4.7 Article

PD-L1 blockade effectively restores strong graft-versus-leukemia effects without graft-versus-host disease after delayed adoptive transfer of T-cell receptor gene-engineered allogeneic CD8+ T cells

期刊

BLOOD
卷 117, 期 3, 页码 1030-1041

出版社

AMER SOC HEMATOLOGY
DOI: 10.1182/blood-2010-04-283119

关键词

-

资金

  1. Braukmann-Wittenberg-Herz-Stiftung
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB-738-A3]
  3. National Institutes of Health [R01 CA72669, P01 AI 056299]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Adoptive transfer (AT) of T cells forced to express tumor-reactive T-cell receptor (TCR) genes is an attractive strategy to direct autologous T-cell immunity against tumor-associated antigens. However, clinical effectiveness has been hampered by limited in vivo persistence. We investigated whether the use of major histocompatibility complex-mismatched T cells would prolong the in vivo persistence of tumor-reactiveTCRgene expressing T cells by continuous antigen-driven proliferation via the endogenous potentially alloreactive receptor. Donor-derived CD8(+) T cells engineered to express a TCR against a leukemia-associated antigen mediated strong graft-versus-leukemia (GVL) effects with reduced graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) severity when given early after transplantation. AT later after transplantation resulted in a complete loss of GVL. Loss of function was associated with reduced expansion of TCR-transduced T cells as assessed by CDR3 spectratyping analysis and PD-1 up-regulation on T cells in leukemia-bearing recipients. PD-L1 blockade in allogeneic transplant recipients largely restored the GVL efficacy without triggering GVHD, whereas no significant antileukemia effects of PD-L1 blockade were observed in syngeneic controls. These data suggest a clinical approach in which the AT of gene-modified allogeneic T cells early after transplantation can provide a potent GVL effect without GVHD, whereas later AT is effective only with concurrent PD-L1 blockade. (Blood. 2011; 117(3): 1030-1041)

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

4.7
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