Search

Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer. © 2011 Fox et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Contains fulltext : 57342.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Previously, we compared the efficiency of direct injection with an adenovirus (Ad) expressing human gp100 (hgp100) to immunization with dendritic cells (DC) loaded with the same vector ex vivo. The DC vaccine provided the greatest protection against challenge with B16F10 melanoma, and antitumor immunity was found to be CD8(+) T cell-independent. In the current study, we sought to determine whether lack of CD8(+) T cell-mediated antitumor immunity was a function of the vaccine platform or the tumor line. Both Ad and DC/Ad vaccines elicited CD8(+) CTL reactive against hgp100 and provided protection against B16F10 engineered to express hgp100 demonstrating that both vaccination platforms can effectively generate protective CD8(+) T cell-mediated immunity. The hgp100-induced CTL cross-reacted with murine gp100 (mgp100) and lysed B16F10 cells pulsed with mgp100 peptide indicating that the resistance of B16F10 cells to CTL elicited by hgp100 vaccination may be due to a defect in processing of the endogenous mgp100. Indeed, introduction of the TAP-1 cDNA into B16F10 rendered the cells sensitive to lysis by gp100-specific CTL. Furthermore, gp100-immunized mice were protected from challenge with B16F10-TAP1 cells through a mechanism dependent upon CD8(+) T cells. These results demonstrate that tumor phenotype, not the vaccination platform, ultimately determines CD8(+) or CD4(+) T cell-mediated tumor clearance.