| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Experimental Therapeutics |
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine [Y. T., W. S., R. G. C.] and Institute of Genetic Medicine [R. G. C.], Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York 10021
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 Top ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
On the basis of the emerging evidence that in vitro physical interaction between DCs and tumor cells is fundamental to the induction of therapeutic immunity, and that DCs are capable of ingesting apoptotic tumor cells and acquiring tumor-associated antigens to induce class I-restricted CTLs in vitro (19, 20, 21) , we hypothesized that intratumoral administration of bone marrow-derived DCs, in the context of chemotherapy to induce tumor cell death, may be a strategy to enhance the presentation of tumor-specific antigens to the immune system. This approach may induce tumor immunity with consequent suppression of tumor growth without the requirement for in vitro interaction of DCs with tumor cells/antigens.
To evaluate this hypothesis, we used several well-characterized syngeneic murine tumor models to test the antitumor potential of intratumoral DC injection, with or without chemotherapy. The data demonstrate that DCs can act as therapeutic reagents when injected into the tumor site, with consequent delay of tumor growth mediated by tumor-specific immune responses. Far more dramatic antitumor effects, however, are observed when the intratumoral administration of DCs is combined with systemic chemotherapy, resulting in marked tumor suppression with persistent antitumor immune memory.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Cell Lines.
CT26.WT (H-2d) is a clone of the N-nitroso-N-methylurethane-induced BALB/c undifferentiated colon adenocarcinoma cell line. CT26.CL25 is a clone of CT26.WT that has been transduced with the Escherichia coli ßgal gene (both cell lines provided by N. P. Restifo, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD; Ref. 22
). B16 is a C57Bl/6-derived melanoma (American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD). C3, a tumor cell line, was generated by transfecting C57Bl/6 mouse embryonal fibroblasts with plasmids containing the entire genome of the human papilloma virus type 16 (gift of M. Vierboom, University of Leiden, Leiden, the Netherlands; Ref. 23
). The SVBalb (H-2d) fibroblast cell line (provided by Dr. L. Gooding, Emory University, Atlanta, GA), syngeneic to BALB/c, was used as an in vitro stimulator of cells in the CTL assay (24)
.
CT26.WT cells were cultured in complete RPMI-1640 medium with 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 mM L-glutamine, 100 µg/ml streptomycin, and 100 units/ml penicillin. CT26.CL25 cells were maintained in the same medium plus 400 µg/ml G418 (Life Technologies, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD). SVBalb and B16 cells were grown in DMEM containing 10% FCS and antibiotics. C3 cells were cultured in Iscove’s modified Dulbecco medium supplemented with 8% FCS, penicillin, and 2-mercaptoethanol.
Chemotherapy Agents.
Both CTX and MMC were from Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, MO), and 5-FU was from SoloPak Laboratories (Elk Grove Village, IL). ADR was from Gensia Laboratories, Ltd. (Irvine, CA).
DCs.
Primary DCs were obtained from mouse bone marrow precursors as described previously (18
, 25)
. Briefly, murine bone marrow cells were harvested from femurs and tibias and then plated in complete RPMI 1640 containing recombinant murine GM-CSF (500 units/ml; Sigma Chemical Co.) and recombinant murine IL-4 (20 ng/ml; Genzyme, Farmington, MA). On day 2, nonadherent granulocytes were gently removed, and fresh medium with GM-CSF and IL-4 was added. On day 4, loosely adherent cells were dislodged and replated. On days 5–7 of culture, immature DCs, as nonadherent proliferating aggregates, were collected. Functional analysis of the bone marrow-derived DCs was performed, and the maturation status and percentage of DCs were verified by flow cytometry (18)
, with three surface markers (CD11b, CD44, and class II antigen IAd) showing the purity of DCs to be 
72%.
Combined Intratumoral DCs and Chemotherapy.
Preliminary studies were carried out using four antitumor agents (5-FU, CTX, ADR, and MMC) to control the growth of the model tumors (CT26.WT, CT26.CL25, B16, and C3) with different doses and schedules to determine the drug dose for inhibition of tumor growth in vivo without major systemic toxicity. Mitomycin and 5-FU were not found to be useful for the tumors evaluated and were not assessed further.
