuing systemic immunotherapy. The treated lesions responded to the second procedure, while the other lesions continued progressing in number and dimension. Unexpectedly, after 2 months from the second ECT, the patient presented a progressive shrinkage of both treated and untreated lesions until complete remission. Concomitantly, he developed immune-related adverse events including grade 4 thyroid toxicity, grade 2 vitiligo-like depigmentation and grade 2 pemphigoid. At present, after 18 months from the first ECT and 14 months from the starting of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy, the patient is in good clinical condition and complete remission of disease still persists. CONCLUSION: This case highlights the potential role of ECT in increasing tumor immunogenicity and consequently in inducing a powerful immune response overcoming primary resistance to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy.

Different eplet software programs give discordant and incorrect results: An analysis of HLAMatchmaker vs Fusion Matchmaker Eplet calling software.

HLA eplet matching is a novel approach to define acceptable HLA mismatches for transplant recipients. We performed an eplet analysis of three different transplant case-series to determine if the available software programs gave accurate results. Eplet analysis was performed for three different transplant case-series typed by NGS for all HLA class I and II loci. The three different HLA datasets were entered into both the HLAMatchmaker program (v2.1) and OLI Fusion MatchMaker (v4.2) software tools. Eplet results which were discordant were cross referenced against eplet registry and published HLA allele sequence data to determine the correct assignments. The comparison reveals that there was poor concordance between the two eplet programs. Analysis of the same donor/recipient pair often gave rise to different total eplet scores, incorrect eplet mismatches and antibody verification status, and both programs have eplets assigned to incorrect HLA alleles. Overall, the OLI Fusion MatchMaker eplet tool gave more accurate and useful eplet results. Eplet matching is still primarily a research tool. Before eplet matching can enter routine clinical practice further work is required to validate the accuracy of available eplet software programs. Incorrect eplet assignment could have serious adverse consequences in the clinical transplant setting.

Comparison of time on the deceased donor kidney waitlist versus time on the kidney paired donation registry in the Australian program.

In the Australian kidney paired donation (KPD) program matching is based on acceptable mismatches, whereas deceased donor waitlist (DDWL) patients are allocated kidneys based on HLA antigen matching rules. Herein, we compared waiting time for a KPD match to the waiting time on the DDWL and the occurrence of matching in the DDWL for patients who were registered in both programs. Data on first dialysis, matches on the DDWL, KPD program entry, matches and transplant dates were assessed in 26 KPD recipients of the Australian program. There were 22 recipients who were listed in the DDWL and received kidney transplants by KPD. Time on dialysis until KPD transplantation was 808 ± 646 days. Eleven patients had never been matched with a deceased donor (waiting time 345 ± 237 days) and 11 had been matched on average 3 ± 5 times (waiting time 1227 ± 615 days, P < 0.0001 vs. never matched), but did not progress to transplantation because of positive crossmatch or class II donor-specific antibody. Mean time from registration in the KPD program until kidney transplantation was 153 ± 92 days (P < 0.0001 vs. DDWL). KPD allocation using the acceptable mismatch approach is effective in identifying suitable live donors for some recipients within a relatively short time-frame.

High transplant rates of highly sensitized recipients with virtual crossmatching in kidney paired donation.

BACKGROUND: In kidney paired donation (KPD), flexibility in the allocation of incompatible pairs is required if a critical mass of pairs to efficiently find matches cannot be reached. METHODS: In the Australian KPD program, virtual crossmatch is used for the allocation of suitable donors to registered recipients. Matching is based on acceptable mismatches, and donors are excluded from matching to recipients with donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) greater than 2000 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI). Match and transplant rates in the first year of the program were reviewed with respect to recipient and donor characteristics, including blood group distribution, level of recipient's sensitization, and postallocation crossmatches. RESULTS: Four quarterly match runs were performed, which included 53 pairs and 2 altruistic donors. Human leukocyte antigen incompatibility accounted for 90% of the listed pairs. In the second run, the DSA threshold was increased to greater than 8000 MFI, because no matches were found with standard allocation. Optional ABO-incompatible matching was introduced from run 3. Matches were identified in 37 (70%) patients, of whom 92% had a negative crossmatch with their matched donor. Crossmatch positive results were found only in recipients with DSAs greater than 2000 MFI in the second run. In 4 cases immunological reasons and in 4 cases other reasons resulted in breakdown of chains and 17 patients not progressing to transplantation. Eventually, 20 (38%) patients received a KPD transplant, and 35% of these had a calculated panel-reactive antibody greater than 90%. CONCLUSIONS: KPD using virtual crossmatch is a valid and effective solution for patients with immunologically incompatible donors even in the context of highly sensitized recipients.

Separation and cryopreservation of lymphocytes from spleen and lymph node.

Spleen and lymph node retrieved post-mortem from deceased organ donors are a rich source of lymphocytes. Storage of lymphocytes separated from these sources can be valuable where post-transplant testing (crossmatching) is required. DNA extraction from stored lymphocytes also allows further genetic testing where required, for example additional HLA typing not performed at the time of transplant for donor-specific antibody monitoring. Methods for the isolation and freezing of such cells is described.