NY-ESO-1 peptide (1-9)

NY-ESO-1 is an attractive candidate tumor antigen for the development of immunotherapy for a wide variety of cancers. It is expressed in multiple types of tumors, but its normal tissue distribution is predominantly limited to the testes and ovaries; furthermore, both humoral and cellular immune responses can be mounted against this protein. Three overlapping HLA-A2.1-restricted T-cell epitopes have been identified within NY-ESO-1. In this investigation, the authors evaluated the in vitro immunogenicity of these peptides. From 2 of 12 HLA-A2.1+ patients with metastatic melanoma, peptide-reactive cytotoxic T-lymphocytes were generated using either NY-ESO-1:157-167 or NY-ESO-1:157-165 but not NY-ESO-1:155-163. Because NY-ESO-1:157-165 is a 9 amino acid peptide completely contained within NY-ESO-1:157-167, it seemed likely that this peptide was the minimal determinant, and thus it was selected for continued study. An amino acid substitution of C to V was introduced into NY-ESO-1:157-165 at P9 to attempt to improve its immunogenicity by enhancing its binding affinity to HLA-A2.1 and increasing its stability in solution, because the C residue is readily oxidized, leading to dimerization of the peptide. From 5 of 20 HLA-A2.1+ patients with metastatic melanoma, NY-ESO-1:157-165(165V) stimulated cytotoxic T-lymphocytes in vitro, which recognized peptide-pulsed target cells and HLA-A2.1+ NY-ESO-1+ tumor cells, suggesting that this peptide may be clinically valuable for the treatment of patients with NY-ESO-1+ tumors.

Background: Anti-PDL-1 immunotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) demonstrated a mixed response. Polycomb Repressor Complex 2(PRC2) contributes to the initiation and progression of HCC by suppressing tumor antigens and inhibiting an immune response. Two components of epigenetic modulation are Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2 (EZH2, the catalytic component of PRC2) and DNA Methyltransferase 1 (DNMT1). We aim to investigate the potential role of epigenetic therapy targeting EZH2 and DNMT1 as a novel strategy to modulate immunotherapy response in HCC. Methods: HepG2, Hep3B, and Hepa1-6 HCC cell lines were treated with EZH2 inhibitor (DZNep) and DNMT1 inhibitor (5-Azacytidine) with and without anti-PDL-1. Quantitative RT-PCR and immunohistochemistry were performed to evaluate the expression of tumor suppressors, tumor antigens, and Th1 chemokines. In-vivo C57/LJ immunocompetent mice model with subcutaneous tumor inoculation was performed with intraperitoneal drug injections. Results: There was a significant upregulation of Th1 chemokines in HepG2 (CXCL9 5.5 ± 0.2 relative fold change; CXCL10 1.44 × 103 ± 37 relative fold change) and Hep3B (CXCL 9 6.85 × 103 ± 1.3 × 103 relative fold change; CXCL 10 2.15 × 103 ± 3.1 × 102 relative fold change). Additionally, there was a significant induction of cancer testis antigens NY-ESO-1 (3.6-3.7 ± 0.3 relative fold change) and LAGE (8.3-11.7 ± 1.9 relative fold change). In vivo model demonstrated statistically significant tumor regression in the combination treatment group (0.02 g ± 0.02) compared to epigenetic therapy (0.63 g ± 0.61) or immunotherapy alone (0.15 g ± 0.21) with untreated control (2.4 g ± 0.71). There was significantly increased trafficking of cytotoxic T- lymphocytes and associated apoptosis for the combination treatment group compared to epigenetic or immunotherapy alone. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that epigenetic modulation could be a novel potential strategy to augment immunotherapy for HCC by stimulating T cell trafficking into tumor microenvironment via activation of transcriptionally repressed chemokine genes responsible for T-cell trafficking, inducing previously silent neoantigens for immune targets, and allowing tumor regression as a result. A clinical trial of this feasible combination therapy of these clinically available agents is warranted.

Background: Raising T-cell response against antigens either expressed on normal and malignant plasma cells (e.g. HM1.24) or aberrantly on myeloma cells only (e.g. cancer testis antigens, CTA) by vaccination is a potential treatment approach for multiple myeloma. Results: Expression by GEP is found for HM1.24 in all, HMMR in 318/458 (69.4%), MAGE-A3 in 209/458 (45.6%), NY-ESO-1/2 in 40/458 (8.7%), and WT-1 in 4/458 (0.8%) of samples with the pattern being confirmed by RNA-sequencing. T-cell-activation is found in 9/26 (34.6%) of patient samples, i.e. against HM1.24 (4/24), RHAMM-R3 (3/26), RHAMM1-8 (2/14), WT-1 (1/11), NY-ESO-1/2 (1/9), and MAGE-A3 (2/8). In 7/19 T-cell activation responses, myeloma cells lack respective antigen-expression. Expression of MAGE-A3, HMMR and NY-ESO-1/2 is associated with adverse survival. Experimental design: We assessed expression of HM1.24 and the CTAs MAGE-A3, NY-ESO-1/2, WT-1 and HMMR in CD138-purified myeloma cell samples of previously untreated myeloma patients in the GMMG-MM5 multicenter-trial by gene expression profiling (GEP; n = 458) and RNA-sequencing (n = 152) as potential population regarding vaccination trials. We then validated the feasibility to generate T-cell responses (n = 72) against these antigens by IFN-γ EliSpot-assay (n = 26) related to antigen expression (n = 22). Lastly, we assessed survival impact of antigen expression in an independent cohort of 247 patients treated by high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation. Conclusions: As T-cell responses can only be raised in a subfraction of patients despite antigen expression, and the number of responses increases with more antigens used, vaccination strategies should assess patients' antigen expression and use a "cocktail" of peptide vaccines.