Midthun, David E.

Abstract Background: Smoking is the most common etiology for lung cancer. Smoking cessation, even when successful, does not eliminate risk of lung cancer. With inconsistent results of lung chemoprevention trials, an emerging area of interest is immunoprevention, in particular vaccines. MUC1 is a transmembrane glycoprotein aberrantly overexpressed in adenocarcinomas, including lung cancer. Abnormal MUC1 expression is also characteristic of premalignant lesions, including bronchial dysplasia and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia. This suggests that immunization with a MUC1 vaccine in the premalignant or high-risk setting, before the tumor and cytotoxic therapy could suppress the immune system, might be effective in inducing strong immunity and reducing cancer risk. Trial design: Leveraging the infrastructure of the NCI-funded Cancer Prevention Network (CPN) consortium, we are conducting a two-center pilot trial to evaluate co-primary endpoints: immunogenicity of the MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant vaccine (assessed at 12 weeks) and safety (assessed at up to 24 weeks) in current and former smokers who are at high risk for lung cancer. 50 participants will be screened in order to have 40 evaluable participants for baseline and 12-week immunogenicity assessments. Eligibility: Smoking history of ≥30 pack-years and either current smoker (still smoking or quit < 1 year prior to pre-registration) or former smoker (quit 1-15 years prior to pre-registration); ages 55-80 years; ECOG performance status ≤1; CT scan of the chest done ≤ 6 months prior to pre-registration showing either negative findings (no nodules) or solid or part-solid nodules < 6 mm in size (consistent with < 1% probability of malignancy, Lung-RADs Version 1.0). Exclusion criteria are standard. Immunogenicity and safety: MUC1 peptide plus polyICLC adjuvant vaccine will be administered at week 0, 2 and 10. The primary endpoint is anti-MUC1 IgG titer that is ≥2 fold higher at week 12 compared to baseline. Based on previous studies of this vaccine, we expect that 40 evaluable participants will provide 96% power to detect immunogenicity response rate of 15% versus 40% using a 2-sided test of proportions with type I error rate of 0.05. AEs and toxicities will be monitored for up to 24 weeks from the first vaccine. Secondary Objectives: We will explore differences, if any, in vaccine immunogenicity in current vs. former smokers. Smoking induces chronic inflammation (hallmark of cancer) associated with immunosuppression. We will evaluate pre-vaccination levels of circulating myeloid derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and correlate with the response to the vaccine. We will explore the impact, if any, of this vaccine on the markers of inflammation (hsCRP, IL-6) and the effect of baseline levels of these markers on the ability to successfully vaccinate. We will also assess the relationship between COPD status and immune response in current versus former smokers. The trial is open to accrual. Citation Format: Olivera J. Finn, Julie Ward, Tami Krpata, Lisa Bengtson, John McKolanis, Sharon Kaufman, Colleen Akerley, April Felt, Karrie Fursa, Anne Holland, Nathan Foster, Andres Salazar, Malgorzata Wojtowicz, Eva Szabo, Paul Limburg, David Midthun, Arjun Pennathur. A pilot study of a MUC1 vaccine in current and former smokers at high risk for lung cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT222.

Abstract Purpose: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Most present symptomatically at late stage with high lethality. Early detection reduces mortality but accurate and readily accessible tools for population screening are limited. By whole methylome sequencing, we have identified novel methylated DNA markers (MDMs) for lung cancer in tissue (Giakoumopoulos et al. ASCO 2016). Using top candidate MDMs in the present study, we now explore their clinical accuracy for lung cancer detection when assayed from plasma. Experimental Procedures: Archival plasmas from two independent study groups were tested in blinded fashion. Lung cancer cases and controls (apparently healthy smokers) for each group were balanced on age and sex (Group 1: 64 cases, 231 controls; Group 2: 23 cases, 80 controls). Using multiplex PCR followed by QuARTS (Quantitative Allele-Specific Real-time Target and Signal amplification) assay, a post-bisulfite quantification of MDMs on DNA extracted from plasma was performed. We selected 31 MDM candidates for initial evaluation in Group 1 (1 ml plasma/patient); top individual MDMs were subsequently tested in Group 2 to identify optimal MDM panels for lung cancer detection (2 ml/patient). Results: From Group 1 analyses, 13 high performance MDMs were selected for further testing (CYP26C1, SOBP, SUCLG2, SHOX2, ZDHHC1, NFIX, FLJ45983, HOXA9, B3GALT6, ZNF781, SP9, BARX1, EMX1) with individual areas under the receiver operator curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.593 to 0.939. Discrimination by individual MDMs was corroborated in Group 2 in which data was analyzed using two methods: a logistic regression fit and a regression partition tree approach. The logistic fit model identified a 4-marker panel (ZNF781, BARX1, EMX1, and SOBP) with an AUC of 0.96 and an overall sensitivity of 91% and 90% specificity. Analysis of the data using a regression partition tree approach identified 4 markers (ZNF781, BARX1, EMX1, and HOXA9) with AUC of 0.93 and an overall sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 94%. For both approaches, B3GALT6 was used as a standardizing marker of total DNA input. Conclusion: A panel of MDMs assayed in plasma achieved high sensitivity and specificity for all types of lung cancer. Further clinical evaluation and validation of this promising panel in larger patient groups are clearly indicated. Citation Format: Hatim T. Allawi, Maria Giakoumopoulos, Evan Flietner, Austin Oliphant, Carla Volkmann, Brian Aizenstein, Tamara Sander, Drew Eckmayer, Ashley Poenitzsch Strong, Melissa Gray, Barry Berger, Tracy Yab, William Taylor, Douglas Mahoney, John B. Kisiel, David E. Midthun, David A. Ahlquist, Graham P. Lidgard. Detection of lung cancer by assay of novel methylated DNA markers in plasma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 712. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-712

