T-cell Therapies for Hematologic Malignancies: Utilizing A Non-Gene Transfer Approach Catherine Bollard
Rationale of Immunotherapy for EBV-positive Lymphoma Significant failure rate of therapy for advanced stage or recurrent disease Long-term side effects of chemotherapy and radiation EBV antigens expressed by up to 40% of lymphomas are potential targets for T cell immunotherapy
Types of EBV Latency Types of EBV Latency LMP 2 EBNA-3a EBNA-3b EBNA-3c EBNA-1 EBNA-2 LMP 1 EBNA 1 LMP 1 LMP 2 EBNA 1 EBNA-1 LP Type 3 EBV lymphoma post transplant Lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCL) Type 2 Hodgkin s disease Nasopharyngeal carcinoma Type 1 Burkitt s lymphoma
EBV Specific Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes (CTL) Control EBV Infection in vivo PBMC Inhibitory factors EBV Infected B cells CTL LMP1 LMP2A Lytic EBNA 3a, b, c LMP 2 LP LMP 1 EBNA 2 EBNA1 EBV +ve Lymphoma Cell
EBV-Specific EBV-specific T CTL cell Generation PBMC EBV EBV-infected B cells (LCL) Step 1: LCL generation 4-6 weeks PBMC Step 2: CTL expansion 4-7 weeks IL-2 LMP2-CTL EBV-CTL Step 3: QA/QC Sterility HLA type Phenotype Cytotoxicity
EBV Specific CTL in EBV+ve Hodgkin Lymphoma Gene Marked T-cells persisted for 12 months max EBV-CTL lines showed small populations of T cells reactive against LMP2 Some expansion of LMP2- specific T cells in PB post infusion. Anti-tumor effects seen (20% CR/PR) Marked CTL by in situ PCR at tumor site Bollard et al, J Exp Med 2004 Straathof et al, J Immunol 2005
LMP1 and LMP2A-specific CTL For Hodgkin and non-hodgkin Lymphoma LMP1 EBNA1 LMP1 and LMP2A are potential CTL targets LMP2A Hodgkin R-S Cell/NHL Cell
Making LMP1 and LMP2 Immunodominant Antigens Adherent PBMC GM-CSF IL-4 IL-1b IL-6 TNF-a PGE-2 LCL LCL LCL PBMC mdc More recently Substituting ad vector for pepmixes IL-15 IL-2 IL-2 LMP-specific Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes (CTL) Bollard et al, JIT 2004, Straathof et al, JI 2005
Phenotype of Autologous LMP-CTL Lines Expanded from Lymphoma Patients 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 CD19 CD3 TCRab CD4 CD8 CD56+ CD56+ CD4+ CD4+ CD8+ CD8+ CD3+ CD3 neg RA neg RA neg RA neg RA neg CD62L+ CD62L neg CD62L+
SFC per 10e5 cells LMP1 & LMP2 Specific Activity in LMP-CTL lines from Patients with EBV+ Lymphoma SFC per 10e5 cells 2000 1800 1600 LMP2 CTL line 1200 1000 LMP1/2 CTL 1400 1200 800 1000 600 800 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 25 LMP1 pepmix LMP2 pepmix 0 0 LMP1 pepmix LMP2 pepmix
% Cytotoxicity at 20:1 E:T ratio LMP1 & LMP2 Specific Activity in LMP-CTL lines from Patients with EBV+ Lymphoma % Cytotoxicity at 20:1 E:T ratio 100 LMP2-specific T-cell lines 90 LMP1/2 specific T-cell lines 90 80 80 Mean 70 Mean 70 60 Median 60 50 Median 50 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 LCLs PHA blasts +LMP2 pepmix PHA blasts alone 0 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 LCL s PHA blasts +LMP1 pepmix PHA blasts +LMP2 PHA blasts alone
Eligibility Any age EBV+ type III or type II latency lymphoma (EBER and/or LMP1 pos) HIV negative Either with relapsed disease OR high risk for relapse (e.g. multiply relapsed patient post chemotherapy or autologous BMT)
CTL Product, Dose and Administration Autologous LMP2-CTL product (n=17) OR LMP1 and LMP2 CTL product (n=33) Dose escalation - Level 1: 4x10 7 /m 2, - Level 2: 1.2x10 8 /m 2 - Level 3: 3x10 8 /m 2 Patients received 2 doses (given 2 weeks apart). If stable disease or PR then could receive an additional 6 doses
