BACKGROUND: CD20 monoclonal antibodies are widely used in clinical practice. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, complement-dependent cytotoxicity and direct cell death have been suggested to be important effector functions for CD20 antibodies. However, their specific contributions to the in vivo mechanism of action of CD20 immunotherapy have not been well defined. DESIGN AND METHODS: Here we studied the in vivo mechanism of action of type I (rituximab and ofatumumab) and type II (HuMab-11B8) CD20 antibodies in a peritoneal, syngeneic, mouse model with EL4-CD20 cells using low and high tumor burden. RESULTS: Interestingly, we observed striking differences in the in vivo mechanism of action of CD20 antibodies dependent on tumor load. In conditions of low tumor burden, complement was sufficient for tumor killing both for type I and type II CD20 antibodies. In contrast, in conditions of high tumor burden, activating FcγR (specifically FcγRIII), active complement and complement receptor 3 were all essential for tumor killing. Our data suggest that complement-enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity may critically affect tumor killing by CD20 antibodies in vivo. The type II CD20 antibody 11B8, which is a poor inducer of complement activation, was ineffective against high tumor burden. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor burden affects the in vivo mechanism of action of CD20 antibodies. Low tumor load can be eliminated by complement alone, whereas elimination of high tumor load requires multiple effector mechanisms.
BACKGROUND: CD20 monoclonal antibodies are widely used in clinical practice. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, complement-dependent cytotoxicity and direct cell death have been suggested to be important effector functions for CD20 antibodies. However, their specific contributions to the in vivo mechanism of action of CD20 immunotherapy have not been well defined. DESIGN AND METHODS: Here we studied the in vivo mechanism of action of type I (rituximab and ofatumumab) and type II (HuMab-11B8) CD20 antibodies in a peritoneal, syngeneic, mouse model with EL4-CD20 cells using low and high tumor burden. RESULTS: Interestingly, we observed striking differences in the in vivo mechanism of action of CD20 antibodies dependent on tumor load. In conditions of low tumor burden, complement was sufficient for tumor killing both for type I and type II CD20 antibodies. In contrast, in conditions of high tumor burden, activating FcγR (specifically FcγRIII), active complement and complement receptor 3 were all essential for tumor killing. Our data suggest that complement-enhanced antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity may critically affect tumor killing by CD20 antibodies in vivo. The type II CD20 antibody 11B8, which is a poor inducer of complement activation, was ineffective against high tumor burden. CONCLUSIONS: Tumor burden affects the in vivo mechanism of action of CD20 antibodies. Low tumor load can be eliminated by complement alone, whereas elimination of high tumor load requires multiple effector mechanisms.
Authors: Jessica L Teeling; Wendy J M Mackus; Luus J J M Wiegman; Jeroen H N van den Brakel; Stephen A Beers; Ruth R French; Tom van Meerten; Saskia Ebeling; Tom Vink; Jerry W Slootstra; Paul W H I Parren; Martin J Glennie; Jan G J van de Winkel Journal: J Immunol Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Jennifer H Anolik; Debbie Campbell; Raymond E Felgar; Faith Young; Inaki Sanz; Joseph Rosenblatt; R John Looney Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2003-02
Authors: Andrei Ivanov; Stephen A Beers; Claire A Walshe; Jamie Honeychurch; Waleed Alduaij; Kerry L Cox; Kathleen N Potter; Stephen Murray; Claude H T Chan; Tetyana Klymenko; Jekaterina Erenpreisa; Martin J Glennie; Tim M Illidge; Mark S Cragg Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Clive S Zent; Charla R Secreto; Betsy R LaPlant; Nancy D Bone; Timothy G Call; Tait D Shanafelt; Diane F Jelinek; Renee C Tschumper; Neil E Kay Journal: Leuk Res Date: 2008-06-27 Impact factor: 3.156
Authors: Jessica L Teeling; Ruth R French; Mark S Cragg; Jeroen van den Brakel; Marielle Pluyter; Haichun Huang; Claude Chan; Paul W H I Parren; C Erik Hack; Michael Dechant; Thomas Valerius; Jan G J van de Winkel; Martin J Glennie Journal: Blood Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Veronique Minard-Colin; Yan Xiu; Jonathan C Poe; Mayuka Horikawa; Cynthia M Magro; Yasuhito Hamaguchi; Karen M Haas; Thomas F Tedder Journal: Blood Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Michelle Elvington; Yuxiang Huang; B Paul Morgan; Fei Qiao; Nico van Rooijen; Carl Atkinson; Stephen Tomlinson Journal: Blood Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Ulrich Jäger; Michael Fridrik; Markus Zeitlinger; Daniel Heintel; Georg Hopfinger; Sonja Burgstaller; Christine Mannhalter; Wilhelm Oberaigner; Edit Porpaczy; Cathrin Skrabs; Christine Einberger; Johannes Drach; Markus Raderer; Alexander Gaiger; Monique Putman; Richard Greil Journal: Haematologica Date: 2012-04-17 Impact factor: 9.941
Authors: Tim Wirt; Sophia Rosskopf; Thies Rösner; Klara Marie Eichholz; Anne Kahrs; Sebastian Lutz; Anna Kretschmer; Thomas Valerius; Katja Klausz; Anna Otte; Martin Gramatzki; Matthias Peipp; Christian Kellner Journal: Transfus Med Hemother Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: Mitchell Evers; Thies Rösner; Anna Dünkel; J H Marco Jansen; Niklas Baumann; Toine Ten Broeke; Maaike Nederend; Klara Eichholz; Katja Klausz; Karli Reiding; Denis M Schewe; Christian Kellner; Matthias Peipp; Jeanette H W Leusen; Thomas Valerius Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2021-10-12