Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘medicine’

Steroids, Inflammation, and CAR-T Therapy [6.3.8] (UPDATED)

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

UPDATED: 08/31/2020 (CRISPR edited CAR-T clinical trials)

Word Cloud by Daniel Menzin

Corticosteroids have been used as anticancer agents since the 1940s, with activity reported in a wide variety of solid tumors, including breast and prostate cancer, and the lymphoid hematologic malignancies. They are commonly found in regimens for acute lymphocytic leukemia, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, myeloma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

A great review on the mechanism of action of prednisone’s antitumoral activity is seen in

Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Neoplasms Lorraine I. McKay, PhD and John A. Cidlowski, PhD. in Holland-Frei Cancer Medicine. 6th edition.

It was first discovered that cortisone caused tumor regression in a transplantable mouse lymphosarcoma,81 a finding soon extended to a wide variety of murine lymphatic tumors. The effects of corticosteroids were also evaluated on many nonendocrine and nonlymphoid transplantable rodent tumors. Pharmacologic doses of steroid inhibited growth of various tumor systems.82 Tissue culture studies confirmed that lymphoid cells were the most sensitive to glucocorticoids, and responded to treatment with decreases in DNA, ribonucleic acid (RNA), and protein synthesis.83 Studies of proliferating human leukemic lymphoblasts supported the hypothesis that glucocorticoids have preferential lymphocytolytic effects. The mechanism of action was initially thought to be caused by impaired energy use via decreased glucose transport and/or phosphorylation; it was later discovered that glucocorticoids induce apoptosis, or programmed cell death, in certain lymphoid cell populations.84,85

–For review on corticosteroids in cancer therapy see more at: http://www.cancernetwork.com/review-article/corticosteroids-advanced-cancer#sthash.IwHbekuI.dpuf

However, as Dana Farber’s Dr. George Canellos, M.D. ponders in Can MOPP be replaced in the treatment of advanced Hodgkin’s disease? Semin Oncol. Canellos GP1. 1990 Feb;17(1 Suppl 2):2-6., many dose-limiting toxicities occur with MOPP (mechlorethamine, vincristine, procarbazine, prednisone) therapy used in advanced Hodgkin’s disease.  Although, at the time, he generally was looking to establish combination therapies with less side effect, the advent of more personalized therapies as well as immunotherapies may indeed replace the older regimens for B-cell malignancies and Hodgkin’s disease, and their panels of toxicities.

Short-term side effects of prednisone (Cancer.gov prednisone description with side effects) as with all glucocorticoids, include high blood glucose levels (especially in patients with diabetes mellitus or on other medications that increase blood glucose, such as tacrolimus) and mineralocorticoid effects such as fluid retention.[10] The mineralocorticoid effects of prednisone are minor, which is why it is not used in the management of adrenal insufficiency, unless a more potent mineralocorticoid is administered concomitantly.

Long-term side effects include Cushing’s syndrome, steroid dementia syndrome, truncal weight gain, osteoporosis, glaucoma and cataracts, type II diabetes mellitus, and depression upon dose reduction or cessation.

Therefore the oncology world has been moving toward therapies which are more selective with less dose-limiting toxicities (e.g. Rituximab), and are looking to CAR-T therapies as a possible replacement for standard chemotherapeutic regimens. However, as with prednisone, there have been serious adverse events in some CAR-T clinical trials. Luckily clinicians, as discussed below, have found supportive therapies to alleviate the most severe side effects to CAR-T.

This section will be refer to supportive therapies as those adjuvant therapy given to alleviate patient discomfort, reduce toxicities and adverse event, or support patient well-being during their course of chemotherapy, not adjuvant therapy to enhance antitumoral effect.

For more background information of CAR-T therapies and related issues please see my previous post

NIH Considers Guidelines for CAR-T therapy: Report from Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee

The following is a brief re-post of some of the important points for reference to this new posting.

1. Evolution of Chimeric Antigen Receptors

Early evidence had suggested that adoptive transfer of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, after depletion of circulating lymphocytes, could result in a clinical response in some tumor patients however developments showed autologous T-cells (obtained from same patient) could be engineered to express tumor-associated antigens (TAA) and replace the TILS in the clinical setting.

A brief history of construction of 2nd and 3rd generation CAR-T cells given by cancer.gov:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/research-updates/2013/CAR-T-Cells

cartdiagrampic

Differences between  second- and third-generation chimeric antigen receptor T cells. (Adapted by permission from the American Association for Cancer Research: Lee, DW et al. The Future Is Now: Chimeric Antigen Receptors as New Targeted Therapies for Childhood Cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 2012;18(10); 2780–90. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1920)

Constructing a CAR T Cell (from cancer.gov)

The first efforts to engineer T cells to be used as a cancer treatment began in the early 1990s. Since then, researchers have learned how to produce T cells that express chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) that recognize specific targets on cancer cells.

The T cells are genetically modified to produce these receptors. To do this, researchers use viral vectors that are stripped of their ability to cause illness but that retain the capacity to integrate into cells’ DNA to deliver the genetic material needed to produce the T-cell receptors.

The second- and third-generation CARs typically consist of a piece of monoclonal antibody, called a single-chain variable fragment (scFv), that resides on the outside of the T-cell membrane and is linked to stimulatory molecules (Co-stim 1 and Co-stim 2) inside the T cell. The scFv portion guides the cell to its target antigen. Once the T cell binds to its target antigen, the stimulatory molecules provide the necessary signals for the T cell to become fully active. In this fully active state, the T cells can more effectively proliferate and attack cancer cells.

2. Consideration for Design of Trials and Mitigating Toxicities

  • Early Toxic effectsCytokine Release Syndrome– The effectiveness of CART therapy has been manifested by release of high levels of cytokines resulting in fever and inflammatory sequelae. One such cytokine, interleukin 6, has been attributed to this side effect and investigators have successfully used an IL6 receptor antagonist, tocilizumab (Acterma™), to alleviate symptoms of cytokine release syndrome (see review Adoptive T-cell therapy: adverse events and safety switches by Siok-Keen Tey).
  • Early Toxic effects – Over-activation of CAR T-cells; mitigation by dose escalation strategy (as authors in reference [3] proposed). Most trials give billions of genetically modified cells to a patient.
  • Late Toxic Effectslong-term depletion of B-cells . For example CART directing against CD19 or CD20 on B cells may deplete the normal population of CD19 or CD20 B-cells over time; possibly managed by IgG supplementation

References

  1. Ertl HC, Zaia J, Rosenberg SA, June CH, Dotti G, Kahn J, Cooper LJ, Corrigan-Curay J, Strome SE: Considerations for the clinical application of chimeric antigen receptor T cells: observations from a recombinant DNA Advisory Committee Symposium held June 15, 2010. Cancer research 2011, 71(9):3175-3181.
  2. 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. Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy 2010, 18(4):843-851.
  3. Kandalaft LE, Powell DJ, Jr., Coukos G: A phase I clinical trial of adoptive transfer of folate receptor-alpha redirected autologous T cells for recurrent ovarian cancer. Journal of translational medicine 2012, 10:157.

3. Case Reports of Adverse Events and Their Amelioration During CAR-T Therapy

CAR-T Therapy have Had reports of Serious Adverse Events

From FierceBiotech UPDATED: Two deaths force MSK to hit the brakes on engineered T cell cancer study

April 6, 2014 | By John Carroll

Safety concerns forced investigators at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center to suspend patient recruitment for an early-stage study of a closely watched approach to reengineering the immune system to fight cancer. Several days ago MSK updated a site on clinicaltrials.gov to note that it was halting recruitment for a small study using T cells reengineered with chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) against CD19-positive B cells for aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma, triggering concerns about the potential fallout at Juno Therapeutics, the biotech formed to commercialize the effort. And Sunday evening representatives for MSK revealed at the meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research in San Diego that the deaths of two patients spurred investigators to rethink the trial protocol on recruitment, revamping the patient profile to account for the threat of comorbidities while adjusting the dose “based on the extent of disease at the time of treatment.”

For more on this story please see

Source: http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/memorial-sloan-kettering-hits-brakes-engineered-t-cell-cancer-study/2014-04-06

Keynote presentation by Carl H. June, recipient of The Richard V. Smalley MD 2013 Award

As reported in 2013 in Highlights and summary of the 28th annual meeting of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer by Paolo A Ascierto1, David H Munn2, Anna K Palucka34 and Paul M Sondel in Journal of ImmunoTherapy of Cancer

Since 2005, SITC honors a luminary in the field who has significantly contributed to the advancement of cancer immunotherapy research by presenting the annual Richard V. Smalley MD Memorial Award, which is associated with the Smalley keynote lecture at the Annual SITC meeting. The awardee this year Carl H. June of the University of Pennsylvania, has led innovative translational research for over 25 years, with the most recent focus being the development of the Chimeric Antigen Receptor modified T-cell (CART) approach. Carl June summarized how the past 15 years of progress have expanded upon the original concept presented by Zelig Eshhar [4], in which variable regions of tumor-reactive monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) (VH and VL) are linked to transmembrane and signaling domains of T cell activating molecules to create membrane based receptors with specificity for the tumor antigen recognized by the original mAb [4]. These receptors can be transfected into T cells, for example with lentiviruses. Pre-clinical work demonstrated how CD3-ζ and 41BB signaling components enhanced proliferation and survival of T cells in hypoxic conditions. The initial clinical work has been done with CART reactive to CD-19 on malignant B cells, with progress particularly in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in adults and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in children [5,6]. As of the SITC meeting, CarlJune’s team had treated 35 patients with CLL and 20 with ALL. Of the 20 with ALL, ½ had relapsed after allogeneic BMT. Of these 20 children, 17 were in complete remission, and with persistent B cell aplasia; documenting the persistent effects of the CART cells. Toxicities included the persistent B cell aplasia and profound tumor lysis and cytokine storm, seen 1–2 weeks into the treatment for ALL. This cytokine storm has been ameliorated by using anti-IL6 mAb. The B cell aplasia, while undesired, is acceptable, as patients can receive passive replacement of IgG, thus making their B cells “expendable”. These CART cells can traffic into the CNS. In ALL patients, it appears that each individual CART cell (or its progeny) can destroy 1000 tumor cells. Ongoing efforts in CarlJune’s program, and at other centers, are now moving into analyses of CART reactive with other tumor targets, by using mAbs that recognize antigens expressed on other tumors. Among these are EGFR on glioblastoma, PSMA on prostate cancer, mesothelin on ovarian cancer, HER2 on breast (and other) cancers, and several other targets. Because some of these targets are also expressed on normal tissues that are “not expendable”, novel approaches are being developed to decrease the potency or longevity of the CART effect, to decrease potential toxicity. This includes generating “short lived” CART cells by inducing CAR expression with short-lived RNA, rather than transfecting with a DNA construct that remains permanently.

In T-Cell Immunotherapy: Looking Forward Molecular Therapy (2014); 22 9, 1564–1574. doi:10.1038/mt.2014.148 many of the leading CAR-T clinicians and investigators reported on some of the adverse events related o CAR-T therapy including

  • 40 severe adverse events (SAE) had been reported from 2010 to 2013.
  • B-cell aplasia
  • Systemic inflammatory release syndrome (CRS) {the most sever toxicity seen}
  • Tumor lysis syndrome
  • CNS toxicity
  • Macrophage activation syndrome

According to the investigators the systemic inflammatory release syndrome (CRS) is the most severe toxicity seen

The most commonly reported adverse event is CRS,49 with about three-quarters of the patients with CRS requiring admission to an intensive care unit. In the case of CAR therapy, the onset of CRS is related to the particular signaling domain in the CAR, with early-onset CRS in the first several days after infusion related to CARs that encode a CD28 signaling domain.4,16 By contrast, CARs encoding a 4-1BB signaling domain tend to have delayed-onset CRS (range, 7 to 50 days) after CAR T-cell infusion.6 CRS has also been reported after the infusion of TCR-modified T cells, with onset typically five to seven days after infusion. The development of CRS is often, but not invariably, associated with clinically beneficial tumor regression. Several cytokines have been reported to be elevated in the serum—most commonly, interferon (IFN)-γ, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and interleukin (IL)-6. Management of CRS has included supportive care, corticosteroids, etanercept, tocilizumab, and alemtuzumab. The role of suicide genes in the management of CRS remains unknown.50

This supportive therapy have now been included in all protocols now and sites are engaged in developing pharmacovigilance protocol development for CAR-T therapy.

UPDATED 08/31/2020

The following articles discuss the use of the CRISPR Cas9 system to improve the efficacy and reduce immune tolerance and rejection of engineered CAR-T therapies and the evolution of the CAR-T therapy in clinical trials for lung cancer and leukemias.

CRISPR-engineered immune cells reach the bedside

UPDATED 10/04/2021 (Advances in CAR-T therapy for solid tumors)

The following contains a curation of the latest advances on CAR-T therapy for solid tumors, which has been a challenge for the field.

NK cells expressing a chimeric activating receptor eliminate MDSCs and rescue impaired CAR-T cell activity against solid tumors

From: Parihar, R., Rivas, C., Huynh, M., Omer, B., Lapteva, N., Metelitsa, L. S., Gottschalk, S. M., & Rooney, C. M. (2019). NK Cells Expressing a Chimeric Activating Receptor Eliminate MDSCs and Rescue Impaired CAR-T Cell Activity against Solid Tumors. Cancer immunology research7(3), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-18-0572

Abstract

Solid tumors are refractory to cellular immunotherapies in part because they contain suppressive immune effectors such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) that inhibit cytotoxic lymphocytes. Strategies to reverse the suppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) should also attract and activate immune effectors with antitumor activity. To address this need, we developed gene-modified natural killer (NK) cells bearing a chimeric receptor in which the activating receptor NKG2D is fused to the cytotoxic ζ-chain of the T-cell receptor (NKG2D.ζ). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells target MDSCs, which overexpress NKG2D ligands within the TME. We examined the ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs in a xenograft TME model and improve the antitumor function of tumor-directed chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-modified T cells. We show that NKG2D.ζ–NK cells are cytotoxic against MDSCs, but spare NKG2D ligand-expressing normal tissues. NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, but not unmodified NK cells, secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in response to MDSCs at the tumor site and improve infiltration and antitumor activity of subsequently infused CAR-T cells, even in tumors for which an immunosuppressive TME is an impediment to treatment. Unlike endogenous NKG2D, NKG2D.ζ is not susceptible to TME-mediated down-modulation and thus maintains its function even within suppressive microenvironments. As clinical confirmation, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells generated from patients with neuroblastoma killed autologous intra-tumoral MDSCs capable of suppressing CAR-T function. A combination therapy for solid tumors that includes both NKG2D.ζ–NK cells and CAR-T cells may improve responses over therapies based on CAR-T cells alone.

INTRODUCTION

T lymphocytes can be engineered to target tumor-associated antigens by forced expression of CARs (). Although successful when directed against leukemia-associated antigens such as CD19 (), CAR-T cell therapy for solid tumors has been less effective, with best responses in patients with minimal disease (). Solid tumors recruit inhibitory cells such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) (). These immature myeloid cells are a component of innate immunity and strengthen the suppressive TME (). The frequency of circulating or intra-tumoral MDSCs correlates with cancer stage, disease progression, and resistance to standard chemo- and radio-therapies (). Hence, MDSCs are worth targeting in the quest to enhance CAR-T cell efficacy against solid tumors.

