| Literature DB >> 24734216 |
Jonathan Ph Fisher1, Jennifer Heuijerjans1, Mengyong Yan1, Kenth Gustafsson2, John Anderson1.
Abstract
γδ T cells contribute to the front line of lymphoid antitumor surveillance and bridge the gap between innate and adaptive immunity. They can be readily expanded to high numbers in vivo and in vitro, starting from the blood of cancer patients, and a number of Phase I trials have demonstrated that these cells can be employed in cancer immunotherapy. Sufficient patients have received γδ T cell-based immunotherapies in the context of clinical trials to evaluate their utility, and to inform the direction of new trials. A systematic approach was used to identify Phase I, Phase II, and feasibility studies testing γδ T cell-based immunotherapy in cancer patients. Studies were excluded from further analysis if they did not provide patient-specific data. Data were compiled to evaluate efficacy, with stratification by treatment approach. When possible, comparisons were made with the efficacy of second-line conventional therapeutic approaches for the same malignancy. Twelve eligible studies were identified, providing information on 157 patients who had received γδ T cell-based immunotherapy. The comparison of objective response data suggests that γδ T cell-based immunotherapy is superior to current second-line therapies for advanced renal cell carcinoma and prostate cancer, but not for non-small cell lung carcinoma. An evaluation of pooled data from 132 published in vitro experiments shows a consistent improvement in the cytotoxicity of γδ T cells in the presence of antitumor antibodies. Immunotherapy using γδ T cells alone shows promising clinical activity, but there is a strong preclinical rationale for combining this treatment modality with cancer-targeting antibodies to augment its efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: adoptive cell transfer; aminobisphosphonate; cancer; clinical trials; immunotherapy; systematic review; γδ T cell
Year: 2014 PMID: 24734216 PMCID: PMC3984269 DOI: 10.4161/onci.27572
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncoimmunology ISSN: 2162-4011 Impact factor: 8.110

Figure 1. Diagnosis and previous treatments of patients enrolled in clinical trials testing γδ T cell-based immunotherapy. AML, acute myeloid leukemia; CA, carcinoma; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; NSCLC, non-small cell lung carcinoma; PBMC, peripheral blood mononuclear cell; PBSCT, peripheral blood stem cell transplantation; RCC, renal cell carcinoma.
Table 1. Treatment protocols aimed at expanding γδ T cells in vivo using zoledronate and IL-2
| Paper | n | Disease (n) | Patients screened for γδ T cell expansion? | Sub groups within trial (n) | ZOL dose (mg) | IL-2 dose/m2 (MU) | IL2 dose if not by BSA (MU) | Days of IL-2 per cycle | Cycle length (d) | Mean cycles | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI |
| Kunzmann 2012 | 21 | Advanced renal cell carcinoma (7) | Yes (21) | 21 | 4 | - | 2 | 6 | 28 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 3.5 |
| Lang 2011 | 12 | Advanced renal cell carcinoma (12) | No (12) | 6 | 4 | 7 | - | 15 | 28 | 3.7 | 0.6 | 6.8 |
| 2 | 4 | 1 | - | 15 | 28 | 17.0 | - | - | ||||
| 1 | 4 | 1–2 | - | 15 | 28 | 3.0 | - | - | ||||
| 2 | 3 | 1 | - | 15 | 28 | 11.5 | - | - | ||||
| 1 | 1.5 | 1 | - | 15 | 28 | 4.0 | - | - | ||||
| Dieli 2007 | 18 | Advanced prostate cancer (18) | No (18) | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 9.2 | 5.3 | 13.1 |
| 9 | 4 | - | 0.6 | 1 | 21 | 14.4 | 12.3 | 16.5 | ||||
| Meraviglia 2010 | 10 | Advanced breast cancer (10) | No (10) | 10 | 4 | - | 1 | 1 | 21 | Not specified | ||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; IL-2, interleukin-2; MU, mega unit; ZOL, zoledronate.
