Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy
-
Upload
s-a-nedospasov -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy
![Page 1: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ISSN 0026-8933, Molecular Biology, 2007, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 316–328. © Pleiades Publishing, Inc., 2007.Original Russian Text © S.A. Nedospasov, D.V. Kuprash, 2007, published in Molekulyarnaya Biologiya, 2007, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 355–368.
316
IMMUNE SYSTEM AND CANCER CELLS: CURRENT STATE OF THE IMMUNOLOGICAL
SURVEILLANCE CONCEPT
The concept of immunological surveillance ofspontaneously emerging tumor cells was proposedlong ago [1]. It was based on early data on the immu-nogenicity of implanted [2], carcinogen-induced [3],or virus-induced [4] tumors, including the feasibilityof vaccination against viral antigens to suppress theemergence of primary tumors [5]. It was believed thata tumor cell expresses the genes encoding proteins or“factors” that the immune system can recognize todiscriminate between normal and tumor cells. Itshould be noted that, in the 1960s, nothing was knownabout the molecular mechanisms of immune recogni-tion by T lymphocytes, while selection and immuno-logical tolerance were poorly understood.
Curiously, Stutman [6] discarded the immunologi-cal surveillance theory in 1970. He studied tumordevelopment in immunodeficient mice, such as athy-mic (nude) mice, lacking adaptive immunity. Contraryto what might be expected, such mice failed to showany notable acceleration in either induced carcinogen-esis or in growth of implanted tumors. Thus, becauseof the absence of T and B cells in such mice, the con-clusion was made that the immune system is notinvolved in tumor surveillance. It was found morerecently that some immune surveillance componentsin nude mice, such as
γδ
T cells and natural killers
(NKs) are fully functional; i.e., Stutman’s experi-ments were misinterpreted.
In the 1990s, the genetic knockout technique wasemployed to generate mouse lines in which the adap-tive immunity system was partly or entirely disrupted.Such lines allowed the role of adaptive immunity inprotection against tumors and pathogens to be prop-erly analyzed. In particular, the gold standard inimmunology and, especially, cancer immunology isRAG (recombination activating gene)-deficient mice,lacking the mechanism of somatic recombination,which is required for rearrangements of both immuno-globulin genes and genes for T-cell receptors [7].These rearrangements are mandatory for the develop-ment of functional T and B cells. In contrast to nudemice, the adaptive immunity system of
RAG
–/–
mice isentirely out of function. Another common model witha disrupted immunity is
scid
mice. Their defect is dueto a mutation that inactivates the gene for the catalyticsubunit of DNA-dependent protein kinase, impairsDNA double-strand break repair, and forbids V(D)Jrecombination [8].
Schreiber et al. [9] repeated the experiments onspontaneous carcinogenesis with
scid
and
RAG
–/–
mice and with mice defective in signaling pathwaysinvolving
γ
-interferon (
γ
-IFN), the most importantimmunoregulatory cytokine indispensable for the for-mation of functional cytolytic T cells [9]. An acceler-ated emergence of spontaneous and induced tumors
MOLECULARMEDICINE
Oncoimmunology: Some Fundamental Problems of Cancer Immunotherapy
S. A. Nedospasov
a,
b
and D. V. Kuprash
a
a
Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 119991; e-mail: [email protected]
b
Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, Moscow State University, Moscow, 119899 Russia
Received October 6, 2006
Accepted for publication November 20, 2006
Abstract
—The review briefly discusses several central problems of modern oncoimmunology. The controver-sies surrounding the concept of immunological surveillance, as well as the problem of immunological toleranceto tumors, are considered. The discovery of tumor antigens is a great advance towards the identification of pos-sible therapeutic targets. However, antigen-specific vaccinations against cancer have, so far, a very limited use,mainly for prevention of virus-associated cancers, which is essentially based on the antiviral immune response.On the other hand, antibodies to cancer antigens are widely used in cancer diagnosis, and there are remarkableexamples of their therapeutic applications. The future opportunities in both theoretical and applied oncoimmu-nology will directly depend on further advances in basic science.
DOI:
10.1134/S0026893307020124
Key words
: cancer, immunity, antibodies, T lymphocytes, vaccines
UDC
612.017.1:616-006
![Page 2: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
PROBLEMS OF CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY 317
was observed in these experiments and the mice diedearlier [9]. These results were often interpreted as arevival of the immunological surveillance concept.Schreiber’s experiments revealed the mechanism ofthis phenomenon, indicating that surveillance requiresT cells and a functional
γ
-IFN system. Earlier, the pro-tective role of
γ
-IFN had been noted in the classicspontaneous carcinogenesis model of
p53
-deficientmice [10]. Other results indicated that an importantsource of
γ
-IFN in these model experiments was non-canonical T lymphocytes with
γδ
T-cell receptors [11].
In addition, Schreiber et al. compared the proper-ties of carcinogen-induced tumor cells in normal andimmunodeficient mice by implanting tumor cells intosecondary recipient mice. The recipient mice wereeither normal or incapable of immunological surveil-lance (Table 1).
The results allowed the immunological surveil-lance concept to be rectified. First, the adaptiveimmune system can indeed recognize tumor cells anddestroy some of them. Second, the pressure imposedby the immune system selects the tumor cell variantsthat successfully escape immune recognition. As aresult, the immunological properties of tumor cellsundergo immunoediting [12].
This conclusion can have both positive and nega-tive implications. The immune system combats tumorcells; hence, the understanding of the mechanisms ofthe combat would allow an increase in its efficiency.On the other hand, in spite of the resistance of the per-fectly healthy immune system, tumor cells can changetheir properties and escape immune surveillance. Sev-eral mechanisms of such escape have been found. Insome cases, tumors change their properties so thatthey are no more recognizable by T cells; for example,tumors decrease or cease the production of major his-
tocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules, whichpresent peptides to T cells, or lose the expression ofthe tumor antigen itself [13]. In other cases, tumorcells activate the signaling pathways that inhibit theimmune response and induce an anergic state incytolytic T lymphocytes. As it became obvious fromrecent studies, the main difficulty lies in the inherentproperties of the immune response regulation, whichinvolves various inhibiting mechanisms [14, 15].
It should be noted that the above results, obtainedmainly by Schreiber et al., are criticized by someresearchers. For example, Oin and Blankenstein [16]failed to reproduce these results and suggested quiteradically that mice deficient in the
γ
-IFN system diedof infections rather than of tumors. This statementraised hot debates [17].
In addition to T cells, NKs, including intraepithe-lial NKs, play an important role in antitumor surveil-lance [18, 19]. The mechanisms of action of thesecells, which belong to the innate immunity system,were not understood until quite recently. In the pastdecade, both activating and inhibiting receptor fami-lies were discovered on NKs [20]. These receptorssupport the role of NKs in the elimination of infectedor abnormal (including malignant) cells by the “miss-ing self” recognition mechanism [21]. In particular,reduced synthesis of MHC class I molecules is typicalof both cells infected by viruses and cells able to pro-liferate during tumor progression. A loss of MHCclass I gene expression allows cells to escape recogni-tion by cytotoxic lymphocytes but exposes them toNKs [13]. One of the necessary conditions for the sur-veillance by NK cells is recognition of some specificligands produced by abnormal cells (including tumorcells) [22, 23].
Table 1.
Early development and reduced immunogenicity of chemically induced and spontaneous tumors in immunocom-promised mice [9]
Experiment Wild-type mice
RAG
–/–
mice
Tumor induction with methylcholanthrene Mice with tumors, %
120 days 0 20
160 days 20 60
Spontaneous tumors Mice with tumors in the second year of life, %
Total, % 20 100
Mice with adenocarcinomas, % 0 50
Tumor growth in secondary recipients* Percentage of exponentially growing tumors
10
5
cells in
RAG
–/–
mic 100%** 100%***
10
6
cells in wild-type mice 100%** 50%***
Notes: * The amount of cells of the spontaneous tumor used for implantation and the recipient genotype are indicated.** Cells of tumors spontaneously arising in wild-type mice were implanted.
*** Cells of tumors spontaneously arising in
RAG
–/–
mice were implanted. Wild-type recipients are capable of rejecting approxi-mately half of tumors developing in immunocompromised donors.