Natural killer (NK) cells, a lymphoid component of the innate immune system, produce MHC-unrestricted cytotoxicity and secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines (). NK cells also modulate the activity of antigen-presenting myeloid cells within lymphoid organs, and recruit and activate effector T cells at sites of inflammation (). NK cells express NKG2D, a cytotoxicity receptor that is activated by non-classical MHC molecules expressed on cells stressed by events such as DNA damage, hypoxia, or viral infection (). NKG2D ligands are overexpressed on several solid tumors and on tumor-infiltrating MDSCs (). NK cells, therefore, could alter the TME in favor of an antitumor response by eliminating suppressive elements such as MDSCs. However, the NKG2D cytotoxic adapter molecule, DAP10, is downregulated by suppressive molecules of the TME, such as TGFβ (), limiting the antitumor functions of NK cells.

To overcome the repressive effect of the solid TME on NKG2D function, we used a retroviral vector to modify NK cells with a chimeric NKG2D receptor (NKG2D.ζ) comprising the extracellular domain of the native NKG2D molecule fused to the intracellular cytotoxic ζ-chain of the T-cell receptor (). We hypothesized that primary human NK cells expressing NKG2D.ζ (NKG2D.ζ–NK cells) would maintain NKG2D.ζ expression within the suppressive TME, kill NKG2D ligand-expressing MDSCs, secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines, and recruit and activate effector cells, including CAR-T cells, derived from the adaptive immune system. These benefits are not attainable from NK cells expressing the native NKG2D receptor as its functions are down-modulated in the TME. Here we show that when NK cells express NKG2D.ζ, immune suppression is sufficiently countered to enable tumor-specific CAR-T cells to persist within the TME and eradicate otherwise resistant tumors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cytokines, cell lines, and antibodies.

Recombinant human interleukin (IL)2 was obtained from National Cancer Institute Biologic Resources Branch (Frederick, MD). Recombinant human IL6, GM-CSF, IL7, and IL15 were purchased from Peprotech (Rocky Hill, NJ, USA). The human neuroblastoma cell line LAN-1 was purchased from American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA) and cultured in DMEM culture medium supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine (Gibco-BRL) and 10% FBS (Hyclone, Waltham, MA, USA). The human CML cell line K562 was purchased from American Type Culture Collection and cultured in complete-RPMI culture medium composed of RPMI-1640 medium (Hyclone) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine and 10% FBS. A modified version of parental K562 cells, genetically modified to express a membrane-bound version of IL15 and 41BB-ligand, K562-mb15–41BB-L, was kindly provided by Dr. Dario Campana (National University of Singapore). All cell lines were verified by either genetic or flow cytometry-based methods (LAN-1 and K562 authenticated by ATCC in 2009) and tested for mycoplasma contamination monthly via MycoAlert (Lonza) mycoplasma enzyme detection kit (last mycoplastma testing of LAN-1, K562 parental line, and K562-mb15–41BB-L on November 2, 2018; all negative). All cell lines were used within one month of thawing from early-passage (< 3 passages of original vial) lots.

CAR-encoding retroviral vectors.

The construction of the SFG-retroviral vector encoding GD2-CAR.41BB.ζ, as shown in Supplementary Fig. S1A, was previously described (). The SFG-retroviral vector encoding NKG2D.ζ, an internal ribosomal entry site (IRES), and truncated CD19 (tCD19), was generated by sub-cloning NKG2D.ζ from a retroviral vector () kindly provided by Dr. Charles L. Sentman (Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA) into pSFG.IRES.tCD19 (). RD114-speudotyped viral particles were produced by transient transfection in 293T cells, as previously described ().

Expansion and retroviral transduction of human NK and T cells.

Human NK cells were activated, transduced with retroviral constructs (Fig. 1A) and expanded as previously described by our laboratory (). Briefly, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) obtained from healthy donors under Baylor College of Medicine IRB-approved protocols, were cocultured with irradiated (100 Gy) K562-mb15–41BB-L at a 1:10 (NK cell:irradiated tumor cell) ratio in G-Rex® cell culture devices (Wilson Wolf, St. Paul, MN, USA) for 4 days in Stem Cell Growth Medium (CellGenix) supplemented with 10% FBS and 500 IU/mL IL2. Cell suspensions on day 4 (containing 50–70% expanded/activated NK cells) were transduced with SFG-based retroviral vectors, as previously described (). The transduced cell population was then subjected to secondary expansion to generate adequate cell numbers for experiments in G-Rex® devices at the same NK cell:irradiated tumor cell ratio with 100 IU/mL IL2. This 17-day human gene-modified NK cell protocol resulted in > 97% pure CD56+/CD3 NK cell population with avg. 77.4% ± 18.2% (n = 25) of NK cells transduced with the construct of interest. For most experiments, transduced NK cells were purified to > 95% by magnetic column selection of truncated CD19 selection marker-positive cells.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0001.jpg
NKG2D.ζ–NK cells expand and kill ligand-expressing targets.

(A) Schematic of SFG-based retroviral vector constructs for transduction of human NK cells. (B) Human NK cells were expanded as described in Methods and percentage of CD56+/CD3 NK cells at time of retroviral transduction (day 4) is shown. Expanded NK cells (red circle in A) purified via depletion of CD3+ cells were transduced with NKG2D.ζ retroviral vector or empty vector control (referred to as “unmodified”), and transduction efficiencies are shown inset. (C) NKG2D expression on NK cells (MFI, inset) was assessed with isotype antibody as control. Non-transduced NK cells exhibited similar NKG2D expression to empty vector-transduced NK cells. * p = 0.003 vs. unmodified condition. (D) Expression of NKG2D (absolute MFI on y-axis) on NK cells from each donor (n = 25) transduced with either empty vector or NKG2D.ζ construct was determined by flow cytometry. Each pair of data points connected by a line represent cells from a single donor, to confirm surface expression of our chimeric molecule after transduction. Black line with grey block next to each group are mean MFI ± SEM. (E) NKG2D.ζ–NK cell cytotoxicity against K562 and LAN-1 tumor targets in a 4-hour 51Cr-release assay. Given that K562 and LAN-1 are both NK-sensitive targets, low E:T ratios were utilized to observe differences. Experiment is representative of at least three separate determinations from n = 10 donors. * p < 0.01 vs. unmodified NK cells at same E:T ratio. (F) NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were expanded after transduction culture (as shown in schema), and fold-expansion and cytotoxicity both pre- (day 7) and post- (day 17) secondary expansion were determined.

For production of GD2.CAR-T cells (autologous to MDSCs and NK cells), PBMCs from healthy donors were suspended in T-cell medium (TCM) consisting of RPMI-1640 supplemented with 45% Click’s Medium (Gibco-BRL), 10% FBS, and 2 mM L-glutamine, and cultured in wells pre-coated with CD3 (OKT3, CRL-8001, American Type Culture Collection) and CD28 (Clone CD28.2, BD Biosciences) antibodies for activation. Human IL15 and IL7 were added on day +1, and cells underwent retroviral transduction on day +2, as previously described (). T-cells were used for experiments between days +9 to +14 post-transduction, with phenotype as shown in Supplementary Figs. S1BC.

Induction and enrichment of human MDSCs.

Our method for ex vivo generation of human PBMC-derived MDSCs was derived from published reports (), with slight modifications. Briefly, PBMCs were sequentially depleted of CD25hi-expressing cells and CD3-expressing cells by magnetic column separation (Miltenyi Biotec). Resultant CD25lo/−, CD3 PBMCs were plated at 4×106 cells/mL in complete-RPMI medium with human IL6 and GM-CSF (both at 20 ng/mL) onto 12-well culture plates (Sigma Corning) at 1 mL/well. Plates were incubated for 7 days with medium and cytokines being replenished on days 3 and 5. Resultant cells were harvested by gentle scraping and MDSCs were purified by magnetic selection using CD33 magnetic microbeads (Miltenyi Biotec). Cells were analyzed by multi-color flow cytometry for CD33, CD14, CD15, HLA-DR, CD11b, CD83, and CD163 (BD Biosciences). MDSCs were defined as either monocytic (M-MDSCs; CD14+, HLA-DRlow/−), PMN-MDSCs (CD14, CD15+, CD11b+), or early-stage MDSCs (lineage, HLA-DRlow/−, CD33+), as per published guidelines (). In addition to the above markers, MDSCs were stained for PD-L1, PD-L2, and NKG2D ligands via an NKG2D-Fc chimera (BD Biosciences) followed by FITC-labeled anti-Fc. This pan-ligand staining approach was determined to be the most efficient way to assess NKG2D ligand expression on human MDSCs because (1.) NKG2D ligand expression had not previously been reported for human MDSCs and thus simultaneous evaluation of the eight different NKG2D ligands would have been required, and (2.) we found poor reproducibility in staining patterns using individual commercially-available ligand antibodies, even within the same donor.

In vitro T-cell suppression assay.

T-cell proliferation was assessed using Cell Trace Violet (Thermo Fisher) dye dilution analysis, as per manufacturer’s recommendations. Briefly, 1×105 Cell Trace Violet-labeled T cells (isolated at the time of MDSC generation) were plated onto 96-well plates in the presence of plate-bound 1 μg/mL CD3 and 1 μg/mL CD28 antibodies with 50 IU/mL IL2 in the absence or presence of autologous MDSCs or peripheral blood monocytes (as a myeloid cell control) at 1:1, 4:1 and 8:1 T cell:MDSC ratios. In some experiments, only the 4:1 ratio is shown as this was determined as optimal for assessment of suppression. After 4 days of coculture, T cells were labeled with CD3 antibody and assessed for cell division using Cell Trace Violet dye dilution by flow cytometry. Percent suppression was calculated as follows: [(% proliferating T cells in the absence of MDSCs – % proliferating T cells in presence of MDSCs)/% proliferating T cells in the absence of MDSCs] x 100. Proliferation was defined as % T cells undergoing active division as represented by Cell Trace Violet dilution peaks, as previously described ().

In vitro CAR-T chemotaxis assay.

Transwell 5-μm pore inserts (Corning, Somerset, NJ) for migration experiments were prepared by coating with 0.01% gelatin at 37 °C overnight, followed by 3 μg of human fibronectin (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY) at 37 °C for 3 hours to mimic endothelial and extracellular matrix components, as previously described (). Briefly, 2×105 purified GD2.CAR-T cells were placed in 100 μL of TCM in the upper chambers of the pre-coated Transwell inserts that were then transferred into wells of a 24-well plate. Culture supernatants (400 μL) from NKG2D.ζ or unmodified NK cells cultured with autologous MDSCs or monocytes, were placed in the lower chambers of the wells. Plain medium or medium supplemented with 1 μg/mL of the T-cell recruiting chemokine, MIG, served as negative and positive controls, respectively. The plates were then incubated for 4 hours at 37 °C with 5% CO2, followed by a 10-minute incubation at 4 °C to loosen any cells adhering to the undersides of the insert membranes. The fluid in the lower chambers was collected separately and migrated cells were counted using trypan blue exclusion. The cells were analyzed for CAR expression by flow cytometry to confirm phenotype of migrated T cells.

In vivo tumor microenvironment model.

12–16 week old female NSG mice were implanted subcutaneously in the dorsal right flank with 1×106 Firefly luciferase(FfLuc)-expressing LAN-1 neuroblastoma cells admixed with 3×105 ex vivo-generated MDSCs, suspended in 100 μL of basement membrane Matrigel (Corning). Matrigel basement membrane was important in keeping tumor and MDSCs confined so as to establish a localized solid TME. 10–14 days later, when tumors measured at least 100 mm3 by caliper measurement, mice were injected intravenously with 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells. Tumor growth was measured twice weekly by live bioluminescence imaging using the IVIS® system (IVIS, Xenogen Corporation) 10 minutes after 150 mg/kg D-luciferin (Xenogen)/mouse was injected intraperitoneally. In experiments examining the ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to reduce intra-tumoral MDSCs, 1×107 unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were injected intravenously when tumors measured at least 100 mm3. At end of experiment, tumors were harvested en bloc, digested ex vivo, and intra-tumoral human MDSCs (CD33+, HLA-DRlow cells) were enumerated by flow cytometry. The absolute number of human MDSCs within a tumor digest was enumerated per mouse (n = 5 mice/group), compared to pre-treatment MDSC numbers, and presented as mean % MDSCs remaining per treatment group. In experiments examining the effects of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells on GD2.CAR-T cell antitumor activity, 5×106 (cell dose chosen to mitigate direct antitumor effects of NK cells) unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were injected intravenously 3 days prior to GD2.CAR-T injection. In GD2.CAR-T cell homing experiments, CAR-T were transduced with GFP-luciferase retroviral construct prior to injection into mice bearing unmodified tumor cells (). Mice received 5000 IU human IL2 intraperitoneally three times per week for 3 weeks following NK cell injection to promote NK cell survival in NSG mice (). Tumor size was measured twice weekly with calipers and the mice were imaged for bioluminescence signal from T cells at the same time. Mice were euthanized for excessive tumor burden, as per protocol guidelines. The animal studies protocol was approved by Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and mice were treated in strict accordance with the institutional guidelines for animal care.

Immunohistochemistry of neuroblastoma xenografts.

On day 32 of in vivo experiments, animals were sacrificed, tumors were harvested and sectioned bluntly ex vivo to separate tumor periphery (outer 1/3 of tumor volume) vs. core (non-necrotic inner 2/3 of tumor volume), and n = 5 sections/tumor sample were analyzed for presence of GD2.CAR-T and NKG2D.ζ–NK cells by H&E and human CD3 and CD57 immunostaining performed by the Human Tissue Acquisition and Pathology Core of Baylor College of Medicine. Lack of CD57 expression on infused GD2.CAR-T was confirmed by flow cytometry prior to administration. CD57 was chosen as the marker for NK cells in tumor tissue in our study because LAN-1 tumors naturally express the prototypical NK marker CD56, truncated CD19 expression was inadequate for in situ staining, and CD57 had previously been used as a marker for tissue-localized activated NK cells (). The number of human CD3+ and CD57+ cells in representative sections of tumors from periphery vs. core of the treatment groups indicated were enumerated per high-powered field (HPF) at 40x magnification and percent of the total number of cells enumerated within tumors found in the periphery vs. core in each treatment group indicated from tumors with and without MDSCs is shown as mean ± SEM of n = 5 sections/periphery or core, n = 5 tumors/group.

Analysis of intra-tumoral MDSCs from patients with neuroblastoma.

Tumor tissue and matched peripheral blood of neuroblastoma patients obtained in the context of a specimen/laboratory study after patient identification had been removed were thawed and analyzed for MDSC subsets by flow cytometry or utilized in in vitro assays, as described in legends or Results. The tissue acquisition protocol was performed after review and approval by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Briefly, subjects with a diagnosis of high-risk or intermediate-risk neuroblastoma were eligible to participate. Written informed consent, or appropriate assent for participation, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki was obtained from each subject or subject’s guardian for procurement of patient blood and tumor tissue and for subsequent analyses of stored patient materials.

Statistics.

Data are presented as mean ± SEM of either experimental replicates or number of donors, as indicated. Paired two-tailed t-test was used to determine significance of differences between means with p < 0.05 indicating a significant difference. For in vivo bioluminescence, changes in tumor radiance from baseline at each time point were calculated and compared between groups using two-sample t-test. Multiple group comparisons were conducted via ANOVA via GraphPad Prism v7 software. Survival determined from the time of tumor cell injection was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier and differences in survival between groups were compared by the log-rank test.