For the CT26.CL25 or CT26.WT tumor models, 105 cells/mouse in 100 µl of in HBSS were implanted into BALB/c mice in the lower right flank. On day 11, the average tumor sizes of CT26.CL25 and CT26.WT were 27.8 ± 3.8 and 22.0 ± 2.1 mm2, respectively. The mice then received i.p. injections of CTX (150 mg/kg body weight); injections were repeated 2 days later with the same dose. Four injections of DCs (each injection was 106 cells/mouse in 30 µl of HBSS) were given into the tumor on days 12, 13, 14, and 18. The experimental groups included: group 1, untreated controls; group 2, intratumoral injections of DC alone; group 3, CTX treatment alone; group 4, combined CTX and intratumoral DC injections; and group 5, combined CTX and DCs that were injected s.c. in the left flank, a site distant to the tumor. For all animal experiments, the tumor size was measured biweekly using a caliper and expressed as the product of the maximal perpendicular diameters (mm2). Animals were sacrificed when the tumor diameter exceeded 15 mm, when there was tumor ulceration, or when there were other signs of animal distress. Survival was recorded as the percentage of surviving animals on a given day. Surviving mice had no sign of tumor when the experiment was terminated. All experiments were performed at least twice with reproducible outcomes using individual treatment groups of five mice for each treatment.
For the melanoma B16 tumor model, naive C57Bl/6 mice were inoculated s.c. with 2 x 105 B16 cells in the lower right flank. On day 9, mice with established tumors (average tumor size, 25.7 ± 4.6 mm2) were administered ADR i.p. treatment on 3 consecutive days (3 mg/kg body weight each day) and received injections of DCs four times at days 10, 11, 12, and 16 (each injection 106 cells/mouse in 30 µl of HBSS). Four groups (untreated controls, DC alone, ADR alone, and ADR plus intratumoral DC injections) were included. The measurement of tumor size and survival was as described above.
The mice bearing C3 tumors were treated by intratumoral injections of DCs using 106 C3 tumor cells and intratumoral DC injections on days 13, 14, 15, and 20 (on day 13, average tumor size was 21.6 ± 4.2 mm2). For this tumor, the DCs completely protected the mice, and additional experiments with chemotherapy were not carried out.
Antigen-specific CTLs.
To determine whether the CT26.CL25 tumor-free mice that survived the combined intratumoral injection of bone marrow DCs and chemotherapy with CTX were associated with tumor-specific CTLs, the spleens were removed from these mice, and the splenocytes (2 x 106/ml) were plated with irradiated (5000 rads) syngeneic SVBalb cells (2 x 105/ml), pulsed previously with a synthetic ßgal peptide (1 µM). After 5 days of coculture, the in vitro restimulated viable splenocytes were examined for specific cell lysis using a standard 51Cr release assay against a variety of target cell lines, including syngeneic CT26.WT, ßgal-expressing CT26.CL25, and ßgal peptide-pulsed CT26.WT, as well as SVBalb used as a negative control. The peptide used in the CTL studies was the nanomer TPHPARIGL (residues 876–885) for ßgal (26)
, synthesized (Biosynthesis, Lewisville, TX) to a purity of >99% as determined by high pressure liquid chromatography and amino acid analysis. The 51Cr release assay was performed as described previously (27)
.
Secondary Tumor Challenge in Tumor-free Mice.
To determine the persistence of tumor-specific immunity in the mice treated by combination therapy, at day 60 after first tumor inoculation, five mice showing complete regression of CT26.CL25 tumors were given a second s.c. tumor challenge. To generate s.c. tumors, CT26.CL25 and CT26.WT tumor cells (105 cells each in 100 µl of HBSS) were implanted into BALB/c mice on the right and left lower flanks, respectively. The mice were followed for survival and measurement of tumor size, as compared with the control group, both CT26.CL25 and CT26.WT tumors were inoculated (105 cells, each in 100 µl of HBSS on opposite flanks of naive mice).
Adoptive CTL Transfer for Tumor Prevention.
