Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :1654
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate here
  Search
 
  
Resource links
 »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »  Article in PDF (348 KB)
 »  Citation Manager
 »  Access Statistics
 »  Reader Comments
 »  Email Alert *
 »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
 »  Abstract
 » Introduction
 »  Materials and Me...
 » Results
 » Discussion
 »  References
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1374    
    Printed37    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded294    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents  
GENITOURINARY CANCER SYMPOSIUM: ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 51  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 338-341
 

Dendritic cell vaccine treatment of advanced de novo colorectal cancer in renal transplant patients


1 Department of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medicine Centre, Tianjin, China
2 Department of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medicine Centre, Tianjin; Shanghai Claison Biotechnology Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China
3 Department of Oncology, Institute of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medicine Centre, Tianjin, China

Date of Web Publication10-Dec-2014

Correspondence Address:
Y Pang
Department of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medicine Centre, Tianjin
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission (No. 12ZCDZSY17100), Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-509X.146792

Rights and Permissions

 » Abstract 

Objective: The clinical outcome, especial the immunologic responses to cancer and graft, of dendritic cell (DC) vaccine in the treatment of advanced de novo colorectal cancer (CRC) in renal transplant patients was investigated in this study. Materials and Methods: 7 patients were received 1 cycle tumor lysate pulsed autologous DC vaccine. The positive cell-mediated cytotoxicity responses to DC vaccine against CRC cell in two out of 7 patients were seen by delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) test. The positive cell-mediated cytotoxicity responses to DC vaccine against normal kidney cell in all 7 patients were not seen by DTH tests and no notable change of renal function during and after vaccination. Conclusions: DC vaccine has emerged as a promising new strategy in the treatment of advanced de novo CRC in renal transplant patients and DC vaccines have become an attractive therapeutic option, developing immune responses specific against CRC cell, achieving clinical efficacy without graft failure.


Keywords: Dendritic cell vaccine, de novo colorectal cancer, graft failure, renal transplantation


How to cite this article:
Ying J, Yang X, Hao F, Xin X, Wu X, Pang Y. Dendritic cell vaccine treatment of advanced de novo colorectal cancer in renal transplant patients. Indian J Cancer 2014;51:338-41

How to cite this URL:
Ying J, Yang X, Hao F, Xin X, Wu X, Pang Y. Dendritic cell vaccine treatment of advanced de novo colorectal cancer in renal transplant patients. Indian J Cancer [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Sep 22];51:338-41. Available from: http://www.indianjcancer.com/text.asp?2014/51/3/338/146792



 » Introduction Top


An increased incidence of malignancy is a severe long-term complication of successful renal transplantation, [1] which is thought to be impaired immune surveillance, direct neoplastic action of immunosuppressive agents and infection with oncogenic viruses. [2] There is evidence that renal transplant recipients are 2-3 times more likely to develop colorectal cancer (CRC) than the general population. [3],[4],[5]

The prognosis of renal transplant recipients with advanced stage CRC is very poor. [6] CRC tends to progress faster after diagnosis in renal transplant recipients compared with the general population. De novo CRC in renal transplant recipients has a high recurrence rate and poor survival rate when the cancer is advanced. Such faster progression in advanced stage suggests a role for immunosuppression included increased host susceptibility to tumor genesis and cancer progression. [7]

The decreased survivals for advanced CRC were considered as due to immunosuppressive drugs, but also ineffective treatment. [8] Recipients with advanced CRC did not receive adequate adjuvant chemotherapy due to incompatibility with immunosuppressants. Although surgery to remove the primary tumor is important treatment, other combined methods are necessary in CRC management. Some advanced CRC recipients in the transplant group refused chemotherapy due to their general bad condition or the risk of infection. Furthermore, concerns over graft failure with severe side-effect of chemotherapy led to modified chemotherapy in advanced stage CRC; although, it was still uncertain whether the graft failure was related to chemotherapy. [9]