RESULTS

NKG2D.ζ NK cells expand and have cytotoxicity against target cells.

To increase killing of NKG2D ligand-expressing MDSCs, we generated primary human NK cells stably expressing NKG2D.ζ and a truncated CD19 (tCD19) marker from a retroviral vector (Fig. 1A). NK cells were expanded from PBMCs obtained from normal donors, transduced with retroviral construct expressing chimeric NKG2D, then cultured for 3 additional days. Transduction efficiency, as measured by the expression of tCD19 on CD56+CD3 NK cells after the additional 3 days, was 71.3 ± 16% (n = 25 normal donors) and produced a 5.4 ± 1.1-fold increase in NKG2D expression on the NK cell surface (Fig. 1BD). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells showed greater cytotoxicity (79.2 ± 5.6%, n = 10 normal donors) against wild-type K562, a highly NK cell-sensitive tumor cell line that naturally expresses NKG2D ligands, than mock vector-transduced (hereafter referred to as, unmodified) NK cells (40.5 ± 2.1%) at 2:1 E:T ratio in a 4-hr cytotoxicity assay (Fig. 1E). In contrast, transgenic NKG2D.ζ expression did not increase NK cell killing of LAN-1 neuroblastoma cells that are marginally NK-sensitive, but lack NKG2D ligands. To determine if in vitro expansion affected the cytotoxic function of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, we secondarily expanded NKG2D.ζ–NK cells for an additional 10-days (Fig. 1F schema). As seen in Fig. 1F, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells expanded (120 ± 7.3-fold by day 17 of culture; n = 10 donors) similarly to unmodified and non-transduced NK cells and maintained stable cytotoxic function between days 7 and 17 of expansion. Thus, we generated and expanded high numbers of primary human NKG2D.ζ-expressing NK cells capable of cytotoxicity against ligand-expressing targets, even after prolonged culture.

Transgenic NKG2D.ζ is unaffected by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands.

Expression of the native NKG2D receptor on NK cells is down-modulated by tumor-derived TGFβ and soluble NKG2D ligands, both of which are abundant in the TME () and likely impair NK cell function in solid tumors. To determine the effect of TGFβ and soluble NKG2D ligands on NKG2D.ζ receptor expression and function, we cultured NKG2D.ζ–NK cells in the presence of TGFβ or the soluble NKG2D ligands, MICA and MICB, and examined NKG2D expression and NK cytotoxicity after 24-, 48-, and 72-hours. After exposure to TGFβ or soluble MICA/B, unmodified NK cells significantly down-regulated NKG2D (MFI of 25 vs. 95 in non-exposed NK cells at 48 hours) and were less cytotoxic (20 ± 5.1% killing vs. 40 ± 3.7% killing by non-exposed NK cells at 48 hours) to NKG2D ligand-expressing K562 targets (Fig. 2A,B).B). In contrast, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells maintained NKG2D expression and cytotoxicity after exposure to the same concentrations of TGFβ and soluble MICA/B (Fig. 2C,D).D). This lack of sensitivity to down-regulation by these tumor-associated components should benefit the function of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells within the TME.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0002.jpg
Transgenic NKG2D.ζ is unaffected by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands.

NKG2D.ζ or unmodified NK cells (n = 5 donors) were cultured in the presence of TGFβ (5 ng/mL) (A, B) or the soluble NKG2D ligands MICA and MICB (C, D) for 24-, 48-, and 72-hours. NKG2D receptor expression was determined by flow cytometry and NK cytotoxicity against K562 targets was assessed in a 4-hr Cr-release assay at an 5:1 E:T ratio using 48-hr exposed NK cells. Viability of transduced NK cells after exposure to TGFβ for 24, 48, and 72 hours, as assessed by 7-AAD vital staining, was > 90%. * p = 0.001 vs. non-TGFβ/MICA-treated NK groups at same time-points.

Human MDSCs express NKG2D ligands and are killed by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells.

To study the effects of human NK cells on autologous MDSCs, we generated human MDSCs by culture of CD3-/CD25lo PBMC with IL6 plus GM-CSF for 7 days, followed by CD33+ selection, as described in the Methods. The phenotypic characterization of these MDSCs and confirmation of their suppressive capacity is shown in Supplementary Fig. S2. Routinely, our ex vivo-generated MDSCs contained monocytic (M)-MDSC and early(e)-MDSC subsets, with few (avg. < 1%) polymorphonuclear (PMN)-MDSCs (Supplementary Fig. S2A), roughly reflecting the subset composition reported in patients with solid tumors (). The MDSCs expressed the suppressive factors TGFβ, IL6, IL10, and PDL-1 in amounts often greater than tumor cells (Supplementary Figs. S2BC), and suppressed proliferation and cytokine secretion by autologous T cells stimulated with plate-bound CD3/CD28 antibodies (Supplementary Figs. S2DE) and by 2nd generation GD2.CAR-T cells encoding 4–1BB and CD3-ζ endodomains stimulated with the GD2+ tumor line LAN-1 (Supplementary Figs. S2FG). As seen in Fig. 3A, MDSCs expressed as much or more NKG2D ligand than the positive control tumor line, K562 (ligand MFI of 78.2 vs. 29.7, respectively). Freshly isolated peripheral blood T cells did not express NKG2D ligands, whereas immature and mature dendritic cells expressed little, consistent with previous data (). The neuroblastoma cell line, LAN-1, subsequently used in our in vivo TME model, did not express NKG2D ligands.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0003.jpg
Human MDSCs express ligands for NKG2D and are killed by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells.

(A) NKG2D ligand expression on human MDSCs by flow cytometry. Immature dendritic cells (iDC) and mature DCs (mDC) were used as myeloid controls. T cells activated with CD3 and CD28 mAbs plus 100 IU/mL IL2 for 24 hours were used as lymphocyte control. LAN-1 and K562 cells were used as negative and positive controls, respectively. MFI of NKG2D ligand expression in parenthesis. Representative data from single donor (of n = 25 normal donors). Isotype control for NKG2D staining routinely fell within the 1st log. (B) NKG2D.ζ–NK cell cytotoxicity against autologous MDSCs as targets in a 4-hour 51Cr-release assay. In some wells of the cytotoxicity assay, a blocking mAb to NKG2D was added. Representative data from triplicate samples per data point from a single donor (of n = 25 normal donors) is shown. * p < 0.01 vs. unmodified NK cells at same E:T ratio. (C) In the same experiment as (B), the same batch of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were analyzed for cytotoxicity against autologous B cells, monocytes, monocyte-derived iDC and mDC, and activated T cells (n = 10 donors examined). (D) M-MDSC frequency by flow cytometry from neuroblastoma tumor samples obtained from high-risk patients, as described in Methods. (E) Cytotoxicity by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells derived from patient PBMC (harvested and frozen at time of tumor sampling) against autologous tumor-derived MDSCs in a 4-hour 51Cr-release assay. Data shown are from triplicate samples per data point at a 10:1 E:T ratio. * p < 0.001 vs. unmodified NK cells from same donor. (F) NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were cocultured with autologous MDSCs at 1:1 ratio plus low-dose 50 IU/mL IL2 to maintain NK survival, and fold change in the number of each cell type from the start of coculture was determined by flow cytometry at indicated time-points. * p < 0.001 vs. NK/MDSC fold-change in unmodified NK cell cocultures. (G) Cell-free supernatants were harvested from cocultures at day 3 and analyzed for IFNγ, TNFα, IL6, and IL10 by ELISA. # p < 0.01 vs. corresponding cytokine in cocultures with unmodified NK cells. (H) NKG2D ligand expression was determined for activated T cells (ATCs) expressing NKG2D.ζ and NKG2D.ζ–NK cells. Expression of NKG2D ligands on non-transduced ATCs as control for T-cell activation. (I) NKG2D.ζ–NK cells or NKG2D.ζ T cells were cocultured with autologous ATCs at 1:1 ratio and fold change in the number of each cell type from the start of coculture was determined by flow cytometry at indicated time-points. * p < 0.001 vs. ATC fold-change at days 0 and 3 cocultures.

To evaluate MDSC susceptibility to killing by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, we performed both short- and long-term killing assays. Fig. 3B shows enhanced killing of MDSCs by autologous NKG2D.ζ–NK cells compared to unmodified NK cells (35 ± 5.5% vs. 8 ± 2.4% cytotoxicity, respectively, at an E:T ratio of 5:1) in a 4-hr chromium-release assay. MDSC killing was dependent on NKG2D, as pre-incubation with an NKG2D blocking Ab reduced the cytotoxicity to levels achieved by unmodified NK cells. NKG2D.ζ–NK cells mediated no cytotoxicity against other autologous immune cells such as freshly-isolated monocytes, monocyte-derived mature dendritic cells, T cells, or B cells (Fig. 3C). Only immature dendritic cells, which expressed little NKG2D ligand (approx. 7% of cells; MFI 11.4), were mildly susceptible to lysis by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (4.2 ± 1.7 % lysis at an E:T ratio of 20:1). As confirmation of the clinical applicability of our approach, we assessed whether NKG2D.ζ–NK cells generated from patient PBMCs were able to kill highly suppressive MDSCs isolated from the patient’s tumor. Tumor samples obtained from two patients with high-risk neuroblastoma at time of first biopsy/resection contained M-MDSCs (Fig. 3D). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells generated from patient PBMCs (harvested and frozen at time of tumor sampling) mediated significant cytotoxicity in vitro against M-MDSCs purified from patient tumors, whereas unmodified patient NK cells did not (Fig. 3E). These results provide further clinical evidence for the capacity of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs in patients with suppressive TMEs.

To determine whether NKG2D.ζ–NK cells could control MDSC survival in long-term cultures, we cocultured NKG2D.ζ–NK cells with autologous MDSCs at a 1:1 ratio for 7 days in the presence of low-dose IL2 to maintain NK survival, and quantified each cell type by flow cytometry every two days. As shown in Fig. 3F, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells expanded in cocultures (mean 9.5 ± 0.7-fold increase) with a concomitant reduction in MDSCs (mean 81.3 ± 9.4-fold decrease), whereas unmodified NK cells failed to expand or eliminate MDSCs. NK cells cultured alone or with autologous monocyte controls did not expand (0.8 ± 0.1-fold change). As seen in Fig. 3G, NK cell expansion and MDSC reduction correlated with a shift in the culture cytokine milieu from one that is immune suppressive (more IL6 and IL10; less IFN-γ and TNF-α) in cocultures containing unmodified NK cells, to one that is immune stimulatory and enhances CAR-T antitumor function (less IL6 and IL10; more IFN-γ and TNF-α) in cocultures containing NKG2D.ζ–NK cells. Hence, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells mediate potent cytotoxicity against suppressive MDSCs via their highly expressed NKG2D ligands. In addition, through selective depletion of MDSCs in combination with immune stimulatory cytokine secretion, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells skew the cytokine microenvironment to one that can support CAR-T effector functions ().

Previous studies have reported that expression of chimeric NKG2D constructs in T lymphocytes can direct these cells to target NKG2D ligand-expressing tumors (). However, activated T cells (ATCs) themselves upregulate NKG2D ligands (), with variable ligand expression intensity dependent on the T-cell activation protocol employed, leading to fratricide when the chimeric NKG2D is expressed. To determine if this off-tumor side-effect occurred when the same NKG2D.ζ was expressed in NK cells, we compared the killing of ATCs by autologous NK cells or by autologous T cells expressing our NKG2D.ζ transgene. ATCs and NKG2Dζ.-T cells both upregulated NKG2D ligands during ex vivo expansion with CD3/CD28 antibodies plus IL7 and IL15, whereas NKG2D.ζ-transduced NK cells undergoing expansion in our K562-mb15–41BB-L culture system did not (Fig. 3H). Coculture without additional stimulation of NKG2D.ζ-T cells with autologous ATCs produced fratricide, of both the NKG2D.ζ effector T cells (35 ± 7.2% decrease in cell number) and the non-transduced ATC targets (98 ± 11.5% decrease in cell number) (n = 3). By contrast, ATC numbers were unaffected by coculture with autologous NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (Fig. 3I). These results show that NK cells expressing NKG2D.ζ can kill autologous MDSCs while sparing other NKG2D ligand expressing populations, thus avoiding the fratricide seen with NKG2D.ζ-expressing T cells.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells eliminate intra-tumoral MDSCs and reduce tumor burden.

To determine if NKG2D.ζ–NK cells could eliminate MDSCs from tumor sites in vivo, we created an MDSC-containing TME in a xenograft model of neuroblastoma. We chose NKG2D ligand-negative LAN-1 tumor for this experiment so that the effects of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells on MDSCs were not confused with their effects on the tumor cells. LAN-1 tumor cells admixed with human MDSCs were inoculated subcutaneously in NSG mice. These animals had increases in the suppressive cytokines IL10 (10-fold vs. tumor alone) and TGFβ (2.6-fold vs. tumor alone) in circulation by day 16 as compared to animals bearing tumors initiated without MDSCs, and the resultant tumors grew more rapidly due to increased neovascularization and tumor-associated stroma (Supplementary Fig. S3AD), consistent with clinical reports of MDSC-dense tumors (). As seen in Fig. 4A, in mice bearing NKG2D ligand-negative tumors without MDSCs, a single infusion of 1×107 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells resulted in a small delay in tumor growth but eventual progression, suggesting that the LAN-1 tumor itself (a marginally NK-sensitive target) can be killed at higher NK cell doses independent of NKG2D ligand expression. In mice bearing MDSC-containing tumors, 1×107 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells inhibited tumor growth (Fig. 4B), reduced NKG2D ligand-expressing intra-tumoral MDSCs with only 8.7 ± 3.5% of the input MDSCs remaining (Fig. 4C), and prolonged mouse survival (median survival of 73 days vs. 29 days after unmodified NK cells; Fig. 4D). Since LAN-1 tumor cells do not express NKG2D ligands and are only marginally sensitive to ligand-independent lysis, tumors subsequently regrew in these mice once the NKG2D.ζ–NK cells had disappeared (> day 40). Thus, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells can traffic to tumor sites and reduce intra-tumoral MDSCs but cannot themselves eradicate NKG2D ligand-negative malignant cells in our model.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0004.jpg
NKG2D.ζ–NK cells eliminate intra-tumoral MDSCs and reduce tumor burden.

LAN-1 tumor cells, either alone (A) or admixed with human MDSCs (B), were injected S.C. in the flanks of NSG mice. When tumors reached a volume of approx. 100 mm3 (day 14, gray block arrow inset), no NK cells (PBS control), 1×107 unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were injected I.V. and tumor growth was measured over time via calipers. * p < 0.03 vs. other conditions shown at same time point. (C) On day 26, intra-tumoral human MDSCs (CD33+, HLA-DRlow) were enumerated by flow cytometry and are presented as mean % MDSCs remaining per treatment group. ** p < 0.005 vs. unmodified NK treatment. (D) Survival of groups by Kaplan-Meyer analysis. # p = 0.024. Representative experiment of three performed.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete chemokines that recruit GD2.CAR-T cells.

