Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Computer Resources
      • Highly Cited Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Early Career Award
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citations
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Research
Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Computer Resources
      • Highly Cited Collection
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Early Career Award
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citations
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Immunology

Immune and Clinical Responses in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma to CD34+ Progenitor-derived Dendritic Cell Vaccine

Jacques Banchereau, A. Karolina Palucka, Madhav Dhodapkar, Susan Burkeholder, Nicolas Taquet, Alexandre Rolland, Sybil Taquet, Sebastien Coquery, Knut M. Wittkowski, Nina Bhardwaj, Luis Pineiro, Ralph Steinman and Joseph Fay
Jacques Banchereau
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Karolina Palucka
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Madhav Dhodapkar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan Burkeholder
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicolas Taquet
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexandre Rolland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sybil Taquet
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sebastien Coquery
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Knut M. Wittkowski
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nina Bhardwaj
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luis Pineiro
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ralph Steinman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Fay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI:  Published September 2001
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Immunization to multiple defined tumor antigens for specific immune therapy of human cancer has thus far proven difficult. Eighteen HLA A*0201+ patients with metastatic melanoma received injections s.c. of CD34+progenitor-derived autologous dendritic cells (DCs), which included Langerhans cells. DCs were pulsed with peptides derived from four melanoma antigens [(MelAgs) MelanA/MART-1, tyrosinase, MAGE-3, and gp100], as well as influenza matrix peptide (Flu-MP) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) as control antigens. Overall immunological effects were assessed by comparing response profiles using marginal likelihood scores. DC injections were well tolerated except for progressive vitiligo in two patients. DCs induced an immune response to control antigens (KLH, Flu-MP) in 16 of 18 patients. An enhanced immune response to one or more MelAgs was seen in these same 16 patients, including 10 patients who responded to >2 MelAgs. The two patients failing to respond to both control and tumor antigens experienced rapid tumor progression. Of 17 patients with evaluable disease, 6 of 7 patients with immunity to two or less MelAgs had progressive disease 10 weeks after study entry, in contrast to tumor progression in only 1 of 10 patients with immunity to >2 MelAgs. Regression of >1 tumor metastases were observed in seven of these patients. The overall immunity to MelAgs after DC vaccination is associated with clinical outcome (P = 0.015).

INTRODUCTION

Molecular identification of human cancer antigens in the last decade (1, 2, 3) has ushered in a new era of antigen-specific cancer immunotherapy specifically targeting these antigens (4, 5, 6, 7) . However, several such approaches (e.g., peptides, DNA vaccines, and viral vectors) have thus far met with little or no success in the clinic (7, 8, 9) . In particular, it has proved difficult to immunize humans simultaneously with multiple tumor antigens. In the case of melanoma, in which most such antigens have been defined, the immune system may be tolerized to these“ self” antigens because they are also expressed on normal tissues (e.g., melanocytes). Additional obstacles may include tumor-induced tolerance and global immunosuppression in advanced cancer (7, 8, 9) . Unfortunately, most human tumor vaccine studies have not included control CD8+ T-cell antigens (e.g., viral CD8+ epitopes), making it difficult to distinguish among these possibilities.

DCs 4 are antigen-presenting cells specialized to initiate and regulate immune responses (10 , 11) . Their clinical use as adjuvants has been aided by the development of methodologies to generate large numbers of these cells in culture from blood monocytes (12 , 13) or CD34+ progenitors (14) . In contrast to Mo-DCs, DCs derived from CD34+ cells consist of two phenotypically and functionally distinct populations (15) . One subset is similar to the epidermal LCs, and the other termed “interstitial/dermal DCs” is similar to those derived from blood monocytes (15) . Immune responses to these unique LCcontaining preparations need to be evaluated in humans. Here we describe the safety and immunogenicity of antigen-bearing CD34-DCs in patients with stage IV melanoma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design, Patients Characteristics, and Eligibility Criteria

