Defining the Critical Hurdles in Cancer Immunotherapy

ABSTRACT: Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators, others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet be overcome to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Use of tumour-responsive T cells as cancer treatment.

The stimulation of a tumour-specific T-cell response has several theoretical advantages over other forms of cancer treatment. First, T cells can home in to antigen-expressing tumour deposits no matter where they are located in the body-even in deep tissue beds. Additionally, T cells can continue to proliferate in response to immunogenic proteins expressed in cancer until all the tumour cells are eradicated. Finally, immunological memory can be generated, allowing for eradication of antigen-bearing tumours if they reoccur. We will highlight two direct methods of stimulating tumour-specific T-cell immunity: active immunisation with cancer vaccines and infusion of competent T cells via adoptive T-cell treatment. Preclinical and clinical studies have shown that modulation of the tumour microenvironment to support the immune response is as important as stimulation of the most appropriate effector T cells. The future of T-cell immunity stimulation to treat cancer will need combination approaches focused on both the tumour and the T cell

The determinants of tumour immunogenicity

Many standard and targeted therapies, as well as radiotherapy, have been shown to induce an anti-tumour immune response, and immunotherapies rely on modulating the host immune system to induce an anti-tumour immune response. However, the immune response to such therapies is often reliant on the immunogenicity of a tumour. Tumour immunogenicity varies greatly between cancers of the same type in different individuals and between different types of cancer. So, what do we know about tumour immunogenicity and how might we therapeutically improve tumour immunogenicity? We asked four leading cancer immunologists around the world for their opinions on this important issue

Chemotherapy : friend or foe to cancer vaccines?

Cancer vaccines are oil the threshold of taking their place alongside the more traditional cancer treatment modalities of surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy. The toxicology and immunopharmacology of therapeutic cancer vaccines, particularly those that secrete granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF), are currently under active clinical investigation. Interestingly drugs traditionally used for tumor cytoreduction can have both positive and negative effects on host immunity. Exploration of the potential pharmacodynamic interactions of antineoplastic drugs with GM-CSF-secreting vaccines has revealed that low doses of some chemotherapeutics can augment the antitumor immunity induced by GM-CSF-secreting vaccines. These interactions will require through preclinical evaluation to maximize the clinical impact of this type of therapeutic cancer vaccine

Major histocompatibility complex class II-restricted presentation of a cytosolic antigen by autophagy.

Biochemical and functional studies have demonstrated major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II-restricted presentation of peptides derived from cytosolic proteins, but the underlying processing and presentation pathways have remained elusive. Here we show that endogenous presentation of an epitope derived from the cytosolic protein neomycin phosphotransferase II (NeoR) on MHC classII is mediated by autophagy. This presentation pathway involves the sequestration of NeoR into autophagosomes, and subsequent delivery into the lytic compartment. These results identify endosomes/lysosomes as the processing compartment for cytosolic antigens and furthermore link endogenous antigen presentation on MHC class II with the process of cellular protein turnover by autophagy