| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Immunology |
Center for Surgery Research, Division of Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
Requests for reprints: Gregory Plautz, Center for Surgery Research FF5, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195. Phone: 216-445-3800; Fax: 216-445-3805; E-mail: plautzg{at}ccf.org.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
upon ex vivo antigen stimulation irrespective of total body irradiation conditioning. Thus, host lymphodepletion augments T-cell immunotherapy through enhanced antigen-driven proliferation of T-effector cells, but curative therapy can be achieved in nonconditioned hosts by escalation of T-cell dose. These data provide a rationale for dose escalation of T-effector cells in situations where single or repeated lymphodepletion regimens are contraindicated. | Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In vitro activation conditions can be modified to optimize T-cell proliferation; however, following adoptive transfer, T cells must traffic to every site of metastatic disease and perform effector function within a potentially hostile tumor environment. One strategy to maintain functional support of in vitrocultured immune cells, particularly CD8+ T cells, is to administer IL-2 to the host following adoptive transfer (9, 10). Clinical studies also show that IL-2 enhances the persistence of adoptively transferred tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and in vitro expanded CD8+ clones (1113). However, concomitant IL-2 support is not without some disadvantages. High-dose IL-2 has toxicity that limits duration of use to several days and it causes toxicity in patients with brain metastases (14). IL-2 also has complex effects on T cells with specificities irrelevant to tumor regression, as well as CD4+CD25+ regulatory T cells (1518). Moreover, our studies using in vitro activated tumor-draining lymph node cells show that treatment of hosts with systemic IL-2 inhibits the trafficking of adoptively transferred T cells to certain anatomic sites, particularly brain tumors (19, 20). For these reasons, we have developed the approach of combined tumor-reactive CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell transfer, which is effective in all anatomic sites and does not require concomitant IL-2 (21).
Another strategy that has been used for nearly three decades to support the survival and activation of transferred effector T cells is to perform lymphodepletion of the host before adoptive transfer to eliminate "suppressor activity", currently described as Treg cells (2225). Recently, there has been a resurgence in interest in lymphodepletion before active immunotherapy or adoptive cell transfer (26, 27). Lymphodepletion induces homeostatic proliferation of residual T cells through improved competition for cytokines such as IL-7 and IL-15 (2830). It also transiently eliminates Treg cells, which are likely to account for some of the previously described suppressor activity (31). In the current study, we show that host lymphodeletion is not absolutely required to cure advanced pulmonary metastases or challenging sites of disease, provided that a higher number of effector T cells is administered. The operative mechanism in this tumor model is greater intratumoral T-cell proliferation in irradiated versus nonirradiated hosts.
| Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Isolation and activation of CD62Llow tumor-draining lymph node T cells. B6 mice were inoculated s.c. with 1.5 x 106 MCA 205 tumor cells in the lower flank region bilaterally and 12 days later tumor-draining lymph nodes were removed, mechanically teased apart with 20 G needles, and a single-cell suspension was prepared. CD62Llow cells were isolated by depletion of CD62Lhigh cells using MACS beads (Miltenyi Biotech, Auburn, CA) as previously described (33). CD62Llow T cells were suspended in complete medium at 2 x 106/mL and activated with plate-bound anti-CD3 monoclonal antibody (mAb; 145-2C11; American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD) for 48 hours in 24-well plates at 37°C in 5% CO2. Complete medium consists of RPMI 1640 supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated FCS, 0.1 mmol/L nonessential amino acids, 1 µmol/L sodium pyruvate, 2 mmol/L L-glutamine, 100 µg/mL streptomycin, 100 units/mL penicillin, 0.5 µg/mL amphotericin B (all obtained from Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY), and 5 x 105 mol/L 2-ME (Sigma-Aldrich). Recombinant human IL-2 was provided by Chiron (Emeryville, CA) and recombinant mIL-7 was purchased from R&D Systems (Minneapolis, MN). After 2 days of anti-CD3 stimulation, T cells were cultured in complete medium supplemented with IL-2 (4 units/mL) or a mixture of IL-2 plus rmIL-7 (10ng/mL) at a concentration of 0.5 to 1 x 105 cells/mL in 24-well plates for 3 days. On day 5, the cells were diluted to 2 x 105/mL and incubated for 4 additional days. On day 9, the activated and expanded CD62Llow T cells were harvested, washed, and used for adoptive immunotherapy.
Fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis and intracellular IFN-
staining. Phycoerythrin-conjugated anti-CD8, anti-TCR, or anti-IFN-
, and FITC-conjugated anti-CD4, or anti-CD62L, and isotype-matched mAbs were purchased (BD Biosciences PharMingen, San Diego, CA). Cell surface phenotypes were measured by direct immnofluorescence staining with conjugated mAbs, and stained cells were analyzed using the CellQuest Software (BD Biosciences Immunocytometry, San Jose, CA). Intracellular IFN-
staining was done as previously described (33). Briefly, activated T cells were stimulated with a single-cell suspension of either MCA 205 or MCA 207 tumor digest at a 1:1 ratio, or with anti-CD3. Brefeldin A (10 µg/mL) was added at 5 hours and cells were harvested at 20 hours. The cells were then washed and pretreated with FcR block, followed by staining for 30 minutes with a mixture of FITC-conjugated anti-CD8 and cychrome-conjugated anti-CD4. Washed cells were fixed with 2% parafomaldehyde for 20 minutes, permeabilized with 0.3% saponin, and incubated for 40 minutes with phycoerythrin-conjugated IFN-
at 4°C. Unbound mAbs were removed by two washes with 0.3% saponin in PBS.
Adoptive immunotherapy. Therapeutic efficacy of activated T cells expanded with IL-2 or IL-2 plus IL-7 for 9 days was assessed in three tumor models. Pulmonary metastases were established by i.v. inoculation of 3 x 105 MCA 205 or MCA 207 tumor cells suspended in 1.0 mL of HBSS. Ten days later, mice received i.v. transfer of the indicated number of in vitro activated T cells. Mice were sacrificed on days 18 or 21 after tumor inoculation, and the lungs were insufflated with India ink and the number of tumor nodules on the surface was enumerated. S.c. tumors were established by injecting 1.5 x 106 MCA 205 cells in 50 µL of HBSS into the right hind flank. Mice received T cells i.v. on day 3 of tumor growth and tumor size was measured in two perpendicular dimensions twice to thrice per week with Vernier calipers, and was recorded as tumor area (mm2). Brain tumors were established by transcranial inoculation of 1 x 105 MCA 205 tumor cells in 10 µL of HBSS as previously described (34). Mice received i.v. transfer of T cells on day 3. Mice were followed for survival or were sacrificed when neurologic symptoms were apparent. In each adoptive transfer experiment, tumor-bearing mice were pooled and randomly divided into treatment groups that were not irradiated or which received sublethal total body irradiation (5 Gy) from a 137Cs irradiator (J.C. Shephard & Associates, Glendale, CA) several hours before adoptive immunotherapy.
In vivo trafficking. In vitro activated CD62Llow tumor-draining lymph node cells derived from GFP transgenic mice were injected i.v. into B6 hosts with established 10-day pulmonary metastases. Alternatively carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester (CFSE)labeled T-effector cells were injected. Mice were pretreated with total body irradiation or remained nonirradiated before adoptive immunotherapy. At the designated time points after adoptive transfer, mice were sacrificed and peripheral blood, lung, and spleen were harvested. Single cell lymphocyte suspensions were prepared from lungs by enzymatic digestion followed by Percoll density gradient centrifugation as described (35, 36). Cells were counted and stained with anti-CD8 or anti-CD4 and analyzed by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). The number of GFP- or CFSE-labeled T cells in the lungs was calculated by multiplying the total lymphoid cell count by their percentage. In the same experiments, lungs were harvested, snap-frozen, and cryostat sections (8 µmol/L) were examined by fluorescent microscopy.
Statistical analysis. The significance of differences between groups was analyzed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, or by Student's t test. A two-tailed P value of <0.05 was considered significant.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
As shown in Fig. 1A, large numbers of pulmonary tumors (>250 per animal) are visible in the lungs of total body irradiationconditioned or nonirradiated controls, which did not receive T cells. Adoptive transfer of 2 x 106 T cells in total body irradiationconditioned hosts was subtherapeutic, whereas 5 x 106 T cells completely eliminated metastases. By contrast, in nonirradiated hosts 5 x 106 T cells were subtherapeutic, whereas 15 x 106 cells provided effective therapy. This experiment shows that total body irradiation conditioning provides a therapeutic augmentation that is approximately compensated by 3-fold increase in T-cell dose. Thus, host lymphodepletion through total body irradiation conditioning was not absolutely required in this stringent tumor model. Interestingly, equivalent potency for T cells cultured in IL-2 compared with IL-2/IL-7 was readily apparent at partially effective T-cell doses of 2 x 106 cells and each set of T-cell cultures mediated complete tumor regression at higher doses (Fig. 1C). Thus, exposure to IL-7 during in vitro activation augmented the number of T-effector cells without altering their subsequent in vivo trafficking capacity or intrinsic therapeutic efficacy.