Eighteeen HLA-A201+ patients with metastatic melanoma received injections of CD34-DCs (Fig. 1 ⇓ ; Table 1 ⇓ ). Four patients (patients 1, 9, 12, and 13) had CNS involvement treated by surgery and radiation before entry into the trial, four patients (2 , 4 , 5 , and 16) had received prior chemotherapy, and five patients (2 , 4 , 6 , 9 , and 15) had received prior biological therapy without a clinical or immune response (Table 1) ⇓ . Three patients (3 , 13 , and 20) progressed before completing the trial. Inclusion criteria were: biopsy-proven American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IV metastatic melanoma; age, ≥18 years; Karnofsky performance status, >80%; HLA-A*0201 phenotype; intradermal skin test positivity to mumps, histoplasmosis, or streptokinase antigen; normal blood CD4 and CD8 T-cell numbers by flow cytometry; and normal quantitative immunoglobulin levels. Exclusion criteria were: prior chemotherapy or biologicals <4 weeks before trial entry; untreated CNS lesions; bulky hepatic metastatic lesions; pregnancy; or concurrent corticosteroid/immunosuppressive therapy. Patients with history of asthma, venous thrombosis, congestive heart failure, autoimmune disease, or active infections, including viral hepatitis, were also excluded. All of the patients were presented with several treatment alternatives, including surgery, high-dose cytokines, chemotherapy, or alternative immunotherapy. Patients were unlikely to be cured with surgery because of the presence of visceral metastases in most patients, including CNS involvement. Patient 10 had recurrent disease close to a prior biopsy site and refused further surgery. All of the patients gave a written informed consent, and the study was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the NCI, and the Institutional Review Board. Patients received a 6-week outpatient vaccination course with antigen-loaded CD34-DCs given s.c. every 14 days for a total of four vaccinations. DCs were administered in a dose-escalation design at the dose level per cohort of 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, and 1 × 106 DCs/kg/injection. The calculated DC dose was the actual number of CD1a+ and CD14+ cells in the cell preparation (see below).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Study design and vaccination schedule.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Patient characteristics and disease status on entry and post-DC vaccine

Preparation and Administration of the DC Vaccine

Harvest of DC Progenitors.

The patients received recombinant granulocyte-CSF (Neupogen) 10μ g/kg/day s.c. for 5 days, for peripheral blood stem cell mobilization, and then underwent leukapheresis for 2 consecutive days to collect mobilized CD34+ HPCs. The cells were processed using the CEPRATE SC stem cell concentration system (CellPro Inc., Seattle, WA) to obtain an enriched population of CD34+ HPCs (purity, 62 ± 17%; recovery, 158 ± 133 × 106 mean ± SD), which were then cryopreserved.

Preparation of DC Vaccine.

All procedures were performed according to Good Laboratory Practice standards. CD34-DCs were generated from CD34+ HPC by culture at a concentration of 0.5 × 106/ml culture medium (X-VIVO-15; BioWhittaker) supplemented with autologous serum, 10-5 m 2-β-mercaptoethanol and 1% l-glutamine. The following human recombinant cytokines, approved for clinical use, were used: GM-CSF (50 ng/ml; Immunex Corp.), FLT3-L (100 ng/ml; Immunex Corp.), and TNF (10 ng/ml; CellPro, Inc.). Cultures were conducted in a humidified incubator at 37°C and 5% CO2 with a separate incubator being assigned to each patient. On day 8 of culture, all of the cells were pulsed overnight with KLH (2 μg/ml; Intracell), 20% of the cells were pulsed separately with HLA-A*0201 restricted Flu-MP GILGFVFTL58–66 (2.5 μg/ml), and 80% of the cells were pulsed overnight with a mix of four HLA-A201 restricted peptides (2.5 μg/ml) derived from MelAgs (MelanA/MART-127–35: AAGIGILTV; gp100g209–2 M: IMDQVPFSV; tyrosinase368–376: YMDGTMSQV; and MAGE-3271–279: FLWGPRALV). After overnight loading, all of the DCs were washed three times with sterile saline and were counted and resuspended in 10 ml of sterile saline containing melanoma peptides (1 μg/ml). After 2-h incubation at 22°C, the cells were centrifuged and resuspended in 9 ml of sterile saline for injection. All of the peptides were Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) quality and were either obtained from the NCI (MelanA/MART-1, gp100, and tyrosinase) or purchased (Flu-MP and MAGE-3; MultiPeptide Systems, San Diego, CA). Vaccine release criteria included: (a) negative bacterial culture 48 h prior to DC injection; (b) negative Gram’s staining after antigen pulsing; (c) DC morphology on Giemsa-stained cytospins performed 2 h before DC administration, (d) cell viability> 80%; and (e) a minimum of 20% DCs (CD1a+ and CD14+) in cell preparation as determined by phenotypic analysis. The remaining cells contained DC precursors as well as cells with the ability to induce mixed lymphocyte reaction (not shown). Further quality testing of each DC batch included: (a) reactivity with a panel of monoclonal antibodies; and (b) determination of their stimulatory capacity in mixed lymphocyte reactions.

Administration of Vaccine.

Vaccination was administered s.c. in three injection sites (both thighs and the upper arm). Limbs from which draining lymph nodes had been surgically removed and/or irradiated were not injected. DCs were injected using a long spinal-cord needle and were spread over a 6- to 8-cm distance.

Clinical Monitoring

Adverse events were graded according to the NCI Common Toxicity Criteria. All of the patients underwent assessment of tumor status at baseline and 4 weeks after the fourth DC vaccination (10 weeks from trial entry). Disease progression was defined as >25% increase in target lesions and/or the appearance of new lesions.

Immunological Monitoring

PBMCs samples from at least two time points before vaccination, as well as 5 and/or 14 days after each vaccination and 14 or 28 days after the fourth vaccination, were harvested and frozen. Pre- and postimmunization PBMCs were frozen in aliquots, coded, thawed and assayed together in a blinded fashion.