To determine if NKG2D.ζ–NK cells can recruit T cells modified with a tumor-specific CAR to tumor sites containing MDSCs, we cocultured NKG2D.ζ–NK cells with autologous MDSCs and analyzed culture supernatants for chemokines by multiplex ELISA. Compared to unmodified NK cells, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells produce significantly greater CCL5 (RANTES; 10-fold increase), CCL3 (MIP-1α; 2-fold increase), and CCL22 (MDC; 5-fold increase) in response to autologous MDSCs (Fig. 5A). Large amounts of CXCL8 (IL8) were also produced, but there was no significant difference from the production by unmodified NK cells. Analysis of chemokine receptor expression on 2nd generation GD2.CAR-T cells revealed CXCR1 (binds CXCL8), CCR2 (binds CCL2), CCR5 (binds CCL3), and CCR4 (binds CCL5) (see Supplementary Fig. S1C). These GD2.CAR-T cells were assayed for chemotaxis to supernatants derived from unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells cocultured with autologous MDSCs. Supernatants from NKG2D.ζ–NK cell-containing cocultures induced chemotaxis of 41.1 ± 5.5% of GD2.CAR-T cells (Fig. 5B), whereas supernatants from unmodified NK cells induced chemotaxis no greater than produced by medium (14.9 ± 6.4% vs. 17.3 ± 1.9%, respectively). Chemotaxis was not induced by supernatants from unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells cocultured with monocytes. Thus, following their encounter with MDSCs, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete chemokines that recruit CAR-Ts in vitro.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0005.jpg
NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete chemokines that recruit GD2.CAR-T cells.

(A) NKG2D.ζ or unmodified NK cells were cocultured with autologous MDSCs and cell-free culture supernatants harvested at 48 hours were analyzed for chemokines CXCL8, CCL5, CCL3, and CCL22 by ELISA. Shown are mean chemokine concentration ± SEM for n = 5 cocultures/donor (data from one of five representative donors is shown). * p < 0.005 vs. unmodified NK cocultures. (B) GD2.CAR-T cells were assayed for chemotaxis in Transwells (described in Methods) in response to supernatants derived from unmodified or NKG2D.ζ–NK cells cocultured with autologous MDSCs. Supernatants derived from monocyte (non-suppressive myeloid cell control)-stimulated NK cells were also used. # p < 0.001 vs. Medium, ** p = 0.009 vs. “unmodified NK plus MDSCs” condition. (C) LAN-1 tumor cells, alone or admixed with human MDSCs, were injected S.C. into the flank of NSG mice. When tumors reached a volume ~100 mm3, 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells were injected I.V. alone on day 13 (GD2.CAR-T), or preceded by 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells I.V. injected on day 10 (chNK + GD2.CAR-T). GD2.CAR-T signal at tumor site was measured over time via live-animal bioluminescence imaging. (D) Shown is mean ± SEM (n=5 mice/group) bioluminescent signal of GD2.CAR-T cells expressed as radiance. * p = 0.01 vs. all other groups.

NKG2D.ζ NK cells improve GD2.CAR-T cell trafficking to tumor sites.

To determine the effects of the MDSC-induced, NKG2D.ζ–NK cell chemokines on CAR-T cell recruitment in vivo, we used our MDSC-containing TME xenograft model (see Fig. 4). When tumors reached a volume of ~100 mm3 (day 10), 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were infused, followed three days later (day 13) by infusion of 5×106 luciferase gene-transduced GD2.CAR-T cells. Tumor localization and expansion of GD2.CAR-T cells was measured over time via live-animal bioluminescence imaging. As seen in Fig. 5C, GD2.CAR-T cells injected alone on day 13 after tumor inoculation (without pre-administration of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells) into mice bearing tumors devoid of MDSCs localized effectively to subcutaneous tumors in the flank (4 of 5 mice showed bioluminescent signal on days 14 and 18; Fig. 5C). There was a 10.5 ± 0.8-fold increase in bioluminescent signal on day 18, with CAR-T cell bioluminescence remaining above baseline levels for the duration of the experiment (Fig. 5D). However, in tumors containing MDSCs, CAR-T cells localized poorly: only 1 of 5 mice exhibited bioluminescent signal (Fig. 5C), with only a 1.02 ± 0.1-fold increase in bioluminescent signal on day 18 and bioluminescence falling below pre-infusion levels within 10 days after injection (Fig. 5D). In contrast, pre-administration of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells on day 10 into mice bearing MDSC-containing tumors allowed subsequently infused GD2.CAR-T cells to localize effectively to tumor sites, with bioluminescence in 5 of 5 mice at the tumor site and a 10.9 ± 0.2-fold increase in bioluminescent signal on day 18, within 5 days of injection (Fig. 5D).

To determine if NKG2D.ζ–NK cells could promote GD2.CAR-T infiltration into the tumor bed, we compared the frequency of human GD2.CAR-T and human NK cells in the tumor periphery and the tumor core by immunohistochemistry (Supplementary Fig. S4AB). In tumors without MDSCs, 89 ± 11% of the total T cells in the tumor had infiltrated into the tumor core. In contrast, a much smaller fraction (39 ± 16%) infiltrated into the core of tumors containing MDSCs, suggesting TME suppression of CAR-T infiltration. However, pre-treatment of tumors containing MDSCs with NKG2D.ζ–NK cells increased the fraction of intra-tumoral CAR-T cells (70 ± 13%) within the tumor core. Equal numbers of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells were observed within both peripheral and core samples from MDSC-positive and MDSC-negative tumors (Supplementary Fig. S5), suggesting the ability of NK cells to traffic well within tumors despite the presence of MDSCs.

Elimination of MDSCs increases antitumor activity of GD2.CAR-T cells.

To determine if the activities of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells described above enhance the antitumor function of CAR-T cells, we treated mice bearing subcutaneous, luciferase-labeled neuroblastoma containing MDSCs with GD2.CAR-T cells preceded by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells, in a similar set-up to experiments in Fig. 5C. As seen in Fig. 6AB, a single injection of 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (a dose that achieved intra-tumoral MDSC depletion with only 26.8 ± 5.8% of the input MDSCs remaining) resulted in no significant tumor regression or prolongation of survival in mice bearing xenografts containing human MDSCs. A single infusion of 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells significantly reduced tumor in mice whose xenografts lacked human MDSCs with a median survival of 95 days (Fig. 6CD). However, the same GD2.CAR-T cells were ineffective against xenografts containing human MDSCs, worsening overall median survival to 39 days (Fig. 6B). In contrast, when the same GD2.CAR-T cell injection was preceded 3 days earlier by a single injection of 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells (that had no direct antitumor effect by themselves within the other arm of the same experiment, see Fig. 6AB), the antitumor activity of the GD2.CAR-T cells in mice bearing MDSC-containing tumors was restored to the level observed in mice whose tumors lacked MDSCs (Fig. 6C). NKG2D.ζ–NK cells pre-injection also improved the overall survival of the mice with MDSC-containing tumors to a median 120 days with durable cure in 2 of 5 mice (Fig. 6D). Taken together, our results suggest that NKG2D.ζ–NK cells not only eliminate MDSCs from the TME, but also recruit CAR-T cells to intra-tumoral sites which facilitates antitumor efficacy.

 
An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-1668836-f0006.jpg
Elimination of MDSCs by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells increases antitumor activity of GD2.CAR-T cells.

Luciferase gene-transduced LAN-1 tumor cells, alone or admixed with human MDSCs, were injected S.C. into NSG mice. (A) When tumors reached a volume ~100 mm3, no treatment (No Tx; PBS control) or 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells alone (chNK) were injected I.V. on day 10 and tumor growth was measured over time via live-animal bioluminescence imaging. Shown is mean ± SEM (n=5 mice/group) bioluminescent signal expressed as radiance. # ns, p = 0.18 vs. No treatment (+MDSC) group. (B) Survival of groups in A was determined by Kaplan-Meyer analysis. # ns, p = 0.059. (C) In other groups of mice within the same experiment, 5×106 GD2.CAR-T cells were injected I.V. alone on day 13 (GD2.CAR-T), or preceded by 5×106 NKG2D.ζ–NK cells injected on day 10 (chNK+GD2.CAR-T). * p = 0.001; # ns, p = 0.59 vs. each other. (D) Survival of groups in C by Kaplan-Meyer analysis. Representative experiment of 5 separate experiments. * p = 0.002; ** p = 0.001.

DISCUSSION

We have developed a TME-disrupting approach that eliminates MDSCs and rescues MDSC-mediated impairment of tumor-directed CAR-T cells. We show that when co-implanted with a neuroblastoma cell line, human MDSCs both enhance tumor growth and suppress the infiltration, expansion, and antitumor efficacy of tumor-specific CAR T-cells. In this model, NK cells bearing a chimeric version of the activating receptor NKG2D (NKG2D.ζ–NK cells) are directly cytotoxic to autologous MDSCs, thus eliminating MDSCs from tumors. In addition, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines in response to MDSCs at the tumor site, improving CAR-T cell infiltration and function, and resulting in tumor regression and prolonged survival compared to treatment with CAR-T cells alone. Our cell therapy approach utilizes an engineered innate immune effector that targets the TME, and shows potential to enhance efficacy of combination immune-based therapies for solid tumors.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells directly killed highly suppressive MDSCs generated in vitro as well as those from patient tumors. NKG2D.ζ–NK cells also secreted cytokines that favored immune activation in response to MDSCs. Unmodified NK cells were unable to mediate these effects. The ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs from the TME should have several beneficial effects for antitumor immunity. First, as MDSCs express suppressive cytokines such as TGFβ and the checkpoint ligands PDL-1 and PDL-2, elimination of MDSCs should help relieve the suppression of endogenous T cell responses and potentiate the activity of adoptive T cell therapies. Given that high baseline numbers of MDSCs have been reported as a biomarker of poor response in the context of trials with the checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and pembrolizumab (), elimination of MDSCs by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells may also enhance checkpoint inhibition. Second, elimination of MDSCs should also decrease other MDSC-associated effects, including neovascularization via their expression of VEGF, production of immunosuppressive metabolic products such as PGE2 and adenosine, and establishment of tumor-supportive stroma via their expression of iNOS, FGF, and matrix metalloproteinases (). In short, the ability of NKG2D.ζ–NK cells to eliminate MDSCs alters the tumor microenvironment in multiple ways that should improve antitumor immunity.

Previous strategies for modulation of MDSCs within the TME have included use of agents that block single functions such as secretion of nitric oxide () or expression of checkpoint molecules (); induce MDSC differentiation such as with all-trans retinoic acid (); or eliminate MDSCs such as with the cytotoxic agents doxorubicin or cyclophosphamide (). The MDSC eliminating effects were dependent on continued administration of the agents, with a rapid rebound in MDSCs after discontinuation. Moreover, many of these agents have off-target toxicities that include damage to endogenous tumor-specific T cells. In contrast, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells produce prolonged and specific elimination of MDSCs with the potential to kill MDSCs that are recruited to the tumor from the bone marrow, while continually secreting cytokines and chemokines which respectively alter TME suppression and recruit and activate tumor-specific T cells. Thus, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells exert a prolonged combination of simultaneous immune modulatory effects that enhance antitumor immune function in ways that could not be achieved by previous methods that target MDSCs.

We observed no toxicity against normal hematopoietic cells when NKG2D.ζ was expressed in autologous human NK cells. Previous studies overexpressing an NKG2D.ζ receptor containing co-stimulatory endodomains (e.g., CD28 or 41BB) and DAP10, a signaling adaptor molecule for enhanced surface expression of NKG2D, in T cells showed activity against NKG2D ligand-overexpressing tumors, but at the cost of fratricide in vitro and lethal toxicity in mice (). Using our standard T-cell activation/expansion protocol (), we also observed upregulation of NKG2D ligands, leading to fratricide in T cells expressing NKG2D.ζ. When NKG2D.ζ-T cells engage NKG2D ligands expressed on normal tissues, they will not receive the physiologic NK cell-directed inhibitory inputs that would safely regulate this potent and unopposed chimeric receptor activity. By contrast, when NKG2D.ζ is expressed on NK cells, they are able to recognize inhibitory NK cell ligands such as self-MHC expressed on healthy self-tissues, counteracting otherwise unopposed positive signals from NKG2D ligands. Thus, an NK cell platform for NKG2D enhancement may limit toxicity while taking advantage of the cytotoxic and immune modulatory potential of the receptor-ligand system.

Unlike wild-type NKG2D, transgenic NKG2D.ζ expression and activity were not sensitive to down-modulation by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands, allowing improved function in the TME. Native NKG2D relies solely on the intra-cytoplasmic adaptor DAP10 for mediating its cytolytic activity in human NK cells (). TGFβ1 and soluble NKG2D ligands both decrease DAP10 gene transcription and protein activity, and thus reduce NKG2D function in endogenous NK cells (). In contrast, transgenic NKG2D.ζ does not rely on DAP10-based signaling for its activity, since signaling occurs through the ζ-chain. Thus, this construct provides a stable cytolytic pathway capable of circumventing TME-mediated down-modulation of native NKG2D activity. A previous study expressing a chimeric NKG2D.ζ molecule that incorporated DAP10 reported enhanced NK cytotoxicity compared to NKG2D.ζ alone in vitro against a variety of human cancer cell lines as well as in a xenograft model of osteosarcoma (). However, this report did not address the susceptibility of this complex to down-modulation by TGFβ or soluble NKG2D ligands, or whether these NK cells had activity against MDSCs.

NKG2D.ζ–NK cells countered immunosuppression mediated by MDSCs leading to enhanced CAR-T cell tumor infiltration and expansion at tumor sites, CAR-T functions that are impaired in patients with solid tumors (). Unlike the GD2.CAR-T cells in our model, NKG2D.ζ–NK cells homed effectively to MDSC-engrafted tumors and released an array of chemokines that increased T cell infiltration of tumor. Unlike pharmacologic strategies aimed at enhancing leukocyte trafficking, including administration of lymphotactin or TNFα (), our approach does not require continuous cytokine administration. In fact, the ability of chimeric NKG2D to augment NK immune function specifically within the immunosuppressive TME provides for the local release of chemotactic factors, reflecting a more homeostatic method by which to increase CAR-T infiltration. Once there, CAR-T cells should meet an environment favorably modified by NKG2D.ζ–NK cell mediated elimination of MDSCs and production of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Indeed, elimination of MDSCs from a GD2+ tumor xenograft enhanced the activity of GD2.CAR-T cells in our model, including T-cell survival and intratumoral expansion. Given the suppressive effects of MDSCs in neuroblastoma (), the model shows how reversal of an MDSC-mediated suppressive microenvironment can improve antitumor functions of effector T cells.

Clinical neuroblastoma contains intense infiltrates of MDSCs (), which are not included in tumor xenograft models currently used to study human cell therapeutics. Our data suggest that co-inoculation of tumors with suppressive components (such as MDSCs) can model TME-mediated suppression of CAR-T activity against solid tumors, and provides a method by which to understand and counter immunosuppression. Although NSG mice lack a complete immune system in which to examine the effects of multiple endogenous immune components, our ability to engraft exogenous components (e.g., human MDSCs) within our TME model provides the possibility of simulating different immunosuppressive aspects of the solid TME. In fact, further model development utilizing human inhibitory macrophages and regulatory T cells (Tregs) as additional suppressive components of the TME is currently underway in our laboratory.