![Page 3: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
318
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
NEDOSPASOV and KUPRASH
Thus, the conjectured immunological surveillancemechanisms involve both adaptive and innate immu-nity, acting in concert. Another feature of the involve-ment of innate immunity is that tumor cell invasion isaccompanied by tissue damage and repair, whichcauses local inflammation and production of stress-induced molecules [24].
It is pertinent to mention Zinkernagel’s pessimisticopinion that immunological surveillance of tumorsemerging in the postreproductive period of life is evo-lutionarily meaningless. This viewpoint is based onthe notion that evolution of the immune system ofmammals, including human, was governed by abso-lutely different factors, first of all, by combating infec-tions, which was necessary for survival [25, 26].
TUMOR ANTIGENS
The involvement of adaptive immunity in the con-trol of tumorigenesis and tumor growth implies thepresence of specific antigens recognizable by T cellson tumor cells and on antigen-presenting cells.Although the term tumor antigens, including bothantigens produced by epithelial malignant tumors andhematopoietic tumors, is more precise, the term can-cer antigens is often used for antigens expressed bynonepithelial tumors. Moreover, the recognition ofsome antigens (also referred to as cancer antigens) bythe immune system of a patient often correlates withdisease onset and course, although no abnormal pro-duction of these antigens by tumor cells is observed.
The virogenetic cancer theory, proposed by thefounder of Russian oncoimmunology Zilber in the1950s [27], could not be based on the molecularmechanisms of lymphocyte-mediated immunologicalrecognition. However, in light of present knowledge,this theory is in good agreement with the notions oftumor antigens, which may be viral proteins. Never-theless, Zilber’s student Abelev [28] identified one ofthe first tumor antigens as the autologous embryonicprotein
α
-fetoprotein, rather than as a viral protein.
Another seminal discovery in oncoimmunologywas made by Boon and colleagues [30], who foundthe MAGE family of melanoma antigens. The signifi-cance of this discovery reached far beyond the systemwhere it was made. Further study of the so-called can-cer–gamete antigens [30] revealed a class of geneswith unknown functions that are transcribed in the tes-tes and, partly, in the ovaries and placenta but are sup-pressed [31] or weakly expressed [32] in somatic cellsother than tumor cells. It should be noted that the cir-cumstances of MAGE antigen discovery imply thatthese antigens can be recognized by T cells, being pre-sumably suitable as immunotherapy targets [33].
Types of Tumor Antigens
The antigens produced by tumor cells are com-monly divided into T and B antigens. This divisionstems from the differences in the mechanisms of pro-cessing and presentation of antigens for recognitionby B and T cells, as well as from the different experi-mental methods of their identification on the basis ofthese mechanisms. B and T cells recognize differentepitopes, even when they belong to the same antigenicprotein. The correlation between the B- and T-cellresponses to tumor antigens is limited. A high titer ofantibodies against a tumor-produced protein is notalways indicative of the presence of cytotoxic lym-phocytes specific to this protein in the patient, not tomention an efficient T-cell response against the tumor,and vice versa.
Tumor antigens recognizable by the immune sys-tem can be classified according to the supposed causeof their immunogenicity (Table 2). Except for proteinsencoded by mutant genes, all antigens mentioned inTable 2 are normal endogenous cell proteins. Recog-nition of such proteins would seem to be impossibleowing to immunological tolerance, resulting fromselection of T cells in the thymus. However, it is con-ceivable for some antigens (first of all, carcinoembry-onic and cancer–gamete antigens) that T cells recog-nizing them with “desired” low affinity escape nega-tive selection because of the low production of theseantigens by thymic epithelial cells.
It should be mentioned that many cancer antigenshave evolved to perform specific functions requiredfor normal cell biology. As pointed out by R. Medzhi-tov, it is unknown whether natural selection of special-ized mechanisms of tumor detection by the immunesystem ever took place. In any case, no antigen hasbeen convincingly shown to be a product of suchselection.
Precise knowledge of the repertoire of specificantigens produced by a tumor, independent of theoriginal functions of these antigens in the cell, is ofcrucial importance for solving the main problem ofspecific cancer immunotherapy: circumvention ofimmunological tolerance. Tolerance is regulated notonly by controlling the T-cell repertoire but also byadditional mechanisms, in particular, by regulatory(suppressor) T cells [14, 34].
Antibodies and Autoantibodies against Tumor Antigens: Possibilities of Their Use
Some of the above tumor antigens can elicit ahumoral immune response and high-affinity immuno-globulins in the blood [35, 36]. Except for the cases ofmutations, the mechanisms of this response are poorlyunderstood for both patients with malignant tumorsand for the more general case of normal autoantibodyproduction, as well as for many autoimmune diseases.
![Page 4: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
PROBLEMS OF CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY 319
Tab
le 2
.
Cla
ssif
icat
ion
of tu
mor
ant
igen
s ac
cord
ing
to th
e pr
esum
ptiv
e ca
use
of th
eir
imm
unog
enic
ity
Tum
or a
ntig
en ty
peE
xam
ples
of
antig
ens
and
thei
r ge
nes
Ref
er-
ence
Com
men
ts
1. N
ew e
pito
pes
in n
orm
al c
ell
prot
eins
Dom
inan
t ant
igen
s fo
und
inch
emic
ally
indu
ced
tum
ors
Unk
now
n in
mos
t cas
es[9
0, 9
1]A
che
mic
ally
indu
ced
som
atic
mut
atio
n ca
n ge
nera
te a
new
epi
tope
. With
eff
icie
nt b
ind-
ing
of th
e ne
w p
eptid
e to
cla
ss I
MH
C m
olec
ules
, an
effi
cien
t T-c
ell-
med
iate
d re
spon
se
can
be e
licite
d. M
olec
ular
iden
tific
atio
n of
the
antig
ens
with
exp
erim
enta
l mod
els
is h
am-
pere
d by
the
som
atic
cha
ract
er o
f th
e m
utat
ions
Tum
or s
uppr
esso
r p5
3
p53
[35]
Man
y
p53
mut
atio
ns b
oth
stab
ilize
the
prot
ein
and
chan
ge it
s co
nfor
mat
ion.
As
a re
sult,
man
y ep
itope
s hi
dden
with
in th
e p5
3 te
tram
er b
ecom
e ac
cess
ible
for T
and
B ly
mph
ocyt
es in
volv
ed
in th
e re
cogn
ition
of a
ntig
ens
rele
ased
as
a re
sult
of a
popt
osis
/nec
rosi
s of
tum
or c
ells
Alte
rnat
ive
splic
ing
prod
ucts
Res
tin, a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith
Hod
gkin
's d
isea
se[3
7]M
any
splic
ing
vari
ants
are
pro
duce
d on
ly in
the
brai
n or
test
es, w
hich
are
imm
unop
rivi
-le
ged
orga
ns, a
nd in
tum
ors.
The
reg
ions
enc
oded
by
alte
rnat
ive
exon
s ar
e pe
rcei
ved
as
new
ant
igen
s by
the
imm
une
syst
emSp
licin
g va
rian
t of
OA
NN
1
[92]
2. O
verp
rodu
ced
antig
ens
eIF-
4
γ
in lu
ng tu
mor
s[9
3]
The
imm
une
syst
em is
gen
eral
ly to
lera
nt to
ant
igen
s pr
oduc
ed in
nor
mal
tiss
ues.