Antigen-specific Proliferation

PBMCs (105 cells/well) were cultured in triplicate wells in the absence or presence of graded doses of KLH at 1–10 μg/ml, and as a positive control, in the presence of SEA. Assays were pulsed overnight with[ 3H]thymidine on day 3 (SEA) or day 5 (KLH) of culture and harvested 16 h later.

ELISPOT Assay for IFN-γ Release from Single Antigen-specific T Cells

ELISPOT assay for the detection of antigen-specific IFN-γ-producing T cells was performed as described previously (16 , 17) . Briefly, PBMCs (2 × 105 cells/well) were added to plates precoated with 10 μg/ml of a primary anti-IFN-γ monoclonal antibody (Mabtech, Stockholm, Sweden) in the presence or absence of 10 μg/ml peptide antigens. The antigens were the same HLA A*0201-restricted peptides (four melanoma peptides and Flu-MP) used in the DC vaccine. HLA A*0201-restricted gag peptide was used as a negative control, and SEA as a positive control for T-cell function. For some experiments, depending on the cell yield, influenza virus-infected PBMCs (MOI 2) were used as APCs. Antigen-specific SFCs were calculated after subtracting the background obtained with control peptide. Immune responses were scored as positive if the postimmunization measurements for antigen-specific SFCs were >2-fold higher than the baseline and> 10 SFC/2 × 105 cells (16) .

Antigen-specific Recall T-cell Responses

To evaluate the ability of antigen-specific T cells to proliferate and differentiate in culture, pre- and postimmunization PBMCs were thawed together and cocultured (2 × 105 cells/well) for 7 days with autologous mature DCs (PBMC:DC ratio, 30:1) pulsed with 1 μg/ml peptides. After 7 days, cells were transferred to an ELISPOT plate and cultured overnight with (T-cell:APC ratio, 20:1) irradiated (3000 rads) T2 cells with or without specific antigen. Antigen-specific SFCs were calculated after subtracting the background obtained with unpulsed T2 cells.

DTH Reactions

CD34-DCs (105), pulsed separately with each antigen, were injected intradermally on the patient’s back and induration at the injection site was measured at 48 h.

Statistical Analysis

The sign test for discretized data were used to demonstrate the presence of specific immune response to KLH and Flu-MP (18) . Because the role of different MelAgs with regard to protective immunity is not known, we integrated postvaccination responses to all four MelAgs, as measured by both direct and recall assays, into an immunity score using a nonparametric method based on the marginal likelihood approach (19 , 20) . To score n individuals according to their immune response profiles, one computes all rankings (permutations of numbers 1… n) that are compatible with all pairwise orderings. An immune response is considered higher if it is at least as high for each of the eight variables and higher for at least one variable. A patient’s immunity score is the average of the corresponding ranks among the compatible rankings minus the expected score. All of the immunized patients were included in the analysis in an “intent to treat” approach.

RESULTS

DC Vaccine.

Fresh DCs were generated from granulocyte-CSF mobilized blood CD34+-HPCs for each vaccination. Frozen/thawed CD34+-HPCs cultured for 9 days with GM-CSF, TNF-α, and FLT3-L yielded MHC class I+, HLA-DR+, CD80+, CD86low, and CD83low DCs (not shown). Although CD83low, these DCs are not considered immature because they are generated in the presence of TNF-α (a well-established DC maturation factor) and routinely induce proliferation of allogeneic CD8 T cells (not shown). The DCs included CD1a+CD14− LCs as well as CD1a±CD14+ interstitial DC precursors (intDC). The LC phenotype was confirmed by confocal microscopy revealing Langerin staining in CD1a+ DCs (not shown; 21 ). The mean proportion of CD1a+CD14− cells was 9 ± 3% (range, 4–17%; median, 9%) and that of CD1a±CD14+ cells was 32 ± 9% (range, 19–52%; median, 30%). The composition of DC vaccine for each patient is given in Table 3 ⇓ .

Responses to Control Antigens.

DC vaccination primed KLH-specific immune responses in 16 of 18 patients (all except patients 3 and 13; P = 0.00007 in the exact sign test; Fig. 2A ⇓ ). There is no indication that higher DC doses induced greater KLH-specific proliferation. Fifteen patients (all except patients 3, 13, and 20) were evaluated for DTH after they completed the vaccination protocol (four DC vaccines). Thirteen of these patients (all except patients 1 and 19) developed DTH to KLH (median, 10 mm; range, 6–47 mm). Of the 17 patients injected with Flu-MP-pulsed DCs (all except patient 18 with a history of allergy to flu vaccine), enhancement of Flu-MP-specific memory T-cell responses by at least one assay was observed in 15 patients (all except patients 3 and 13; Table 2 ⇓ ; Fig. 2B ⇓ ). The elicited T cells also recognized the naturally processed antigen from flu-infected PBMCs (not shown). The finding that all except two patients responded to both KLH and Flu-MP-pulsed DCs indicates that patients with metastatic melanoma enrolled in our study were immunocompetent.

