Melanie Schwerdtfeger1,2, Mohamed-Reda Benmebarek1, Stefan Endres1,3,4, Marion Subklewe5, Vincenzo Desiderio2, Sebastian Kobold6,7,8. 1. Center of Integrated Protein Science Munich (CIPS-M) and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine IV, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy. 3. German Center for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), Munich, Germany. 4. Einheit für Klinische Pharmakologie (EKLiP), Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany. 5. Department of Medicine III, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. 6. Center of Integrated Protein Science Munich (CIPS-M) and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine IV, Klinikum der Universität München, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany. sebastian.kobold@med.uni-muenchen.de. 7. German Center for Translational Cancer Research (DKTK), Munich, Germany. sebastian.kobold@med.uni-muenchen.de. 8. Einheit für Klinische Pharmakologie (EKLiP), Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health (HMGU), Neuherberg, Germany. sebastian.kobold@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Both chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and T cell-engaging antibodies (BiAb) have been approved for the treatment of hematological malignancies. However, despite targeting the same antigen, they represent very different classes of therapeutics, each with its distinct advantages and drawbacks. In this review, we compare BiAb and CAR T cells with regard to their mechanism of action, manufacturing, and clinical application. In addition, we present novel strategies to overcome limitations of either approach and to combine the best of both worlds. RECENT FINDINGS: By now there are multiple approaches combining the advantages of BiAb and CAR T cells. A major area of research is the application of both formats for solid tumor entities. This includes improving the infiltration of T cells into the tumor, counteracting immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment, targeting antigen heterogeneity, and limiting off-tumor on-target effects. BiAb come with the major advantage of being an off-the-shelf product and are more controllable because of their half-life. They have also been reported to induce less frequent and less severe adverse events. CAR T cells in turn demonstrate superior response rates, have the potential for long-term persistence, and can be additionally genetically modified to overcome some of their limitations, e.g., to make them more controllable.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Both chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells and T cell-engaging antibodies (BiAb) have been approved for the treatment of hematological malignancies. However, despite targeting the same antigen, they represent very different classes of therapeutics, each with its distinct advantages and drawbacks. In this review, we compare BiAb and CAR T cells with regard to their mechanism of action, manufacturing, and clinical application. In addition, we present novel strategies to overcome limitations of either approach and to combine the best of both worlds. RECENT FINDINGS: By now there are multiple approaches combining the advantages of BiAb and CAR T cells. A major area of research is the application of both formats for solid tumor entities. This includes improving the infiltration of T cells into the tumor, counteracting immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment, targeting antigen heterogeneity, and limiting off-tumor on-target effects. BiAb come with the major advantage of being an off-the-shelf product and are more controllable because of their half-life. They have also been reported to induce less frequent and less severe adverse events. CAR T cells in turn demonstrate superior response rates, have the potential for long-term persistence, and can be additionally genetically modified to overcome some of their limitations, e.g., to make them more controllable.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adoptive T cell therapy; Bispecific antibody; Cancer; Chimeric antigen receptor; Immunotherapy; T cell redirection
Authors: Matthias Klinger; Christian Brandl; Gerhard Zugmaier; Youssef Hijazi; Ralf C Bargou; Max S Topp; Nicola Gökbuget; Svenja Neumann; Mariele Goebeler; Andreas Viardot; Matthias Stelljes; Monika Brüggemann; Dieter Hoelzer; Evelyn Degenhard; Dirk Nagorsen; Patrick A Baeuerle; Andreas Wolf; Peter Kufer Journal: Blood Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Stefanie Lesch; Mohamed-Reda Benmebarek; Bruno L Cadilha; Stefan Stoiber; Marion Subklewe; Stefan Endres; Sebastian Kobold Journal: Semin Cancer Biol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 15.707
Authors: Steven R Leong; Siddharth Sukumaran; Maria Hristopoulos; Klara Totpal; Shannon Stainton; Elizabeth Lu; Alfred Wong; Lucinda Tam; Robert Newman; Brian R Vuillemenot; Diego Ellerman; Chen Gu; Mary Mathieu; Mark S Dennis; Allen Nguyen; Bing Zheng; Crystal Zhang; Genee Lee; Yu-Waye Chu; Rodney A Prell; Kedan Lin; Steven T Laing; Andrew G Polson Journal: Blood Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Peter Ruf; Michael Kluge; Michael Jäger; Alexander Burges; Constantin Volovat; Markus Maria Heiss; Jürgen Hess; Pauline Wimberger; Birgit Brandt; Horst Lindhofer Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Min Zhu; Benjamin Wu; Christian Brandl; Jessica Johnson; Andreas Wolf; Andrew Chow; Sameer Doshi Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Danielle Mandikian; Nene Takahashi; Amy A Lo; Ji Li; Jeffrey Eastham-Anderson; Dionysos Slaga; Jason Ho; Maria Hristopoulos; Robyn Clark; Klara Totpal; Kedan Lin; Sean B Joseph; Mark S Dennis; Saileta Prabhu; Teemu T Junttila; C Andrew Boswell Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 6.261