|
production in response to single cell tumor digest of MCA 205 but not MCA 207 (Fig. 1B). It is evident that there is minimal spontaneous cytokine production; however, cultured T cells uniformly respond to anti-CD3, indicating a phenotype that is highly polarized to IFN-
production. In addition, a similar percentage of cells cultured in IL-2 (27.5%) or IL-2/IL-7 (26.9%) produced IFN-
after stimulation with MCA 205 digest. This assay indicates a high level of enrichment of tumor-reactive T cells among the CD62Llow subset of the tumor-draining lymph node cells. Because the percentage of tumor-reactive T cells and in vivo function were not significantly different between the two culture conditions, and because anti-CD3/IL-2 and anti-CD3/IL2/IL-7 cultures showed equivalent potency in vivo in the above experiments and in s.c. tumor models (21), anti-CD3/IL-2/IL-7 was used to generate T cells for the subsequent experiments. Total body irradiation enhances immunotherapy of established subcutaneous or intracranial tumors. Regression of established weakly immunogenic s.c. tumors is difficult to achieve with adoptive immunotherapy. Previous immunotherapy experiments for s.c. MCA 205 tumors used total tumor-draining lymph node and required pretreatment of the host with total body irradiation and 5 x 107 T cells (37). This precluded the ability to perform dose escalation to assess the requirement of total body irradiation. CD62Llow T cells derived from MCA 205 tumor-draining lymph nodes were activated with the anti-CD3/IL-2/IL-7 method, in irradiated and nonirradiated recipients bearing s.c. tumors. Although a dose as low as 5 x 106 T cells was curative in hosts conditioned with total body irradiation, transfer of 6 x 107 T cells was required to completely inhibit tumors in nonirradiated hosts (Fig. 2A). Therefore, the requirement for total body irradiation to achieve complete regression of established s.c. tumors could be replaced by using a 12-fold higher dose of effector T cells.
|
Total body irradiation augments proliferation of transferred T-effector cells. To determine the mechanism by which total body irradiation augments adoptive immunotherapy of tumors, we evaluated direct effects of total body irradiation on the tumor and effects on trafficking and proliferation of transferred T cells. Irradiation of some tumors can up-regulate expression of Fas, making tumor cells more susceptible to CTL-mediated apoptosis (3941). Likewise, chemotherapy-induced up-regulation of Fas and TRAIL provides for a synergistic antitumor effect when used with immunotherapy (42, 43). We did not observe an increase in the low basal level of expression of Fas on MCA 205 tumor cells following irradiation with 2 to 15 Gy in vitro over 4 days. Likewise, Fas was not expressed at increased levels following 5 Gy irradiation of tumors in vivo (data not shown).
Our previous studies showed that T-cell infiltration of tumor metastases and antigen-specific proliferation were required for triggering an antitumor effector mechanism (35, 44). To examine the intratumoral accumulation of T-effector cells, tumor-draining lymph nodes were prepared from GFP transgenic mice. The phenotype, GFP+TCR+ (84%), CD8+ (63%), CD4+ (14%), was similar to B6 effector T cells. Total body irradiation conditioned or nonirradiated hosts that were either tumor-free or bearing 10-day lung metastases received a therapeutic dose of 3.5 x 107 GFP+ effector T cells and the number of transferred TCR+GFP+ cells and host TCR+GFPneg within tumors was measured. As shown in Fig. 3A, at 24 hours posttransfer the total number of GFP+ T cells was similar in total body irradiation tumor-bearing hosts (1.8 x 106) and nonirradiated tumor-bearing hosts (1.5 x 106) as was the number of CD4+ (Fig. 3B) and CD8+ (Fig. 3C) T cells. As shown in Fig. 4, GFP+ T cells were already localized to tumor metastases in total body irradiation as well as nonirradiated hosts by 24 hours and were in contact with tumor antigens. At later time points, the number of donor GFP+ T cells dramatically increased to a maximum on day 7 posttransfer, in both total body irradiation (13 x 106) and nonirradiated tumor-bearing animals (6.4 x 106). By contrast, the number of GFP+ T cells did not increase in tumor-free hosts whether they received total body irradiation or not. The number of intratumoral host GFPneg T cells actually exceeded the number of transferred GFP+ cells in the nonirradiated host but displayed different kinetics and minimal change in number between days 3 to 7 postadoptive transfer. By contrast, total body irradiationconditioned or nontumor-bearing hosts had minimal numbers of host T cells (Fig. 3D-F). An independent experiment of similar design shows a similar pattern of augmented intratumoral accumulation of transferred T cells in total body irradiation conditioned hosts 5 days posttransfer (Fig. 3G-I). The preferential accumulation of T-effector cells was confined to the tumor and there was no difference in the number of GFP+ T cells in the spleen of tumor-bearing versus nontumor-bearing hosts (data not shown).