To determine whether the tumor-specific CTLs induced by bone marrow-derived DCs via intratumoral injections acquiring tumor antigens in vivo were responsible for complete regression of preestablished s.c. tumors, ßgal-specific CTLs were generated from tumor-free mice as described above and then i.v. infused into naive mice (3 x 106 CTLs/mouse). One day later, these mice were s.c. challenged with 105 CT26.CL25 and monitored for tumor size and survival.
Regression of Second Preestablished Tumor by Chemotherapy and Local DC Injection.
To evaluate whether multiple preestablished tumors could be cured after systemic chemotherapy and local DC injection into one of the tumors, CT26.CL25 tumors (105 cells for each side) were s.c. implanted in both lower flanks of BALB/c mice. Eleven days later, tumor-bearing mice were either untreated or treated with combined CTX and intratumoral injection of naive DCs only into the tumor on the right side but not into the tumor on the left side, following the same dose schedule as described above. The bilateral tumor-bearing mice were followed for tumor size on both flanks.
Statistics.
The tumor growth data are presented as mean ± SE. Comparisons among groups of tumor growth were made using the unpaired two-tailed Student’s t test. Comparisons among groups in the survival data were made using the log-rank test (28)
.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
The selected antitumor agent for the combination treatment of CT26.WT and CT26.CL25 cells was CTX, because it was the most effective drug among the four drugs tested (CTX, 5-FU, MMC, and ADR) for delaying CT26 colon tumor growth in vivo (not shown). In contrast, for the B16 tumors, the most effective chemotherapy was ADR (not shown).
Combination Treatment with Chemotherapy and Intratumor Administration of DCs.
To test the hypothesis that systemic administration of chemotherapeutic agents together with intratumoral administration of DCs will control tumor growth, treatment with chemotherapy was initiated when the tumor was of appropriate size, and local administration of DCs were started 1 day after the first dose of chemotherapy.
For the CT26.CL25 colon carcinoma tumors in BALB/c mice, the tumors grew rapidly in the control (untreated) mice, as well as in the mice treated with DCs alone (Fig. 1, A and B)
. Although treatment with systemic CTX alone (Fig. 1A)
or systemic CTX together with DCs in the opposite flank (Fig. 1B)
resulted in partial suppression of tumor growth, the combination of systemic CTX + DCs administered directly to the tumor resulted in complete suppression of tumor growth (P < 0.03, all observations of CTX + DCs compared with other groups; Fig. 1, A and B
). Consistent with the complete suppression of tumor growth in the CTX + DC treated mice, the CTX + DC treated mice had 100% survival (Fig. 1C)
. In contrast, there was reduced survival for all of the control groups (P < 0.01, all observations of CTX + DCs compared with other groups; Fig. 1C
).
|
. Whereas the CTX + DC therapy resulted in complete suppression of tumor growth (Fig. 2A)
, CTX alone (Fig. 2A)
, or DC alone, or CTX + DCs in the opposite flank (Fig. 2B)
gave only partial suppression compared with the control (P < 0.04, all observations of CTX + DCs compared with other groups; Fig. 2, A and B
). Consistent with the complete suppression of tumor growth in the CTX + DC treated mice, the CTX + DC treated mice had 100% survival (Fig. 2C)
. In contrast, there was reduced survival for all of the control groups (P < 0.01, all observations of CTX + DCs compared with other groups; Fig. 2C
).
|
).
|
. Moreover, the CT26.CL25 tumor-free mice that survived after the combined CTX + DC therapy were s.c. rechallenged bilaterally with CT26.WT and CT26.CL25 tumor cells. The results show that these mice resisted lethal doses of not only CT26.CL25s but also CT26.WT tumor cells (Fig. 5)
, further indicating that the tumor protection was mediated by persistent antitumor immunity specific for antigens relevant to the CT26 tumor per se. It is of interest that the CT26.CL25 CTX + DC-treated tumor-free mice also had protective immunity against subsequent challenge with the nontransfected parental tumor line (CT26.WT), suggesting that the intratumor-injected DCs presented in vivo both ßgal and parent antigens, resulting in long-lasting memory against these tumors. Furthermore, CT26.WT tumor-free mice treated with the combination therapy survived a second challenge of CT26.WT and CT26.CL25 (not shown), demonstrating that the observed effect of established immunological memory is not only dependent on the ßgal antigen but likely also on other unidentified antigens of CT26 tumors.
|
|
.
|
, indicating that the antitumor suppression was systemic rather than local. This observation may have significant clinical implications because it suggests that treatment of a single tumor with the intratumoral DC injection, and systemic chemotherapy might be sufficient to generate effective therapeutic immunity against metastatic cancer.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
Immunotherapy with DCs.