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Responses to control antigens. A, KLH-dependent proliferative responses: pre/postimmunization PBMCs are cultured with 10 μg/ml KLH for 5 days. KLH-specific T-cell proliferation is determined based on [3H]thymidine incorporation. B, Flu-MP responses. PBMCs obtained at baseline and after four DC vaccinations are cultured overnight with 10μ m Flu-MP peptide. Antigen-specific IFN-γ-secreting cells are quantified using an ELISPOT assay and expressed as number of IFN-γ ELISPOTs/2 × 105 PBMCs. The numbers obtained in control wells are subtracted (median, 1 spot/2 × 105 PBMCs; range, 0–8).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Number of peptide-specific IFN-γ ELISPOTS/105 PBMCs in pre/postvaccination samples: circulating effectors (direct ELISPOT, D) and memory T cells (recall ELISPOT, R)

In Vivo Expansion of Melanoma-specific Blood CD8 T Cells

Responses in Uncultured T Cells.

Except for patient 8, only a few MelAg-specific IFN-γ-producing cells were detected in baseline blood samples (Table 2 ⇓ ; Fig. 3 ⇓ ). The response was considered as enhanced if there was a >2-fold increase and a minimum of 10 MelAg-specific ELISPOTs (after subtracting the values obtained from control wells) in postimmunization samples. After DC vaccination, enhanced responses to ≥1 MelAgs were detectable in uncultured T cells in 8 of 18 patients (Table 2) ⇓ . Five patients showed increased responses to MAGE-3, four to MelanA/MART-1, five to gp100, and seven to tyrosinase peptide (Table 2 ⇓ ; Fig. 3A ⇓ ). There is no indication that higher DC doses induce greater melanoma-specific immunity. We conclude that MelAg-pulsed CD34-DCs lead to enhancement of MelAg-specific circulating effectors in melanoma patients.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Melanoma-specific responses. A, circulating melanoma-specific effector cells. PBMCs obtained at baseline and after four DC vaccinations are cultured overnight with each of the four melanoma peptides (MAGE-3, MelanA/MART-1, Tyrosinase, and gp100 (Gp-100) used for vaccination (10 μm). The specific T-cell response in each of the evaluated patients is expressed as the number of IFN-γ ELISPOTS/2 × 105 PBMCs. The values obtained with control gag peptide or in the wells with no peptide are subtracted (on average one spot/2 × 105 PBMC; range, 0–8). B, expansion of MelAg-specific memory effector cells. PBMCs obtained at baseline and after four DC vaccinations are cultured for 7 days with mature melanoma-peptide-pulsed autologous Mo-DCs. The T cells are harvested and peptide induced IFN-γ release is measured in the overnight culture with melanoma-peptide pulsed T2 cells. Numbers of IFN-γ ELISPOTS/105 peripheral blood lymphocytes. The values obtained with unpulsed T2 cells are subtracted; MAGE-3: median number of spots pre/post vaccine 1/7; range, 0–25/0–23; MART-1: median number of spots pre/post vaccine 5/3; range, 0–37/0–33; Tyrosinase: median number of spots pre/post vaccine 2/4; range, 0–19/0–39; gp100 (Gp-100): median number of spots pre/post vaccine 2/9; range, 0–25/0–33.

Responses in Cultured T Cells.

Next, we determined the capacity of blood CD8 T cells to mount melanoma-specific responses after 1-week culture with melanoma peptide-pulsed autologous DCs. Most patients had low levels of MelAg-specific memory cells in preimmunization samples (except for patient 21). However, in 14 of 15 evaluated patients, an increased response to at least one melanoma peptide was found after DC vaccination, (Table 2 ⇓ ; Fig. 3B ⇓ ), and 5 of these patients (patients 1, 5, 9, 16, and 17) responded to all four melanoma peptides.

Overall Response to MelAgs

Overall, enhanced immunity to ≥1 MelAgs by at least one assay was observed in 16 of 18 patients after DC vaccination. Of these, enhanced immunity to two, three, or all four MelAgs was seen by at least one assay in patients 3, 4, and 6, respectively. Thus, vaccination with melanoma-peptide-pulsed CD34-DCs leads to enhanced immunity to several MelAg peptides in melanoma patients.

DTH

Ten of 14 evaluated patients developed DTH to at least one peptide after repeated DC vaccination. Thus, DTH to DCs pulsed with: (a) MART-1 was observed in all 10 patients (median induration, 7.5 mm); (b) MAGE-3 in 8 of 10 patients (median induration, 9.5 mm); (c) tyrosinase in 8 of 10 patients (median induration, 8 mm); and (d) gp100 in 9 of 10 patients (median induration, 8 mm). In three patients, there was reactivity to unpulsed DCs (erythema without induration (8 mm). There was no correlation between the responses in blood and DTH.

