Objective

Buccal cells are an ideal surrogate tissue for studying biologic effects of carcinogens or drugs, however inherent fragility and salivary RNAses limit RNA yield. We conducted healthy volunteer trials to optimize collection conditions.

Methods

We conducted: (a) a single-arm crossover study evaluating four test conditions on RNA yield by buccal cytobrush; (b) a single-arm prospective study evaluating RNA yield by investigator vs self-collection.

Results

Antecedent toothbrushing, time of day, and number of cytobrush strokes did not significantly impact RNA yield. RNA yield was doubled by using 2 vs 1 cytobrush per buccal surface (P = .0054). Self-collection of buccal cells for RNA was feasible; 36 of 50 (72%) samples passed quality control.

Conclusion

RNA yield was doubled by using two cytobrushes per buccal surface. Healthy volunteers can self-collect sufficient buccal RNA for gene expression studies. Techniques from these pragmatic trials could enhance availability of a limited tissue for serial biomarker measurements.

Level of evidence

1b-Prognosis Study (Individual prospective cohort study).

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet clinical need for interventions to prevent disease progression in patients with localized prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). OBJECTIVE: To determine the immunologic response to the PROSTVAC vaccine and the clinical indicators of disease progression in patients with localized prostate cancer on AS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a phase 2, double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 154 men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer on AS. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized (2:1) to receive seven doses of subcutaneous PROSTVAC, a vaccinia/fowlpox viral vector-based immunotherapy containing a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) transgene and three T-cell co-stimulatory molecules, or an empty fowlpox vector (EV) over 140 d. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was the change from baseline in CD4 and CD8 T-cell infiltration in biopsy tumor tissue. Key secondary outcomes were safety and changes in prostate biopsy tumor pathology, peripheral antigen-specific T cells, and serum PSA. Continuous variables were compared using nonparametric tests. Categorical variables were compared using Fishers exact test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The PROSTVAC/EV vaccination was well tolerated. All except one participant completed the vaccination series. Changes in CD4 or CD8 density in biopsy tumor tissue did not differ between the PROSTVAC and EV arms. The proportions of patients with Gleason upgrading to grade group 3 after treatment was similar between the arms. There were no differences in postvaccination peripheral T-cell responses or the PSA change from baseline to 6-mo post-treatment follow-up between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this first-of-kind trial of immunotherapy in patients on AS for prostate cancer, PROSTVAC did not elicit more favorable prostate tissue or peripheral T-cell responses than the EV. There was no difference between the arms in clinicopathologic effects. Despite the null findings, this is the first study reporting the feasibility and acceptability of an immunotherapy intervention in the AS setting. PATIENT SUMMARY: We looked at responses after an experimental prostate cancer vaccine in patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance (AS). Participants who received the vaccine did not show more favorable outcomes than those receiving the control. Despite these findings, this is the first report showing the feasibility and acceptability of immunotherapy for prostate cancer in patients on AS.