The state of maturation of DCs can be controlled in vitro by the culture conditions used to produce DCs. Immature DCs are produced by culturing DC precursors in the presence of GM-CSF and IL-4, whereas further maturation of DCs can be achieved by longer culture or subsequent addition of cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-
or CD40 ligand (1
, 2
, 30)
. Because immature DCs have phagocytic activity and perform effective capture of exogenous antigens (1
, 2)
, the DCs used in the present study were generated by 6-day exposure to GM-CSF and IL-4. The hypothesis underlying the use of these immature DCs is that the DCs will reside in the tumor for a short period of time, where they take up and efficiently process antigens from dying and apoptotic cells (19
, 21)
. Once antigens have been captured, antigen-bearing DCs rapidly undergo a functional maturation process and become very potent antigen-presenting cells, with down-regulated processing capacity and increased surface expression of MHC and costimulatory molecules (1
, 2)
. There is increasing evidence that the tumor antigens endocytosed by bone marrow-derived DCs are introduced not only into the MHC class II but also class I processing pathway to cross-prime naive T cells for developing potent immunity (3
, 19
, 31
, 32) . In addition, there is evidence that antigens can be transferred from antigen-bearing DCs to naive DCs in vivo and that antigen-pulsed DCs act synergistically with these DCs in the production of primary T-cell proliferation to antigens (33)
.
In the context of the central role of DCs in presenting MHC-restricted tumor antigens, a variety of strategies have been developed to use DCs in immunotherapy against tumors (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 , 34 , 35) . Although the molecular identification of the tumor-specific antigens would greatly expand the use of DC-based tumor vaccine strategies, most tumor-specific antigens remain unknown and may vary between different individuals. Antigen identification, a fundamental requirement for directly pulsing defined peptides and proteins with DCs for tumor vaccination, can be bypassed by approaches that arm the DCs with the full antigenic spectrum of the tumor by using the tumor cell itself as a source of antigens. Strategies to accomplish this include pulsing DCs with tumor-derived lysates or tumor mRNA, or by fusing tumors with DCs in vitro, or coculturing tumor cells with DCs in vitro (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18) . These strategies can induce CTLs directed specifically against the tumor but require the in vitro step of exposing the DCs to the tumor. One alternative approach is to attract functional DCs to the tumor site, resulting in an immune response attributable to the short-term contact of DCs and tumor cells in vivo (35) . Another is the strategy used in the present study, i.e., to take the DCs generated in vitro and directly administer the DCs into the tumor, bringing the DCs and tumor into close contact. Although there are data that blood and tumor-draining lymph node DCs are impaired in cancer patients because of a systemic effect of the tumor on DCs (36) , functional DCs prepared from bone marrow or peripheral blood-derived precursors appear to escape this impairment (37) . In experimental animal models, reports from other groups have showed that mice given i.v. injections of 106 DCs develop a weak protective cellular immunity (15) , whereas the administration of 5 x 105 bone marrow-derived DCs in combination with a vaccine results in eradication of tumors (38) .
A number of mechanisms have been proposed to explain the failure in cancer patients of chemotherapy alone as a sole or follow-up treatment after surgery. A major limitation is acquired drug resistance, which may occur because of drug-targeted gene amplification and mutation in some tumor cells which escape the cytotoxic effect of the drug and lead to tumor recurrence (39) . Similarly, there are many ways in which tumors can escape recognition and clearance by the immune system. The reasons that the host is unable to trigger the recruitment and activation of DCs at the tumor site of rapidly growing tumors may include secretion of immunosuppressive factors such as tumor necrosis factor-ß, fas ligand, and IL-10 to inhibit the host’s immune system, and lack of enough systemic functional DCs to achieve a local critical mass in the tumor-bearing host (40) . In this context, the injection of in vitro generated DCs directly into the tumor may be able to break an operational state of tumor tolerance and trigger tumor regression, resulting in the development of effective endogenous immunity against cancer. The positive results from the present study show that the apparent limitation of DC function in tumor-bearing hosts can be overcome if sufficient autologous DCs at the tumor site are provided in the context of systemic chemotherapy.