Cancer therapy has now moved into the area of immunotherapy. Non-specific immunotherapy has been surpassed by modalities that produce a specific and potent immune response against identifiable tumor-associated antigens, so called active specific immunotherapy. [10] Approaches that come under this heading include dendritic cells (DC) vaccines. DCs can be further boosted by the use of immunostimulatory cytokines. [11] In contrast to chemotherapy, DC vaccine of CRC is not associated with any serious side-effects. [12],[13],[14],[15] DC vaccine has the ability to start and amplify antigen-specific anti-tumor responses. [16],[17],[18] Once the immune system generates T-cells specific for a particular antigen of CRC cell, a group of immune memory cells that remember this antigen will remain in the body. In the case of a second threat from the same antigen, an immune response will be mounted much faster than the first one vaccination, stimulates the immune system to kill residual cancer cells that persist in the body and could result in the cancer recurring and metastasis. With advances in molecular biology and the identification of tumor-associated antigens, many new strategies have been developed in trying to overcome the limits of chemotherapy and to aid in the fight to cure patients of metastatic and micrometastatic CRC. [19],[20],[21]

DC vaccine is an appealing therapeutic modality for CRC because of its potential to selectively target tumor cells rather than normal tissue. Therefore, DC vaccine might provide an alternative treatment for those de novo CRC in renal transplant patients without graft failure. We conducted a study to evaluate the safety and immunologic responses using a DC vaccine in 7 patients with CRC who had previously undergone renal transplantation.


 » Materials and Methods Top


Patients

This study was carried out in 7 patients who developed CRC after renal transplantation followed by immunosuppressive therapy. All cases were advanced stage with histological proven CRC and referred to the Department of Oncology, Tianjin Union Medicine Center, Tianjin, China, From April 2011 to April 2012. The study protocol was approved by the Hospital's Ethical Committees and class III medical techniques of "treatment with autologous immune cells (T-cells, NK-cells)" in accordance with the policy by the Minister of Health of China. Written consent was obtained from all patients at study entry.

Preparation of tumor antigen and normal kidney tissue antigen

Patient tumor tissue specimens from the tissue bank of our hospital (available for 4 patients), were then mechanically dissociated and filtered. The cells were crushed by the ultrasonic and centrifuged with a 600 Χ g for 30 min. The supernatant was collected as tumor lysate for sensitizing DCs and delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) test.

The tumor tissue of the other 3 patients could not be available, so colon tumor cell lines HCT-116 were used instead. The cells were plated at 3 Χ 10 6 /mL, cultured for 24 h at 37΀C and then crushed by the ultrasonic and centrifuged with a 600 g for 30 min. The supernatant was collected as tumor lysate for sensitizing DCs and DTH test.

Preparation of DC vaccines

Generation of DCs


0All procedures were performed according to the standard method widely reported. [22],[23],[24] Patients underwent leukapheresis using the Fresenius KABI System. The leukapheresis product was enriched for monocytes, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated over the Ficoll, washed, suspended in culture medium (X-Vivo 15, 200 mM 2% L-glutamine, 1% autologous heat-inactivated plasma) at 3 Χ 10 6 cells/mL and separated by 90 min adherence to plastic Corning dishes (Corning USA). Non-adherent cells were removed and adherent cells were subsequently cultured for 7 days with 500 U/ml recombinant human granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor (rhuGM-CSF; R and D, USA) and 250 U/mL recombinant human interleukin-4 (rhuIL-4; R and D, USA) added on days 0, 3 and 6 of culture. On culture day 6, autologous tumor lysate was added at 40 ΅g/mL. On culture day 7, tumor necrosis factor was added at 10 ng/mL for the maturation for 24 h. On culture day 8, DCs were harvested, viable cells were enumerated and administered if they met the following release criteria: Viability >70%, no organisms on gram stain, cultured samples with no bacterial growth and endotoxin levels of <5 EU/kg. Cells were washed twice, 1 Χ 10 7 cells were resuspended in 4 mL NS for 2 syringe for bilateral inguinal region 24 points intradermal injection, or 1 Χ 10 7 cells were resuspended in 100 mL NS for intravenous injection. The remainder of the DCs was frozen in 90% autologous serum/10% dimethyl sulfoxide DMSO at 1-2 Χ 10 7 DCs/mL for further use.

DC phenotypic analysis

Aliquots of the cultured cells were subjected to phenotypic analysis at the time of cryopreservation. The expressions of the cell surface antigens CD14, CD83, CD86 and HLA2DR were analyzed. Antibodies against CD14, CD83, CD86 and HLA2DR (BD, USA) were used together with relevant iso-type controls. For four color analyses of DCs, cells were labeled simultaneously with lineage cocktail and four of the relevant DC cell surface markers. Flow cytometric analysis (FCM) was performed on a FACS Calibur flow cytometer (BD Bioscience). Data were analyzed by using CellQuest software (BD Bioscience).