How
ev-
er, i
n so
me
case
s, o
verp
rodu
ctio
n of
an
antig
en in
the
tum
or is
suf
fici
ent f
or o
verc
omin
g im
mun
olog
ical
tole
ranc
eC
orta
ctin
[94]
Tel
omer
ase
[95]
3. V
iral
ant
igen
sH
PV, E
BV
, HE
RV
-K, H
SV,
hepa
titis
vir
uses
[83,
84]
Vir
al p
rote
ins
are
alie
n fo
r th
e bo
dy a
nd a
re e
ffic
ient
ly r
ecog
nize
d by
the
imm
une
syst
em
4. A
ntig
ens
with
lim
ited
prod
uc-
tion
in n
orm
al ti
ssue
s
Dif
fere
ntia
tion
antig
ens
Mel
an-A
, tyr
osin
ase
[96,
97]
For
man
y tis
sues
, ind
uctio
n of
the
imm
une
resp
onse
aga
inst
dif
fere
ntia
tion
antig
ens
is
an a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent
Can
cer–
gam
ete
antig
ens
MA
GE
-1
,
NY
-ESO
-1
[31]
Tes
tis is
an
imm
unop
rivi
lege
d or
gan,
who
se p
rote
in p
rodu
cts
are
invi
sibl
e fo
r the
imm
une
syst
em. C
urio
usly
, the
bio
logi
cal r
ole
of m
ost c
ance
r–ga
met
e an
tigen
s is
unk
now
n
5. C
hrom
osom
al tr
ansl
ocat
ion
prod
ucts
p210
BC
R-A
BL
[98]
Prod
ucts
of c
hrom
osom
al tr
ansl
ocat
ions
invo
lved
in tr
ansf
orm
atio
n ca
n co
ntai
n a
pept
ide
at th
e bo
unda
ry o
f th
e tw
o pr
otei
n se
quen
ces
that
elic
its a
n ef
fici
ent i
mm
une
resp
onse
6. T
umor
-ass
ocia
ted
auto
antig
ens
Num
erou
s ex
ampl
es[9
9, 1
00]
It is
sug
gest
ed th
at im
mun
olog
ical
tole
ranc
e ca
n be
ove
rcom
e if
the
imm
une
syst
em r
ecog
-ni
zes
auto
antig
ens
in th
e co
ntex
t of
necr
osis
or
apop
tosi
s oc
curr
ing
in th
e gr
owin
g tu
mor
![Page 5: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
320
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
NEDOSPASOV and KUPRASH
It is thought that autoantibodies against intracellularantigens form in response to cell lysis, which accom-panies repair of injured tissues, tumor cell invasion,etc. This assumption can partly explain the formationof tumor-specific autoantibodies and indicates thatmost antigens recognized by such autoantibodies can-not serve as therapeutic targets for T lymphocytes.
It should be emphasized that antibodies againsttumor antigens, including those obtained by bioengi-neering, are widely used in diagnosis and, in somecases, in treatment of malignant tumors (see below).
At present, there are two practical applications ofautoantibodies against tumor antigens. First, the useof cancer patient serum antibodies for immunoscreen-ing of expression gene libraries allows the identifica-tion of rare tumor antigens appropriate as immuno-therapy targets. Serological identification of recombi-nantly expressed clones (SEREX) is an example ofthis approach [37]. SEREX was used for cloning anumber of new autoantigens, including the cancer–gamete antigen NY-ESO-1 [30], more recently stud-ied, in detail, both experimentally and clinically [38].Second, quantitation of tumor-specific autoantibodies(frequently detected in cancer patients but rarely, if atall, found in healthy persons) can be used for noninva-sive cancer diagnosis and for tracing the effect of anti-tumor therapy (in particular, immunotherapy) in can-cer patients [39–41].
DOMINANT IMMUNOLOGICAL TOLERANCE AS THE MAIN OBSTACLE
FOR THE ANTITUMOR IMMUNE RESPONSE
Recent studies performed with both experimentalmodels and patients have demonstrated that peripheralcytolytic
CD8
+
T cells with high affinity for tumorantigens can appear in an immunocompetent organ-ism. Moreover, such T cells can infiltrate the tumortissue [42]. Seemingly, modern advances in the exvivo production of such T cells and the possibility oftheir adoptive transfer allow mobilization of a widerepertoire of highly specific effector killer cells [43,44]. Then why do they fail to destroy the tumor inmost cases?
It has been found that progressive tumors can uti-lize intrinsic regulatory mechanisms of the immunesystem for survival. In addition to radical protectivemeans such as a loss of a tumor antigen or arrest of theproduction of class I MHC [45], mechanisms usingso-called regulatory T cells are involved. Regulatory Tcells constitute a subpopulation of
CD4
+
lymphocytesthat produce the CD25, the
α
subunit of the interleu-kin 2 (IL-2) receptor. These cells can infiltrate thetumor and suppress the activity of proximal effector Tlymphocytes. The development of these special-pur-pose cells and their suppressor effect are governed bythe intracellular transcription factors Foxp3 and NFAT
[46] and by TGF-
β
, produced by cells of the microen-vironment of the tumor [15]. The molecular mecha-nisms governing the suppression of the autoreactive T-cell response are now a subject of extensive studies,and new important information is accumulating. Inparticular, a new population of T cells, Th17, has beenrecently recognized and described. Th17 cells play akey role in autoimmune conditions [47]. These cells,producing IL-17, differ from both Th1 and Th2 T-helper types. Like regulatory T cells, they depend onTGF-
β
[48].
At present, clinical trials of the reduction of thelevel of regulatory T cells in cancer patients with theuse of IL-2-based immunotoxins or antibodies againstCD25 are in progress. Such preparations also killbeneficent cytotoxic T cells, but it is believed that thisapproach can be efficient if followed by adoptivetransfer of activated cytotoxic lymphocytes [49].Undoubtedly, a precise control of the population ofregulatory T cells requires the identification of thepopulation-specific surface markers and design ofnew reagents specific for these markers. At the sametime, the specificity of tumor cell recognition can beimproved using new tumor-associated antigens. Thefinal goal of manipulations with regulatory T cells isto reach a therapeutic balance between antitumorcytotoxicity and autoimmunity; that is, to reliablyeliminate tumor cells while maintaining an acceptablelevel of autoimmune damage to healthy tissues.
TUMOR IMMUNOTHERAPY
Nonspecific Immunotherapy
This approach includes cytokine-based therapy,various innate immunity activators, etc. (Table 3).
Initially, cytokine therapy was considered verypromising because of its simplicity and the possibilityof its combination with other well-developed treat-ment methods [50]. Unfortunately, systemic applica-tion of the cytokines that seemed most promising inexperiments in vitro or in model animals proved to beunacceptable because of their toxicity, related todiversity of biological effects. Trials of the tumornecrosis factor (TNF),
γ
-IFN, GM-CSF, IL-12, andsome others were terminated, although TNF and
γ
-IFN continue to be used in combination with Mel-phalan for isolated limb perfusion [51, 52].
Type I interferons and some clinical protocols withlow concentrations of IL-2, too toxic at higher con-centrations, are still in use for cancer treatment [53].
It should be noted that the most important applica-tion of cytokines in cancer therapy is supportive treat-ment with erythropoietin and G-CSF, aimed at elevat-ing the levels of red cells and neutrophils to preventtheir dangerous decrease in many chemotherapeuticalprotocols [54].
![Page 6: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
PROBLEMS OF CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY 321
Tab
le 3
.
App
roac
hes
to im
mun
othe
rapy
of
mal
igna
nt tu
mor
s
No.
Des
crip
tion
of a
ther
apeu
tic a
ppro
ach
Imm
unol
ogic
al m
echa
nism
and
fact
ors
favo
ring
suc
cess
ful t
reat
men
tO
bsta
cles
Ref
eren
ce
1A
ctiv
atio
n of
non
spec
ific
imm
unity
, bac
teri
al
adju
vant
s, in
clud
ing
trea
tmen
t with
non
spec
ific
cy
toki
nes
(IL
-2 a
nd G
M-C
SF)
Bas
ed o
n th
e no
tion
that
spe
cifi
c T
cel
ls e
ither
do
not r
ecei
ve a
ny c
ostim
ulat
ory
sign
al o
r th
e co
sti-
mul
ator
y si
gnal
s ar
e no
t suf
fici
ent.
The
met
hod
is p
rom
isin
g in
com
bina
tion
with
oth
er a
ntig
en-
spec
ific
trea
tmen
ts
The
app
roac
h is
lim
ited
by to
xici
ty a
nd is
inef
-fe
ctiv
e in
man
y ca
ses.
