Peptide-Loaded Langerhans Cells, Despite Increased IL15 Secretion and T-Cell Activation In Vitro, Elicit Antitumor T-Cell Responses Comparable to Peptide-Loaded Monocyte-Derived Dendritic Cells In Vivo

Laboratory of Cellular Immunobiology, Immunology Program, Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, New York, New York, USA.
Clinical Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 8.19). 02/2011; 17(7):1984-97. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-3421
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We compared the efficacy of human Langerhans cells (LC) as tumor immunogens in vivo with monocyte-derived dendritic cells (moDC) and investigated how interleukin 15 (IL15) supports optimal DC-stimulated antitumor immunity.
American Joint Committee on Cancer stage III/IV melanoma patients participated in this first clinical trial comparing melanoma peptide-pulsed LC with moDC vaccines (NCT00700167, Correlative studies evaluated mechanisms mediating IL15 support of DC-stimulated antitumor immunity.
Both DC vaccines were safe and immunogenic for melanoma antigens. LC-based vaccines stimulated significantly greater tyrosinase-HLA-A*0201 tetramer reactivity than the moDC-based vaccines. The two DC subtypes were otherwise statistically comparable, in contrast to extensive prior data in vitro showing LC superiority. LCs synthesize much more IL15 than moDCs and stimulate significantly more antigen-specific lymphocytes with a cytolytic IFN-γ profile even without exogenous IL15. When supplemented by low-dose IL15, instead of IL2, moDCs stimulate 5 to 6 logs more tumor antigen-specific effector memory T cells (T(EMRA)) over 3 to 4 weeks in vitro. IL2 and IL15 can be synergistic in moDC stimulation of cytolytic T cells. IL15 promotes T-cell expression of the antiapoptotic bcl-2 and inhibits candidate regulatory T-cell (Treg) expansion after DC stimulation, countering two effects of IL2 that do not foster tumor immunity.
MoDC-based vaccines will require exogenous IL15 to achieve clinical efficacy. Alternatively, LCs can couple the endogenous production of IL15 with potent T-cell stimulatory activity. Optimization of full-length tumor antigen expression for processing into multiple immunogenic peptides for presentation by both class I and II MHC therefore merits emphasis to support more effective antitumor immunity stimulated by LCs.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: Dendritic cells (DCs) are the most important antigen-presenting cell population for activating antitumor T-cell responses; therefore, they offer a unique opportunity for specific targeting of tumors. Areas covered: We will discuss the critical factors for the enhancement of DC vaccine efficacy: different DC subsets, types of in vitro DC manufacturing protocol, types of tumor antigen to be loaded and finally different adjuvants for activating them. We will cover potential combinatorial strategies with immunomodulatory therapies: depleting T-regulatory (Treg) cells, blocking VEGF and blocking inhibitory signals. Furthermore, recommendations to incorporate these criteria into DC-based tumor immunotherapy will be suggested. Expert opinion: Monocyte-derived DCs are the most widely used DC subset in the clinic, whereas Langerhans cells and plasmacytoid DCs are two emerging DC subsets that are highly effective in eliciting cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. Depending on the type of tumor antigens selected for loading DCs, it is important to optimize a protocol that will generate highly potent DCs. The future aim of DC-based immunotherapy is to combine it with one or more immunomodulatory therapies, for example, Treg cell depletion, VEGF blockage and T-cell checkpoint blockage, to elicit the most optimal antitumor immunity to induce long-term remission or even cure cancer patients.
    Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 01/2015; 15(4):1-14. DOI:10.1517/14712598.2015.1000298 · 3.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Since the mid-1990s, dendritic cells have been used in clinical trials as cellular mediators for therapeutic vaccination of patients with cancer. Dendritic cell-based immunotherapy is safe and can induce antitumour immunity, even in patients with advanced disease. However, clinical responses have been disappointing, with classic objective tumour response rates rarely exceeding 15%. Paradoxically, findings from emerging research indicate that dendritic cell-based vaccination might improve survival, advocating implementation of alternative endpoints to assess the true clinical potency of dendritic cell-based vaccination. We review the clinical effectiveness of dendritic cell-based vaccine therapy in melanoma, prostate cancer, malignant glioma, and renal cell carcinoma, and summarise the most important lessons from almost two decades of clinical studies of dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in these malignant disorders. We also address how the specialty is evolving, and which new therapeutic concepts are being translated into clinical trials to leverage the clinical effectiveness of dendritic cell-based cancer immunotherapy. Specifically, we discuss two main trends: the implementation of the next-generation dendritic cell vaccines that have improved immunogenicity, and the emerging paradigm of combination of dendritic cell vaccination with other cancer therapies.
    The Lancet Oncology 06/2014; 15(7):e257-e267. DOI:10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70585-0 · 24.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a B-cell malignancy characterized by the clonal proliferation of malignant plasma cells in the bone marrow and the development of osteolytic bone lesions. MM has emerged as a paradigm within the cancers for the success of drug discovery and translational medicine. This article discusses immunotherapy as an encouraging option for the goal of inducing effective and long-lasting therapeutic outcome. Divided into two distinct approaches, passive or active, immunotherapy, which targets tumor-associated antigens has shown promising results in multiple preclinical and clinical studies.
    Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 10/2014; 28(5):927–943. DOI:10.1016/j.hoc.2014.07.002 · 2.07 Impact Factor