Vreeland, Timothy J.

BACKGROUND: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) implemented 6 operative standards to reduce technical variation in cancer surgery. Although designed to guide surgeons in performing key oncologic techniques, these standards also provide a framework for teaching high-quality cancer surgery to trainees. We assessed surgical trainees’ familiarity with the CoC Operative Standards and the underlying principles of cancer surgery to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for improved education. STUDY DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons Cancer Surgery Standards Program distributed an anonymous survey to general surgery residents and surgical fellows across the US. Questions addressed the CoC Operative Standards and cancer surgery principles, with scores calculated on the basis of correctness. Univariate logistic regression evaluated associations between trainee or program characteristics and knowledge. Trainees were also asked about their role in procedural documentation, given the synoptic operative report requirements of the standards. RESULTS: A total of 244 surveys were completed by 205 residents and 39 fellows. Fellows reported greater familiarity with the CoC Operative Standards (68% vs 24%, p < 0.001). Only 30% of trainees reported receiving a formal curriculum on the standards. Correct response rates were 30% for CoC Operative Standards questions vs 50% for cancer surgery principles, with minimal association between knowledge and trainee or program characteristics. Most residents (71%) reported contributing to operative documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical trainees demonstrated limited knowledge of the CoC Operative Standards, highlighting the need for multifaceted educational strategies at the national and institutional levels. Incorporating education about the CoC Operative Standards into surgical training can help emphasize the importance of performing and documenting critical elements of cancer operations.

Objective: To evaluate the first 3 years of compliance with the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) Operative Standards. Background: CoC implemented evidence-based standards to improve the quality of sentinel lymph node biopsy and axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer (operative standards 5.3 and 5.4), wide local excision for melanoma (5.5), colectomy for colon cancer (5.6), proctectomy for rectal cancer (5.7), and pulmonary resection for lung cancer (5.8) at ∼1400 programs treating >74% of US cancer patients. Each operative standard defines a technical element of the operation and structured documentation. Methods: Compliance data are from site visits conducted between January 1, 2022, and December 31, 2024 (implementation/site visits began in 2021/2022 for 5.7 and 5.8 and 2023/2024 for 5.3–5.6). Compliance with each operative standard was determined by evaluation of 7 operative (5.3–5.6) or pathology (5.7, 5.8) reports. Deficiency in technical performance, documentation, or both was considered noncompliance. Results: Reviewers conducted 974 site visits of Comprehensive Community (44%), Community (23%), Academic Comprehensive (16%), network (12%), NCI-Designated Comprehensive (4%), and other (1%) cancer programs. Program compliance rates ranged from 53% to 88%. Documentation noncompliance was more common for standards 5.3 to 5.6 (based on operative reports), and technical noncompliance was more common for 5.7 and 5.8 (based on pathology reports). Compliance significantly (P=0.006) varied by program type for 5.8 (highest: 66% at NCI-designated Comprehensive programs; lowest: 37% at Community Cancer programs). Conclusions: Early compliance with CoC operative standards varied, indicating local and large-scale national quality improvement efforts are needed.

Importance Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is an increasingly used treatment strategy for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Little research has been conducted on cancer care delivery during NT, and the standards for optimal delivery of NT have not been defined. Objective To develop consensus best practices for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Design, Setting, and Participants This study used a modified Delphi approach consisting of 2 rounds of voting, and a series of virtual conferences (from October to December 2023) to reach expert consensus on candidate best practice statements generated from a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion. An interdisciplinary panel was formed including 47 North American experts from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, gastroenterology, integrative oncology, anesthesia, pharmacy, nursing, cancer care delivery research, and nutrition as well as patient and caregiver stakeholders. Main Outcome and Measures Statements that reached 75% agreement or greater were included in final consensus statements. Results Of the 47 participating panel members, 27 (57.64%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (8.2) years. Physicians reported completing training a mean (SD) 14.6 (8.6) years prior and seeing a mean (SD) 110.6 (38.4) patients with PDAC annually; 35 (77.7%) were in academic practice. Final consensus was reached on 82 best practices for delivering NT. Of these, 38 statements focused on pre-NT practices, including diagnosis and staging (n = 15), evaluation and optimization (n = 20), and decision-making (n = 3); 29 statements defined best practices during NT, including initiation (n = 3), delivery of therapy (n = 8), restaging practices (n = 12), and management of complications during NT (n = 6); and 15 best practices were identified to guide treatment post-NT, focusing on surgery (n = 7), pathology (n = 4), and follow-up (n = 3). Conclusions Using a modified Delphi consensus technique, best practice guidelines were developed focusing on the optimal standards for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Given the prognostic importance of completing multimodality therapy, efforts to standardize and optimize the delivery of NT represent an immediate opportunity to decrease care variation and improve outcomes for patients with PDAC. Future research should focus on validating and implementing best practice standards into clinical practice.