Pro
per
eval
uatio
n of
the
deve
lopi
ng im
mun
e re
spon
se is
dif
ficu
lt or
im-
poss
ible
[101
]
2Im
mun
izat
ion
with
a s
peci
fic
antig
en (
reco
mbi
-na
nt p
rote
in, p
eptid
es, r
ecom
bina
nt n
onpa
thog
e-ni
c vi
rus
expr
essi
ng a
tum
or a
ntig
en, p
eptid
es in
co
mpl
ex w
ith h
eat s
hock
pro
tein
s)
Act
ivat
ion
of th
e cl
assi
c an
tigen
-spe
cifi
c im
mu-
ne r
espo
nse
resu
lting
in g
ener
atio
n of
hig
h-af
fi-
nity
cyt
olyt
ic T
lym
phoc
ytes
. Not
toxi
c. M
any
imm
uniz
atio
n pr
otoc
ols
are
wel
l tol
erat
ed
Tum
or-s
peci
fic
T c
ells
for
m a
nd in
filtr
ate
the
tu-
mor
but
app
ear
to b
e su
ppre
ssed
by
tum
or c
ells
or
reg
ulat
ory
T c
ells
[81,
102
,10
3, 1
11,
112]
3V
acci
nes
base
d on
mod
ifie
d tu
mor
cel
ls (p
atie
nt's
own)
Bas
ed o
n th
e su
gges
tion
that
the
patie
nt h
as“c
orre
ct”
T c
ells
, but
they
eith
er fa
il to
reco
gniz
e th
e tu
mor
ant
igen
or
are
pres
ent i
n in
suff
icie
nt
quan
titie
s
Indi
vidu
al tr
eatm
ent.
Unb
iase
d m
onito
ring
of
the
imm
une
resp
onse
in th
e pa
tient
is d
iffi
cult,
if
at a
ll po
ssib
le
[66,
104
]
4V
acci
nes
base
d on
den
driti
c ce
llsA
ctiv
atio
n of
spe
cifi
c T
cel
ls w
ith a
ntig
en-p
re-
sent
ing
cells
, whi
ch c
an a
lso
give
a s
timul
atin
g si
gnal
to T
cel
ls
The
fun
ctio
n of
end
ogen
ous
dend
ritic
cel
ls in
a
canc
er p
atie
nt is
oft
en d
isru
pted
. Thi
s ca
n m
ake
vacc
inat
ion
inef
fici
ent.
Mor
eove
r, th
ere
can
be
an e
xces
sive
aut
oim
mun
e re
spon
se
[105
, 106
]
5V
acci
nes
base
d on
ado
ptiv
e tr
ansf
er o
f T
cel
ls,
incl
udin
g in
filtr
atin
g ly
mph
ocyt
es. C
an b
e ap
-pl
ied
in c
ombi
natio
n w
ith d
eple
tion
of p
atie
nt's
ly
mph
ocyt
es
Bas
ed o
n th
e fa
ct th
at ly
mph
ocyt
es in
filtr
atin
g tu
mor
s in
clud
e hi
gh-a
ffin
ity c
ytol
ytic
T c
ells
, w
hich
can
be
puri
fied
and
pro
paga
ted
Indi
vidu
al th
erap
y. D
iffi
cult
to p
erfo
rm, e
spe-
cial
ly in
com
bina
tion
with
med
icin
al in
activ
atio
n of
the
patie
nt's
lym
phoc
ytes
[42,
107
]
6V
acci
nes
base
d on
ado
ptiv
e tr
ansf
er o
f re
com
bi-
nant
T c
ells
tran
sfec
ted
with
T-c
ell r
ecep
tors
re-
cogn
izin
g th
e “c
orre
ct”
tum
or a
ntig
en in
the
con-
text
of
the
corr
ect M
HC
The
oret
ical
ly, a
per
fect
gen
e-im
mot
hera
peut
ical
ap
proa
ch. B
ypas
ses
man
y di
ffic
ultie
s re
late
d to
in
suff
icie
nt a
ntig
en d
ensi
ty o
r in
suff
icie
nt r
ecep
-to
r af
fini
ty
Indi
vidu
al th
erap
y. V
ery
diff
icul
t to
perf
orm
. D
eman
ds k
now
ledg
e of
at l
east
one
ant
igen
(o
r, b
ette
r, s
ever
al a
ntig
ens)
[108
, 109
]
7E
limin
atio
n or
blo
ckad
e of
reg
ulat
ory
(sup
pres
-so
r) T
lym
phoc
ytes
Bas
ed o
n th
e “t
urni
ng d
own”
mec
hani
sm o
f im
-m
une
supp
ress
ion
in a
con
trol
labl
e w
ayIn
duct
ion
of a
utoi
mm
une
cond
ition
s, w
hich
can
be
a li
miti
ng f
acto
r[1
10]
8A
pplic
atio
n of
ant
ibod
ies
as e
ffec
tor
imm
uno-
ther
apeu
tic to
ols
Ant
ibod
ies
can
be u
sed
for c
ontr
ollin
g th
e si
gnal
-in
g pa
thw
ays
rela
ted
to th
e ac
tivity
of a
tum
or a
n-tig
en (
e.g.
, rec
epto
r), e
limin
atio
n of
cel
l pop
ula-
tions
exp
ress
ing
the
antig
en, o
r tar
gete
d de
liver
y of
a to
xic
agen
t to
the
tum
or
Fund
amen
tally
impo
ssib
le to
com
plet
ely
elim
i-na
te a
ll tu
mor
cel
ls[7
7, 7
8]
![Page 7: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
322
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
NEDOSPASOV and KUPRASH
Specific Immunotherapy
The goal of specific immunotherapy is to elicit orenhance the immune response to tumor antigens, evenif the antigens have not been identified.
Specific immunotherapy includes various types ofvaccination: prophylactic (a brilliant example is pro-vided by recently successful clinical trials of vaccinespreventing virus-associated cervical cancer [55]) andtherapeutic ones. Therapeutic vaccination involvesadministration of autologous cancer cells obtainedfrom the patient (generally, after passages and variousin vitro manipulations), various kinds of immuniza-tion against specific tumor antigens (with recombi-nant proteins, peptides, or viruses harboring such anti-gens) together with various adjuvants (in particular,innate immunity activators) [56].
Adoptive transfer of specific T cells, includinggenetically modified T cells [57] or dendritic cellsengineered to present certain tumor antigens [58], alsobelongs to specific immunotherapy.
Finally, specific immunotherapy includes clinicalapplications of specific antibodies against tumor anti-gens as well as immunoconjugates and immunotoxinsdesigned on their basis [59].
OUTLOOK FOR DESIGN OF ANTITUMOR VACCINES
Preventive Vaccines
It is not a new idea to develop protective vaccinesthat would elicit stable immunity against tumor cellsin healthy people provided the cells bear certain tumorantigen(s) on their surfaces [60]. Similar vaccinationsallowed immunologists to overcome many infectiousdiseases, including some virus-associated ones [61].
The origin of certain types of cancer is related toviruses. It is known that cervical cancer is associatedwith the papillomavirus [62], while hepatocellularcarcinoma is associated with the hepatitis B and Cviruses [63]. No wonder that virus-associated tumorsare the most promising targets for preventive vaccina-tion. However, it should be emphasized that, strictlyspeaking, the vaccines are antiviral rather than antitu-mor. Other important virus targets include EBV,HTLV-1, and HHV-8, related to various lymphomas,especially in immunocompromised patients [64].
Basic immunology points to a fundamental differ-ence between viral (replicating) antigens and autoan-tigens. The former can become the target of an effi-cient immune response when either T lymphocytesdestroy virtually all infected cells or efficient neutral-izing antibodies are produced. In both cases, activa-tion of specific T lymphocytes is considered to be themain stage of the immune response, and the repertoireof these potentially useful T cells does not undergo
selection in the thymus, because the antigen to be rec-ognized is genuinely foreign.
A different situation arises with autoantigens,which, for some reasons, are produced in tumor butnot in normal cells. Attempts to induce a prolongedefficient immune response against such target anti-gens encounter certain obstacles, such as partial toler-ance of autoantigens, their low density on the surface(or even the absence of exposed epitopes in the case ofmany intracellular molecules), inability to generateefficient memory cells and produce neutralizing anti-bodies, etc. Current intense studies are dedicated tosolving the fundamental problem of dominant toler-ance, which is eventually responsible for suppressionof the effector function of T lymphocytes even whenthey have been formed in sufficient quantities andinfiltrated the tumor environment [65].
Therapeutic Vaccination
Various protocols of active immunotherapy aimedat specific tumor antigens (even when the antigens areunidentified, e.g., when vaccination is performed withautologous cells) belong to the most complex thera-peutic approaches. The advance in this field is rathermodest.