Types of Lymphoma Treated on LMP-CTL Studies Patients Treated as Adjuvant therapy HL (n) LMP2-CTL protocol 5 4 LMP1/2-CTL protocol 12 8 NHL/Other (n) Patients Treated with Active Disease HL (n) LMP2-CTL protocol 4 4 LMP1/2-CTL protocol 4 9 NHL/Other (n) NHL/Other = NK/Tcell NHL, DLBCL, PTLD, CAEBV, LYG Age range 8-79years
Clinical Responses post LMP-CTL Relapsed Disease Arm (n=21) No toxicity 11 CR (1 also given Rituximab) (includes 1PR CR) 2 very good partial responses (up to 36 mths) 8 progressive disease (2-8 wks) Median clinical response: 1.5y (range: >6 to >40 mths) Patients with disease at CTL infusion PR CR Bollard et al, JCO 2013 in press n =21
Proportion disease-free Clinical Responses post LMP-CTL in Patients with Active Disease 50% Disease Free Survival at 2 years 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 LMP2-CTL study Alascer ALCI LMP1/2-CTL study 0 1 2 3 Year P=0.882 X X X X X X X X PR NR PR CR CR n =21
Responder vs. Non-responder LMP 2
Responder vs. Non-responder LMP 1 NR CR
Immune Reconstitution of LMP1 and LMP2- specific T cells in Patients Treated with Disease RESPONDERS NON RESPONDERS LMP1-T-cells LMP1-T-cells LMP2-T-cells LMP2-T-cells Pre wk 1 wk2 wk4 wk6 wk8 wk12 Pre wk 1 wk2 wk4 wk6 wk8 wk12
Figure 4C. Immune Reconstitution Evidence of Epitope spreading in Responding Patients Treated with LMP1/2-CTL SFC per 2x10 5 cells SFC per 2x10 5 cells 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 60 40 MAGE A4 pre-infusion Survivin Responders post-infusion 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 60 40 MAGEA4 pre-infusion post-infusion Survivin Nonresponders 20 20 0 60 40 20 0 pre-infusion PRAME post-infusion pre-infusion post-infusion 0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 pre-infusion post-infusion PRAME pre-infusion post-infusion
Clinical Responses post LMP-CTL- As Clinical Adjuvant Results Therapy Adjuvant Therapy n=29 No toxicity 14 patients post BMT 15 post chemo alone 1 died of cardiac disease (at <8wks) 27 remain in remission - 1 relapsed 8 wks post CTL - CR median of 2.5 years Bollard et al, JCO 2013 Patients high risk for relapse at CTL infusion Relapse Remain in remission
Proportion disease-free Progression Free Survival Probability in LMP2-CTL vs LMP1/2-CTL groups Patients who received CTL as Adjuvant Therapy 1 P=0.366 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 LMP2-CTL Alascer study LMP1/2-CTL ALCI study 0 1 2 3 Year
Cumulative Cumulative Incidence Probability Cumulative Incidence Probability Cause of death specific probability: All subjects XXXXXX Patients who received T cells as Treatment XXXX XXXXXX Patients who received T cells as Adjuvant Therapy 1 0.8 XXXX Lymphoma Other 1 0.8 Lymphoma Other 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 Year Year 0 0 1 2 3 Year
Deaths from Other causes Deaths from Other Causes In adjuvant Group 8/29 patients died 1 relapsed, died in CR after allo SCT 3 second cancers (2 MDS, 1 Sarcoma) 3 infection 1 cardiac disease Confirms need for targeted therapies
Conclusions-LMP1/2 data No toxicity especially when used as adjuvant therapy Accumulation of LMP-CTL at disease sites Anti-tumor effects seen (13/21 patients PR/CR) Now moving to multicenter study with industry support (Cellmedica) for NK/T cell lymphoma Developing third party LMP-CTL study for patients with PTLD post SOT (Children s Oncology Group)
Conclusions-LMP1/2 data But.what about the patients who relapse??