|
|
To confirm that the higher number of intratumoral T cells was due to enhanced proliferation of T-effector cells, Thy 1.1 congenic tumor-draining lymph node cells were labeled with CFSE before adoptive transfer into Thy 1.2 tumor-bearing hosts. As shown in Fig. 5, on day 1 posttransfer <3% of the CD8 or CD4 Thy 1.1 cells isolated from lung tumors had proliferated in either irradiated or nonirradiated hosts irrespective of whether they were tumor-bearing or nontumor bearing. By contrast, on day 7 postadoptive transfer 93% of CD8+ T cells in irradiated hosts had undergone multiple cell divisions versus 56% in nonirradiated hosts. CD4+ T cells showed a similar pattern of proliferation. Homeostatic proliferation was evident in irradiated nontumor-bearing hosts; however, only 32% of CD8+ T cells underwent multiple cell divisions, compared with 8% of T cell proliferation in nonirradiated nontumor-bearing hosts, similar to CD4 proliferation. In an independent experiment, BrdUrd was injected i.p. into mice at 1 hour or 120 hours after adoptive transfer and mononuclear cells were harvested from lungs 24 hours later. This experiment similarly showed incorporation of BrdUrd by <1% of T cells in any condition, on day 1 whereas 60% of Thy 1.1 cells in irradiated hosts and 50% of Thy 1.1 cells in nonirradiated hosts were BrdUrd positive at the later time point.
|
in response to ex vivo MCA 205 stimulation is similar between hosts conditioned with total body irradiation (15.1%) and nonirradiated hosts (18.1%; Fig. 6B and F). Thus, there is no demonstrable functional inhibition of transferred effector T cells, at least within the initial 5 days. Tumor regression in nonirradiated hosts is also a functional indication of the preservation of immune competence of transferred T-effector cells. The transferred T cells retain their strong IFN-
response to anti-CD3 stimulation as do the majority of the GFPneg host cells recovered from total body irradiation hosts (Fig. 6D). By contrast, the majority of host cells in nonirradiated mice do not produce IFN-
upon ex vivo anti-CD3 stimulation, indicating that they have not been effectively primed in hosts with progressive tumors (Fig. 6H).
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The augmentation of T-cell adoptive transfer by lymphodepletion is consistent with all of our previous experiments as well as findings from a number of investigators, dating back to the pioneering investigations of North et al. (24, 48). Thus, in preclinical or clinical situations where lymphodepletion is feasible, it would be anticipated to improve the overall therapeutic efficacy of T-cell adoptive immunotherapy. Indeed, there may be a role for repetitive cycles of lymphodepletion followed by adoptive transfer of aliquots of in vitro activated T cells. However, it is important to recognize that there are potential limitations of host lymphodepletion. Whereas lymphodepletion provides T cells with a competitive advantage for limiting growth factors such as IL-7 and IL-15, it also depletes the host immune repertoire. In older cancer patients with diminished thymic capacity for immune reconstitution, this may be a relevant consideration (49, 50).
Another putative function of host lymphodepletion is to transiently eliminate Treg cells. Thus, it is possible that agents that selectively target Treg cells could alleviate the detrimental effects on the immune repertoire induced by global lymphodepletion. However, selective depletion of Treg cells would not provide the transferred T cells with a competitive advantage for growth factors (51). Persistence of agents that target the CD25 molecule or other membrane proteins that are shared by Tregs and activated Teffectors might prove counterproductive. In addition, the long-term consequences of selective depletion of Treg cells have not been extensively explored, particularly in the setting of adoptive transfer of T cells reactive with normal tissuerestricted antigens. Although tissue-restricted autoimmune phenomena are considered an acceptable toxicity in the setting of an effective therapy of a life-threatening disease (13), animal models indicate that prolonged interference with regulatory networks could increase the development of serious autoimmunity.