The most recent and promising protocols of“ideal” vaccination are aimed at (1) eliciting the spe-cific adaptive immune response upon administrationof a tumor antigen within a nonpathogenic virus (sig-nificant advantage is taken of replication of the viralDNA-encoded antigen), (2) concurrently activatinginnate immunity with various adjuvants (to providecostimulating signals necessary for T cells), and (3)completely or partly blocking the main inhibitorypathways controlling peripheral tolerance (Table 3).
OTHER APPROACHES TO ANTIGEN-SPECIFIC IMMUNOTHERAPY
The three approaches described in this section(Table 3) are based on using tumor cells or theimmune system of the patient. The patient’s cells aretreated by various methods under laboratory condi-tions and transferred back into the body. Apparently,these immunotherapeutic approaches are individualand, therefore, too complicated and expensive for rou-tine use.
Manipulations involving gene transfer are collec-tively called gene therapy. It should be clearly under-stood that gene therapy is actually only part of com-plex immunotherapy.
![Page 8: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
PROBLEMS OF CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY 323
Manipulations with Autologous Tumor and Antigen-Presenting Cells
The modern version of this approach was proposedabout 15 years ago. It consists in enhancing tumor cellimmunogenicity by transfection with genes encodingcytokines and other factors able to activate adaptive orinnate immunity branches. For example, introductionof the GM-CSF gene enhances the antitumor response[66], probably, by acting on antigen-presenting cells.Another original approach involves
Tag-7
, encodingone of the proteins involved in regulation of innateimmunity [67].
As a rule, approaches of this sort leave the natureof tumor antigens unidentified. It is assumed that theirproduction is maintained in tumor cells, which can beverified in vitro by treatment with activated cytolyticT cells isolated from the patient’s blood cells, and thatthey are recognized in vivo.
The weak side of this approach is that the specificimmune response is extremely difficul to monitor, asit is necessary to count
CD8
+
T lymphocytes anddetermine their functionality. Typical parameters(affinity and concentration) of the T-cell response aresuch that a monitoring of specific T cells of a patientrequires tetramer technology [68], which, in turn,requires molecular identification of the antigens that Tcells recognize.
Another approach under development relies on theimprovement of the properties of antigen-presentingcells in vitro followed by their transfer into thepatient’s body. For example, dendritic cells are iso-lated from peripheral blood cells of a patient andtransfected with tumor antigens or factors enhancingtheir ability to activate T cells [58].
Improvement of the Efficacy of Antitumor T Lymphocytes
One of the early approaches to obtaining lympho-cytes suitable for therapeutic transfer to cancerpatients involved a culturing of so-called lymphokine-activated killer cells (i.e., T lymphocytes from theperipheral blood of a patient), which was followed bytreatment with IL-2 or a cytokine cocktail [69]. Later,a more efficient approach was proposed, whichincluded isolation of small amounts of so-calledtumor-associated T lymphocytes from tumor samples,their propagation in vitro, activation, and transferback to the patient’s body [43]. The idea of the methodwas that T cells infiltrating the tumor contain “cor-rect” cytolytic T cells recognizing tumor antigens.Indeed, as mentioned above, such lymphocytesinclude high-affinity effector-competent
CD8
+
T cells.If their amount can be augmented and they can be acti-vated, one may hope that, after transfer, they can infil-trate the tumor again and kill tumor cells.
At present, the most remarkable achievement inindividual immunotherapy is the approach in whichone or more genes for a rearranged T-cell receptor(s)able to recognize a tumor antigen(s) within MHC mol-ecules of the patient are transferred to his T lympho-cytes [57, 70]. Such lymphocytes, transformed andspecific to a certain antigen, are activated and trans-ferred to the patient. Obviously, cloning manipula-tions in this approach are rather complicated. Theyrequire not only knowledge of the nature of the anti-gen but also availability of constructs allowing theartificial T-cell receptor to recognize the antigen in thecomplex with MHC molecules from various patients.Another difficulty is that this method requires individ-ual test reagents for monitoring the antitumor immuneresponse (e.g., so-called tetramers).
Note that none of the protocols presented in Table 3demonstrates unambiguous efficacy, although objec-tive therapeutic success has been reported in somecases [71].
Application of Modified Antibodies to Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Antibodies have already been of limited use as aneffector tool in cancer immunotherapy, and undeni-able clinical success has been achieved.
First, several formulations based on monoclonalantibodies are used in adjuvant therapy protocols. Thebest known of them are “therapeutic” antibodiesagainst the Her2 tumor cell marker and CD20 B-celldifferentiation marker [72, 73]. Second, antibodiesagainst a wider range of tumor antigens are applied fordisease diagnosis and monitoring and for tumor local-ization. For the latter purpose, antibodies are labeledwith either radioactive isotopes [74] or dyes (e.g., flu-orescent) [75].
A specific line of research is an attempt to develop“effector” antibodies conjugated with an agent able todestroy tumor cells [76]. These tools include antibod-ies bound with isotopes, which cause radioactive dam-age to tumor cells [77], or with various toxins (immu-notoxins) [78].
These approaches cannot eliminate all cells bear-ing a certain tumor antigen; therefore, a single courseof such immunotherapy can only have a limited suc-cess.
Present State of Clinical Trials of Various Immunotherapy Protocols
After the discovery of tumor antigens, includingcancer–gamete antigens, many research teamslaunched clinical studies of various vaccination meth-ods (with peptides or recombinant proteins) using var-ious adjuvants, etc. Currently, the most promising for-mulations include vaccines based on the smallpox
![Page 9: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
324
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
NEDOSPASOV and KUPRASH
virus with an adjuvant cocktail. Such recombinantvirus can encode more than one tumor antigen [79].
Numerous studies performed using sophisticatedmethods have convincingly demonstrated the possi-bility of induction of “correct” antigen-specificcytolytic T lymphocytes and their infiltration to thetumor [80, 81]. As in viral infections, a significant, ifnot major, portion of
CD8
+
T lymphocytes of patientshad the required specificity, being able to kill tumorcells in vitro. Unfortunately, no clear reproducibleclinical effects were observed in these studies [82]. Tomaintain objectivity, note that early phases of antitu-mor immunization or adoptive transfer trials includepatients with severe malignancies resistant to all avail-able treatment methods.
It should also be mentioned that, although adoptivetransfer of T cells after ex vivo manipulations provedto be applicable for tumor treatment, it will hardly beaccessible for the majority of patients, even in devel-oped countries. Therefore, one cannot predict, now,whether this immunotherapeutic method will be ableto supersede other modern cancer treatment methods.
PRACTICAL IMMUNOLOGY AND BASIC RESEARCH
The revival of the immunological surveillance con-cept coincided with a series of new ideas in cancerimmunotherapy, which were based on importantknowledge obtained by basic studies. An example isthe notion that surveillance could be performed notonly by T cells. This knowledge considerably broad-ened the possibilities of therapy. Analysis of the scien-tific support of clinical trials of various cancer immu-notherapy protocols in countries with advanced clini-cal immunology indicates that this field ofbiomedicine is science intensive. Knowledge ofachievements in basic immunology and biology of thetumor cell will allow clinicians to put forward moresound, practical ideas and provide additional chancesfor the final success.
ONCOIMMUNOLOGY PROGRAM IN RUSSIA
The educational program Oncoimmunology(www.oncoimmunology.ru), which we organized, hasspread modern knowledge of cancer immunology inRussia for more than six years. During this time,nearly all distinguished scholars in modern cancerimmunology, whose works are mentioned in all sec-tions of the review, visited Moscow and gave lectures.
Schreiber was one of the first lecturers of the pro-gram. He presented the revitalized immunologicalsurveillance theory in Moscow in the year of its pub-lication [9]. He was accompanied by Greenberg, apioneer of clinical approaches based on adoptivetransfer of T cells [42]. Lectures in Moscow were also
given by researchers who had discovered the best-known human tumor antigens: Abelev [28], Boon[33], Knuth [29], and Pfreundschuh [37]. The lectur-ers of the program Boon, Knuth, Jager, and Pfreunds-chuh conducted or are conducting trials of clinicalprotocols involving therapeutic antitumor vaccination[82]. Lectures in Moscow covered their results, prob-lems to be solved, and unsolved contradictions. Sev-eral lectures and small courses dedicated to the rela-tionships between viruses and cancer were deliveredby the outstanding scientists H. zur Hausen, G. Klein,and E. Klein, who had made the major contribution tothe study of the papillomavirus and Epstein–Barrvirus, and revealed a correlation between the virusesand tumors [83, 84]. Lectures by Blankenstein [85],Hayday [86], and Zinkernagel [87] were dedicated tothe immunological surveillance theory. Therapeuticapproaches based on the use of antibodies (includingmodified antibodies) were covered in lectures byJ.P. Mach and Pfreundschuh.