Immune Evasion Strategies in Hodgkin s Lymphoma - Do CTL have a chance? Reed-Sternberg cell LMP-1 LMP-2 EBNA-1 IL-10 APC IL-13 BARF0 TARC TGF-ß CD8+CTL CD4+ TH2 Cell IL-4 CD4+CD25+ Treg Cell
Creating a Mutant TGFb Receptor II Wild type Receptor Transmembrane domain Truncated TGFß Receptor II Dominant Negative Receptor (DNR) Stop codon 597 Retroviral vector SFG MoMLV Bollard et al, Blood 2002 NcoI/BamHI MoMLV U3 R U5 U3 R U5 SD PBSQ + SFG:DNR SA TM domain DNR
Rendering LMP-specific T cells Resistant to TGFb Ad5f35 LMP1-I-LMP2 EBV-LCL DC SFG:DNR PBMC IL-2 DNR-transduced LMP CTLs Bollard et al, JIT 2004, Bollard et al, Blood 2002, Foster et al, JIT 2008
CTL Proliferation DNR-Transduced LMP-CTL are Functional in vitro 80000 70000 60000 50000 +TGFb 40000 30000 20000 +TGFb 10000 0 Non trans CTL Transduced CTL NT NT+TGFb Trans Trans+TGFb
Patients Studied 5 females and 3 males EBV+ HL 7 relapsed post autologous SCT 1 relapsed post allogeneic SCT Two previously treated with LMP-CTL alone All refused additional chemotherapy
Copy numbers in 10 3 ng DNA DNR-transduced T-cells Persist in vivo for up to 3 years 1000 CTLs Patient 1 100 10 1 0.1 0 10000 CTLs Patient 3 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0
Clinical Outcomes after DNR-transduced LMP-CTL Pt ID Age Dose # Doses 1 27 2x10 7 /m 2 2 2 47 2x10 7 /m 2 2 3 43 6x10 7 /m 2 8 4 47 6x10 7 /m 2 6 5 32 2x10 7 /m 2 6 6 28 6x10 7 /m 2 4 7 33 2x10 7 /m 2 2 Response post CTL Mixed response CR Complete response Partial response Stable Disease Very good PR CR Stable Disease Continued CR Duration of Response CTL Persistence 14 months 12months 36 months+ 36 months+ 18 months 23 months 12 months 18 months 24 months + 24months+ 7 months 5months 6 months+ 6months+
Conclusions No dose limiting toxicity TGFb-resistent LMP-CTL may beneficial in EBV+ Lymphoma DNR-trans LMP-CTL persist up to 3 years+ Now expanding to Melanoma, lung cancer, Brain tumor, Neuroblastoma setting
Generating T cells for Patients with Lymphoma or Leukemia without Gene Transfer LAAmix * WT1 PR3 PRAME MAGE HNE NY-ESO SSX Survivin DC 1 st stimulation + IL-7,IL-12, IL- 15, IL-6 or IL27 +IL-7 2 nd stimulation PHA B DC PBMC maintenance and re-stimulation with IL-15 or IL-2 Multi leukemia or lymphoma Antigen-specific CTL Weber et al, Leukemia 2013 Weber et al, CCR 2013
Unstimluate d cells CD33/CD34 TAA- Mix CTL Multi TAA-specific T cells block tumor proliferation and survival Day 0 Day +1 Day +3 13.8% 2.2% 0.5% Day 0 Leukemia only 99.8% 17.8% 6.8% 6.9% Weber et al, Leukemia 2013 CD3 Partially HLA matched CTL generated with TAA mix eliminate AML blasts in culture
SFC/2x10 5 CTL A 10000 1000 SSX2 Surv M4 PRAME NYESO1 control 100 10 1 LP071 LP090 LP178 B CD19 LP069 Tumor 23.3% Day 0 Day 3 4.4% 1.3% 93.4% Tumor + PHA Blast 73.3% 4.4% 93.5% 0.2% Tumor + CTL CD3 Gerdemann et al, Mol Ther 2012
Patient TAA-specific T-cells are functional against autologous tumor Remaining leukemia cells*10 3 /ml 100 80 TAA-specific CTL control 60 40 20 0 Day 0 Day +1 Day +3 Weber et al, Clinical Cancer Research 2013
Demethylation Increases TAA Expression T-cell Lymphoblastic Lymphoma Burkitt s lymphoma NS Hodgkin s lymphoma - + - + - + Plus/minus 1uM Decitabine MAGEA4 NY-ESO SSX2 Survivin GAPDH Shafer et al, Leukemia Lymphoma 2010 Demethylating agents increase MAGE expression in primary lymphoma tissue
