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

Defining the critical hurdles in cancer immunotherapy

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 if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Emerging Roles of FAM14 Family Members (G1P3/ISG 6–16 and ISG12/IFI27) in Innate Immunity and Cancer

Interferons (IFNs) manifest their cellular functions by regulating expression of target genes known collectively as IFN-stimulated genes (ISGs). The repertoires of ISGs vary slightly between cell types, but routinely include a core of common ISGs robustly upregulated in most IFN-treated cells. Here, we review the regulation and cellular functions of 2 related ISGs, ISG12 (IFI27) and G1P3 (ISG 6–16), that are commonly induced by IFNs in most, if not all, IFN-responsive cells. On the basis of sequence similarity, they are grouped together within the newly defined FAM14 family. Emerging data on ISG12 and G1P3 suggest that both are mitochondrial proteins with opposing activities on apoptosis that may influence the innate immune responses of IFNs. The G1P3 gene encodes a low molecular weight mitochondrial protein that may stabilize mitochondrial function and oppose apoptosis. In contrast, ISG12 expression may sensitize cells to apoptotic stimuli via mitochondrial membrane destabilization. On the basis of these results and differences in induction kinetics between ISG12 and G1P3, we have proposed a model for the role of these genes in mediating cellular activity of IFNs

Biological and Clinical Properties of the Type 1 Interferons

Interferons (IFNs) are class 2 cytokines that carry out important physiological functions in higher vertebrates, particularly in the regulation of host adaptive and innate immune responses. The complex type 1 IFN family, which includes IFN-α and IFN-β, will be the focus of this chapter. Virus and other innate immune stimuli induce expression of type 1 IFNs, which then act on responsive cells to establish an antiviral state. Type 1 IFN effects are mediated by the protein products of IFN-responsive genes, the identities and functions of which are only now starting to emerge fully. In a clinical setting, type 1 IFNs, IFN-α in particular, have shown effectiveness against a variety of malignancies. Current efforts aimed at improving pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of IFNs, identifying subtypes with novel biological activities and/or establishment of combined treatment modalities involving type 1 IFNs should lead to future improvements in therapeutic effectiveness