DTH response

To test the cell-mediated cytotoxicity response, 40 ΅g/mL lysate tumor cells were administered intradermally into the forearm one week after the whole cycle of DC vaccination. A positive DTH skin-test reaction was defined as >5 mm diameter in duration after 48 h.

Treatment

Patients receive one cycle vaccination with a total of three immunizations once a week with tumor lysate pulsed autologous DCs. The vaccine was administered both intradermally (i.d.) 24 points injection of 1.0 Χ 10 7 cells/4 mL near the inguinal region on the bilateral thigh and 1.0 Χ 10 7 cells/100 mL infusion intravenously at the same time. The toxicity and adverse events were mainly evaluated.

Renal function monitoring

The renal functions were tested one week after the whole cycle of DC vaccination. Notable changes in serum creatinine (SCr) level, defined as an increase of ≥0.5 mg/dL for patients with a normal baseline SCr level (i.e., <1.4 mg/dL), an increase of ≥1.0 mg/dL in patients with an abnormal baseline SCr level (i.e., ≥1.4 mg/dL), or a doubling of any SCr level. [25]

Statistic

Statistical package for the social sciences software program (version 8.0) has been used for data analysis. Students t-test has been done. P < 0.05 is considered as a significant difference.


 » Results Top


Characteristics of patients

The characteristics of patients who developed de novo CRC subsequent to transplantation are summarized in [Table 1]. There are 7 patients, 5 were male and 2 were female. The average age was 56.3 ΁ 7.5 years (range:45-63 years) and the average time to develop cancer after kidney transplantation was 9.1 ΁ 3.1 years (range:5-13 years). All 7 patients were received post-transplantation immunosuppressant regimen. None of the 7 patients were suffered rejection prior to or during the treatment of cancer.

Previous treatment

Out of 7 patients 5 patients received primary tumor resection; the other 2 cases with adenocarcinoma confined histologically did not receive primary tumor resection because of the advance of the cancer. Out of the 7 patients, 4 cases had received FOLFOX4 chemotherapy for 3-6 cycles, 2 cases had received oral Xeloda treatment and 1 case had received no adjuvant chemotherapy. 7 cases were all stage 4 CRC, 4/7, 2/7 and 1/7 with metastasis in abdomen, liver and bone, respectively, showed in [Table 1].
Table 1: Clinical data about each patient


Click here to view


Phenotype changes of DC vaccine

The immune Phenotype of DC vaccine was tested by FCM. 8 days after culture, the expressions of the cell surface antigens CD83, CD86 and HLA2DR were increased, CD14 were significantly decreased compare with that of before culture, as shown in [Table 2] (P < 0.05).
ntblTable 2: Pheno type changes of dendritic cells (x±s, N=7)


Click here to view


Clinical outcome and toxicity

All 7 patients received 1 cycle of DC vaccine. The positive cell-mediated cytotoxicity responses to DC vaccine were seen in 4 out of 7 patients. Toxicity of DC vaccine consisted of mild flu-like symptoms. 3 patients had normal body temperature, 3 patients had a fever below 38.1΀C, 1 patient had severed fever 41.0΀C and relieve after 5 mg dexamethasone injection and physical cooling. After the end of the study, the patients have been surveyed for 4.6 ΁ 1.7 months (range:2-7 months), showed in [Table 1].

Function monitoring of graft kidney

In fearing of impairment of graft kidney by the immune stimulating activity, the renal function was monitored. No signs of renal failure during the immunization and no notable decrease of renal function were observed, after the cycle of DC vaccination, showed in [Table 1].