Toxicity of DC Injection

Safety and tolerability were assessed with each DC vaccination and 1 month after the fourth vaccination. No patients developed injection site erythema/irritation or systemic toxicity. Two patients (patients 4 and 8) with mild preexisting vitiligo developed progressive vitiligo during the course of DC therapy (Table 1) ⇓ . Rheumatoid factor and antithyroid antibodies were negative throughout the trial. The antinuclear antibody titer of patient 8 was negative before the first DC injection but increased to 1:80 after the fourth injection. No clinical manifestations of autoimmune disease developed in this patient.

Clinical Outcome.

Seven of 17 evaluable patients experienced tumor progression (PD, Table 1 ⇓ ). The remaining 10 patients did not progress at this time point (10 weeks from study entry). Among these, three patients (4 , 17 , and 21) had neither new lesions nor progression of measurable disease; four patients (5 , 8 , 12 , and 18) with multiple lesions on entry experienced regression at one or more disease sites; and three patients (1 , 9 , and 10) , who had only limited disease on entry, cleared any evidence of disease. Nonprogressing patients have received additional DC vaccinations on a subsequent study; therefore, we cannot assess the durability of these responses. Patient 5 has received additional immunotherapy at another institution.

Correlation of Immunological Responses and Clinical Outcome

We first used >2-fold increase and ≥10 antigen-specific IFN-γ ELISPOTS in the postvaccination assays as an indicator of immune response (16) . Two patients (3 and 13) who failed to respond to either the control or MelAgs by any assay, experienced rapid tumor progression and could not complete the planned therapy. Of 17 patients with evaluable disease, 6 of 7 patients who responded to zero, one, or two MelAgs had PD on restaging 10 weeks after study entry (Table 3) ⇓ . In contrast, tumor progression was seen in only 1 of the 10 patients who responded to three or all four MelAgs (P = 0.002, Fisher exact test). Regression of >1 tumor metastases were observed in seven of these patients.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3

DC vaccine, immune responses, and clinical outcome

To obtain an overall assessment of antitumor immunity after the DC vaccination, we integrated data for absolute immune responses to all four antigens by direct and recall assays into a tumor immunity score (from −8.5 to +8.5), as described earlier (19 , 20) . By this comprehensive analysis, tumor immunity is associated with clinical outcome (P = 0.015). Six of the eight patients with a negative score, but only 1 of the 9 patients with a positive score, progressed (Fig. 4) ⇓ . Omitting data from the MAGE-3 epitope, which is thought to require an immunoproteasome for presentation, yields similar results (P = 0.009).

Fig. 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4.

Correlation of immune response and clinical outcome. Immune responses from both direct and recall assays for all four MelAgs were ranked and integrated into a tumor immunity score (from −8.5 to+ 8.5). Data are plotted as tumor immunity score (Y axis) versus clinical response (X axis). Each number on horizontal axis, the patient identification (Pt I.D.). Four groups of patients are depicted: patients with regression of one or more lesions postvaccination (Regression, white bars); patients with stable disease (Stable, thin hatched bars); patients whose disease progressed at 10 weeks (PD, black bars); and patients who experienced early progression (before evaluation at 10 weeks, Early PD, thick hatched bars).

DISCUSSION

Our results indicate that vaccination of stage IV melanoma patients with antigen-pulsed CD34-DCs is well tolerated and results in enhanced immunity to a viral antigen as well as to several MelAgs. Our findings emerged from a Phase I study designed to evaluate the tolerability of this new source of DC vaccine containing LCs. Administration of CD34-DCs leads to no major systemic toxicity. The development of progressive vitiligo in two patients came as an early demonstration that the DC vaccine may enhance immunity to the melanocyte differentiation antigens. Nevertheless, several secondary outcomes with respect to immunogenicity and clinical efficacy were also evident. Our patients, despite prior chemotherapy in some of them and advanced stage of disease, clearly showed immune competence when challenged with two non-MelAgs: the KLH protein to evaluate priming of CD4 T cells and the influenza matrix peptide to test boosting of CD8+ T cells. Immune competence in stage IV melanoma was also noted by Thurner et al., demonstrating T-cell proliferation and DTH to tetanus toxoid delivered on mature Mo-DCs (22) .

Injection of peptide-pulsed DCs correlates with enhanced immunity to multiple defined tumor antigens. The MelAg-specific T cells that were elicited after DC vaccine are functional and are detectable in effector T-cell assays without the need for prior ex vivo expansion. They are also capable of proliferation and effector function after short-term (1 week) coculture with antigen-bearing DCs, without the need for exogenous cytokines or multiple restimulations with antigen. The feasibility of eliciting immune response to multiple MelAgs suggests that tolerance to these self antigens, if present, may only be partial (23 , 24) .

The ability of DCs to elicit immune response to multiple tumor antigens in vivo may be clinically important. The development of T-cell response to multiple tumor antigens on peptide-pulsed DCs in this study was associated with a favorable early clinical outcome. Prior studies using chemical adjuvants have failed to reliably elicit immunity to MelAgs (25) . Improved results were obtained more recently with the use of modified peptides combined with IL-2 (26) . However, in most studies, limited clinical responses are observed, which may be attributable to targeting a limited number of epitopes.

We chose to test CD34-DCs because they are composed of two distinct DC subsets, LCs and interstitial DCs (15) . This contrasts with Mo-DCs, which are devoid of LCs (27) . Mo-DCs have been shown to act as immune adjuvants in healthy volunteers and in stage IV melanoma (16 , 17 , 22 , 28) . Injection of MAGE-3-pulsed Mo-DCs were recently shown to enhance circulating MAGE-3-specific active effectors in melanoma patients (29) . However, no clinical responses were observed, which may be attributable to the choice of the immunizing epitope or targeting of a single epitope. Others have reported that CD34-DCs can be more efficient than Mo-DCs in activating CTLs in vitro (30 , 31) . In the circumstances like the induction of tumor-specific CTLs, CD34-DCs could thus be advantageous. Another recent study evaluated CD34-DCs in advanced melanoma and found little clinical or immunological efficacy (32) . However, the DCs were cultured in the presence of IL-4 (which inhibits LC development; Ref. 27 ) and administered i.v. Controlled studies are needed to compare the immunogenicity of this new form of DCs (and their subsets) to those derived from blood monocyte precursors.

Although these data provide encouragement for targeting MelAgs using DCs in the clinic, additional studies are needed to establish and optimize their clinical efficacy. The patients who experienced favorable clinical outcome had relatively limited disease and no history of chemotherapy, which supports the concept of testing DC vaccines earlier, e.g., in a surgical adjuvant setting. Optimizing variables such as peptide loading, vaccine schedule, and DC maturation may further improve the immunogenicity of these DCs.

Acknowledgments

We thank our patients for agreeing to participate in our study. We are grateful to BiJue Chang, Barbara Reasonover, and Susan Hicks at the Bone Marrow Transplantation Unit, Baylor University Medical Center, for excellent help with patient accrual, follow-up, and regulatory issues. We thank Joseph Krasovsky for excellent technical assistance with immunological monitoring, Kathy Brooks for continuous help, Dr. Tyler Curiel for discussion in the initial phase of the protocol, Dr. Sem Saeland (Schering-Plough Laboratory for Immunological Research, Dardilly, France) for Langerin antibody, and Dr. Jean Davoust for help with confocal analysis. We thank Drs. Marvin Stone and John Fordtran for continuous support.

Footnotes

  • 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.

  • ↵1 Supported by grants from Baylor Health Care Systems Foundation, Falk Foundation, Cancer Research Institute (to J. F.; Investigator award to M. D.), NIH [CA78846 (to J. B.), CA 81138 to (M. D.), PO-1 CA84512 (to R. S.), and MO-1-RR00102 (to Rockefeller General Clinical Research Center)], and the American Cancer Society (to R. S.).

  • ↵2 J. B., A. K. P., and M. D. contributed equally to the work.

  • ↵3 To whom requests for reprints should addressed, at Baylor Institute for Immunology Research, 3434 Live Oak, Dallas, TX 75204. Phone: (214) 820-7450; Fax: (214) 820-4813; E-mail: j.banchereau{at}baylordallas.edu

  • ↵4 The abbreviations used are: DC, dendritic cell; LC, Langerhans cell; HPC, hematopoietic progenitor cell; GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; FLT3-L, Flt3 ligand; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; KLH, keyhole limpet hemocyanin; SEA, staphylococcal enterotoxin A; SFC, spot-forming cell; DTH, delayed-type hypersensitivity; CD34+-DC, CD34+-derived DC; CNS, central nervous system; NCI, National Cancer Institute; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cell; ELISPOT, enzyme-linked immunospot; MelAg, melanoma antigen; PD, progression of measurable disease and/or new lesions; Mo-DC, monocyte-derived DC; IL, interleukin.

  • Received March 2, 2001.
  • Accepted July 16, 2001.
  • ©2001 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. ↵
    Knuth A., Wolfel T., Klehmann E., Boon T., Meyer zum Buschenfelde K. H. Cytolytic T-cell clones against an autologous human melanoma: specificity study and definition of three antigens by immunoselection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 86: 2804-2808, 1989.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    van der Bruggen P., Traversari C., Chomez P., Lurquin C., De Plaen E., Van den Eynde B., Knuth A., Boon T. A gene encoding an antigen recognized by cytolytic T lymphocytes on a human melanoma.. Science (Wash. DC), 254: 1643-1647, 1991.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    Rosenberg S. A. Cancer vaccines based on the identification of genes encoding cancer regression antigens.. Immunol. Today, 18: 175-182, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    Celluzzi C. M., Mayordomo J. I., Storkus W. J., Lotze M. T., Falo L. D., Jr. Peptide-pulsed dendritic cells induce antigen-specific CTL-mediated protective tumor immunity.. J. Exp. Med., 183: 283-287, 1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    Zitvogel L., Mayordomo J. I., Tjandrawan T., DeLeo A. B., Clarke M. R., Lotze M. T., Storkus W. J. Therapy of murine tumors with tumor peptide-pulsed dendritic cells: dependence on T cells, B7 costimulation, and T helper cell 1-associated cytokines.. J. Exp. Med., 183: 87-97, 1996.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Sogn J. A. Tumor immunology: the glass is half full.. Immunity, 9: 757-763, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Gilboa E. The makings of a tumor rejection antigen.. Immunity, 11: 263-270, 1999.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Pardoll D. M. Cancer vaccines.. Nat. Med., 4: 525-531, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Fong L., Engleman E. G. Dendritic cells in cancer immunotherapy.. Annu. Rev. Immunol., 18: 245-273, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Steinman R. M. The dendritic cell system and its role in immunogenicity.. Annu. Rev. Immunol., 9: 271-296, 1991.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Banchereau J., Briere F., Caux C., Davoust J., Lebecque S., Liu Y., Pulendran B., Palucka K. Immunobiology of dendritic cells.. Annu. Rev. Immunol., 18: 767-811, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Romani N., Gruner S., Brang D., Kampgen E., Lenz A., Trockenbacher B., Konwalinka G., Fritsch P. O., Steinman R. M., Schuler G. Proliferating dendritic cell progenitors in human blood.. J. Exp. Med., 180: 83-93, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    Sallusto F., Lanzavecchia A. Efficient presentation of soluble antigen by cultured human dendritic cells is maintained by granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus interleukin 4 and downregulated by tumor necrosis factor α.. J. Exp. Med., 179: 1109-1118, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Caux C., Dezutter-Dambuyant C., Schmitt D., Banchereau J. GM-CSF, and TNF-α cooperate in the generation of dendritic Langerhans cells.. Nature (Lond.), 360: 258-261, 1992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Caux C., Massacrier C., Vanbervliet B., Dubois B., Durand I., Cella M., Lanzavecchia A., Banchereau J. CD34+ hematopoietic progenitors from human cord blood differentiate along two independent dendritic cell pathways in response to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor plus tumor necrosis factor α. II. Functional analysis. Blood, 90: 1458-1470, 1997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Dhodapkar M. V., Steinman R. M., Sapp M., Desai H., Fossella C., Krasovsky J., Donahoe S. M., Dunbar P. R., Cerundolo V., Nixon D. F., Bhardwaj N. Rapid generation of broad T-cell immunity in humans after a single injection of mature dendritic cells.. J. Clin. Investig., 104: 173-180, 1999.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Dhodapkar M. V., Krasovsky J., Steinman R. M., Bhardwaj N. Mature dendritic cells boost functionally superior CD8(+) T-cell in humans without foreign helper epitopes.. J. Clin. Investig., 105: R9-R14, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Wittkowski K. M. Versions of the sign test in the presence of ties.. Biometrics, 54: 789-791, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    Kalbfleisch J. D., Prentice R. L. Marginal likelihoods based on Cox’s regression and life model.. Biometrika, 60: 267-278, 1973.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Wittkowski K. M. Friedman-type statistics and consistent multiple comparisons for unbalanced designs.. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 83: 1163-1170, 1988.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    Valladeau J., Ravel O., Dezutter-Dambuyant C., Moore K., Kleijmeer M., Liu Y., Duvert-Frances V., Vincent C., Schmitt D., Davoust J., Caux C., Lebecques S., Saeland S. Langerin. A novel C-type lectin specific to Langerhans cells, is an endocytic receptor that induces the formation of Birbeck granules. Immunity, 12: 71-81, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Thurner B., Haendle I., Roder C., Dieckmann D., Keikavoussi P., Jonuleit H., Bender A., Maczek C., Schreiner D., von den Driesch P., Brocker E. B., Steinman R. M., Enk A., Kampgen E., Schuler G. Vaccination with mage-3A1 peptide-pulsed mature, monocyte-derived dendritic cells expands specific cytotoxic T cells and induces regression of some metastases in advanced stage IV melanoma. J. Exp. Med., 190: 1669-1678, 1999.