Abstract Background: The autologous tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is produced from dendritic cells (DC) loaded ex vivo with autologous tumor lysate (TL). TLPLDC has been shown to decrease recurrence in resected Stage III/IV melanoma patients in a Phase IIb trial. The TL particle only (TLPO) vaccine is produced by loading of yeast cell wall particles with autologous TL and direct injection allowing for in vivo DC loading. We have compared the TLPO and TLPLDC vaccines in an embedded Phase I/IIa trial of a larger Phase IIb trial of the TLPLDC vaccine. Methods: Patients rendered clinically disease-free after surgery were randomized 2:1 to receive the TLPO or TLPLDC vaccine and followed for recurrence and death. Patients had scheduled intradermal inoculations at 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, and 18 months after enrollment. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analysis were used to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Results: Sixty-three patients were randomized, 43 TLPO and 20 TLPLDC. Patients randomized to the TLPO arm were more likely to be female (37.2% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.026), but otherwise no significant clinicopathological differences were identified. No differences in related adverse events (AE) were found between treatment arms. At a median follow-up of 20.5 months, the DFS (60.8% vs. 58.7%, p = 0.714) and OS (94.6% vs. 93.8%, p = 0.966) were equivalent between the TLPO and TLPLDC groups, respectively. No statistical differences were found in subgroup analyses between vaccine types, which accounted for receipt of immunotherapy and the use of G-CSF pre-blood draw. Conclusions: In a randomized, double-blind Phase I/IIa trial, there were no differences in DFS or OS in resected Stage III/IV melanoma patients receiving adjuvant TLPO versus TLPLDC vaccines. Given manufacturing advantages, further efficacy testing of TLPO is warranted in a Phase III trial. Trial Registration This is a clinical trial registered under NCT02301611.

Background The tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine is made by ex vivo priming matured autologous dendritic cells (DCs) with yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) loaded with autologous tumor lysate (TL). The tumor lysate, particle only (TLPO) vaccine uses autologous TL-loaded YCWPs coated with silicate for in vivo DC loading. Here we report the 36-month prespecified analyses of this prospective, randomized, double-blind trial investigating the ability of the TLPO and TLPLDC (±granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)) vaccines to prevent melanoma recurrence in high-risk patients. Methods Patients with clinically disease-free stage III/IV melanoma were randomized 2:1 initially to TLPLDC versus placebo (n=124) and subsequently TLPO versus TLPLDC (n=63). All patients were randomized and blinded; however, the placebo control arm was replaced in the second randomization scheme with another novel vaccine; some analyses in this paper therefore reflect a combination of the two randomization schemes. Patients receiving the TLPLDC vaccine were further divided by their method of DC harvest (with or without G-CSF pretreatment); this was not randomized. The use of standard of care checkpoint inhibitors was not stratified between groups. Safety was assessed and Kaplan-Meier and log-rank analyses compared disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results After combining the two randomization processes, a total of 187 patients were allocated between treatment arms: placebo (n=41), TLPLDC (n=103), or TLPO (n=43). The allocation among arms created by the addition of patients from the two separate randomization schemes does not reflect concurrent randomization among all treatment arms. TLPLDC was further divided by use of G-CSF in DC harvest: no G-CSF (TLPLDC) (n=47) and with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G) (n=56). Median follow-up was 35.8 months. Only two patients experienced a related adverse event ≥grade 3, one each in the TLPLDC+G and placebo arms. DFS was 27.2% (placebo), 55.4% (TLPLDC), 22.9% (TLPLDC+G), and 60.9% (TLPO) (p<0.001). OS was 62.5% (placebo), 93.6% (TLPLDC), 57.7% (TLPLDC+G), and 94.6% (TLPO) (p=0.002). Conclusions The TLPO and TLPLDC (without G-CSF) vaccines were associated with improved DFS and OS in this clinical trial. Given production and manufacturing advantages, the efficacy of the TLPO vaccine will be confirmed in a phase 3 trial. Trial registration number NCT02301611 .

The purpose of this article is to review the objectives of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Operative Standards with a specific focus on Standard 5.5, which pertains to curative intent wide local excision of primary cutaneous melanoma lesions. We review the details and rationale of the standard itself, including its requirement to include specific elements and responses in synoptic format in operative reports.

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of melanoma, yet survival remains poor for patients with metastatic disease. The autologous tumor lysate, particle-loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine has been shown to be safe adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage III/IV melanoma who complete the primary vaccine series. Here, we describe an open-label trial of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with TLPLDC vaccine in addition to standard of care (SoC) therapies. The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles, which are phagocytosed by autologous dendritic cells ex vivo. Patients who recurred while enrolled in a phase IIb trial of adjuvant TLPLDC vaccine (crossover cohort) and patients with measurable metastatic melanoma cohort were offered TLPLDC vaccine along with SoC therapies. Tumor response was measured by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by intention-to-treat analysis. Fifty-four patients were enrolled (28 in crossover cohort; 26 in metastatic melanoma cohort). The vaccine was well-tolerated with no grade ≥3 adverse events when given with SoC therapies to include checkpoint inhibitors, BRAF/MEK inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, intralesional therapy and/or radiation. In the crossover arm, OS was 76.5% and PFS was 57.1% (median follow-up of 13.9 months). In the metastatic melanoma arm, OS was 85.7% and PFS was 52.2% (median follow-up 8.5 months). The TLPLDC vaccine is well-tolerated and safe in combination with SoC therapies. Future trials will determine the efficacy of TLPLDC in combination with SoC therapies in metastatic melanoma.

