Background: The anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1) antibody has led to durable clinical responses in a wide variety of human tumors. We have previously developed the caninized anti-canine PD-1 antibody (ca-4F12-E6) and evaluated its therapeutic properties in dogs with advance-staged oral malignant melanoma (OMM), however, their therapeutic effects on other types of canine tumors remain unclear. Objective: The present clinical study was carried out to evaluate the safety profile and clinical efficacy of ca-4F12-E6 in dogs with advanced solid tumors except for OMM. Methods: Thirty-eight dogs with non-OMM solid tumors were enrolled prospectively and treated with ca-4F12-E6 at 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks of each 10-week treatment cycle. Adverse events (AEs) and treatment efficacy were graded based on the criteria established by the Veterinary Cooperative Oncology Group. Results: One dog was withdrawn, and thirty-seven dogs were evaluated for the safety and efficacy of ca-4F12-E6. Treatment-related AEs of any grade occurred in 13 out of 37 cases (35.1%).Two dogs with sterile nodular panniculitis and one with myasthenia gravis and hypothyroidism were suspected of immune-related AEs. In 30 out of 37 dogs that had target tumor lesions, the overall response and clinical benefit rates were 6.9% and 27.6%, respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival time were 70 days and 215 days, respectively. Conclusions The present study demonstrated that ca-4F12-E6 was well-tolerated in nonOMM dogs, with a small number of cases showing objective responses. This provides evidence supporting large-scale clinical trials of anti-PD-1 antibody therapy in dogs.

In accordance with the new model-core-curriculum for medical education, the current status of education about the science of radiation health was surveyed in all medical schools in Japan. Among the four learning points related to the “Biological effects of radiation and radiation hazards” , about half of the schools covered issues on “radiation and human body” and the “effect of medical radiation exposure” in one, or less than one, 60-minutes class, but did not touch on “radiation risk communication” and “radiological disaster medicine” . A significant deviation of human resources was also observed between schools. Learning tools such as presentation files and video content were preferred as education support materials. Therefore, development and distribution of the learning tools, especially in “radiation risk communication” and “radiological disaster medicine” , may be a first step to promoting high-quality education on the science of radiation health risk in each school’s curriculum.