Table 2. Comparison of clinical trials using adoptively transferred γδ T cells
| Paper | n | Disease (n) | Cell source | Expansion conditions | Cycles | Cumulative cell dose (x109) | Additional treatments | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL-2 (U/mL) | [aBP or PAg] | Cycle length (d) | Mean no. of cycles | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | Mean | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | ZOL (mg) | IL-2 (MU/m2) | ||||
| Bennouna et al. 2003 | 10 | RCC (10) | L | 600 | BrHPP | 21 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 26.7 | 17.0 | 36.4 | - | 2 [7d] |
| Kobayashi et al. 2007 | 7 | RCC (7) | PB | 100 | 3M3B1-PP (100 μM) | 7 (n = 4), 14 (n = 3) | 9.6 | 7.5 | 11.7 | 14.2 | 4.4 | 24.0 | - | 0.7 [1d] |
| Nakajima et al. 2010 | 10 | NSCLC (10) | PB | 1000 | ZOL (5 μM) | 14 | 6.5 | 4.7 | 8.3 | 14.5 | 8.6 | 20.3 | - | - |
| Abe et al. 2009 | 6 | MM (6) | PB | 1000 | ZOL (5 μM) | 14 | 6.8 | 5.7 | 8.0 | 9.3 | 4.9 | 13.7 | - | - |
| Kobayashi et al. 2011 | 11 | RCC (11) | PB | 100 | 3M3B1-PP (100 μM) | 28 | 4.2 | 3.0 | 5.4 | 20.5 | 9.5 | 31.5 | 4 | 1.4 [5d] |
| Sakamoto et al. 2011 | 15 | NSCLC (15) | PB | 1000 | ZOL (5 μM) | 14 | 6.5 | 5.2 | 7.7 | 18.4 | 12.2 | 24.7 | - | - |
| Nicol et al. 2011 | 18 | MML (7) | L | 700 | ZOL (1 μM) | NS | 7.6 | 7.3 | 7.93 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 3.6 | 2 | - |
Abbreviations: aBP, aminobisphosphonate; AC, adenocarcinoma; BC, breast carcinoma; AC, colonic adenocarcinoma; CC, cholangiocarcinoma; CI, confidence interval; CVC, cervical carcinoma; DC, duodenal carcinoma; IL-2, interleukin-2; L, leukopheresis; MM, multiple myeloma; MML, metastatic melanoma; MU, mega unit; NSCLC, non-small cell lung carcinoma; OC, ovarian carcinoma; PAg, phoshhoantigen; PB, peripheral blood; RCC, renal cell carcinoma; U, unit; ZOL, zoledronate.
Table 3. Clinical outcomes of commonly used second-line anticancer agents as compared with γδ T-cell immunotherapy.*
| Disease | Second-line treatments | CR | PR | SD | PD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | % | 95% CI | ||
| Advanced prostate cancer | Prednisolone + docetaxel (n = 101, 3 randomized controlled trials) | 0 | 0 | 8.4–41.8 | 32–56.8 | 14.5–46.2 | |||
| In-vivo expansion of γδT cells (n = 12, 6 missing) | 0 | ||||||||
| Advanced renal cell carcinoma | Everolimus (n = 277, 1 randomized phase 3 study) | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | |||
| Adoptive transfer of γδT cells (n = 21, 7 missing) | 4.8 | 0 | |||||||
| In-vivo expansion of γδT cells (n = 15, 4 missing) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Advanced NSCLC | Erlotinib (n = 3324, 2 randomized controlled trials) | 0.4 | 0.17–0.73 | 1.88–10.89 | 4.9–43.4 | 6.9–72.1 | |||
| Docetaxel (n = 385, 2 randomized controlled trials) | 2.6 | 0.3–4.9 | 8.9–10.2 | 30.0–45.3 | 45.5–55.0 | ||||
| Adoptive transfer of γδT cells (n = 24, 1 missing) | 0 | ||||||||
Data are pooled from clinical trials and standard of care treatments were selected based upon current UK or US guidelines for treatment of the tumors in question. A more detailed breakdown of γδT cell immunotherapy results is included in Table S2. CI, confidence interval; CR, complete response; NSCLC, non-small cell lung carcinoma; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.