In summary, we describe an approach to reverse the suppressive TME using engineered human NK cells. We have shown that generation and expansion of our NK cell product is feasible and that NKG2D.ζ–NK cells have antitumor activity within a suppressive solid tumor microenvironment without toxicity to normal NKG2D ligand-expressing tissues. Hence, the elimination of suppressive MDSCs by NKG2D.ζ–NK cells may safely enhance adoptive cellular immunotherapy for neuroblastoma and for many other tumors that are supported and protected by MDSCs.

Other posts on this site on Immunotherapy and Cancer include

Combined anti-CTLA4 and anti-PD1 immunotherapy shows promising results against advanced melanoma

Molecular Profiling in Cancer Immunotherapy: Debraj GuhaThakurta, PhD

Pancreatic Cancer: Genetics, Genomics and Immunotherapy

$20 million Novartis deal with ‘University of Pennsylvania’ to develop Ultra-Personalized Cancer Immunotherapy

Upcoming Meetings on Cancer Immunogenetics

Tang Prize for 2014: Immunity and Cancer

ipilimumab, a Drug that blocks CTLA-4 Freeing T cells to Attack Tumors @DM Anderson Cancer Center

Juno’s approach eradicated cancer cells in 10 of 12 leukemia patients, indicating potential to transform the standard of care in oncology

Report on Cancer Immunotherapy Market & Clinical Pipeline Insight

New Immunotherapy Could Fight a Range of Cancers

Read Full Post »

Opioids, Pain, And Palliative Care [6.3.9]

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

As written by Hrachya Nersesyan and Konstantin V Slavin in Current approach to cancer pain management: Availability and implications of different treatment options in Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007 Jun; 3(3): 381–400

According to statistics published by the American Cancer Society in 2002, “50%–70% of people with cancer experience some degree of pain” (ACS 2002), which usually only intensifies as the disease progresses. Less than half get adequate relief of their pain, which negatively impacts their quality of life. The incidence of pain in advanced stages of invasive cancer approaches 80% and it is 90% in patients with metastases to osseous structures (Pharo and Zhou 2005).

Mediators of pain and inflammation are known to be secreted from tumor cells as well as infiltrating immune cells, activating and sensitizing primary afferent nociceptors (nociceptive pain) and damaging the nervous system (neuropathic pain). However, there has been difficulty in modeling cancer-induced pain in animals. This has hampered our understanding and therapeutic intervention of the clinical situation, especially concerning ovarian cancer patients.   It has been shown that 85% of ovarian cancer patients in palliative care (during last two months of life) still report severe pain although 54% of these women were given high intensity pain medications such as morphine, still the mainstream pain medication for severe cancer-associated pain. Admittedly, more research into the ability of cancer to provoke pain and sensitize the central nervous system, is warranted, as well as development of new methods of analgesia for cancer-associated pain at end-of-life. Therefore, in collaboration with several colleagues, in vivo models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain will be integrated with my co-developed in vivo tumor models of ovarian cancer. This tumor model allows for noninvasive monitoring of tumor burden without the need for anesthesia, as necessitated by imaging strategies to quantitate tumor burden, such as bioluminescence and MRI.

Even in an era of promising new cancer therapies, cancer pain is one of the highest concerns for the patient, their clinician, and surrounding loved ones, especially impacting quality of life during palliative care. Over half of cancer patients have reported severe pain in the course of their disease (List MA J Clin Oncol 2000 18:877-84) and the statistics are worse for ovarian cancer patients, regardless whether during treatment or in palliative care (see below review).

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Volume 33, Issue 1 , Pages 24-31, January 2007

Pain Management in the Last Six Months of Life Among Women Who Died of Ovarian Cancer

Sharon J. Rolnick, PhD, MPH, Jody Jackson, RN, BSN, Winnie W. Nelson, PharmD, MS, Amy Butani, BA, Lisa J. Herrinton, PhD, Mark Hornbrook, PhD, Christine Neslund-Dudas, MA, Don J. Bachman, MS, Steven S. Coughlin, PhD

HealthPartners Research Foundation (S.J.R., J.J., A.B.), Minneapolis, Minnesota; Applied Health Outcomes (W.W.N.), Palm Harbor, Florida; Division of Research (L.J.H., D.J.B.), Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (M.H.), Portland, Oregon; Josephine Ford Cancer Center (C.N.-D.), Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan; and National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (S.S.C.), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Abstract Previous studies indicate that the symptoms of many dying cancer patients are undertreated and many suffer unnecessary pain. We obtained data retrospectively from three large health maintenance organizations, and examined the analgesic drug therapies received in the last six months of life by women who died of ovarian cancer between 1995 and 2000. Subjects were identified through cancer registries and administrative data. Outpatient medications used during the final six months of life were obtained from pharmacy databases. Pain information was obtained from medical charts. We categorized each medication based on the World Health Organization classification for pain management (mild, moderate, or intense). Of the 421 women, only 64 (15%) had no mention of pain in their charts. The use of medications typically prescribed for moderate to severe pain (“high intensity” drugs) increased as women approached death. At 5–6 months before death, 55% of women were either on no pain medication or medication generally used for mild pain; only 9% were using the highest intensity regimen. The percentage on the highest intensity regimen (drugs generally used for severe pain) increased to 22% at 3–4 months before death and 54% at 1–2 months. Older women (70 or older) were less likely to be prescribed the highest intensity medication than those under age 70 (44% vs. 70%, P<0.001). No differences were found in the use of the high intensity drugs by race, marital status, year of diagnosis, stage of disease, or comorbidity. Our finding that only 54% of women with pain were given high intensity medication near death indicates room for improvement in the care of ovarian cancer patients at the end of life.

Cancer pain is a complexity concerning not only the peripheral and central nervous systems but the cancer cell, the tumor microenvironment, and tumor infiltrating immune cells and inflammatory mediators. The goal of this article is to briefly introduce these factors governing pain in the cancer patient and a discussion of animal models of pain in relation to cancer.

Pain is considered as either termed nociceptive pain (activations and sensitization of primary afferent “nociceptor” neurons or neuropathic pain (damage to sensory nerves). Mediators of pain and inflammation are known to be secreted from tumor cells as well as infiltrating immune cells, activating and sensitizing primary afferent nociceptors (nociceptive pain) and damaging the nervous system (neuropathic pain).

For a great review please see Dr. Kara’s curation The Genetics of Pain: An Integrated Approach.

Palliative Care

For a good review please see the following LINK on Palliative Care

Palliative Care_4.6

Please See VIDEOs on Cancer, Pain and Palliative Care

https://youtu.be/88ri3VNOd2E

 

https://youtu.be/B1_Ui3f4AI4

https://youtu.be/-KOSinGapUg

From ACS Guideline: Developing a plan for pain control

The first step in developing a pain control plan is talking with your cancer care team about your pain. You need to be able to describe your pain to your family or friends, too. You may want to have your family or friends help you talk to your cancer care team about your pain, especially if you’re too tired or in too much pain to talk to them yourself.

Using a pain scale is a helpful way to describe how much pain you’re feeling. To use the Pain Intensity Scale shown here, try to assign a number from 0 to 10 to your pain level. If you have no pain, use a 0. As the numbers get higher, they stand for pain that’s getting worse. A 10 means the worst pain you can imagine.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
No pain Worst pain

For instance, you could say, “Right now, my pain is a 7 on a scale of 0 to 10.”

You can use the rating scale to describe:

  • How bad your pain is at its worst
  • What your pain is like most of the time
  • How bad your pain is at its least
  • How your pain changes with treatment

Tell your cancer care team and your family or friends:

  • Where you feel pain
  • What it feels like – for instance, sharp, dull, throbbing, gnawing, burning, shooting, steady
  • How strong the pain is (using the 0 to 10 scale)
  • How long it lasts
  • What eases the pain
  • What makes the pain worse
  • How the pain affects your daily life
  • What medicines you’re taking for the pain and how much relief you get from them

NCCN Adult Cancer-Associated Pain Guidelines (see PDF)NCCN adult pain guidelines

NCCN gives a comprehensive guideline to Cancer Patient Pain Management for Caregivers, physicians, and educational materials for patients.

The attached PDF gives information on

  • Pain Definition and Pain Management Principles
  • Pain Screening, Rating and Assessment Guidelines
  • Management of Patients with Differing Opioid Tolerance
  • Opioid Titration Guidelines
  • Adjuvant Analgesia
  • Psychosocial Support

Table. Important Points in NCCN Guidelines for Pain Management

Pain Severity (pain scale level) guideline
All pain levels – Opioid maintenance, – psychosocial support, – caregiver education
Severe Pain (7-10) – Reevaluate opioid titration
Moderate (4-6) – Continue opioid titration

– Consider specific pain syndrome problem and consultation

– continue analgesic titration

Mild (0-3) Adjuvant analgesics

The clinical presentation of cancer pain depends on the histologic type of cancer, the location of the primary neoplasm, and location of metastases. (for example pain in breast cancer patients have different pain issues than patients with oral.cancer).

However, high grade serous ovarian cancer, the most clinically prevalent of this disease, usually presents as an ascitic carcinomatosis, spread throughout the peritoneum and mesothelium.

Ovarian cancer stem cells and mediators of pain

Although not totally accepted by the field, a discussion of ovarian cancer stem cells is warranted, especially in light of this discussion. Cancer stem cells are considered that subpopulation of cells in the bulk tumor exhibiting self-renewing capacity, generally resistant to chemotherapy, and therefore repopulate the tumor with new tumor cells. In this case, ovarian cancer stem cells could be more pertinent to the manifestations of pain than bulk tumor, as these cells would survive chemotherapy. This may be the case, as ovarian cancer pain may not be associated with overall tumor burden? Are there PAIN MEDIATORS secreted from ovarian cancer cells?

Some Known Pain Mediators Secreted from Ovarian Tumor Cells

Endothelin-1

Proteases and Protease-Activated Receptors

Hoogerwerf WA, Zou L, Shenoy M, Sun D, Micci MA, Lee-Hellmich H, Xiao SY, Winston JH, Pasricha PJ

J Neurosci. 2001 Nov 15; 21(22):9036-42.

Alier KA, Endicott JA, Stemkowski PL, Cenac N, Cellars L, Chapman K, Andrade-Gordon P, Vergnolle N, Smith PA.J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2008 Jan; 324(1):224-33.

Bradykinin

Sevcik MA, Ghilardi JR, Halvorson KG, Lindsay TH, Kubota K, Mantyh PW

J Pain. 2005 Nov; 6(11):771-5

Nerve Growth Factor

Tumor Necrosis Factor

Opioids: A Reference

Opioid analgesics: analgesia without loss of consciousness

Three main uses of opioids

  1. Analgesia
  2. Antitussive
  3. Diarrhea

1954 – nalorphine, partial antagonists had analgesic effect. Morphine: Morpheus – Greek God of dreams

1) opiates: opium alkaloids including morphine, codeine, thebaine, papavarine

2) synthetic: meperedine, methadone

Chemistry

  • Antagonist properties associated with replacement of the methyl substituent on nitrogen atom with large group (naloxone and nalorphine replaced with allyl group)
  • Pharmacokinetic properties affected by C3 and C6 hydroxyl substitutions
  • CH3 at phenolic OH at C3 reduces first pass metabolism by glucoronidation THEREFORE codeine and oxycodeine have higher oral availability
  • Acetylation of both OH groups on morphine : heroin penetrates BBB : rapidly hydrolyzed to give monoacetylmorphine and morphine

Pharmaookinetics

  • Well absorbed from s.c., i.m., oral
  • Codeine and hydrocodeine higher absorption from oral:parental ratio because of extensive first pass metabolism
  • Most opioids are well absorbed orally but DECREASE potency due to first pass
  • Variable plasma protein binding
  • Brain distribution is actually low but opioids are very potent
  • Well distributed and may accumulate in skeletal muscle
  • Fentynyl (lipophilic) may accumulate in fat

 

Metabolism

  • Most opioids converted to polar metabolites so excreted by kidney ;IMPORTANT prolonged analgesia in patients with renal disease
  • Esters like meperidine and herion metabolized by tissue esterases
  • Glucoronidated morphine may have analgesic properties

 

Receptors

All three (mu, kappa, and delta) activate pertussis toxin sensitive G protein {Gi}

Opioids quiet pain (nociceptive) neurons by inhibiting nerve conduction (decrease entry of calcium or increase entry of potassium)

There are four major subtypes of opioid receptors:[12]

Receptor Subtypes Location[13][14] Function[13][14]
delta (δ)
DOR
OP1 (I)
δ1,[15] δ2
kappa (κ)
KOR
OP2 (I)
κ1, κ2, κ3
mu (μ)
MOR
OP3 (I)
μ1, μ2, μ3 μ1:

μ2:

μ3:

  • possible vasodilation
Nociceptin receptor
NOP
OP4
ORL1
  • anxiety
  • depression
  • appetite
  • development of tolerance to μ-opioid agonists

Tolerance and Physical Dependence

Tolerance: gradual loss of effectiveness over repeated doses

Physical Dependence: when tolerance develops continued administration of drug required to prevent physical withdrawal symptoms

  • With opioids see tolerance most with the analgesic, sedative, and antitussive effects; not so much with antidiarrheal effects

Major effects of opioids on Organ Systems

  • CNS
    1. Analgesia – raise threshhold for pain
    2. Euphoria – pleasant floating feeling but sometimes dysphoria (agitation)
    3. Sedation –drowsiness but no amnesia; more frequent in elderly than young but can disrupt normal REM sleep
    4. Respiratory depression – ALL opioids produce significant resp. depression by inhibiting the brain stem; careful in patients with impaired respiratory function like COPD or increased intracranial pressure
    5. Cough suppression – tolerance can develop; may increase airway secretions
    6. Miosis – constriction of pupils; seen with ALL agonists; treat with atropine
    7. Rigidity – mostly seen with fentanyl; treat with opioid antagonist like nalozone
    8. Emesis; naseua, vomiting

 

  • Peripheral
    1. Cardiovascular – no real major effects; some specific compounds may have effects on blood pressure
    2. GI – Constipation most common; loperamide (Immodium); pentazocine may cause less constipation; problem for treating cancer patients for pain; opioid receptors do exist in the GI tract but effect may be CNS as well as local
    3. Biliary system – minor, may cause constriction of bile duct
    4. GU (genitourinary) – reduced urine output by increased antidiuretic hormone
    5. Uterus – may prolong labor
    6. Neuroendocrine – opioid analgesics can stimulate release of ADH, prolactin
    7. Other – opioid analgesics may cause flushing and warming of skin; release of histamine?

 

Specific Agents

Strong Agonists

  1. Phenanthrenes –all are used for analgesia
  • Morphine
  • Hydromorphone
  • Oxymorphone
  • Heroin
  1. Phenylheptylamine
  • Methadone – longer acting than morphine; tolerance and physical dependency slower to develop than with morphine; low doses of methadone may be used for heroin addict undergoing withdrawal
  1. Phenyllpiperidines
  • Meperidine
  • Fentanyl (also sufentanil) which is 5-7 more times potent than fentanyl. Negative inotropic (contractile force) effects on heart
  1. Levorphanol

Mild to Moderate Agonist

  1. Phenanthrenes – most given in combo with NSAID
  • Codeine – antitussive, some analgesia
  • Oxycodone
  • Dihydrocodone
  • Hydrocodone
  1. Propoxyphene – Darvon, low abuse and low analgesia compared to morphine
  2. Phenylpiperidines
  • Diphenoxylate –used for diarrhea; not for analgesia and no abuse potential
  • Loperamide – antidiarrheal (Imodium), low abuse potential

Mixed Agonist-Antagonist & Partial Agonists

  1. Nalbulphine – strong kappa agonist and mu antagonist.. Analgesic
  2. Buprenorphine – analgesic. Partial mu agonist has long duration. Slow dissocation from receptor makes resistant to naloxone reversal
  3. Buterphanol – analgesia with sedation, kappa agonist
  4. Pentazocine – kappa agonist with weak mu antagonism.Is an irritant so do no inject s.c.