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Romero P., Dunbar P. R., Valmori D., Pittet M., Ogg G. S., Rimoldi D., Chen J. L., Lienard D., Cerottini J. C., Cerundolo V. Ex vivo staining of metastatic lymph nodes by class I major histocompatibility complex tetramers reveals high numbers of antigen-experienced tumor-specific cytolytic T lymphocytes.. J. Exp. Med., 188: 1641-1650, 1998.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Lee P. P., Yee C., Savage P. A., Fong L., Brockstedt D., Weber J. S., Johnson D., Swetter S., Thompson J., Greenberg P. D., Roederer M., Davis M. M. Characterization of circulating T cells specific for tumor-associated antigens in melanoma patients.. Nat. Med., 5: 677-685, 1999.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Wolchok J. D., Livingston P. O., Houghton A. N. Vaccines and other adjuvant therapies for melanoma.. Hematol. Oncol. Clin. North Am., 12: 835-848, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Rosenberg S. A., Yang J. C., Schwartzentruber D. J., Hwu P., Marincola F. M., Topalian S. L., Restifo N. P., Dudley M. E., Schwarz S. L., Spiess P. J., Wunderlich J. R., Parkhurst M. R., Kawakami Y., Seipp C. A., Einhorn J. H., White D. E. Immunologic and therapeutic evaluation of a synthetic peptide vaccine for the treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma.. Nat. Med., 4: 321-327, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Caux C., Massacrier C., Dubois B., Valladeau J., Dezutter-Dambuyant C., Durand I., Schmitt D., Saeland S. Respective involvement of TGF-β and IL-4 in the development of Langerhans cells and non-Langerhans dendritic cells from CD34+ progenitors.. J. Leukoc. Biol., 66: 781-791, 1999.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  28. ↵
    Nestle F. O., Alijagic S., Gilliet M., Sun Y., Grabbe S., Dummer R., Burg G., Schadendorf D. Vaccination of melanoma patients with peptide- or tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cells.. Nat. Med., 4: 328-332, 1998.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Schuler-Thurner B., Dieckmann D., Keikavoussi P., Bender A., Maczek C., Jonuleit H., Roder C., Haendle I., Leisgang W., Dunbar R., Cerundolo V., von Den Driesch P., Knop J., Brocker E. B., Enk A., Kampgen E., Schuler G. Mage-3 and influenza-matrix peptide-specific cytotoxic T cells are inducible in terminal stage HLA-A2.1+ melanoma patients by mature monocyte-derived dendritic cells. J. Immunol., 165: 3492-3496, 2000.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    Mortarini R., Anichini A., Di Nicola M., Siena S., Bregni M., Belli F., Molla A., Gianni A. M., Parmiani G. Autologous dendritic cells derived from CD34+ progenitors and from monocytes are not functionally equivalent antigen-presenting cells in the induction of melan-A/Mart-1(27–35)-specific CTLs from peripheral blood lymphocytes of melanoma patients with low frequency of CTL precursors.. Cancer Res., 57: 5534-5541, 1997.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    Ferlazzo G., Klein J., Paliard X., Wei W. Z., Galy A. Dendritic cells generated from CD34+ progenitor cells with flt3 ligand, c-kit ligand, GM-CSF, IL-4, and TNF-α are functional antigen-presenting cells resembling mature monocyte-derived dendritic cells.. J. Immunother., 23: 48-58, 2000.
  32. ↵
    Mackensen A., Herbst B., Chen J. L., Kohler G., Noppen C., Herr W., Spagnoli G. C., Cerundolo V., Lindemann A. Phase I study in melanoma patients of a vaccine with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells generated in vitro from CD34(+) hematopoietic progenitor cells.. Int. J. Cancer, 86: 385-392, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Research: 61 (17)
September 2001
Volume 61, Issue 17
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Immune and Clinical Responses in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma to CD34+ Progenitor-derived Dendritic Cell Vaccine
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Immune and Clinical Responses in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma to CD34+ Progenitor-derived Dendritic Cell Vaccine
Jacques Banchereau, A. Karolina Palucka, Madhav Dhodapkar, Susan Burkeholder, Nicolas Taquet, Alexandre Rolland, Sybil Taquet, Sebastien Coquery, Knut M. Wittkowski, Nina Bhardwaj, Luis Pineiro, Ralph Steinman and Joseph Fay
Cancer Res September 1 2001 (61) (17) 6451-6458;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Immune and Clinical Responses in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma to CD34+ Progenitor-derived Dendritic Cell Vaccine
Jacques Banchereau, A. Karolina Palucka, Madhav Dhodapkar, Susan Burkeholder, Nicolas Taquet, Alexandre Rolland, Sybil Taquet, Sebastien Coquery, Knut M. Wittkowski, Nina Bhardwaj, Luis Pineiro, Ralph Steinman and Joseph Fay
Cancer Res September 1 2001 (61) (17) 6451-6458;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Abstract 6666: Evaluation of the complexity of the immune response to CMP-001, a TLR9 agonist
  • Abstract 6650: Targeted radiation in combination with immunotherapy agents in murine breast cancer models
  • Abstract 6599: Screening and characterization of AlloCAR T targeting DLL3 for the treatment of small cell lung cancer
Show more Immunology
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Research Online ISSN: 1538-7445
Cancer Research Print ISSN: 0008-5472
Journal of Cancer Research ISSN: 0099-7013
American Journal of Cancer ISSN: 0099-7374

Advertisement