 » Discussion Top


It is well-accepted that the incidence of malignancy is much higher in patients who underwent renal transplantation than in those who did not. Yet, some of the tumors may arise in renal recipients might have already presented at the time of renal transplantation, but not detected, with no relation to renal transplantation. As a general rule, tumors detected within the 1 st year after renal transplantation are considered as pre-existed. In the 7 CRC patients showed in this paper, the onset interval from renal transplantation was at least 5 years. Such patients should be considered as "de novo" group. [9]

It is suggested that de novo CRC transplant recipients have a worse 5-year survival rate than the general population because of long time immunosuppression, which results in a more aggressive tumor biology. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5] CRC patients who underwent renal transplantation usually develop more advanced colon cancer with a worse disease-related survival rate than those who did not undergo renal transplantation. It is supported by the fact that the incidence of tumors is higher in patients treated with immunosuppressants following renal transplantation due to chronic renal failure than in the normal population. The causes for this difference might be explained by the immunological abnormalities induced by immunosuppressants. It indicates that CRC in transplant recipients are biologically more aggressive, thus resulting to a worse prognosis in such patients than in the general population. Immunosuppression should take responsibility for the poor prognosis of CRC patients after renal transplantation. Hence, since a higher degree of morbidity might be encountered, transplantation patients should receive immunotherapy to reconstruct immune function destroyed by long time intake of immunosuppression agent besides standard oncology treatment, including neo-adjuvant therapy, if their general condition is good and the organ graft functions well.

As the knowledge about immune-competences improved, immunotherapy used today, such as DC vaccine, is specific and active. [14],[15],[16] The aim of active specific immunotherapy is to establish a highly selective and potent cellular immune response, specifically directed against the patient's cancer cells. Dendritic cells (DCs) are the most potent antigen presenting cells with an ability to prime both a primary and secondary immune response to tumor cells. Therapeutic cancer DC vaccines developed for CRC have shown benefits in phase III trials by extending the disease-free survival period and overall survival. It is believed that DC vaccines may play an adjuvant role in CRC by consolidating the responses to conventional therapy. [26] In our study, the positive cell-mediated cytotoxicity response to DC vaccine against cancer cell were observed in 4 out of 7 patients without decrease of renal function.

Chemotherapy - the conventional treatments for CRC - are associated with high toxicities and a significant negative effect on patients' quality-of-life. The advanced de novo CRC in renal transplant patients are tend to refused chemotherapy due to their bad general condition and server toxicities of chemotherapy. In contrast to chemotherapy, DC vaccines stimulates the body's immune system and natural resistance to cancer, thus offering a gentler means of cancer treatment that is less damaging to the rest of the body. DC vaccination prompts the immune system to kill residual cancer cells that could result in the cancer recurring.

In our studies, all 7 patients received 1 cycle of DC vaccine. The only uncomfortable are mild flu-like symptoms. Patients exhibited very good compliance. After the end of the study, patients have been surveyed for 2-7 months.

Thus, DC vaccine has emerged as a promising new strategy and an attractive therapeutic option in the treatment of advanced de novo CRC in renal transplant patients, developing immune responses specific against CRC cell, achieving clinical efficacy without graft failure. [27]