Antagonists

  1. Naloxone – quick reversal of opioid agonist action (1-2 hours); not well absorbed orally; pure antagonist so no effects by itself; no tolerance problems; opioid antidote
  2. Naltrexone – well absorbed orally can be used in maintenance therapy because of long duration of action

Antitussives

  1. Codeine
  2. Dextromethorphan
  3. Levoproposyphen
  4. Noscapine

Other posts related to Pain, Cancer, and Palliative Care on this Open Access Journal Include

Palliative Care_4.6

Requiem for Palliative Cardiology: The Voice of Dr. Esselstyn on Plant-Based Nutrition

Cancer and Nutrition

Thyme Oil Beats Ibuprofen for Pain Management.

Pain Management Drug Market: Insight Pharma Reports

New target for chronic pain treatment found

The Genetics of Pain: An Integrated Approach

Read Full Post »

How NGS Will Revolutionize Reproductive Diagnostics: November Meeting, Boston MA, Volume 2 (Volume Two: Latest in Genomics Methodologies for Therapeutics: Gene Editing, NGS and BioInformatics, Simulations and the Genome Ontology), Part 1: Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Reproductive Genetic Dx | Nov. 18-19 | Boston, MA
Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.
Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics
Advances in Carrier Screening, Preimplantation Diagnostics, and POC Testing
November 18-19, 2015  |  Boston, MA
healthtech.com/reproductive-genetic-diagnosticsMount Sinai Hospital’s Dr. Tanmoy Mukherjee to Present at Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics ConferenceTanmoy MukherjeePodcastNumerical Chromosomal Abnormalities after PGS and D&C
Tanmoy Mukherjee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai Hospital
This review provides an analysis of the most commonly identified numerical chromosome abnormalities following PGS and first trimester D&C samples in an infertile population utilizing ART. Although monosomies comprised >50% of all cytogenetic anomalies identified following PGS, there were very few identified in the post D&C samples. This suggests that while monosomies occur frequently in the IVF population, they commonly do not implant.

In a CHI podcast, Dr. Mukherjee discusses the current challenges facing reproductive specialists in regards to genetic diagnosis of recurrent pregnancy loss, as well as how NGS is affecting this type of testing > Listen to Podcast

Register  SAVE up to $200, Register by October 9

Learn More  |  Present a Poster  |  Sponsorship & Exhibit Information  |  View Brochure

CONFERENCE-AT-A-GLANCE

ADVANCES IN NGS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES

Keynote Presentation: Current and Expanding Invitations for Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
Joe Leigh Simpson, MD, President for Research and Global Programs, March of Dimes Foundation

Next-Generation Sequencing: Its Role in Reproductive Medicine
Brynn Levy, Professor of Pathology & Cell Biology, CUMC; Director, Clinical Cytogenetics Laboratory, Co-Director, Division of Personalized Genomic Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Medical Center, and the New York Presbyterian Hospital

CCS without WGA
Nathan Treff, Director, Molecular Biology Research, Reproductive Medicine Associates of New Jersey, Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Adjunct Faculty Member, Department of Genetics, Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey

Concurrent PGD for Single Gene Disorders and Aneuploidy on a Single Trophectoderm Biopsy
Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Ph.D., FACMG, Director, Clinical Genetics, Foundation for Embryonic Competence

Live Birth of Two Healthy Babies with Monogenic Diseases and Chromosome Abnormality Simultaneously Avoided by MALBAC-based Combined PGD and PGS
Xiaoliang Sunney Xie, Ph.D., Mallinckrodt Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University

Good Start GeneticsAnalytical Validation of a Novel NGS-Based Pre-implantation Genetic Screening Technology
Mark Umbarger, Ph.D., Director, Research and Development, Good Start Genetics


CLINICAL APPLICATIONS FOR ADVANCED TESTING TECHNOLOGIES

Expanded Carrier Screening for Monogenic Disorders
Peter Benn, Professor, Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences, University of Connecticut Health Center

Oocyte Mitochondrial Function and Testing: Implications for Assisted Reproduction
Emre Seli, MD, Yale School of Medicine

Preventing the Transmission of Mitochondrial Diseases through Germline Genome Editing
Alejandro Ocampo, Ph.D., Research Associate, Gene Expression Laboratory – Belmonte, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Silicon BiosystemsRecovery and Analysis of Single (Fetal) Cells: DEPArray Based Strategy to Examine CPM and POC
Farideh Bischoff, Ph.D., Executive Director, Scientific Affairs, Silicon Biosystems, Inc.

> Sponsored Presentation (Opportunities Available)

Numerical Chromosomal Abnormalities after PGS and D&C
Tanmoy Mukherjee, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Science, Mount Sinai Hospital

EMBRYO PREPARATION, ASSESSMENT, AND TREATMENT

Guidelines and Standards for Embryo Preparation: Embryo Culture, Growth and Biopsy Guidelines for Successful Genetic Diagnosis
Michael A. Lee, MS, TS, ELD (ABB), Director, Laboratories, Fertility Solutions

Current Status of Time-Lapse Imaging for Embryo Assessment and Selection in Clinical IVF
Catherine Racowsky, Professor, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School; Director, IVF Laboratory, Brigham & Women’s Hospital

The Curious Case of Fresh versus Frozen Transfer
Denny Sakkas, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Boston IVF

Why Does IVF Fail? Finding a Single Euploid Embryo is Harder than You Think
Jamie Grifo, M.D., Ph.D., Program Director, New York University Fertility Center; Professor, New York University Langone Medical Center

BEST PRACTICES AND ETHICS

Genetic Counseling Bridges the Gap between Complex Genetic Information and Patient Care
MaryAnn W. Campion, Ed.D., MS, CGC; Director, Master’s Program in Genetic Counseling; Assistant Dean, Graduate Medical Sciences; Assistant Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Boston University School of Medicine

Ethical Issues of Next-Generation Sequencing and Beyond
Eugene Pergament, M.D., Ph.D., FACMG, Professor, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern; Attending, Northwestern University Medical School Memorial Hospital

Closing Panel: The Future of Reproductive Genetic Diagnostics: Is Reproductive Technology Straining the Seams of Ethics?
Moderator:
Mache Seibel, M.D., Professor, OB/GYN, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Editor, My Menopause Magazine; Author, The Estrogen Window
Panelists:
Rebekah S. Zimmerman, Ph.D., FACMG, Director, Clinical Genetics, Foundation for Embryonic Competence
Denny Sakkas, Ph.D., Scientific Director, Boston IVF
Michael A. Lee, MS, TS, ELD (ABB), Director of Laboratories, Fertility Solutions
Nicholas Collins, MS, CGC, Manager, Reproductive Health Specialists, Counsyl

Arrive Early and Attend Advances in Prenatal Molecular Diagnostics – Register for Both Events and SAVE!

Prenatal Molecular Dx | Nov. 16-18 | Boston, MA

CHI, 250 First Avenue, Suite 300, Needham, MA, 02494, Tel: 781-972-5400 | Fax: 781-972-5425

 

 

Read Full Post »

NIMHD welcomes nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) has announced the appointment of nine new members to the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NACMHD), NIMHD’s principal advisory board. Members of the council are drawn from the scientific, medical, and lay communities, so they offer diverse perspectives on minority health and health disparities.

The NACMHD, which meets three times a year on the National Institutes of Health campus, Bethesda, Maryland, advises the secretary of Health and Human Services and the directors of NIH and NIMHD on matters related to NIMHD’s mission. The council also conducts the second level of review of grant applications and cooperative agreements for research and training and recommends approval for projects that show promise of making valuable contributions to human knowledge.

The next meeting of the NACMHD will be held on Thursday, Sept. 10, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. on the NIH campus. The meeting will be available on videocast at http://www.videocast.nih.gov.

NIMHD Director Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, M.D., is pleased to welcome the following new members

Margarita Alegría, Ph.D., is the director of the Center for Multicultural Mental Health Research at Cambridge Health Alliance and a professor in the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston. She has devoted her career to researching disparities in mental health and substance abuse services, with the goal of improving access to and equity and quality of these services for disadvantaged and minority populations.

Maria Araneta, Ph.D., a perinatal epidemiologist, is a professor in the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California, San Diego. Her research interests include maternal/pediatric HIV/AIDS, birth defects, and ethnic health disparities in type 2 diabetes, regional fat distribution, cardiovascular disease, and metabolic abnormalities.

Judith Bradford, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Population Research in LGBT Health and she co-chairs The Fenway Institute, Boston. Dr. Bradford has participated in health research since 1984, working with public health programs and community-based organizations to conduct studies on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and racial minority communities and to translate the results into programs to reduce health disparities.

Linda Burhansstipanov, Dr.P.H., has worked in public health since 1971, primarily with Native American issues. She is a nationally recognized educator on cancer prevention, community-based participatory research, navigation programs, cultural competency, evaluation, and other topics. Dr. Burhansstipanov worked with the Anschutz Medical Center Cancer Research Center — now the University of Colorado Cancer Research Center — in Denver for five years before founding Native American Cancer Initiatives, Inc., and the Native American Cancer Research Corporation.

Sandro Galea, M.D., a physician and epidemiologist, is the dean and a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. Prior to his appointment at Boston University, Dr. Galea served as the Anna Cheskis Gelman and Murray Charles Gelman Professor and chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York City. His research focuses on the causes of brain disorders, particularly common mood and anxiety disorders, and substance abuse.

Linda Greene, J.D., is Evjue Bascom Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Law School. Her teaching and academic scholarship include constitutional law, civil procedure, legislation, civil rights, and sports law. Most recently, she was the vice chancellor for equity, diversity, and inclusion at the University of California, San Diego.

Ross A. Hammond, Ph.D., a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., is also director of the Center on Social Dynamics and Policy. His primary area of expertise is using mathematical and computational methods from complex systems science to model complex dynamics in economic, social, and public health systems. His current research topics include obesity etiology and prevention, tobacco control, and behavioral epidemiology.

Hilton Hudson, II, M.D., is chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Franciscan Healthcare, Munster, Indiana and a national ambassador for the American Heart Association. He also is the founder of Hilton Publishing, Inc., a national publisher dedicated to producing content on solutions related to health, wellness, and education for people in underserved communities. Dr. Hilton’s book, “The Heart of the Matter: The African American Guide to Heart Disease, Heart Treatment and Heart Wellness” has impacted at-risk patients nationwide.

Brian M. Rivers, Ph.D., M.P.H., currently serves on the research faculty at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida. He is also an assistant professor in the Department of Oncologic Sciences at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa. Dr. Rivers’ research efforts include examination of unmet educational and psychosocial needs and the development of communication tools, couple-centered interventions, and evidence-based methods to convey complex information to at-risk populations across the cancer continuum.

NIMHD is one of NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers. It leads scientific research to improve minority health and eliminate health disparities by conducting and supporting research; planning, reviewing, coordinating, and evaluating all minority health and health disparities research at NIH; promoting and supporting the training of a diverse research workforce; translating and disseminating research information; and fostering collaborations and partnerships. For more information about NIMHD, visit http://www.nimhd.nih.gov.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

Read Full Post »

Ablation Techniques in Interventional Oncology

Author and Curator: Dror Nir, PhD

“Ablation is removal of material from the surface of an object by vaporization, chipping, or other erosive processes.”; WikipediA.

The use of ablative techniques in medicine is known for decades. By the late 90s, the ability to manipulate ablation sources and control their application to area of interest improved to a level that triggered their adaptation to cancer treatment. To date, ablation  is still a controversial treatment, yet steadily growing in it’s offerings to very specific cancer patients’ population.

The attractiveness in ablation as a form of cancer treatment is in the promise of minimal invasiveness, focused tissue destruction and better quality of life due to the ability to partially maintain viability of affected organs.  The main challenges preventing wider adaptation of ablative treatments are: the inability to noninvasively assess the level of cancerous tissue destruction during treatment; resulting in metastatic recurrence of the disease and the insufficient isolation of the treatment area from its surrounding.   This frequently results In addition, post-ablation salvage treatments are much more complicated. Since failed ablative treatment represents a lost opportunity to apply effective treatment to the primary tumor the current trend is to apply such treatments to low-grade cancers.

Nevertheless, the attractiveness of treating cancer in a focused way that preserves the long-term quality of life continuously feeds the development efforts and investments related to introduction of new and improved ablative treatments giving the hope that sometime in the future focused ablative treatment will reach its full potential.

The following paper reviews the main ablation techniques that are available for use today: Percutaneous image-guided ablation of bone and soft tissue tumours: a review of available techniques and protective measures.

Abstract

Background

Primary or metastatic osseous and soft tissue lesions can be treated by ablation techniques.

Methods

These techniques are classified into chemical ablation (including ethanol or acetic acid injection) and thermal ablation (including laser, radiofrequency, microwave, cryoablation, radiofrequency ionisation and MR-guided HIFU). Ablation can be performed either alone or in combination with surgical or other percutaneous techniques.

Results

In most cases, ablation provides curative treatment for benign lesions and malignant lesions up to 3 cm. Furthermore, it can be a palliative treatment providing pain reduction and local control of the disease, diminishing the tumor burden and mass effect on organs. Ablation may result in bone weakening; therefore, whenever stabilization is undermined, bone augmentation should follow ablation depending on the lesion size and location.

Conclusion

Thermal ablation of bone and soft tissues demonstrates high success and relatively low complication rates. However, the most common complication is the iatrogenic thermal damage of surrounding sensitive structures. Nervous structures are very sensitive to extremely high and low temperatures with resultant transient or permanent neurological damage. Thermal damage can cause normal bone osteonecrosis in the lesion’s periphery, surrounding muscular atrophy and scarring, and skin burns. Successful thermal ablation requires a sufficient ablation volume and thermal protection of the surrounding vulnerable structures.

Teaching points

Percutaneous ablations constitute a safe and efficacious therapy for treatment of osteoid osteoma.

Ablation techniques can treat painful malignant MSK lesions and provide local tumor control.

Thermal ablation of bone and soft tissues demonstrates high success and low complication rates.

Nerves, cartilage and skin are sensitive to extremely high and low temperatures.

Successful thermal ablation occasionally requires thermal protection of the surrounding structures.

For the purpose of this chapter we picked up three techniques:

Radiofrequency ablation

Straight or expandable percutaneously placed electrodes deliver a high-frequency alternating current, which causes ionic agitation with resultant frictional heat (temperatures of 60–100 ˚C) that produces protein denaturation and coagulation necrosis [8]. Concerning active protective techniques, all kinds of gas dissection can be performed. Hydrodissection is performed with dextrose 5 % (acts as an insulator as opposed to normal saline, which acts as a conductor). All kinds of skin cooling, thermal and neural monitoring can be performed.

 

Microwave ablation

Straight percutaneously placed antennae deliver electromagnetic microwaves (915 or 2,450 MHz) with resultant frictional heat (temperatures of 60–100 ˚C) that produces protein denaturation and coagulation necrosis [8]. Concerning active protective techniques, all kinds of gas dissection can be performed, whilst hydrodissection is usually avoided (MWA is based on agitation of water molecules for energy transmission). All kinds of skin cooling, thermal and neural monitoring can be performed.

Percutaneous ablation of malignant metastatic lesions is performed under imaging guidance, extended local sterility measures and antibiotic prophylaxis. Whenever the ablation zone is expected to extend up to 1 cm close to critical structures (e.g. the nerve root, skin, etc.), all the necessary thermal protection techniques should be applied (Fig. 3).

13244_2014_332_Fig3_HTML

a Painful soft tissue mass infiltrating the left T10 posterior rib. b A microwave antenna is percutaneously inserted inside the mass. Due to the proximity to the skin a sterile glove filled with cold water is placed over the skin. c CT axial scan 3 months

Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)

Each cell membrane point has a local transmembrane voltage that determines a dynamic phenomenon called electroporation (reversible or irreversible) [16]. Electroporation is manifested by specific transmembrane voltage thresholds related to a given pulse duration and shape. Thus, a threshold for an electronic field magnitude is defined and only cells with higher electric field magnitudes than this threshold are electroporated. IRE produces persistent nano-sized membrane pores compromising the viability of cells [16]. On the other hand, collagen and other supporting structures remain unaffected. The IRE generator produces direct current (25–45 A) electric pulses of high voltage (1,500–3,000 V).

Lastly we wish to highlight a method that is mostly used on patients diagnosed at intermediate or advanced clinical stages of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC); transarterial chemoembolization  (TACE)

“Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (also called transarterial chemoembolization or TACE) is a minimally invasive procedure performed in interventional radiology  to restrict a tumor’s blood supply. Small embolic particles coated with chemotherapeutic agents are injected selectively into an artery directly supplying a tumor. TACE derives its beneficial effect by two primary mechanisms. Most tumors within the liver are supplied by the proper hepatic artery, so arterial embolization preferentially interrupts the tumor’s blood supply and stalls growth until neovascularization. Secondly, focused administration of chemotherapy allows for delivery of a higher dose to the tissue while simultaneously reducing systemic exposure, which is typically the dose limiting factor. This effect is potentiated by the fact that the chemotherapeutic drug is not washed out from the tumor vascular bed by blood flow after embolization. Effectively, this results in a higher concentration of drug to be in contact with the tumor for a longer period of time. Park et al. conceptualized carcinogenesis of HCC as a multistep process involving parenchymal arterialization, sinusoidal capillarization, and development of unpaired arteries (a vital component of tumor angiogenesis). All these events lead to a gradual shift in tumor blood supply from portal to arterial circulation. This concept has been validated using dynamic imaging modalities by various investigators. Sigurdson et al. demonstrated that when an agent was infused via the hepatic artery, intratumoral concentrations were ten times greater compared to when agents were administered through the portal vein. Hence, arterial treatment targets the tumor while normal liver is relatively spared. Embolization induces ischemic necrosis of tumor causing a failure of the transmembrane pump, resulting in a greater absorption of agents by the tumor cells. Tissue concentration of agents within the tumor is greater than 40 times that of the surrounding normal liver.”; WikipediA

A recent open access research paper: Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma is discussing recent clinical approaches  related to this techniques.

Abstract

Background

To compare the overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were treated with lipiodol-based conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) with that of patients treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE).

Methods

By an electronic search of our radiology information system, we identified 674 patients that received TACE between November 2002 and July 2013. A total of 520 patients received cTACE, and 154 received DEB-TACE. In total, 424 patients were excluded for the following reasons: tumor type other than HCC (n = 91), liver transplantation after TACE (n = 119), lack of histological grading (n = 58), incomplete laboratory values (n = 15), other reasons (e.g., previous systemic chemotherapy) (n = 114), or were lost to follow-up (n = 27). Therefore, 250 patients were finally included for comparative analysis (n = 174 cTACE; n = 76 DEB-TACE).

Results

There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding sex, overall status (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification), liver function (Child-Pugh), portal invasion, tumor load, or tumor grading (all p > 0.05). The mean number of treatment sessions was 4 ± 3.1 in the cTACE group versus 2.9 ± 1.8 in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.01). Median survival was 409 days (95 % CI: 321–488 days) in the cTACE group, compared with 369 days (95 % CI: 310–589 days) in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.76). In the subgroup of Child A patients, the survival was 602 days (484–792 days) for cTACE versus 627 days (364–788 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.39). In Child B/C patients, the survival was considerably lower: 223 days (165–315 days) for cTACE versus 226 days (114–335 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.53).

Conclusion

The present study showed no significant difference in overall survival between cTACE and DEB-TACE in patients with HCC. However, the significantly lower number of treatments needed in the DEB-TACE group makes it a more appealing treatment option than cTACE for appropriately selected patients with unresectable HCC.

Read Full Post »

Notes from Opening Plenary Session – The Genome and Beyond from the 2015 AACR Meeting in Philadelphia PA; Sunday April 19, 2015

 

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

The following contain notes from the Sunday April 19, 2015 AACR Meeting (Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia PA) 9:30 AM Opening Plenary Session

The Genome and Beyond

Session Chairperson: Lewis C. Cantley, Ph.D.

Speakers: Michael R. Stratton, Tyler Jacks, Stephen B. Baylin, Robert D. Schreiber, Williams R. Sellers

  1. A) Insights From Cancer Genomes: Michael R. Stratton, Ph.D.; Director of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute
  • How do we correlate mutations with causative factors of carcinogenesis and exposure?
  • Cancer was thought as a disease of somatic mutations
  • UV skin exposure – see C>T transversion in TP53 while tobacco exposure and lung cancer see more C>A transversion; Is it possible to determine EXPOSURE SIGNATURES?
  • Use a method called non negative matrix factorization (like face pattern recognition but a mutation pattern recognition)
  • Performed sequence analysis producing 12,000 mutation catalogs with 8,000 somatic mutation signatures
  • Found more mutations than expected; some mutation signatures found in all cancers, while some signatures in half of cancers, and some signatures not found in cancer
  • For example found 3 mutation signatures in ovarian cancer but 13 for breast cancers (80,000 mutations); his signatures are actually spectrums of mutations
  • kataegis: defined as localized hypermutation; an example is a signature he found related to AID/APOBEC family (involved in IgG variability); kataegis is more prone in hematologic cancers than solid cancers
  • recurrent tumors show a difference in mutation signatures than primary tumor before drug treatment

 

  1. B) Engineering Cancer Genomes: Tyler Jacks, Ph.D.; Director, Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research
  • Cancer GEM’s (genetically engineered mouse models of cancer) had moved from transgenics to defined oncogenes
  • Observation that p53 -/- mice develop spontaneous tumors (lymphomas)
  • then GEMs moved to Cre/Lox systems to generate mice with deletions however these tumor models require lots of animals, much time to create, expensive to keep;
  • figured can use CRSPR/Cas9 as rapid, inexpensive way to generate engineered mice and tumor models
  • he used CRSPR/Cas9 vectors targeting PTEN to introduce PTEN mutations in-vivo to hepatocytes; when they also introduced p53 mutations produced hemangiosarcomas; took ONLY THREE months to produce detectable tumors
  • also produced liver tumors by using CRSPR/Cas9 to introduce gain of function mutation in β-catenin

 

See an article describing this study by MIT News “A New Way To Model Cancer: New gene-editing technique allows scientists to more rapidly study the role of mutations in tumor development.”

The original research article can be found in the August 6, 2014 issue of Nature[1]

And see also on the Jacks Lab site under Research

  1. C) Above the Genome; The Epigenome and its Biology: Stephen B. Baylin
  • Baylin feels epigenetic therapy could be used for cancer cell reprogramming
  • Interplay between Histone (Movers) and epigenetic marks (Writers, Readers) important for developing epigenetic therapy
  • Difference between stem cells and cancer: cancer keeps multiple methylation marks whereas stem cells either keep one on or turn off marks in lineage
  • Corepressor drugs are a new exciting class in chemotherapeutic development
  • (Histone Demythylase {LSD1} inhibitors in clinical trials)
  • Bromodomain (Brd4) enhancers in clinical trials
  1. D) Using Genomes to Personalize Immunotherapy: Robert D. Schreiber, Ph.D.,
  • The three “E’s” of cancer immunoediting: Elimination, Equilibrium, and Escape
  • First evidence for immunoediting came from mice that were immunocompetent resistant to 3 methylcholanthrene (3mca)-induced tumorigenesis but RAG2 -/- form 3mca-induced tumors
  • RAG2-/- unedited (retain immunogenicity); tumors rejected by wild type mice
  • Edited tumors (aren’t immunogenic) led to tolerization of tumors
  • Can use genomic studies to identify mutant proteins which could be cancer specific immunoepitopes
  • MHC (major histocompatibility complex) tetramers: can develop vaccines against epitope and personalize therapy but only good as checkpoint block (anti-PD1 and anti CTLA4) but personalized vaccines can increase therapeutic window so don’t need to start PD1 therapy right away
  • For more details see references Schreiker 2011 Science and Shankaran 2001 in Nature
  1. E) Report on the Melanoma Keynote 006 Trial comparing pembrolizumab and ipilimumab (PD1 inhibitors)

Results of this trial were published the morning of the meeting in the New England Journal of Medicine and can be found here.

A few notes:

From the paper: The anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival and had less high-grade toxicity than did ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; KEYNOTE-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01866319.)

And from Twitter:

Robert Cade, PharmD @VTOncologyPharm

KEYNOTE-006 was presented at this week’s #AACR15 conference. Pembrolizumab blew away ipilimumab as 1st-line therapy for metastatic melanoma.

2:02 PM – 21 Apr 2015

Jeb Keiper @JebKeiper

KEYNOTE-006 at #AACR15 has pembro HR 0.63 in OS over ipi. Issue is ipi is dosed only 4 times over 2 years (per label) vs Q2W for pembro. Hmm

11:55 AM – 19 Apr 2015

OncLive.com @OncLive

Dr Antoni Ribas presenting data from KEYNOTE-006 at #AACR15 – Read more about the findings, at http://ow.ly/LMG6T 

11:25 AM – 19 Apr 2015

Joe @GantosJ

$MRK on 03/24 KEYNOTE-006 vs Yervoy Ph3 stopped early for meeting goals of PFS, OS & full data @ #AACR15 now back to weekend & family

9:05 AM – 19 Apr 2015

Kristen Slangerup @medwritekristen

Keytruda OS benefit over Yervoy in frontline #melanoma $MRK stops Ph3 early & data to come @ #AACR15 #immunotherapy http://yhoo.it/1EYwwq8 

2:40 PM – 26 Mar 2015

Yahoo Finance @YahooFinance

Merck’s Pivotal KEYNOTE-006 Study in First-Line Treatment for…

Merck , known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today announced that the randomized, pivotal Phase 3 study investigating KEYTRUDA® compared to ipilimumab in the first-line treatment of…

View on web

 

Stephen J Williams @StephenJWillia2

Progression free survival better for pembrolzumab over ipilimumab by 2.5 months #AACR15 @Pharma_BI #Cancer #Immunotherapy

11:56 AM – 19 Apr 2015

 

Stephen J Williams @StephenJWillia2

Melanoma Keynote 006 trial PD1 inhibitor #Immunotherapy 80% responders after 1 year @Pharma_BI #AACR15

 

References

  1. Xue W, Chen S, Yin H, Tammela T, Papagiannakopoulos T, Joshi NS, Cai W, Yang G, Bronson R, Crowley DG et al: CRISPR-mediated direct mutation of cancer genes in the mouse liver. Nature 2014, 514(7522):380-384.

 

Other related articles on Cancer Genomics and Social Media Coverage were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal, include the following:

Cancer Biology and Genomics for Disease Diagnosis

Introduction – The Evolution of Cancer Therapy and Cancer Research: How We Got Here?

Methodology for Conference Coverage using Social Media: 2014 MassBio Annual Meeting 4/3 – 4/4 2014, Royal Sonesta Hotel, Cambridge, MA

List of Breakthroughs in Cancer Research and Oncology Drug Development by Awardees of The Israel Cancer Research Fund

2013 American Cancer Research Association Award for Outstanding Achievement in Chemistry in Cancer Research: Professor Alexander Levitzki

Genomics and Epigenetics: Genetic Errors and Methodologies – Cancer and Other Diseases

Cancer Genomics – Leading the Way by Cancer Genomics Program at UC Santa Cruz

Genomics and Metabolomics Advances in Cancer

Pancreatic Cancer: Genetics, Genomics and Immunotherapy

Multiple Lung Cancer Genomic Projects Suggest New Targets, Research Directions for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

 

Read Full Post »

EU regulatory changes adapted from the Regulatory blog of Dr. Melvin Crasto

New EU GMP Annex 15 Revision published – Valid as of 1 October 2015.

Reporter Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

EUFDA2014Draft

courtesy of Dr. Melvin Crasto’s blog

EU and FDA offer new guidelines in recently published drafts on GMP (Good Manufacturing Procedures) and validation processes incorporating new manufacturing technologies throughout the drug developing and manufacturing life cycle.

The clear focus on user requirements in the area of qualification will also have an impact on equipment suppliers. Process validation will become a difficult task in the future. With 3 different approaches there are clear differences to the US. However, the ongoing process verification means additional effort and is now comparable to the US requirements.

This enhanced “across-the-sea” cooperation between FDA and EU is seeming to become the norm in the drug development world as once seemingly distinct lines separating US and EU companies have become blurred.

Read Full Post »

  • Oracle Industry Connect Presents Their 2015 Life Sciences and Healthcare Program

 

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D. and Aviva Lev-Ari, Ph.D., R.N.

oraclehealthcare

Copyright photo Oracle Inc. (TM)

 

Transforming Clinical Research and Clinical Care with Data-Driven Intelligence

March 25-26 Washington, DC

For more information click on the following LINK:

https://www.oracle.com/oracleindustryconnect/life-sciences-healthcare.html

oracle-healthcare-solutions-br-1526409

https://www.oracle.com/industries/health-sciences/index.html  

Oracle Health Sciences: Life Sciences & HealthCare — the Solutions for Big Data

Healthcare and life sciences organizations are facing unprecedented challenges to improve drug development and efficacy while driving toward more targeted and personalized drugs, devices, therapies, and care. Organizations are facing an urgent need to meet the unique demands of patients, regulators, and payers, necessitating a move toward a more patient-centric, value-driven, and personalized healthcare ecosystem.

Meeting these challenges requires redesigning clinical R&D processes, drug therapies, and care delivery through innovative software solutions, IT systems, data analysis, and bench-to-bedside knowledge. The core mission is to improve the health, well-being, and lives of people globally by:

  • Optimizing clinical research and development, speeding time to market, reducing costs, and mitigating risk
  • Accelerating efficiency by using business analytics, costing, and performance management technologies

 

  • Establishing a global infrastructure for collaborative clinical discovery and care delivery models
  • Scaling innovations with world-class, transformative technology solutions
  • Harnessing the power of big data to improve patient experience and outcomes

The Oracle Industry Connect health sciences program features 15 sessions showcasing innovation and transformation of clinical R&D, value-based healthcare, and personalized medicine.

