4.6 Article

CD44v6 as innovative sarcoma target for CAR-redirected CIK cells

期刊

ONCOIMMUNOLOGY
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2017.1423167

关键词

CIK; soft tissue sarcoma; CD44v6; CAR; adoptive immunotherapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of our study was to explore a new immunotherapy for high grade soft tissue sarcomas (STS) based on cytokine-induced killer cells (CIK) redirected with a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) against the tumor-promoting antigen CD44v6. We aimed at generating bipotential killers, combining the CAR specificity with the intrinsic tumor-killing ability of CIK cells (CAR(+).CIK). We set a patient-derived experimental platform. CAR(+).CIK were generated by transduction of CIK precursors with a lentiviral vector encoding for anti-CD44v6-CAR. CAR(+).CIK were characterized and assessed in vitro against multiple histotypes of patient-derived STS. The anti-sarcoma activity of CAR(+).CIK was confirmed in a STS xenograft model. CD44v6 was expressed by 40% (11/27) of patient-derived STS. CAR(+).CIK were efficiently expanded from patients (n = 12) and killed multiple histotypes of STS (including autologous targets, n = 4). The killing activity was significantly higher compared with unmodified CIK, especially at low effector/target (E/T) ratios: 98% vs 82% (E/T = 10:1) and 68% vs 26% (1:4), (p<0.0001). Specificity of tumor killing was confirmed by blocking with anti-CD44v6 antibody. CAR(+).CIK produced higher amounts of IL6 and IFN-gamma compared to control CIK. CAR(+).CIK were highly active in mice bearing subcutaneous STS xenografts, with significant delay of tumor growth (p<0.0001) without toxicities. We report first evidence of CAR(+).CIK's activity against high grade STS and propose CD44v6 as an innovative target in this setting. CIK are a valuable platform for the translation of CAR-based strategies to challenging field of solid tumors. Our findings support the exploration of CAR(+).CIK in clinical trials against high grade STS.

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

4.6
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