Genetically engineered mouse models of cancer reveal new insights about the antitumor immune response.

Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research and Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Current opinion in immunology (Impact Factor: 7.87). 03/2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.coi.2013.02.005
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cancer is a complex disease that can originate in virtually all the tissues of the body, and tumors progress through many different stages during their development. While genetic mutations in the emerging cancer cells drive this disease, it has become increasingly clear that cancer development is strongly influenced by the surrounding microenvironment. Cells of the immune system are critical components of this extrinsic network of cancer regulators, contributing significantly to the microenvironment of most cancers and either promoting or inhibiting the initiation and progression of this disease. Genetically engineered mouse (GEM) mouse models of spontaneous cancer are starting to shape our understanding of how antitumor T cells may act to prevent or inhibit cancer progression in some settings and not others. Lessons learned from investigating spontaneous mouse cancer models have important implications for directing clinical efforts that attempt to direct a cancer patient's immune system to eradicate their disease.

1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Concerted efforts of tumor immunologists over more than two decades contributed numerous well-defined tumor antigens, many of which were promptly developed into cancer vaccines and tested in animal models and in clinical trials. Encouraging results from animal models were seldom recapitulated in clinical trials. The impediment to greater success of these vaccines has been their exclusive use for cancer therapy. What clinical trials primarily revealed were the numerous ways in which cancer and/or standard treatments for cancer could suppress the patient's immune system, making it very difficult to elicit effective immunity with therapeutic vaccines. In contrast, there is an extensive database of information from experiments in appropriate animal models showing that prophylactic vaccination is highly effective and safe. There are also studies that show that healthy people have immune responses against antigens expressed on tumors, some generated in response to viral infections and others in response to various nonmalignant acute inflammatory events. These immune responses do not appear to be dangerous and do not cause autoimmunity. Epidemiology studies have shown that these immune responses may reduce cancer risk significantly. Vaccines based on tumor antigens that are expressed differentially between tumors and normal cells and can stimulate immunity, and for which safety and efficacy have been proved in animal models and to the extent possible in therapeutic clinical trials, should be considered prime candidates for prophylactic cancer vaccines. Cancer Immunol Res; 2(8); 708-13. ©2014 AACR.
    08/2014; 2(8):708-13. DOI:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0110
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current excitement surrounding cancer immunotherapy stems particularly from clinical data involving agents mediating immune checkpoint receptor blockade, which have induced unprecedented efficacy against a range of tumours compared with previous immunotherapeutic approaches. However, an important consideration in targeting checkpoint receptors has been the emergence of associated toxicities termed immune-related adverse events (irAEs). In light of the clinical benefits observed after co-blockade of checkpoint receptors and data from preclinical mouse models, there is now a strong rationale to combine different checkpoint receptors together, with other immunotherapies or more conventional therapies to assess if clinical benefits to cancer patients can be further improved. However, one may predict the frequency and severity of irAEs will increase with combinations, which may result in premature therapy cessation, thus limiting the realization of such an approach. In addition, there is a limit to how many different combination therapies that can be tested in a timely manner given the legal, regulatory and budgetary issues associated with conducting clinical trials. Thus, there is a need to develop preclinical mouse models that more accurately inform us as to which immunotherapies might combine best to provide the optimal therapeutic index (maximal anti-tumour efficacy and low level irAEs) in different cancer settings. In this review we will discuss the irAEs observed in patients after checkpoint blockade and discuss which mouse models of cancer can be appropriate to assess the development of tumour immunity and irAEs following combination cancer immunotherapies.
    08/2014; 3(8):e22. DOI:10.1038/cti.2014.18
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In around half of the patients with neuroblastoma (NBL), the primary tumor is located in one of the adrenal glands. We have previously reported on a transplantable TH-MYCN model of subcutaneous (SC) growing NBL in C57Bl/6 mice for immunological studies. In this report, we describe an orthotopic TH-MYCN transplantable model where the tumor cells were injected intra-adrenally (IA) by microsurgery. Strikingly, 9464D cells grew out much faster in IA tumors compared to the subcutis. Tumors were infiltrated by equal numbers of lymphocytes and myeloid cells. Within the myeloid cell population, however, tumor-infiltrating macrophages were more abundant in IA tumors compared to SC tumors and expressed lower levels of MHC class II, indicative of a more immunosuppressive phenotype. Using 9464D cells stably expressing firefly luciferase, enhanced IA tumor growth could be confirmed using bioluminescence. Collectively, these data show that the orthotopic IA localization of TH-MYCN cells impacts the NBL tumor microenvironment, resulting in a more stringent NBL model to study novel immunotherapeutic approaches for NBL.
    Cancer Immunology and Immunotherapy 02/2015; DOI:10.1007/s00262-015-1663-y · 3.94 Impact Factor