MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3049279502 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-6540

Abstract 6540: Regression of metastatic cancer and abscopal effects following <i>in situ</i> vaccination by cryosurgical tumor cell lysis and intratumoral immunotherapy: A case series

2020· article· en· W3049279502 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Onik, David G. Bostwick, David J. Vaughan, Donald L. Trump, Zurizaday Vega, Timothy F. Murphy, James Miessau, Marlene Wright-Barton, Danielle Hobbs, Charles J. Link, Jon H. Condra

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsBrantford Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabIpilimumabNivolumabInternal medicineCancerResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid TumorsOncologyProstate cancerImmunotherapyMelanomaGastroenterologySurgeryChemotherapyPhases of clinical researchCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel in situ cancer vaccination method for the treatment of aggressive solid tumors, with an initial focus on metastatic prostate cancer (PCa). Procedure: 27 consecutive patients with metastatic cancers (21 with PCa and 6 with other cancers), were treated by in situ cryosurgical lysis of tumor tissue followed by injection of ipilimumab, pembrolizumab or nivolumab, and sargramostim directly into the zone of lysis. This was followed by 30 daily s.c. injections of sargramostim. Patients received 1 to 3 cycles of the above therapy at intervals of ≥ 1 month. Responses to therapy were assessed by RECIST v.1.1 and for patients with PCa, serum PSA levels. This IRB-approved study, Shulman IRB Protocol #00027107, is a retrospective analysis (with prospective follow-up) of the practice of medicine of two physicians. All patients signed informed consent. Results: 21 patients with progressive metastatic PCa and 6 with other metastatic cancers (2 bladder, 1 pancreatic, 1 colon, 1 melanoma, and 1 unknown) were treated. RECIST responses for 2 patients (both with PCa) could not be evaluated due to a lack of follow-up imaging. Among the remaining 25 patients, CRs were seen in 9 (36%) patients and a PR in 1 (4%), for an ORR of 40%. SD was seen in 8 (32%) patients, and progression was seen in 7 (28%). Among the 19 evaluable PCa patients, there were 9 (47%) CRs and no PRs, for an ORR of 47%. 5 (26%) patients showed SD, and 5 (26%) progressed. 13/21 (62%) of patients had post-therapy PSA reductions of >50%. 12 PCa patients were ADT-naïve (11 evaluable by RECIST) and there were 9 with mCRPC (8 evaluable by RECIST), and positive responses were seen in both groups, with ORRs of 55% and 38%, respectively, and PSA reductions of > 50% in 75% and 44% of patients, respectively. These antitumor responses have been durable in many patients, with CRs to date ranging from 1 to over 4.5 years post-treatment. Encouragingly, this durability of response was observed both in ADT-naïve patients and in those with mCRPC. Therapy was well tolerated, with AEs in 19/27 (70%) of patients. 24 grade 1-2 AEs were seen in 19 (70%) patients, and 8 grade 3-4 AEs were seen in 5 (19%) patients. Notably, AEs included liver enzyme elevations, hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism, all of which are associated with autoimmune responses to immunotherapy. One death that was possibly treatment-related, 4 disease-related deaths, and 2 unrelated deaths occurred. Conclusions: This report describes a novel therapeutic modality utilizing local cryosurgical tumor cell lysis and intratumorally-delivered immunotherapy to treat metastatic prostate cancer and other aggressive solid tumor cancers. Its combination of striking efficacy and good tolerability supports additional formal clinical studies. Citation Format: Gary Onik, David Bostwick, David J. Vaughan, Donald L. Trump, Zurizaday Vega, Timothy Murphy, James Miessau, Marlene Wright-Barton, Danielle Hobbs, Charles J. Link, Jon H. Condra. Regression of metastatic cancer and abscopal effects following in situ vaccination by cryosurgical tumor cell lysis and intratumoral immunotherapy: A case series [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 6540.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→