 
 » References Top

1.
Levi Z, Hazazi R, Kedar-Barnes I, Hodak E, Gal E, Mor E, et al. Switching from tacrolimus to sirolimus halts the appearance of new sebaceous neoplasms in Muir-Torre syndrome. Am J Transplant 2007;7:476-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Penn I. Posttransplantation de novo tumors in liver allograft recipients. Liver Transpl Surg 1996;2:52-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Goralczyk AD, Schnitzbauer A, Tsui TY, Ramadori G, Lorf T, Obed A. A therapeutic exploratory study to determine the efficacy and safety of calcineurin-inhibitor-free de-novo immunosuppression after liver transplantation: CILT. BMC Surg 2010;10:15.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Féray C, Gigou M, Samuel D, Ducot B, Maisonneuve P, Reynès M, et al. Incidence of hepatitis C in patients receiving different preparations of hepatitis B immunoglobulins after liver transplantation. Ann Intern Med 1998;128:810-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Al-Khader AA. Post transplant malignancy. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2002;13:126-30.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
6.
Joshi K, Jha V. Malignancies following kidney transplantation. J Nephrol Ren Transplant 2009;2:94-105.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Nishihori T, Strazzabosco M, Saif MW. Incidence and management of colorectal cancer in liver transplant recipients. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2008;7:260-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kim JY, Ju MK, Kim MS, Kim NK, Sohn SK, Kim SI, et al. Clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of colorectal cancer in renal transplant recipients in Korea. Yonsei Med J 2011;52:454-62.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Liu HY, Liang XB, Li YP, Feng Y, Liu DB, Wang WD. Treatment of advanced rectal cancer after renal transplantation. World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:2058-60.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Perroud MW Jr, Honma HN, Barbeiro AS, Gilli SC, Almeida MT, Vassallo J, et al. Mature autologous dendritic cell vaccines in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A phase I pilot study. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2011;30:65.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Rao B, Han M, Wang L, Gao X, Huang J, Huang M, et al. Clinical outcomes of active specific immunotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer and suspected minimal residual colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis and system review. J Transl Med 2011;9:17.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Burgdorf SK. Dendritic cell vaccination of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Dan Med Bull 2010;57:B4171.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Lesterhuis WJ, de Vries IJ, Schreibelt G, Lambeck AJ, Aarntzen EH, Jacobs JF, et al. Route of administration modulates the induction of dendritic cell vaccine-induced antigen-specific T cells in advanced melanoma patients. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:5725-35.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Barth RJ Jr, Fisher DA, Wallace PK, Channon JY, Noelle RJ, Gui J, et al. A randomized trial of ex vivo CD40L activation of a dendritic cell vaccine in colorectal cancer patients: Tumor-specific immune responses are associated with improved survival. Clin Cancer Res 2010;16:5548-56.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Jähnisch H, Füssel S, Kiessling A, Wehner R, Zastrow S, Bachmann M, et al. Dendritic cell-based immunotherapy for prostate cancer. Clin Dev Immunol 2010;2010:517493.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kim BR, Yang EK, Kim DY, Kim SH, Moon DC, Lee JH, et al. Generation of anti-tumour immune response using dendritic cells pulsed with carbonic anhydrase IX-Acinetobacter baumannii outer membrane protein A fusion proteins against renal cell carcinoma. Clin Exp Immunol 2012;167:73-83.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Nicol AJ, Tazbirkova A, Nieda M. Comparison of clinical and immunological effects of intravenous and intradermal administration of α-galactosylceramide (KRN7000)-pulsed dendritic cells. Clin Cancer Res 2011;17:5140-51.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Hoos A, Eggermont AM, Janetzki S, Hodi FS, Ibrahim R, Anderson A, et al. Improved endpoints for cancer immunotherapy trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:1388-97.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Kalos M. Biomarkers in T cell therapy clinical trials. J Transl Med 2011;9:138.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.
Morgan RA, Yang JC, Kitano M, Dudley ME, Laurencot CM, Rosenberg SA. Case report of a serious adverse event following the administration of T cells transduced with a chimeric antigen receptor recognizing ERBB2. Mol Ther 2010;18:843-51.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Ma Y, Zhang Z, Tang L, Xu YC, Xie ZM, Gu XF, et al. Cytokine-induced killer cells in the treatment of patients with solid carcinomas: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Cytotherapy 2012;14:483-93.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Liu Y, Zhang W, Zhang B, Yin X, Pang Y. DC vaccine therapy combined concurrently with oral capecitabine in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Hepatogastroenterology 2013;60:23-7.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Yang T, Shao J, Li Q, Yu H, Wang S, Zhang M, et al. Clinical observation on the effect of co-treatment with autologous CIK cells and dendritic cells on advanced solid carcinoma. Tumor 2010;30:700-5.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
González-Carmona MA, Märten A, Hoffmann P, Schneider C, Sievers E, Schmidt-Wolf IG, et al. Patient-derived dendritic cells transduced with an a-fetoprotein-encoding adenovirus and co-cultured with autologous cytokine-induced lymphocytes induce a specific and strong immune response against hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Liver Int 2006;26:369-79.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Berenson J, Hirschberg R. Safety and convenience of a 15-minute infusion of zoledronic acid. Oncologist 2004;9:319-29.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.
Dermime S, Armstrong A, Hawkins RE, Stern PL. Cancer vaccines and immunotherapy. Br Med Bull 2002;62:149-62.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Lesterhuis WJ, de Vries IJ, Schuurhuis DH, Boullart AC, Jacobs JF, de Boer AJ, et al. Vaccination of colorectal cancer patients with CEA-loaded dendritic cells: Antigen-specific T cell responses in DTH skin tests. Ann Oncol 2006;17:974-80.  Back to cited text no. 27
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer
  Online since 1st April '07
  © 2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow