4.6 Article

Dendritic cell-based xenoantigen vaccination for prostate cancer immunotherapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 167, Issue 12, Pages 7150-7156

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.167.12.7150

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01CA71725] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [M01RR00070] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many tumor-associated Ags represent tissue differentiation Ags that are poorly immunogenic. Their weak immunogenicity may be due to immune tolerance to self-Ags. Prostatic acid phosphatase (PAP) is just such an Ag that is expressed by both normal and malignant prostate tissue. We have previously demonstrated that PAP can be immunogenic in a rodent model. However, generation of prostate-specific autoimmunity was seen only when a xenogeneic homolog of PAP was used as the immunogen. To explore the potential role of xenoantigen immunization in cancer patients, we performed a phase I clinical trial using dendritic cells pulsed with recombinant mouse PAP as a tumor vaccine. Twenty-one patients with metastatic prostate cancer received two monthly vaccinations of xenoantigen-loaded dendritic cells with minimal treatment-associated side effects. All patients developed T cell immunity to mouse PAP following immunization. Eleven of the 21 patients also developed T cell proliferative responses to the homologous self-Ag. These responses were associated with Ag-specific IFN-gamma and/or TNF-alpha secretion, but not IL-4, consistent with induction of Th1 immunity. Finally, 6 of 21 patients had clinical stabilization of their previously progressing prostate cancer. All six of these patients developed T cell immunity to human PAP following vaccination. These results demonstrate that xenoantigen immunization can break tolerance to a self-Ag in humans, resulting in a clinically significant antitumor effect.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available