A significant contribution to the discussion ofmodern problems and challenges in oncoimmunologywas made in brilliant lectures by outstanding Russianinvestigators working abroad: K. Rajewsky, R. Med-zhitov, A. Rudensky, and A. Chervonsky. Most ofthese lectures were videotaped. The records are com-monly available from the archive of the program.
We sincerely hope that our educational activity aspart of the Oncoimmunology program (which will becontinued) as well as this review will draw young,active, and purposeful researchers to this importantfield of theoretical and practical biomedicine.
We note, again, that this review was not aimed atcomprehensively covering all problems of tumorimmunology, particularly, its history. These issues areconsidered in much more detail in Russian and foreignreviews (e.g., [88, 89]). We confined ourselves to dis-cussing problems raised in lectures of the Oncoimmu-nology program.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to A.Yu. Rudensky, Yu.V. Sheb-zukhov, and, especially, P.V. Belousov for criticalreview of the manuscript and valuable comments.
This work was supported by the Federal programHigh-Priority Research and Development in Scienceand Technology, the program Molecular and CellBiology of the Presidium of the Russian Academy ofSciences, and the Russian Foundation for BasicResearch (project no. 05-04-49075).
REFERENCES
1. Burnet F.M. 1970. The concept of immunological sur-veillance.
Prog. Exp. Tumor Res
.
13
, 1–27.
![Page 10: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Vol. 41
No. 2
2007
PROBLEMS OF CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY 325
2. Foley E.J. 1952. Immunity of C3H mice to lymphosar-coma 6-C3H-Ed following regression of the implantedtumor.
Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med
.
80
, 675–677.3. Foley E.J. 1953. Antigenic properties of methylcholan-
threne-induced tumors in mice of the strain of origin.
Cancer Res
.
13
, 835–837.4. Sjogren H.O. 1961. Further studies on the induced
resistance against isotransplantation of polyomatumors.
Virology
.
15
, 214–219.5. Deichman G.I. 1969. Immunological aspects of car-
cinogenesis by deoxyribonucleic acid tumor viruses.
Adv. Cancer Res
.
12
, 101–136.6. Stutman O. 1974. Tumor development after 3-methyl-
cholanthrene in immunologically deficient athymic-nude mice.
Science
. 183, 534–536.7. Mombaerts P., Iacomini J., Johnson R.S., Herrup K.,
Tonegawa S., Papaioannou V.E. 1992. RAG-1-deficientmice have no mature B and T lymphocytes. Cell. 68,869–877.
8. Kirchgessner C.U., Patil C.K., Evans J.W., Cuomo C.A.,Fried L.M., Carter T., Oettinger M.A., Brown J.M.1995. DNA-dependent kinase (p350) as a candidategene for the murine SCID defect. Science. 267, 1178–1183.
9. Shankaran V., Ikeda H., Bruce A.T., White J.M., Swan-son P.E., Old L.J., Schreiber R.D. 2001. IFNγ and lym-phocytes prevent primary tumor development and shapetumor immunogenicity. Nature. 410, 1107–1111.
10. Kaplan D.H., Shankaran V., Dighe A.S., Stockert E.,Aguet M., Old L.J., Schreiber R.D. 1998. Demonstra-tion of an interferon γ-dependent tumor surveillancesystem in immunocompetent mice. Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA. 95, 7556–7561.
11. Gao Y., Yang W., Pan M., Scully E., Girardi M., Augen-licht L.H., Craft J., Yin Z. 2003.γδ T cells provide anearly source of interferon γ in tumor immunity. J. Exp.Med. 198, 433–442.
12. Dunn G.P., Old L.J., Schreiber R.D. 2004. The immu-nobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immuno-editing. Immunity. 21, 137–148.
13. Seliger B., Ritz U., Ferrone S. 2006. Molecular mecha-nisms of HLA class I antigen abnormalities followingviral infection and transformation. Int. J. Cancer. 118,129–138.
14. O’Garra A., Vieira P. 2004. Regulatory T cells andmechanisms of immune system control. Nat. Med. 10,801–805.
15. Bierie B., Moses H.L. 2006. Tumor microenvironment:TGFβ: The molecular Jekyll and Hyde of cancer. Nat.Rev. Cancer. 6, 506–520.
16. Qin Z., Blankenstein T. 2004. A cancer immunosurveil-lance controversy. Nat. Immunol. 5, 3–4.
17. Schreiber R.D., Old L.J., Hayday A.C., Smyth M.J.2004. Response to “a cancer immunosurveillance con-troversy.” Nat. Immunol. 5, 4–5.
18. Tagliabue A., Luini W., Soldateschi D., Boraschi D.1981. Natural killer activity of gut mucosal lymphoidcells in mice. Eur. J. Immunol. 11, 919–922.
19. Beagley K.W., Husband A.J. 1998. Intraepithelial lym-phocytes: Origins, distribution, and function. Crit. Rev.Immunol. 18, 237–254.
20. Held W., Coudert J.D., Zimmer J. 2003. The NK cellreceptor repertoire: Formation, adaptation and exploita-tion. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 15, 233–237.
21. Raulet D.H. 2006. Missing self recognition and self tol-erance of natural killer (NK) cells. Semin. Immunol. 18,145–150.
22. Raulet D.H. 2003. Roles of the NKG2D immunorecep-tor and its ligands. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 3, 781–790.
23. Bahram S., Inoko H., Shiina T., Radosavljevic M. 2005.MIC and other NKG2D ligands: From none to toomany. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 17, 505–509.
24. Cairns R.A., Khokha R., Hill R.P. 2003. Molecularmechanisms of tumor invasion and metastasis: An inte-grated view. Curr. Mol. Med. 3, 659–671.
25. Zinkernagel R.M. 2001. Immunity against solidtumors? Int. J. Cancer. 93, 1–5.
26. Zinkernagel R.M., Hengartner H. 2004. On immunityagainst infections and vaccines: Credo 2004. Scand. J.Immunol. 60, 9–13.
27. Zilber L.A. 1961. On the interaction between tumorviruses and cells: A virogenetic concept of tumorigene-sis. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 26, 1311–1319.
28. Abelev G.I. 1968. Production of embryonal serumα-globulin by hepatomas: Review of experimental andclinical data. Cancer Res. 28, 1344–1350.
29. Van der Bruggen P., Traversari C., Chomez P., Lur-quin C., De Plaen E., Van den E.B., Knuth A., Boon T.1991. A gene encoding an antigen recognized bycytolytic T lymphocytes on a human melanoma. Sci-ence. 254, 1643–1647.
30. Chen Y.T., Scanlan M.J., Sahin U., Tureci O., Gure A.O.,Tsang S., Williamson B., Stockert E., Pfreundschuh M.,Old L.J. 1997. A testicular antigen aberrantly expressedin human cancers detected by autologous antibodyscreening. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94, 1914–1918.
31. Scanlan M.J., Simpson A.J., Old L.J. 2004. The can-cer/testis genes: Review, standardization, and commen-tary. Cancer Immun. 4, 1.
32. Simpson A.J., Caballero O.L., Jungbluth A., Chen Y.T.,Old L.J. 2005. Cancer/testis antigens, gametogenesisand cancer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 5, 615–625.
33. Boon T., van der Bruggen P. 1996. Human tumor anti-gens recognized by T lymphocytes. J. Exp. Med. 183,725–729.
34. Nishikawa H., Kato T., Tawara I., Saito K., Ikeda H.,Kuribayashi K., Allen P.M., Schreiber R.D., Sakaguchi S.,Old L.J., Shiku H. 2005. Definition of target antigensfor naturally occurring CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T cells.J. Exp. Med. 201, 681–686.
