4.8 Article

Abscopal Benefits of Localized Radiotherapy Depend on Activated T-cell Trafficking and Distribution between Metastatic Lesions

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH
卷 76, 期 5, 页码 1009-1018

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-1423

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It remains unclear how localized radiotherapy for cancer metastases can occasionally elicit a systemic antitumor effect, known as the abscopal effect, but historically, it has been speculated to reflect the generation of a host immunotherapeutic response. The ability to purposefully and reliably induce abscopal effects in metastatic tumors could meet many unmet clinical needs. Here, we describe a mathematical model that incorporates physiologic information about T-cell trafficking to estimate the distribution of focal therapy-activated T cells between metastatic lesions. We integrated a dynamic model of tumor-immune interactions with systemic T-cell trafficking patterns to simulate the development of metastases. In virtual case studies, we found that the dissemination of activated T cells among multiple metastatic sites is complex and not intuitively predictable. Furthermore, we show that not all metastatic sites participate in systemic immune surveillance equally, and therefore the success in triggering the abscopal effect depends, at least in part, on which metastatic site is selected for localized therapy. Moreover, simulations revealed that seeding new metastatic sites may accelerate the growth of the primary tumor, because T-cell responses are partially diverted to the developing metastases, but the removal of the primary tumor can also favor the rapid growth of preexisting metastatic lesions. Collectively, our work provides the framework to prospectively identify anatomically defined focal therapy targets that are most likely to trigger an immune-mediated abscopal response and therefore may inform personalized treatment strategies in patients with metastatic disease. (C)2016 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据