9548 Background: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIb trial of the tumor lysate, particle loaded, dendritic cell (TLPLDC) vaccine was conducted to prevent recurrence in patients (pts) with resected stage III/IV melanoma. Two methods for dendritic cell (DC) harvest were used for vaccine production, including no pretreatment or pretreatment with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) in an attempt to reduce blood draw volumes. This analysis investigates differences in clinical outcomes and RNA gene expression between these DC harvest methods for TLPLDC vaccine creation. Methods: The TLPLDC vaccine is created by loading autologous tumor lysate into yeast cell wall particles (YCWPs) and exposing them to phagocytosis by DCs. By investigator/pt choice, pts had 120mL of blood drawn for DC harvest, or pts received 300μg of G-CSF for pre-DC mobilization and a 50-70 mL blood draw 24-48 hours later. Total vaccine production time was 72 hrs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive TLPLDC or placebo (DCs exposed to empty YCWPs). 1-1.5 x10^6 cells/dose were injected intradermally at 0, 1, 2, 6, 12, and 18 months. Differences in disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated by Kaplan Meier analysis between pts who did not receive pretreatment (TLPLDC), pts who did receive pretreatment with G-CSF (TLPLDC+G), and pts receiving placebo. RNA-seq analysis was performed on the total RNA of pts’ prepared TLPLDC vaccines to assess gene expression. Relative RNA expression (RRE) was compared between TLPLDC and TLPLDC+G. Results: As previously reported, 144 pts were randomized: 103 received TLPLDC (46 TLPLDC, 57 TLPLDC+G) and 41 received placebo. There were no significant clinicopathologic or treatment differences between the three treatment arms. Survival was significantly improved in TLPLDC compared to TLPLDC+G or placebo, including 36-month OS (92.9% vs 62.8% vs 72.3% respectively, p = 0.022) and DFS (51.8% vs 23.4% vs 27.1%, p = 0.027). When compared to TLPLDC+G (n = 3) vaccine, RNA-seq from TLPLDC vaccine (n = 3) showed upregulation of genes associated with DC maturation, including HLA-DMB (RRE: 3.60), IFIT1 (3.38), CD27 (3.26), IFI44L (3.24), MX1 (2.96), HLA-DQA1 (2.67), HLA-DRA (2.40), CD49D (2.34) and CD74 (2.09), while downregulated genes were associated with DC suppression or immaturity including SERPINA1 (RRE:7.8), TLR2 (6.65), CCR1 (5.11), IL10 (4.19), CD93 (3.84) and CD14 (3.25). Conclusions: Pts receiving TLPLDC vaccine had significantly improved OS and DFS, while outcomes remained similar between those who received TLPLDC+G vs placebo. Pts who did not receive G-CSF had higher expression of genes linked to DC maturation and antigen processing and presentation, likely explaining the improvement in clinical efficacy. A phase III trial to further assess the TLPLDC vaccine to prevent recurrence is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02301611.

AbstractBackgroundCheckpoint inhibitors (CPI) in combination with cell‐based vaccines may produce synergistic antitumor immunity. The primary analysis of the randomized and blinded phase IIb trial in resected stage III/IV melanoma demonstrated TLPLDC is safe and improved 24‐month disease‐free survival (DFS) in the per treatment (PT) analysis. Here, we examine efficacy within pre‐specified and exploratory subgroups.MethodsStage III/IV patients rendered disease‐free by surgery were randomized 2:1 to TLPLDC vaccine versus placebo. The pre‐specified PT analysis included only patients completing the primary vaccine/placebo series at 6 months. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare 24‐month DFS among subgroups.ResultsThere were no clinicopathologic differences between subgroups except stage IV patients were more likely to receive CPI. In stage IV patients, 24‐month DFS was 43% for vaccine versus 0% for placebo (p = 0.098) in the ITT analysis and 73% versus 0% (p = 0.002) in the PT analysis. There was no significant difference in 24‐month DFS when stratified by use of immunotherapy or CPI. For patients with resected recurrent disease, 24‐month DFS was 88.9% versus 33.3% (p = 0.013) in the PT analysis. All benefit from vaccination was in the PT analysis; no benefit was found in patients receiving up to three doses.ConclusionThe TLPLDC vaccine improved DFS in patients completing the primary vaccine series, particularly in the resected stage IV patients. The efficacy of the TLPLDC vaccine will be confirmed in a phase III study evaluating adjuvant TLPLDC + CPI versus Placebo + CPI in resected stage IV melanoma patients.