35. Schlichtholz B., Legros Y., Gillet D., Gaillard C.,Marty M., Lane D., Calvo F., Soussi T. 1992. Theimmune response to p53 in breast cancer patients isdirected against immunodominant epitopes unrelated tothe mutational hot spot. Cancer Res. 52, 6380–6384.
36. Disis M.L., Calenoff E., McLaughlin G., Murphy A.E.,Chen W., Groner B., Jeschke M., Lydon N., McGlynn E.,Livingston R.B. 1994. Existent T-cell and antibodyimmunity to HER-2/neu protein in patients with breastcancer. Cancer Res. 54, 16–20.
37. Sahin U., Tureci O., Schmitt H., Cochlovius B.,Johannes T., Schmits R., Stenner F., Luo G., Schobert I.,
![Page 11: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
326
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Vol. 41 No. 2 2007
NEDOSPASOV and KUPRASH
Pfreundschuh M. 1995. Human neoplasms elicit multi-ple specific immune responses in the autologous host.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 92, 11810–11813.
38. Gnjatic S., Nishikawa H., Jungbluth A.A., Gure A.O.,Ritter G., Jager E., Knuth A., Chen Y.T., Old L.J. 2006.NY-ESO-1: Review of an immunogenic tumor antigen.Adv. Cancer Res. 95, 1–30.
39. Goldstein M.J., Mitchell E.P. 2005. Carcinoembryonicantigen in the staging and follow-up of patients withcolorectal cancer. Cancer Invest. 23, 338–351.
40. Shebzukhov Y.V., Koroleva E.P., Khlgatian S.V., Lagar-kova M.A., Meshcheryakov A.A., Lichinitser M.R.,Karbach J., Jager E., Kuprash D.V., Nedospasov S.A.2005. Humoral immune response to thymidylate syn-thase in colon cancer patients after 5-FU chemotherapy.Immunol. Lett. 100, 88–93.
41. Shebzukhov Y.V., Koroleva E.P., Khlgatian S.V.,Belousov P.V., Kuz’mina K.E., Radko B.V., Longpre F.,Lagarkova M.A., Kadachigova T.S., Gurova O.V.,Meshcheryakov A.A., Lichinitser M.R., Knuth A.,Jager E., Kuprash D.V., Nedospasov S.A. 2005. Anti-body response to a non-conserved C-terminal part ofhuman histone deacetylase 3 in colon cancer patients.Int. J. Cancer. 117, 800–806.
42. Blattman J.N., Greenberg P.D. 2004. Cancer immuno-therapy: A treatment for the masses. Science. 305, 200–205.
43. Rosenberg S.A., Spiess P., Lafreniere R. 1986. A newapproach to the adoptive immunotherapy of cancer withtumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Science. 233, 1318–1321.
44. Riddell S.R. 2004. Finding a place for tumor-specific Tcells in targeted cancer therapy. J. Exp. Med. 200,1533–1537.
45. Khong H.T., Restifo N.P. 2002. Natural selection oftumor variants in the generation of “tumor escape” phe-notypes. Nat. Immunol. 3, 999–1005.
46. Rudensky A.Y., Gavin M., Zheng Y. 2006. FOXP3 andNFAT: Partners in tolerance. Cell. 126, 253–256.
47. Harrington L.E., Mangan P.R., Weaver C.T. 2006.Expanding the effector CD4 T-cell repertoire: The Th17lineage. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 18, 349–356.
48. Weaver C.T., Harrington L.E., Mangan P.R., Gavrieli M.,Murphy K.M. 2006. Th17: An effector CD4 T cell lin-eage with regulatory T cell ties. Immunity. 24, 677–688.
49. Dudley M.E., Wunderlich J.R., Yang J.C., Sherry R.M.,Topalian S.L., Restifo N.P., Royal R.E., Kammula U.,White D.E., Mavroukakis S.A., Rogers L.J., Gracia G.J.,Jones S.A., Mangiameli D.P., Pelletier M.M., Gea-Bana-cloche J., Robinson M.R., Berman D.M., Filie A.C.,Abati A., Rosenberg S.A. 2005. Adoptive cell transfertherapy following non-myeloablative but lymphode-pleting chemotherapy for the treatment of patients withrefractory metastatic melanoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 23,2346–2357.
50. Dranoff G. 2004. Cytokines in cancer pathogenesis andcancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 4, 11–22.
51. Van Horssen R., Ten Hagen T.L., Eggermont A.M.2006. TNF-α in cancer treatment: Molecular insights,antitumor effects, and clinical utility. Oncologist. 11,397–408.
52. Grunhagen D.J., de Wilt J.H., Ten Hagen T.L., Egger-mont A.M. 2006. Technology insight: Utility of TNF-α-based isolated limb perfusion to avoid amputation ofirresectable tumors of the extremities. Nat. Clin. Pract.Oncol. 3, 94–103.
53. Waldmann T.A. 2006. The biology of interleukin-2 andinterleukin-15: implications for cancer therapy and vac-cine design. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 6, 595–601.
54. Harper P., Littlewood T. 2005. Anaemia of cancer:Impact on patient fatigue and long-term outcome.Oncology. 69 Suppl. 2, 2–7.
55. Roden R., Wu T.C. 2006. How will HPV vaccines affectcervical cancer? Nat. Rev. Cancer. 6, 753–763.
56. Kirkwood J.M., Moschos S., Wang W. 2006. Strategiesfor the development of more effective adjuvant therapyof melanoma: Current and future explorations of anti-bodies, cytokines, vaccines, and combinations. Clin.Cancer Res. 12, 2331s–2336s.
57. Kershaw M.H., Teng M.W., Smyth M.J., Darcy P.K.2005. Supernatural T cells: genetic modification of Tcells for cancer therapy. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 5, 928–940.
58. Nestle F.O., Farkas A., Conrad C. 2005. Dendritic-cell-based therapeutic vaccination against cancer. Curr.Opin. Immunol. 17, 163–169.
59. Pastan I., Hassan R., FitzGerald D.J., Kreitman R.J.2006. Immunotoxin therapy of cancer. Nat. Rev. Can-cer. 6, 559–565.
60. Richman S.P., Gutterman J.U., Hersh E.M. 1979. Can-cer immunotherapy. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 120, 322–329.
61. Plotkin S.A. 2005. Vaccines: past, present and future.Nat. Med. 11, S5–S11.
62. Cain J.M., Howett M.K. 2000. Preventing cervical can-cer. Science. 288, 1753–1755.
63. Heathcote E.J. 2004. Prevention of hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology.127, S294–S302.
64. Lyons S.F., Liebowitz D.N. 1998. The roles of humanviruses in the pathogenesis of lymphoma. Semin.Oncol. 25, 461–475.
65. Zou W. 2005. Immunosuppressive networks in thetumour environment and their therapeutic relevance.Nat. Rev. Cancer. 5, 263–274.
66. Dranoff G. 2002. GM-CSF-based cancer vaccines.Immunol Rev. 188, 147–154.
67. Larin S.S., Korobko E.V., Kustikova O.S., Borodu-lina O.R., Raikhlin N.T., Brisgalov I.P., Georgiev G.P.,Kiselev S.L. 2004. Immunotherapy with autologoustumor cells engineered to secrete Tag7/PGRP, an innateimmunity recognition molecule. J. Gene Med. 6, 798–808.
68. Pittet M.J., Speiser D.E., Valmori D., Rimoldi D.,Lienard D., Lejeune F., Cerottini J.C., Romero P. 2001.Ex vivo analysis of tumor antigen specific CD8+ T cellresponses using MHC/peptide tetramers in cancerpatients. Int. Immunopharmacol. 1, 1235–1247.
69. Rosenberg S. 1985. Lymphokine-activated killer cells:A new approach to immunotherapy of cancer. J. Natl.Cancer Inst. 75, 595–603.
70. Schumacher T.N. 2002. T-cell-receptor gene therapy.Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2, 512–519.
![Page 12: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Vol. 41 No. 2 2007
PROBLEMS OF CANCER IMMUNOTHERAPY 327
71. Gattinoni L., Powell D.J., Jr., Rosenberg S.A., Restifo N.P.2006. Adoptive immunotherapy for cancer: Building onsuccess. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 6, 383–393.
72. Cragg M.S., French R.R., Glennie M.J. 1999. Signalingantibodies in cancer therapy. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 11,541–547.
