Boosting immune response with GM-CSF optimizes primary cryotherapy outcomes in the treatment of prostate cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial

Objective We explored the association of prostate cryotherapy and immunomodulation with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GMCSF) in the generation of detectable tumor-specific T- and B-cell responses in men with prostate cancer. Materials and methods A randomized pilot study of patie...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases 2021-09, Vol.24 (3), p.750-757
Hauptverfasser: Barqawi, Al Baha, Rodrigues Pessoa, Rodrigo, Crawford, E. David, Al-Musawi, Mohammed, MacDermott, Tracey, O’Donell, Colin, Kendl, Ross M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective We explored the association of prostate cryotherapy and immunomodulation with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GMCSF) in the generation of detectable tumor-specific T- and B-cell responses in men with prostate cancer. Materials and methods A randomized pilot study of patients assigned to either cryotherapy alone (Control group) or in combination with GMCSF (Treatment group). The impact of therapy on the development of T- and B-cell responses against tumor-related antigens was studied using enzyme-linked immune absorbent spot (ELISpot) and protein microarray panels (Sematrix) assays, respectively. Fold changes in response to treatment were calculated by normalization of post-treatment ELISpot values against the mean pre-cryoablation response. Student t tests between treatment and control groups at 4 weeks and 12 weeks across all the antigens were performed. Results A total of 20 patients were randomized to either control or treatment arm. At 4 weeks after cryotherapy, the treatment group demonstrated an average fold change in cancer antigen-related antibodies of 2.8% above their mean baseline values, whereas controls averaged an 18% change below mean baseline ( p  
ISSN:1365-7852
1476-5608
DOI:10.1038/s41391-021-00321-8