Can TAA-specific T cells Kill Decitabine Treated HL Targets in vitro? A 45 Viability(%) INF-γ ELIspot (SFU) B 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 No CTLs No CTLs MAGEA4 HLA-A2+ CTL (matched) P=0.004 Aspf16 HLA-A2- CTL (mismatched) C Counts HDLM2 alone No drug = 25% Decitabine = 28% Propidium Iodide HDLM2 plus MAGEA4-CTL L428 plus + MAGE-A4 CTL Propidium Iodide No drug = 25% Decitabine = 74% Cruz et al, Clin Cancer Research 2012
Clinical Response post epigenetic therapy (Vidaza/HDAC)
Mean SFC per 1x10 6 cells Tumor was MAGE + MAGE-specific CTL reactivity CTL response to MAGE pre and post chemo 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Pre Post irrelevant peptide Pre Post Irr pep Cruz et al, Clin Cancer Research 2012
SFC per 1x10 5 cells Breadth of MAGE-specific T cell response increased after chemo 50 40 Pre chemo Post chemo 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MAGE pool # MAGE peptide pool # Cruz et al, Clin Cancer Research 2012
Clinical Use of MultiTAA-CTL Ann Leen George Carrum Helen Heslop Stimulators Pepmix-pulsed DCs PRAME, SSX2, MAGEA4, NY-ESO-1,Survivin IL7,12,15,6 +IL2/15 +IL7 C Generation Initiation Expansion 7 days 16 days 23 days Product for Infusion: PRAME/SSX2/MAGEA4/NYESO1/Survivin-specific CTLs
Can we combine TAA-specific T cell Therapy with Epigenetic Therapy? Plan to treat leukemia or lymphoma with epigenetic modifiers then give TAA-CTL
Potential for using TAA-specific T cells Target remission with tumor-specific T cells Improving outcomes post HSCT/CBT Opportunity to offer GVL type immunotherapy and avoid transplant or bridge to transplant A safer alternative for patients under 2years or over 60 years - avoid TBI with HSCT?
Developing Immune Therapies for Lymphoma- The Future Proof of Principle Studies With an optimal approach the goals are: - Evaluate safety and feasibility - Broaden applicability beyond a few centers - Improve outcomes after BMT - Ultimate goal is to perform studies with COMBINATION therapies T cell therapy, vaccines, antibodies, small molecules, chemotherapy, transplant etc.? Avoid RT
Cell therapy beyond HSCT for malignancy the Vision Lymphoma Myeloma Acute leukemia Chronic leukemia Melanoma Breast Prostate Colon Brain tumors Lung cancer Surgery, Chemotherapy Small molecules vaccines Disease burden Minimal residual disease DC vaccines T cells NK cells Gene modified T cells Tumor seeking MSC cure Sources: autologous / allogeneic
T-cell Therapies for Heme Malignanices CAGT Laboratory A Leen U Gerdeman B Savoldo G Dotti Eric Yvon Carlos Ramos Oumar Diouf Adrian Gee Malcolm Brenner Cliona Rooney Helen Heslop MDACC EJ Shpall Nina Shah Katy Rezvani NIH John Barrett Jos Melenhorst Barts, London John Gribben Cath Lab (CAGT-BCM CETI-CNMC) Stephanie Ku, Russell Cruz, Patrick Hanley Ken Micklethwaite, Mo Baki, Javier El-Bietar, Sharon Lam, Gerrit Weber, Paul CastilloCaro, Yasmin Hazrat,An Lu, JW Blaney, Francesco Saglio, David Jacobsohn, Kirsten Williams, Allistair Abraham, Cecilia Baresce, Kaylor Wright, Fahmida Hoq, Mike Keller, Swaroop Bose, Renuka Miller, Maria Manso-Martin