73. Weiner L.M. 1999. An overview of monoclonal anti-body therapy of cancer. Semin. Oncol. 26, 41–50.
74. Mach J.P., Pelegrin A., Buchegger F. 1991. Imaging andtherapy with monoclonal antibodies in non-hematopoi-etic tumors. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 3, 685–693.
75. Ballou B., Ernst L.A., Waggoner A.S. 2005. Fluores-cence imaging of tumors in vivo. Curr. Med. Chem. 12,795–805.
76. Glinka E.M., Edelweiss E.F., Deyev S.M. 2006.Eukaryotic expression vectors and immunoconjugatesfor cancer therapy. Biokhimiya. 71, 597–606.
77. Buchegger F., Antonescu C., Delaloye A.B., Helg C.,Kovacsovics T., Kosinski M., Mach J.P., Ketterer N.2006. Long-term complete responses after 131I-tositu-momab therapy for relapsed or refractory indolent non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Br. J. Cancer. 94, 1770–1776.
78. FitzGerald D.J., Kreitman R., Wilson W., Squires D.,Pastan I. 2004. Recombinant immunotoxins for treatingcancer. Int. J. Med. Microbiol 293, 577–582.
79. Moingeon P. 2004. Recombinant cancer vaccines basedon viral vectors. Dev. Biol. (Basel). 116, 117–122.
80. Jager D., Jager E., Knuth A. 2001. Immune responses totumor antigens: Implications for antigen specific immu-notherapy of cancer. J. Clin. Pathol. 54, 669–674.
81. Jager E., Jager D., Knuth A. 2003. Antigen-specificimmunotherapy and cancer vaccines. Int. J. Cancer.106, 817–820.
82. Jager E., Jager D., Knuth A. 2002. Clinical cancer vac-cine trials. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 14, 178–182.
83. zur Hausen H. 1999. Viruses in human cancers. Eur. J.Cancer. 35, 1878–1885.
84. Klein G. 1994. Epstein–Barr virus strategy in normaland neoplastic B cells. Cell. 77, 791–793.
85. Willimsky G., Blankenstein T. 2005. Sporadic immuno-genic tumors avoid destruction by inducing T-cell toler-ance. Nature. 437, 141–146.
86. Hayday A., Tigelaar R. 2003. Immunoregulation in thetissues by γδ T cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 3, 233–242.
87. Ochsenbein A.F., Sierro S., Odermatt B., Pericin M.,Karrer U., Hermans J., Hemmi S., Hengartner H., Zin-kernagel R.M. 2001. Roles of tumor localization, sec-ond signals and cross priming in cytotoxic T-cell induc-tion. Nature. 411, 1058–1064.
88. Abelev G.I. 1999. Immunology of cancer. Vestn. Ross.Akad. Med. Nauk. 21–25.
89. Rosenberg S.A. 1999. A new era for cancer immuno-therapy based on the genes that encode cancer antigens.Immunity. 10, 281–287.
90. Ikeda H., Ohta N., Furukawa K., Miyazaki H., Wang L.,Kuribayashi K., Old L.J., Shiku H. 1997. Mutated mito-gen-activated protein kinase: A tumor rejection antigenof mouse sarcoma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94,6375–6379.
91. Klein G. 1997. Rejection antigens in chemicallyinduced tumors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 94, 5991–5992.
92. Line A., Stengrevics A., Slucka Z., Li G., Jankevics E.,Rees R.C. 2002. Serological identification and expres-sion analysis of gastric cancer-associated genes. Br. J.Cancer. 86, 1824–1830.
93. Brass N., Heckel D., Sahin U., Pfreundschuh M.,Sybrecht G.W., Meese E. 1997. Translation initiationfactor eIF-4gamma is encoded by an amplified gene andinduces an immune response in squamous cell lung car-cinoma. Hum. Mol. Genet. 6, 33–39.
94. Lagarkova M.A., Boitchenko V.E., Mescheryakov A.A.,Kashkarova U.A., Nedospasov S.A. 2000. Human cort-actin as putative cancer antigen. Oncogene. 19, 5204–5207.
95. Vonderheide R.H., Hahn W.C., Schultze J.L., Nadler L.M.1999. The telomerase catalytic subunit is a widelyexpressed tumor-associated antigen recognized by cyto-toxic T lymphocytes. Immunity. 10, 673–679.
96. Boon T., Cerottini J.C., van den Eynde B.J., van derBruggen P., van Pel A. 1994. Tumor antigens recog-nized by T lymphocytes. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 12, 337–365.
97. Kawakami Y., Nishimura M.I., Restifo N.P., Topalian S.L.,O’Neil B.H., Shilyansky J., Yannelli J.R., Rosenberg S.A.1993. T-cell recognition of human melanoma antigens.J. Immunother. 14, 88–93.
98. Chen W., Peace D.J., Rovira D.K., You S.G., Cheever M.A.1992. T-cell immunity to the joining region ofp210BCR-ABL protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 89,1468–1472.
99. Zhang J.Y., Casiano C.A., Peng X.X., Koziol J.A.,Chan E.K., Tan E.M. 2003. Enhancement of antibodydetection in cancer using panel of recombinant tumor-associated antigens. Cancer Epidemiol. BiomarkersPrev. 12, 136–143.
100. Casiano C.A., Mediavilla-Varela M., Tan E.M. 2006.Tumor-associated antigen arrays for the serologicaldiagnosis of cancer. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 5, 1745–1759.
101. Hodge J.W., Greiner J.W., Tsang K.Y., Sabzevari H.,Kudo-Saito C., Grosenbach D.W., Gulley J.L., Arlen P.M.,Marshall J.L., Panicali D., Schlom J. 2006. Costimula-tory molecules as adjuvants for immunotherapy. Front.Biosci. 11, 788–803.
102. Maclean J., Rybicki E.P., Williamson A.L. 2005. Vacci-nation strategies for the prevention of cervical cancer.Expert. Rev. Anticancer Ther. 5, 97–107.
103. Duenas-Carrera S. 2004. DNA vaccination against hep-atitis C. Curr. Opin. Mol. Ther. 6, 146–150.
104. Wysocki P.J., Karczewska-Dzionk A., Mackiewicz-Wysocka M., Mackiewicz A. 2004. Human cancer genetherapy with cytokine gene-modified cells. Expert.Opin. Biol. Ther. 4, 1595–1607.
105. Turtle C.J., Hart D.N. 2004. Dendritic cells in tumorimmunology and immunotherapy. Curr. Drug Targets.5, 17–39.
106. Soruri A., Zwirner J. 2005. Dendritic cells: Limitedpotential in immunotherapy. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol.37, 241–245.
![Page 13: Oncoimmunology: Some fundamental problems of cancer immunotherapy](https://reader030.fdocuments.in/reader030/viewer/2022020600/575069ab1a28ab0f07b5e7bb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
328
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY Vol. 41 No. 2 2007
NEDOSPASOV and KUPRASH
107. Dudley M.E., Rosenberg S.A. 2003. Adoptive-cell-transfer therapy for the treatment of patients with can-cer. Nat. Rev. Cancer. 3, 666–675.
108. Ho W.Y., Blattman J.N., Dossett M.L., Yee C., Green-berg P.D. 2003. Adoptive immunotherapy: EngineeringT cell responses as biologic weapons for tumor massdestruction. Cancer Cell. 3, 431–437.
109. Morgan R.A., Dudley M.E., Wunderlich J.R.,Hughes M.S., Yang J.C., Sherry R.M., Royal R.E.,Topalian S.L., Kammula U.S., Restifo N.P., Zheng Z.,Nahvi A., de Vries C.R., Rogers-Freezer L.J.,Mavroukakis S.A., Rosenberg S.A. 2006. Cancer
Regression in patients after transfer of genetically engi-neered lymphocytes. Science. 314, 126–129.
110. Baecher-Allan C., Anderson D.E. 2006. Immune regu-lation in tumor-bearing hosts. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 18,214–219.
111. Binder R.J. 2006. Heat shock protein vaccines: Frombench to bedside. Int. Rev. Immunol. 18, 214–219.
112. Maki R.G., Old L.J., Srivastava P.K. 1990. Humanhomologue of murine tumor rejection antigen gp96:5'-regulatory and coding regions and relationship tostress-induced proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 87,5658–5662.