The results in the present study have clinical implications. Because chemotherapy is effective in controlling the rate of tumor growth and causing tumor cells to undergo apoptosis, local DC-based therapy may be synergistic with chemotherapy in enhancing antitumor host responses. On the basis of the fact that complete tumor regression and long-lasting tumor immunity was observed in the present study, we suggest that the same strategy could be applied to treat other tumors by DCs combined with effective drugs. However, before undertaking such treatments, the routes and doses of administration of DCs and drugs need to be optimized. We predict that intratumoral DC injections combined with other efficient cancer treatments such as radiotherapy, antiangiogenesis agents, or prodrug strategies may be made more effective by virtue of increasing local toxic effects against tumors with minimal systemic immunosuppression. However, we do not have direct evidence showing how, after chemotherapy, the increased dying tumor cells release tumor antigens to be taken up by DCs in vivo. This putative mechanism remains hypothetical and will be researched in additional studies.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
1 These studies were supported, in part, by Grant R01 CA75192; the Will Rogers Memorial Fund, Los Angeles, CA; and GenVec, Inc., Gaithersburg MD. 
2 To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Institute of Genetic Medicine, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 520 East 70th Street, ST 505, New York, New York 10021. Phone: (212) 746-2258; Fax: (212) 746-8383; E-mail: geneticmedicine{at}med.cornell.edu
3 The abbreviations used are: DC, dendritic cell; ßgal, ß-galactosidase; CTX, cyclophosphamide; MMC, mitomycin; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; ADR, Adriamycin; GM-CSF, granulocyte/macrophage-colony stimulating factor; IL, interleukin.
Received 2/19/01. Accepted 8/14/01.
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TopABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONREFERENCES |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. V. Shurin, I. L. Tourkova, R. Kaneno, and M. R. Shurin Chemotherapeutic Agents in Noncytotoxic Concentrations Increase Antigen Presentation by Dendritic Cells via an IL-12-Dependent Mechanism J. Immunol., July 1, 2009; 183(1): 137 - 144. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. S. Hill, F. Errington, L. P. Steele, A. Merrick, R. Morgan, P. J. Selby, N. T. Georgopoulos, D. M. O'Donnell, and A. A. Melcher OK432-Activated Human Dendritic Cells Kill Tumor Cells via CD40/CD40 Ligand Interactions J. Immunol., September 1, 2008; 181(5): 3108 - 3115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Wei, H. Wang, B. Lu, B. Li, S. Hou, W. Qian, K. Fan, J. Dai, J. Zhao, and Y. Guo Cancer Immunotherapy Using In vitro Genetically Modified Targeted Dendritic Cells Cancer Res., May 15, 2008; 68(10): 3854 - 3862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Saha, S. K. Chatterjee, K. A. Foon, E. Celis, and M. Bhattacharya-Chatterjee Therapy of Established Tumors in a Novel Murine Model Transgenic for Human Carcinoembryonic Antigen and HLA-A2 with a Combination of Anti-idiotype Vaccine and CTL Peptides of Carcinoembryonic Antigen Cancer Res., March 15, 2007; 67(6): 2881 - 2892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Bae, Y.-J. Park, J.-B. Park, Y. S. Choi, M. S. Kim, and J.-I. Sin Therapeutic Synergy of Human Papillomavirus E7 Subunit Vaccines plus Cisplatin in an Animal Tumor Model: Causal Involvement of Increased Sensitivity of Cisplatin-Treated Tumors to CTL-Mediated Killing in Therapeutic Synergy Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2007; 13(1): 341 - 349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Melero, A. Arina, O. Murillo, J. Dubrot, C. Alfaro, J. L. Perez-Gracia, M. Bendandi, and S. Hervas-Stubbs Immunogenic Cell Death and Cross-Priming Are Reaching the Clinical Immunotherapy Arena Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2006; 12(8): 2385 - 2389. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Saji, W. Song, K. Furumoto, H. Kato, and E. G. Engleman Systemic Antitumor Effect of Intratumoral Injection of Dendritic Cells in Combination with Local Photodynamic Therapy Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2006; 12(8): 2568 - 2574. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. A. Emens and E. M. Jaffee Leveraging the Activity of Tumor Vaccines with Cytotoxic Chemotherapy Cancer Res., September 15, 2005; 65(18): 8059 - 8064. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Song and R. Levy Therapeutic Vaccination against Murine Lymphoma by Intratumoral Injection of Naive Dendritic Cells Cancer Res., July 1, 2005; 65(13): 5958 - 5964. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Okamoto, S. Furuichi, Y. Nishioka, T. Oshikawa, T. Tano, S. U. Ahmed, K. Takeda, S. Akira, Y. Ryoma, Y. Moriya, et al. Expression of Toll-Like Receptor 4 on Dendritic Cells Is Significant for Anticancer Effect of Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy in Combination with an Active Component of OK-432, a Streptococcal Preparation Cancer Res., August 1, 2004; 64(15): 5461 - 5470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Perrotta, S. Falcone, A. Capobianco, A. Camporeale, C. Sciorati, C. D. Palma, A. Pisconti, P. Rovere-Querini, M. Bellone, A. A. Manfredi, et al. Nitric Oxide Confers Therapeutic Activity to Dendritic Cells in a Mouse Model of Melanoma Cancer Res., June 1, 2004; 64(11): 3767 - 3771. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. S. Zimmermann, A. Bondanza, A. Monno, P. Rovere-Querini, A. Corti, and A. A. Manfredi TNF-{alpha} Coupled to Membrane of Apoptotic Cells Favors the Cross-Priming to Melanoma Antigens J. Immunol., February 15, 2004; 172(4): 2643 - 2650. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Schmidt, C. Ziske, A. Marten, S. Endres, K. Tiemann, V. Schmitz, M. Gorschluter, C. Schneider, T. Sauerbruch, and I. G. H. Schmidt-Wolf Intratumoral Immunization with Tumor RNA-Pulsed Dendritic Cells Confers Antitumor Immunity in a C57BL/6 Pancreatic Murine Tumor Model Cancer Res., December 15, 2003; 63(24): 8962 - 8967. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. N. Rad, G. Pollara, S. M. A. Sohaib, C. Chiang, B. M. Chain, and D. R. Katz The Differential Influence of Allogeneic Tumor Cell Death via DNA Damage on Dendritic Cell Maturation and Antigen Presentation Cancer Res., August 15, 2003; 63(16): 5143 - 5150. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Bondanza, V. S. Zimmermann, G. Dell'Antonio, E. Dal Cin, A. Capobianco, M. G. Sabbadini, A. A. Manfredi, and P. Rovere-Querini Cutting Edge: Dissociation Between Autoimmune Response and Clinical Disease After Vaccination with Dendritic Cells J. Immunol., January 1, 2003; 170(1): 24 - 27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Yu, S. Kusmartsev, F. Cheng, M. Paolini, Y. Nefedova, E. Sotomayor, and D. Gabrilovich Effective Combination of Chemotherapy and Dendritic Cell Administration for the Treatment of Advanced-Stage Experimental Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2003; 9(1): 285 - 294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |
); group 2, intratumoral injections of DCs alone (n = 5, 
); group 3, i.p. CTX alone (n = 5, 
); group 4, i.p. CTX and intratumoral DCs (n = 5, 
); and group 5, i.p. CTX and DCs injected s.c. in the left flank, a site distal to the tumor (n = 5, •). A, tumor size for groups 1, 3, and 4. The data are presented as mean tumor size (mm2) for each group; bars, SE. B, tumor size for groups 2 and 5. C, survival of mice recorded as the percentage of surviving animals on a given day. Surviving mice had no sign of tumor when the experiment was terminated. Experiments were repeated at least twice with similar results.
