| Literature DB >> 25764160 |
Márcia Antoniazi Michelin1,2, Letícia Montes3, Rosekeila Simões Nomelini4, Marco Aurélio Trovó5, Eddie Fernando Candido Murta6,7.
Abstract
Immunotherapy in cancer patients is a very promising treatment and the development of new protocols and the study of the mechanisms of regression is imperative. The objective of this study was to evaluate the production of cytokines in helper T (CD4+) lymphocytes during immunotherapy with pegylated IFN-α in patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). We conducted a prospective study with 17 patients with CIN II-III using immunotherapy with pegylated IFN-α subcutaneouly weekly, and using flow cytometry we evaluated the peripheric CD4+ T lymphocytes. The results show that in the regression group the patients presented a significant increase in the amount of IFN-γ during the entire immunotherapy, compared with the group without a response. The amount of CD4+ T lymphocytes positive for IL-2, IL-4, IL-10 and TGF-β is significantly lower in patients with good clinical response. The results also demonstrate that patients with regression have a higher amount of intracellular TNF-α in CD4+ T lymphocytes before the start of treatment. Analyzing these data sets, it can be concluded that immunotherapy is a viable clinical treatment for patients with high-grade CIN and that the regression is dependent on the change in the immune response to a Th1 pattern.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25764160 PMCID: PMC4394488 DOI: 10.3390/ijms16035497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Values (median) of % gate of helper T lymhocytes positive for cytokines obtained from all the patients studied. The gate was determined for localization of cells corresponding to lymphocytes by relative size (Forward Scatter, FSC) and granularity/complexity (Side Scatter, SSC) in each experiment and for each patient, as shown in Figure 3. The helper lymphocytes marked with CD4+ and cytokines, receptor or transcription factor antibodies were analyzed in the pretreatment () and in the 3th () and 6th () applications. The analyses were conducted with all patients studied (Total) and separately according to treatment outcome (Regression—R or Without Regression—WR). All values are expressed in Median. (A) CD4+IL-2+ * R3a vs. WR3a p = 0.0592; (B) CD4+IL-4+ * R3a vs. WR3a p = 0.0927; (C) CD4+IL-17+; (D) CD4+TNF-α+; (E) CD4+IFN-γ+ # RPre vs. WR pre p = 0.0274; * WRPre vs. WR6a p = 0.0366; (F) CD4+IL-10+ * R3a vs. WR3a p = 0.0745. (G) CD4+IL-12+; (H) CD4+TGF-β+ * R3a vs. WR3a p = 0.0464; (I) CD4+FOXP3+; (J) CD4+CD25+.
Figure 2Values of median of intensity of fluorescence (MFI) of helper T lymphocytes positive for cytokines obtained from all the patients studied. The gate was determined for localization of cells corresponding to lymphocytes by for relative size (Forward Scatter, FSC) and granularity/complexity (Side Scatter SSC) in each experiment and for each patient. The helper lymphocytes marked with CD4+ and cytokines, receptor or transcription factor antibodies were analyzed in the pretreatment () and in the 3th () and 6th () applications. The analyses were conducted with all patients studied (Total) and separately according to treatment outcome (Regression or Without Regression). All values are expressed in Median. (A) CD4+IL-2+; (B) CD4+IL-4+ * R3a vs. WR3a p = 0.0745; (C) CD4+IL-17+; (D) CD4+TNF-α+ * Rpre vs. WRpre p = 0.0464; (E) CD4+IFN-γ+ # Rpre vs. WRpre p = 0.0927; * WRpre vs. WR6a p = 0.0042; (F) CD4+IL-10+; (G) CD4+IL-12+; (H) CD4+TGF-β+; (I) CD4+FOXP3+; (J) CD4+CD25+.
Figure 3Representative the strategy for FACS analysis and a representative FACS figure. (A) The gate was determined for localization of cells corresponding to lymphocytes by for relative size (Forward Scatter, FSC) and granularity/complexity (Side Scatter, SSC) in each experiment and for each patient; (B–K) representative graphic obtained from one patient according with antibodies used, illustrating the positive cells: (B) CD4+IL-2+; (C) CD4+IL-4+; (D) CD4+IL-17+; (E) CD4+TNF-α; (F) CD4+IFN-γ+; (G) CD4+IL-10+; (H) CD4+IL-12+; (I) CD4+TGF-β+; (J) CD4+CD25; (K) CD4+FOXP3+.
Clinical charateristics, histological diagnosis by biopsy, and conduct in each case, after immunotherapy with pegylated IFN-α.
| Patient | Age | Smoker | Initial Diagnosis | Final Diagnosis | Treatment Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 36 | No | CIN III | Normal Epithelium | Regression |
| 2 | 67 | No | NIVA III | Normal Epithelium | Regression |
| 3 | 82 | No | CIN III | CIN III | WithoutResponse |
| 4 | 35 | Yes | CIN III | CIN III | WithoutResponse |
| 5 | 54 | No | CIN III | Normal Epithelium | Regression |
| 6 | 28 | No | CIN II | Normal Epithelium | Regression |
| 7 | 32 | No | CIN III | CIN III | Without Regression |
| 8 | 35 | No | CIN III | CIN III | Without Regression |
| 9 | 18 | No | CIN II | CIN II | Without Regression |
| 10 | 34 | No | CIN II | CIN II | Without Regression |
| 11 | 38 | No | CIN III | CIN II | Regression |
| 12 | 37 | No | CIN III | CIN III | Without Regression |
| 13 | 34 | No | CIN III | CIN II | Regression |
| 14 | 47 | No | CIN III | Normal Epithelium | Regression |
| 15 | 26 | No | CIN III | Normal Epithelium | Regression |
| 16 | 24 | Yes | CIN II | CIN II | Without Regression |
| 17 | 28 | Yes | CIN II | Normal Epithelium | Regression |