Article

Fas ligand expression in metastatic renal cell carcinoma during interleukin-2 based immunotherapy: No in vivo effect of Fas ligand tumor counterattack

Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Central Jutland, Denmark
Clinical Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 8.19). 01/2005; 10(23):7911-6. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1111
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It has been hypothesized that tumor cells expressing Fas ligand (FasL) might be able to counterattack and neutralize tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. We assessed the effect of FasL tumor counterattack on the clinical outcome of interleukin-2 (IL-2)-based immunotherapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Tumor core needle biopsies were obtained before IL-2-based immunotherapy in 86 patients and repeated within the first cycle in 57 patients. Tumor cells expressing FasL and intratumoral lymphocyte subsets expressing CD4, CD8, CD56, and CD57 were analyzed by immunohistochemistry.
At baseline, negative FasL staining in tumor cells was seen in 10 of 86 (12%) biopsies, whereas intense FasL staining was seen (a) in fewer than 10% of tumor cells in 26 (30%) biopsies; (b) in 11 to 50% of tumor cells in 25 (29%) biopsies; (c) in 51 to 90% of tumor cells in 18 (21%) biopsies; and (d) in >90% of tumor cells in 7 (8%) biopsies. On treatment, tumor FasL expression did not change from baseline levels. Moreover, tumor FasL expression was not correlated with objective response or survival whereas the absolute number of CD4(+), CD8(+), CD56(+), and CD57(+) cells per mm(2) tumor tissue at baseline was significantly higher in responding patients compared with nonresponding patients (P = 0.01, P = 0.008, P = 0.015, and P < 0.001, respectively). During the first course of immunotherapy, the absolute number of CD4(+), CD8(+), and CD57(+) cells per mm(2) tumor tissue was significantly higher in responding patients compared with nonresponding patients (P = 0.034, P < 0.001, and P < 0.001, respectively). However, no correlation was observed between the number of intratumoral lymphocytes and tumor FasL expression level.
These observations do not support the hypothesis that FasL tumor "counterattack" has an effect on the clinical outcome in metastatic renal cell carcinoma during IL-2-based immunotherapy.

Full-text

Available from: Frede Donskov, Dec 29, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Histamine (HDC) inhibits formation and release of phagocyte-derived reactive oxygen species, and thereby protects natural killer (NK) and T cells against oxidative damage. Thus, the addition of histamine may potentially improve the efficacy of interleukin-2 (IL-2). We have explored this potential mechanism clinically in two randomised phase II trials in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). In parallel with the clinical trial in Denmark (n=63), we obtained serial blood samples and tumour biopsies searching for a potential histamine effect in situ. At baseline and on-treatment weeks 3 and 8, we monitored the 'good guys' (i.e. NK and T cells) and 'bad guys' (i.e. monocytes/macrophages and neutrophils) simultaneously in blood (n=59) and tumour tissue (n=44). Patients with high number of monocytes and neutrophils in peripheral blood had very poor survival, with apparently no benefit from either IL-2 alone or IL-2/HDC treatment. Blood monocytes (r=-0.36, P=0.01) and neutrophils (r=-0.46, P=0.001) were negatively correlated with cytotoxicity, whereas blood NK cells were positively correlated with cytotoxicity (r=0.39, P=0.002). Treatment with IL-2 alone resulted in a significantly higher number of circulating monocytes (P=0.037) and intratumoral macrophages (P=0.005) compared with baseline. In contrast, IL-2/HDC resulted in an unchanged number of circulating monocytes and intratumoral macrophages, and in addition, a significantly increased number of intratumoral CD56(+) NK cells (P=0.008) and CD8(+) T cells (P=0.019) compared with baseline. The study provides evidence that circulating monocytes and neutrophils are powerful negative prognostic factors for IL-2-based immunotherapy and establishes a biological rationale for the potential use of histamine in conjunction with IL-2 in mRCC.
    British Journal of Cancer 02/2006; 94(2):218-26. DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602937 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: In order to characterize the significance of immune system function in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), we investigated the interactive relationships among the following parameters: metastatic characteristics, expression of Fas ligand (FasL) in nephrectomized specimens, immunological parameters, and patient's prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with advanced RCC were stratified into 3 groups according to the characteristics of metastasis timing, at first presentation (mFP), within 5 years of nephrectomy (early-recurrence), after 5 years (late-recurrence). Immunological parameters [hemoglobin, lymphocyte count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), serum albumin, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS), and Charlson Comorbidity Index], FasL expression in RCC, and patient prognosis from occurrence of metastasis were compared among the groups. Thirty-five patients were also stratified into 2 groups according to FasL positivity and individual parameters. Patient's prognosis and the remaining immunological parameters were compared between groups. RESULTS: The NLRs of the late-recurrence group were significantly lower than those of the mFP (P = 0.0004) and early-recurrence (P = 0.013) groups. The FasL mRNA positivity of the late-recurrence group was significantly lower than those of the mFP (P = 0.001) and early-recurrence (P = 0.0277) groups. The prognosis of the late-recurrence group was significantly better than that of the early-recurrence group (P = 0.0255). NLRs were significantly lower in the FasL-negative group than in the -positive group (P = 0.0182). The cause-specific survival rates of the ECOG PS 0 group were significantly higher than that of the ECOG PS > 0 group (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the associations of the prognosis in advanced RCC with peripheral blood NLR and FasL expression in nephrectomized tumor. The characteristics of lower values of NLR and FasL expression positivity in late-recurrence compared with other metastatic timings suggest strong host immune activity, and may imply relatively long survival. On the other hand, elucidation of the patient's general condition obtained not only by chemical data but also by ECOG PS is crucial in the management of patients with advanced RCC.
    Urologic Oncology 12/2011; DOI:10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.09.008 · 3.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe a new mechanism regulating the tumor endothelial barrier and T cell infiltration into tumors. We detected selective expression of the death mediator Fas ligand (FasL, also called CD95L) in the vasculature of human and mouse solid tumors but not in normal vasculature. In these tumors, FasL expression was associated with scarce CD8(+) infiltration and a predominance of FoxP3(+) T regulatory (Treg) cells. Tumor-derived vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), interleukin 10 (IL-10) and prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) cooperatively induced FasL expression in endothelial cells, which acquired the ability to kill effector CD8(+) T cells but not Treg cells because of higher levels of c-FLIP expression in Treg cells. In mice, genetic or pharmacologic suppression of FasL produced a substantial increase in the influx of tumor-rejecting CD8(+) over FoxP3(+) T cells. Pharmacologic inhibition of VEGF and PGE2 produced a marked increase in the influx of tumor-rejecting CD8(+) over FoxP3(+) T cells that was dependent on attenuation of FasL expression and led to CD8-dependent tumor growth suppression. Thus, tumor paracrine mechanisms establish a tumor endothelial death barrier, which has a critical role in establishing immune tolerance and determining the fate of tumors.
    Nature medicine 05/2014; 20(6). DOI:10.1038/nm.3541 · 28.05 Impact Factor