A third theoretical advantage of host conditioning before adoptive immunotherapy is that is allows for direct cytotoxic therapy of the tumor while sparing the sequestered T cells from the toxic effects of conditioning regimen. It remains to be determined whether the doses of radiation or chemotherapy used for conventional host conditioning are sufficient and persist long enough to augment the susceptibility of tumor cells to cytolytic effector T cells. In addition, there is a paucity of data on whether recurrent tumors, which frequently acquire resistance to chemotherapy, would have the capacity to modulate Fas or TRAIL expression.
The potential difficulties in uniform application of lymphodepletion regimens in clinical situations due to patient age or prior therapy provided one impetus for this study. These experiments were specifically designed to test, in challenging tumor models, whether effector T-cell dose escalation alone could circumvent the need for host lymphodepletion with total body irradiation. The results in each tumor model clearly show that simply providing a sufficient number of tumor-reactive T cells, even in lymphoreplete hosts with extensive tumor burden, leads to complete tumor regression. In a recent study, we have developed an approach to amplify the number of either CD4+ or CD8+ CD62Llow tumor-draining lymph node cells to >108-fold whereas retaining polyclonality and potent effector function against tumors in intracranial or s.c. locations (21). Such an approach relieves the constraint on generating an adequate number of T cells to treat advanced disseminated tumors and the data presented here relieves the constraint of obligatory host lymphodepletion for successful adoptive immunotherapy.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.
Received 4/ 6/05. Revised 6/17/05. Accepted 8/ 5/05.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
-Irradiation facilitates the expression of adoptive immunity against established tumors by eliminating suppressor T cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1984;16:17581.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Saini, C. Pearson, and B. Seddon Regulation of T cell-dendritic cell interactions by IL-7 governs T-cell activation and homeostasis Blood, June 4, 2009; 113(23): 5793 - 5800. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. M. Tatum, L. M. Mylin, S. J. Bender, M. A. Fischer, B. A. Vigliotti, M. J. Tevethia, S. S. Tevethia, and T. D. Schell CD8+ T Cells Targeting a Single Immunodominant Epitope are Sufficient for Elimination of Established SV40 T Antigen-Induced Brain Tumors J. Immunol., September 15, 2008; 181(6): 4406 - 4417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. King, J. Waxman, and H. Stauss Advances in tumour immunotherapy QJM, September 1, 2008; 101(9): 675 - 683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. Watanabe, K. Deguchi, R. Zheng, H. Tamai, L.-x. Wang, P. A. Cohen, and S. Shu Tumor-Induced CD11b+Gr-1+ Myeloid Cells Suppress T Cell Sensitization in Tumor-Draining Lymph Nodes J. Immunol., September 1, 2008; 181(5): 3291 - 3300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Wallace, V. Kapoor, J. Sun, P. Mrass, W. Weninger, D. F. Heitjan, C. June, L. R. Kaiser, L. E. Ling, and S. M. Albelda Transforming Growth Factor-{beta} Receptor Blockade Augments the Effectiveness of Adoptive T-Cell Therapy of Established Solid Cancers Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2008; 14(12): 3966 - 3974. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Jorritsma, A. D. Bins, T. N.M. Schumacher, and J. B.A.G. Haanen Skewing the T-Cell Repertoire by Combined DNA Vaccination, Host Conditioning, and Adoptive Transfer Cancer Res., April 1, 2008; 68(7): 2455 - 2462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. J. Pittet, J. Grimm, C. R. Berger, T. Tamura, G. Wojtkiewicz, M. Nahrendorf, P. Romero, F. K. Swirski, and R. Weissleder In vivo imaging of T cell delivery to tumors after adoptive transfer therapy PNAS, July 24, 2007; 104(30): 12457 - 12461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. Masson, T. Calzascia, W. Di Berardino-Besson, N. de Tribolet, P.-Y. Dietrich, and P. R. Walker Brain Microenvironment Promotes the Final Functional Maturation of Tumor-Specific Effector CD8+ T Cells J. Immunol., July 15, 2007; 179(2): 845 - 853. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L.-X. Wang, S. Shu, M. L. Disis, and G. E. Plautz Adoptive transfer of tumor-primed, in vitro activated, CD4+ T effector cells (TEs) combined with CD8+ TEs provides intratumoral TE proliferation and synergistic antitumor response Blood, June 1, 2007; 109(11): 4865 - 4876. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
U. Thanarajasingam, L. Sanz, R. Diaz, J. Qiao, L. Sanchez-Perez, T. Kottke, J. Thompson, J. Chester, and R. G. Vile Delivery of CCL21 to Metastatic Disease Improves the Efficacy of Adoptive T-Cell Therapy Cancer Res., January 1, 2007; 67(1): 300 - 308. [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 |