The health sciences program is an invitation-only event for senior-level life sciences and healthcare business and IT executives.

Complete your registration and book your hotel reservation prior to February 27, 2015 in order to secure the Oracle discounted hotel rate.

Learn more about Oracle Healthcare.

General Welcome and Joint Program Agenda

Wednesday, March 25

10:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

Oracle Industry Connect Opening Keynote

Mark Hurd, Chief Executive Officer, Oracle

Bob Weiler, Executive Vice President, Global Business Units, Oracle

Warren Berger, Author of “A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to Spark Breakthrough Ideas.”

12:00 p.m.–1:45 p.m.

Networking Lunch

1:45 p.m.–2:45 p.m.

Oracle Industry Connect Keynote

Bob Weiler, Executive Vice President, Global Business Units, Oracle

2:45 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

Networking Break

3:45 p.m.–5:45 p.m.

Life Sciences and Healthcare General Session

Robert Robbins, President, Chief Executive Officer, Texas Medical Center

Steve Rosenberg, Senior Vice President and General Manager Health Sciences Global Business Unit, Oracle

7:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m.

Life Sciences and Healthcare Networking Reception

National Museum of American History
14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington DC 20001

Life Sciences Agenda

Thursday, March 26

7:00 a.m.–8:00 a.m.

Networking Breakfast

8:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m.

Digital Trials and Research Models of the Future 

Markus Christen, Senior Vice President and Head of Global Development, Proteus

Praveen Raja, Senior Director of Medical Affairs, Proteus Digital Health

Michael Stapleton, Vice President and Chief Information Officer, R&D IT, Merck

9:15 a.m.–10:30 a.m.

Driving Patient Engagement and the Internet of Things 

Howard Golub, Vice President of Clinical Research, Walgreens

Jean-Remy Behaeghel, Senior Director, Client Account Management, Product Development Solutions, Vertex Pharmaceuticals

10:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m.

Break

10:45 a.m.–12:00 p.m.

Leveraging Data and Advanced Analytics to Enable True Pharmacovigilance and Risk Management 

Leonard Reyno, Senior Vice President, Chief Medical Officer, Agensys

 

Accelerating Therapeutic Development Through New Technologies 

Andrew Rut, Chief Executive Officer, Co-Founder and Director, MyMeds&Me

12:45 a.m.–1:45 p.m.

Networking Lunch

1:45 p.m.–2:30 p.m.

Oracle Industry Connect Keynote

2:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m.

Break

2:45 p.m.–3:15 p.m.

Harnessing Big Data to Increase R&D Innovation, Efficiency, and Collaboration 

Sandy Tremps, Executive Director, Global Clinical Development IT, Merck

3:15 p.m.–3:30 p.m.

Break

3:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m.

Transforming Clinical Research from Planning to Postmarketing 

Kenneth Getz, Director of Sponsored Research Programs and Research Associate Professor, Tufts University

Jason Raines, Head, Global Data Operations, Alcon Laboratories

4:45 p.m.–6:00 p.m.

Increasing Efficiency and Pipeline Performance Through Sponsor/CRO Data Transparency and Cloud Collaboration 

Thomas Grundstrom, Vice President, ICONIK, Cross Functional IT Strategies and Innovation, ICON

Margaret Keegan, Senior Vice President, Global Head Data Sciences and Strategy, Quintiles

6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m.

Oracle Customer Networking Event

Healthcare Agenda

Thursday, March 26

7:00 a.m.–8:15 a.m.

Networking Breakfast

8:30 a.m.–9:15 a.m.

Population Health: A Core Competency for Providers in a Post Fee-for-Service Model 

Margaret Anderson, Executive Director, FasterCures

Balaji Apparsamy, Director, Business Intellegence, Baycare

Leslie Kelly Hall, Senior Vice President, Policy, Healthwise

Peter Pronovost, Senior Vice President, Patient Safety & Quality, Johns Hopkins

Sanjay Udoshi, Healthcare Product Strategy, Oracle

9:15 a.m.–9:30 a.m.

Break

9:30 a.m.–10:15 a.m.

Population Health: A Core Competency for Providers in a Post Fee-for-Service Model (Continued)

10:15 a.m.–10:45 a.m.

Networking Break

10:45 a.m.–11:30 a.m.

Managing Cost of Care in the Era of Healthcare Reform 

Chris Bruerton, Director, Budgeting, Intermountain Healthcare

Tony Byram, Vice President Business Integration, Ascension

Kerri-Lynn Morris, Executive Director, Finance Operations and Strategic Projects, Kaiser Permanente

Kavita Patel, Managing Director, Clinical Transformation, Brookings Institute

Christine Santos, Chief of Strategic Business Analytics, Providence Health & Services

Prashanth Kini, Senior Director, Healthcare Product Strategy, Oracle

11:30 a.m.–11:45 a.m.

Break

11:45 a.m.–12:45 p.m.

Managing Cost of Care in the Era of Healthcare Reform (Continued)

12:45 p.m.–1:45 p.m.

Networking Lunch

1:45 p.m.–2:30 p.m.

Oracle Industry Connect Keynote

2:30 p.m.–2:45 p.m.

Break

2:45 p.m.–3:30 p.m.

Precision Medicine 

Annerose Berndt, Vice President, Analytics and Information, UPMC

James Buntrock, Vice Chair, Information Management and Analytics, Mayo Clinic

Dan Ford, Vice Dean for Clinical Investigation, Johns Hopkins Medicine

Jan Hazelzet, Chief Medical Information Officer, Erasmus MC

Stan Huff, Chief Medical Information Officer, Intermountain Healthcare

Vineesh Khanna, Director, Biomedical Informatics, SIDRA

Brian Wells, Vice President, Health Technology, Penn Medicine

Wanmei Ou, Senior Product Strategist, Healthcare, Oracle

3:30 p.m.–3:45 p.m.

Networking Break

3:45 p.m.–4:30 p.m.

Precision Medicine (Continued)

4:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m.

Break

6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m.

Oracle Customer Networking Event

Additional Links to Oracle Pharma, Life Sciences and HealthCare

 
Life Sciences | Industry | Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/overview/>

http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/overview/

 
Oracle Corporation

 
Oracle Applications for Life Sciences deliver a powerful combination of technology and preintegrated applications.

  • Clinical

<http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/clinical/overview/index.html>

  • Medical Devices

<http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/medical/overview/index.html>

  • Pharmaceuticals

<http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/pharmaceuticals/overview/index.html>

 
Life Sciences Solutions | Pharmaceuticals and … – Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/solutions/index.html>

http://www.oracle.com  Industries  Life Sciences

 
Oracle Corporation

 
Life Sciences Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology.

 
Oracle Life Sciences Data Hub – Overview | Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/us/products/applications/health-sciences/e-clinical/data-hub/index.html>

http://www.oracle.com  …  E-Clinical Solutions

 
Oracle Corporation

 
Oracle Life Sciences Data Hub. Better Insights, More Informed Decision-Making. Provides an integrated environment for clinical data, improving regulatory …

 
Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology | Oracle Life Sciences <http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/pharmaceuticals/overview/index.html>

http://www.oracle.com/us/…/life-sciences/…/index.html

 
Oracle Corporation

 
Oracle Applications for Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology deliver a powerful combination of technology and preintegrated applications.

 
Oracle Health Sciences – Healthcare and Life Sciences … <https://www.oracle.com/industries/health-sciences/>

https://www.oracle.com/industries/health-sciences/

 
Oracle Corporation

 
Oracle Health Sciences leverages industry-shaping technologies that optimize clinical R&D, mitigate risk, advance healthcare, and improve patient outcomes.

 
Clinical | Oracle Life Sciences | Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/clinical/overview/index.html>

http://www.oracle.com  Industries  Life Sciences  Clinical

 
Oracle Corporation

 
Oracle for Clinical Applications provides an integrated remote data collection facility for site-based entry.

 
Oracle Life Sciences | Knowledge Zone | Oracle … <http://www.oracle.com/partners/en/products/industries/life-sciences/get-started/index.html>

http://www.oracle.com/partners/…/life-sciences/…/index.ht&#8230;

 
Oracle Corporation

 
This Knowledge Zone was specifically developed for partners interested in reselling or specializing in Oracle Life Sciences solutions. To become a specialized …

 
[PDF]Brochure: Oracle Health Sciences Suite of Life Sciences … <http://www.oracle.com/us/industries/life-sciences/oracle-life-sciences-solutions-br-414127.pdf>

http://www.oracle.com/…/life-sciences/oracle-life-sciences-s&#8230;

 
Oracle Corporation

 
Oracle Health Sciences Suite of. Life Sciences Solutions. Integrated Solutions for Global Clinical Trials. Oracle Health Sciences provides the world’s broadest set …

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Vaccines and Philimmune, LLC

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D

Article ID #163: The Vibrant Philly Biotech Scene: Focus on Vaccines and Philimmune, LLC. Published on 12/10/2014

WordCloud Image Produced by Adam Tubman

I am intending to do a series of posts highlighting interviews with Philadelphia area biotech startup CEO’s and show how a vibrant biotech startup scene is evolving in the city as well as the Delaware Valley area. Philadelphia has been home to some of the nation’s oldest biotechs including Cephalon, Centocor, hundreds of spinouts from a multitude of universities as well as home of the first cloned animal (a frog), the first transgenic mouse, and Nobel laureates in the field of molecular biology and genetics. Although some recent disheartening news about the fall in rankings of Philadelphia as a biotech hub and recent remarks by CEO’s of former area companies has dominated the news, biotech incubators like the University City Science Center and Bucks County Biotechnology Center as well as a reinvigorated investment community (like PCCI and MABA) are bringing Philadelphia back. And although much work is needed to bring the Philadelphia area back to its former glory days (including political will at the state level) there are many bright spots such as the innovative young companies as outlined in these posts.

First up I got to talk with Florian Schodel, M.D., Ph.D., CEO of Philimmune, which provides expertise in medicine, clinical and regulatory development and analytical sciences to support successful development and registration of vaccines and biologics. Before founding Philimmune, Dr. Schodel was VP in Vaccines Clinical Research of Merck Research Laboratories and has led EU vaccine clinical trials and the clinical development of rotavirus, measles, mumps, hepatitis B, and rubella vaccines. In addition Dr. Schodel and Philimmune consult on several vaccine development efforts at numerous biotech companies including:

 

\His specialties and services include: vaccines and biologics development strategy, clinical development, clinical operations, strategic planning and alliances, international collaborations, analytical and assay development, project and portfolio integration and leadership.

Successful development of vaccines and biologics poses some unique challenges: including sterile manufacturing and substantial early capital investment before initiated clinical trials, assay development for clinical trial support, and unique trail design. Therefore vaccines and biologics development is a highly collaborative process between several disciplines.

The Philadelphia area has a rich history in vaccine development including the discovery and development of the rubella, cytomegaolovirus, a rabies, and the oral polio vaccine at the Wistar Institute. Dr. Schodel answered a few questions on the state of vaccine development and current efforts in the Philadelphia area, including recent efforts by companies such as GSK’s efforts and Inovio’s efforts developing an Ebola vaccine.

In his opinion, Dr. Schodel believes our biggest hurdle in vaccine development in a societal issue, not a preclinic development issue. Great advances have been made to speed the discovery process and enhance quality assurance of manufacture capabilities like

however there has not been a great history or support for developing vaccines for the plethora of infectious diseases seen in the developing world. As Dr. Schodel pointed out, there are relatively few players in the field, and tough to get those few players excited for investing in new targets.

 

However, some companies are rapidly expanding their vaccine portfolios including

 

 

Why haven’t 3rd world countries developed their own vaccine programs?

 

  1. Hard to find partners willing to invest and support development
  2. Developing nations don’t have the money or infrastructure to support health programs
  3. Doctors in these countries need to be educated on how to conduct trials, conduct vaccine programs like Gates Foundation does. For more information see Nature paper on obstacles to vaccine introduction in third world countries.

 

Lastly, Dr. Schodel touched on a growing area, cancer vaccine development. Recent advances in bladder cancer vaccine, cervical, and promising results in an early phase metastatic breast cancer vaccine trial and phase I oral cancer vaccine trial have reinvigorated this field of cancer vaccinology.

 

Historic Timeline of Vaccine Development

vaccine development timeline

Graphic from http://en.pedaily.cn/Item.aspx?id=194125

 

Other posts on this site related to Biotech Startups in Philadelphia and some additional posts on infectious disease include:

 

RAbD Biotech Presents at 1st Pitch Life Sciences-Philadelphia

LytPhage Presents at 1st Pitch Life Sciences-Philadelphia

Hastke Inc. Presents at 1st Pitch Life Sciences-Philadelphia

1st Pitch Life Science- Philadelphia- What VCs Really Think of your Pitch

The History of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology in the late 19th and 20th Century

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

8:00 AM – Welcome & Opening Remarks

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

REAL TIME Coverage of the Conference by Dr. Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – Director and Founder of LEADERS in PHARMACEUTICAL BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE, Boston http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

Speakers

Raju Kucherlapati, Ph.D.
Paul C. Cabot Professor of Genetics, Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

Welcome all attendees, discussing Personalized Medicine, what happened and looking forward — the potential of this approach to Medicine. Event organized with Partner, National Council Cancer Research. Organizing committee and Sponsors made the event possible.

AND

Scott Weiss, M.D., M.S.
Scientific Director, Partners Personalized Medicine;
Associate Director, Channing Laboratory, Professor of Medicine.

Greetings

Greetings from the Institute of Medicine

Victor Dzau, M.D. — ABSENT — By Voice addressing the Audience
President, Institute of Medicine

Advisor on Genomics – In 1996 returned from Stanford to Harvard. What role Genetics and Genomics will play in Medicine.

Boston is a very special place for that endeavor. Harvard allocated $100 Million to study this topic. 10th year of the Conference. I am 100 days at IOM, Genomics and personalized medicine (PM) and Translation Medicine are the center. Spin off in Software development to solicit application in PM. Scientists, payers, technologists — the economics of PM navigate the regulatory. Looking forward for the next 10 years in PM

“10 Years in 10 Minutes: 10 Facts”

Edward Abrahams, Ph.D. (@newsfrompmc)
President, Personalized Medicine Coalition

Review the Progress made in PM – it has change, treating the patient not changing the disease. Friendlier  between Science and the Medicine.

  • 2004 Harvard graduate started Facebook, Viox was recalled,
  • Personalized Medicine – drugs increase form 13 in 2003 to 113 in 2013.
  • Diagnostics evolution by revolution
  • It took 4 years to develop new drug in 2013
  • In 20 years 45% of drug approvals – revolution in 155 Pharmacogenomics drugs approved at $12 Billion sales
  • FDA encouraged PM – 2017 Diagnostics
  • FDA molecular diagnostics test
  1. Regulatory of tests
  2. Payers and Manufacturer do not agree on practices
  3. Education of MDs in PM, 10% had sufficient knowledge in Genomics to incorporate it in Delivery of Care
Margaret Hamburg, MD
Commissioner of FDA

– See more at: http://personalizedmedicine.partners.org/Education/Personalized-Medicine-Conference/Program.aspx#sthash.qGbGZXXf.dpuf

@HarvardPMConf

#PMConf

@SachsAssociates

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »