BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy using autologous dendritic cell (DC) vaccination has not been systematically evaluated in osteosarcoma. We therefore conducted a phase I trial to assess feasibility, safety and tumour-specific immune responses in patients with relapsed disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 13 recruited patients with relapsed osteosarcoma, 12 received 3 weekly vaccines of autologous DCs matured with autologous tumour lysate and keyhole limpet haemocyanin (KLH), to a maximum of 6 vaccinations. An additional 3 paediatric patients afflicted with other tumour types and with relapsed disease received vaccines generated with identical methodology. Immune responses were assessed using an ELISpot assay for the detection of interferon gamma, whilst interleukin-2 and granzyme B were additionally assessed in cases where interferon-γ responses were induced. RESULTS: In total 61 vaccines, of homogeneous maturation phenotype and viability, were administered with no significant toxicity. Only in 2 out of 12 treated osteosarcoma cases was there an induction of specific T-cell immune response to the tumour, whilst a strong but non-specific immune response was induced in 1 further osteosarcoma patient. Immune response against KLH was induced in only 3 out of 12 osteosarcoma patients. In contrast, three additional non-osteosarcoma patients showed significant T-cell responses to vaccine. CONCLUSION: We have shown the strategy of DC vaccination in relapsed osteosarcoma is safe and feasible. However, significant anti-tumour responses were induced in only 2 out of 12 vaccinated patients with no evidence of clinical benefit. Comparison of results with identically treated control patients suggests that osteosarcoma patients might be relatively insensitive to DC-based vaccine treatments.
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy using autologous dendritic cell (DC) vaccination has not been systematically evaluated in osteosarcoma. We therefore conducted a phase I trial to assess feasibility, safety and tumour-specific immune responses in patients with relapsed disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 13 recruited patients with relapsed osteosarcoma, 12 received 3 weekly vaccines of autologous DCs matured with autologous tumour lysate and keyhole limpet haemocyanin (KLH), to a maximum of 6 vaccinations. An additional 3 paediatric patients afflicted with other tumour types and with relapsed disease received vaccines generated with identical methodology. Immune responses were assessed using an ELISpot assay for the detection of interferon gamma, whilst interleukin-2 and granzyme B were additionally assessed in cases where interferon-γ responses were induced. RESULTS: In total 61 vaccines, of homogeneous maturation phenotype and viability, were administered with no significant toxicity. Only in 2 out of 12 treated osteosarcoma cases was there an induction of specific T-cell immune response to the tumour, whilst a strong but non-specific immune response was induced in 1 further osteosarcomapatient. Immune response against KLH was induced in only 3 out of 12 osteosarcomapatients. In contrast, three additional non-osteosarcomapatients showed significant T-cell responses to vaccine. CONCLUSION: We have shown the strategy of DC vaccination in relapsed osteosarcoma is safe and feasible. However, significant anti-tumour responses were induced in only 2 out of 12 vaccinated patients with no evidence of clinical benefit. Comparison of results with identically treated control patients suggests that osteosarcomapatients might be relatively insensitive to DC-based vaccine treatments.
Authors: Emanuela Palmerini; Eric L Staals; Stefano Ferrari; Raffaella Rinaldi; Marco Alberghini; Mario Mercuri; Gaetano Bacci Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: M Brown; Y Zhang; S Dermine; E A de Wynter; C Hart; H Kitchener; P L Stern; M A Skinner; S N Stacey Journal: Gene Ther Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Denise A Caruso; Lisa M Orme; Alana M Neale; Fiona J Radcliff; Gerlinda M Amor; Wirginia Maixner; Peter Downie; Timothy E Hassall; Mimi L K Tang; David M Ashley Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Paul A Meyers; Cindy L Schwartz; Mark D Krailo; John H Healey; Mark L Bernstein; Donna Betcher; William S Ferguson; Mark C Gebhardt; Allen M Goorin; Michael Harris; Eugenie Kleinerman; Michael P Link; Helen Nadel; Michael Nieder; Gene P Siegal; Michael A Weiner; Robert J Wells; Richard B Womer; Holcombe E Grier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Berard; P Blanco; J Davoust; E M Neidhart-Berard; M Nouri-Shirazi; N Taquet; D Rimoldi; J C Cerottini; J Banchereau; A K Palucka Journal: J Exp Med Date: 2000-12-04 Impact factor: 14.307
Authors: Alexandre Harari; Michele Graciotti; Michal Bassani-Sternberg; Lana E Kandalaft Journal: Nat Rev Drug Discov Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 84.694
Authors: S Miwa; T Nojima; A A Alomesen; H Ikeda; N Yamamoto; H Nishida; K Hayashi; A Takeuchi; K Igarashi; T Higuchi; H Yonezawa; Y Araki; S Morinaga; Y Asano; H Tsuchiya Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Stephen T Ferris; Ray A Ohara; Feiya Ou; Renee Wu; Xiao Huang; Sunkyung Kim; Jing Chen; Tian-Tian Liu; Robert D Schreiber; Theresa L Murphy; Kenneth M Murphy Journal: Cancer Immunol Res Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 12.020