54 Background: After diagnosis and treatment, lung cancer survivors do not return to a health-related quality of life (QOL) and function comparable to pre-diagnosis levels as observed in other adult cancer survivors. We hypothesize that inadequate attention has been paid to addressing and improving QOL and function among lung cancer survivors. Our primary goal is to evaluate existing symptoms and QOL deficits among lung cancer survivors. Methods: We are evaluating patterns of QOL deficits (scored 5 or less on the scale from 0 [worst] to 10 [best]) in relation to time of lung cancer diagnosis, treatments, progression and/or recurrence, and health-related conditions. We are collecting and analyzing relevant health care utilization for selected QOL deficits, and identifying availability, accessibility, and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. The expected outcomes will be new knowledge on patterns of QOL deficits, quality-adjusted life years in relation to the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of needed care and the effectiveness of interventions targeting improvement in QOL and symptoms. Results: In our initial analysis, among 3,707 lung cancer survivors who were diagnosed in 1999 to 2010, post-cancer treatment, and followed through 2011, 39% (1,442) reported deficits in overall QOL, 71% fatigue, 60% dyspnea, 41% being sedentary, 17% low spiritual well-being (SWB), and 10% currently smoking cigarettes. Among the 1,442 lung cancer survivors with a deficit in overall QOL, 97.5% reported severe fatigue or dyspnea, being sedentary or smoking, or having low SWB. In the remaining 36 of the 1,442, 24 had pain, cough, poor appetite, or other symptoms; only 12 (<1%) did not report deficit in any of the measured QOL domains. Analyses are ongoing. Conclusions: Based on evidence gained to date, we are developing and testing interventions targeting symptoms and QOL deficits. We expect to gain strong evidence for recommendations in redefining and delivering care and support that are necessary for improving the health and QOL of lung cancer survivors.

Abstract Previous preclinical studies and a phase I clinical trial suggested that myo-inositol may be a safe and effective lung cancer chemopreventive agent. We conducted a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb study to determine the chemopreventive effects of myo-inositol in smokers with bronchial dysplasia. Smokers with ≥1 site of dysplasia identified by autofluorescence bronchoscopy-directed biopsy were randomly assigned to receive oral placebo or myo-inositol, 9 g once a day for 2 weeks, and then twice a day for 6 months. The primary endpoint was change in dysplasia rate after 6 months of intervention on a per-participant basis. Other trial endpoints reported herein include Ki-67 labeling index, blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) levels of proinflammatory, oxidant/antioxidant biomarkers, and an airway epithelial gene expression signature for PI3K activity. Seventy-four (n = 38 myo-inositol and n = 36 placebo) participants with a baseline and 6-month bronchoscopy were included in all efficacy analyses. The complete response and the progressive disease rates were 26.3% versus 13.9% and 47.4% versus 33.3%, respectively, in the myo-inositol and placebo arms (P = 0.76). Compared with placebo, myo-inositol intervention significantly reduced IL6 levels in BAL over 6 months (P = 0.03). Among those with a complete response in the myo-inositol arm, there was a significant decrease in a gene expression signature reflective of PI3K activation within the cytologically normal bronchial airway epithelium (P = 0.002). The heterogeneous response to myo-inositol suggests a targeted therapy approach based on molecular alterations is needed in future clinical trials to determine the efficacy of myo-inositol as a chemopreventive agent. Cancer Prev Res; 9(12); 906–14. ©2016 AACR.