Abstract
Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapies developed over the past decade have been among the most promising approaches for the treatment of patients with advanced cancers. However, the overall objective response rate of ICB therapy for various cancers remains insufficient. Hence, novel strategies are required to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy for advanced cancers. The graft-versus-tumor (GVT) effect, which reflects strong antitumor immunity, is known to occur after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The GVT effect is mainly caused by transplanted donor lymphocytes that recognize and react to distinct alloantigens on tumor cells. In contrast, transplanted allogeneic cells can, in some instances, induce endogenous antitumor immunity in recipients if the graft has been rejected. Because of this ability, allogeneic cells have also been used to induce endogenous antitumor immunity without HSCT, and their beneficial immune response is referred to as the “allogenic effect.” Here, we review the usefulness of allogeneic cells, particularly allogeneic CD4+ T cells, in cancer immunotherapy by highlighting their unique potential to induce host endogenous antitumor immunity.
Introduction
Advanced cancer has a high mortality rate and is one of the most difficult diseases to cure. Immunotherapies developed over the past decade have been among the most promising approaches for the treatment of patients with advanced cancer1). Recent findings suggest that cancer cells shield themselves by expressing immune checkpoint molecules, such as PD-L1, which bind to the PD-1 receptors expressed on activated T cells, resulting in the loss of their capacity to attack cancers2,3). The blockade of these immune checkpoint molecules using either anti-PD-1 antibody (Ab) or anti-PD-L1 Ab can reinvigorate the host endogenous antitumor immunity4,5). Based on their clinical efficacy, these immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for many cancers, including melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma3-8). However, the overall objective response rate of these therapies based on immune checkpoint blockade rarely exceeds 40% in various cancers3,9,10). On the other hand, blocking physiological immunosuppressive pathways such as PD-1/PD-L1 interactions often causes serious autoimmune-like adverse reactions11,12). Therefore, novel strategies are required to improve the efficacy of immunotherapy for advanced cancers.
Adoptive cell therapy is another innovative approach for treating advanced malignancies. Engineering human T cells with a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) specific for the pan-B-cell CD19 antigen (CD19 CAR-T cells) has been associated with high response rates in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies13). Many other types of CAR-T cell therapies have been developed to target various antigens presented on the surface of both hematological malignant cells and non-hematological solid tumors14-16). However, CAR-T cell therapies in solid tumors are not as effective as those in leukemia because of the paucity of preferable target antigens, as well as their inability to infiltrate and survive in the tumor microenvironment17,18). Furthermore, one of the challenges of these target-specific therapies is relapse due to emerging clones that have lost their target antigens13,19). Indeed, other target-specific immune therapies, such as bispecific antibodies and several monoclonal antibodies, have the same problem of relapse due to the loss of target antigens20,21). In this context, Kuhn et al. demonstrated that CD40 ligand-modified CAR-T cells not only elicited antitumor activity but also circumvented tumor immune escape by inducing endogenous antitumor immunity22,23). Li et al. also demonstrated that CAR-T cells secreting IL-36γ activate endogenous antigen-presenting cells (APCs) and T cells, which improves CAR-T cell-mediated antitumor responses24). These results suggest that endogenous antitumor immunity in concert with CAR-T cells may play a pivotal role in overcoming escaped clones and eliciting potent antitumor effects.
Endogenous antitumor immunity
In the process of tumorigenesis, gene mutations accumulate in tumor cells, indicating that tumor cells have different features based on the mutated genes from the normal host cells, although they arise from the same host. These differences can be presented with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules on tumor cells as targets for host immunity, which can evoke immunological tumor elimination. However, such endogenous antitumor immunoreaction does not usually occur in an established tumor because clinically evident tumors have already escaped host immunity through multiple mechanisms25). Tumor cells may downregulate the expression of classical MHC molecules, express immune checkpoint molecules, and produce immunosuppressive cytokines, all of which develop an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment25). A major challenge has been the development of approaches to overcome this mechanism of tumor escape in tumor-bearing hosts.
One of the goals of cancer treatment is the elimination of cancer cells and the long-lasting suppression of cancer recurrence. In this context, acquisition of endogenous antitumor immunity may represent a desirable strategy. To induce effective antitumor immunity, Chen and Mellman suggested the importance of the cancer immunity cycle, which consists of the following seven steps: release of cancer cell antigens, cancer antigen presentation by APCs, priming and activation of T cells, trafficking and infiltration of activated T cells into the tumor, antigen recognition of cancer cells by T cells, and killing of cancer cells26). In the last step, cancer cell antigens are released again, which revolves the subsequent cycles to further enhance the antitumor responses26).
Cancer vaccines are a representative strategy for inducing endogenous T cell responses, which potentially activate host immunity against tumor evasion27). To date, two major types of therapeutic cancer vaccines have been developed: cancer-associated peptide vaccination and peptide-pulsed dendritic cell (DC) vaccination. In general, DC vaccination is thought to be more efficient than peptide vaccination because DCs possess the potent ability to elicit strong T cell immune responses. DCs used for vaccination are usually derived from the peripheral blood monocytes or bone marrow cells of tumor-bearing hosts28,29). After pulsing with cancer-associated peptides, activated autologous DCs were administered to the host to induce endogenous immune responses. Although encouraging results from preclinical studies have been reported, most of the recent clinical studies of both peptide- and DC-based vaccination have shown limited efficacy with respect to the induction of objective responses1,27,30-32). Thus, antitumor vaccination using an autologous immune system may remain insufficient to revolve the host cancer immunity cycle and induce potent endogenous antitumor immunity.
Allogeneic antitumor immunity after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Allogeneic immunity is preferentially discussed in the context of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and organ transplantation. Owing to differences in major and/or minor histocompatibility complex molecules, transplanted donor cells and the host immune system recognize host tissues and transplanted cells/organs, respectively, as enemies, except in the case of transplantation between identical twins33,34). Therefore, immunosuppressants must be administered to the recipient to avoid fatal graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) and/or graft rejection. On the other hand, the graft-versus-tumor (GVT) effect is a beneficial anti-tumor effect in which hematological malignant cells are attacked by infused donor cells after allogeneic HSCT33-36). The GVT effect is mainly mediated by donor T cells that recognize and react to multiple alloantigens on tumor cells33). Many studies have shown durable remission in patients with refractory hematological malignancies after allogeneic HSCT because of potential GVT effects35,37-39). The GVT effects have also been reported in refractory solid tumors, including renal cell carcinoma, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and some childhood cancers40-47). Among them, tumor regression was often associated with withdrawal of immunosuppression, chimerism conversion, and/or occurrences of chronic GVHD, all of which suggested that the antitumor effects were elicited by transplanted donor immunity44,45). Although the objective response rates due to the GVT effects for patients with solid tumors are not as high as those for patients with hematological malignancies, accumulating knowledge from cases that achieved long-lasting remission may provide us with some clues to control the potential GVT effects on solid tumors.
In recent years, Guo et al. demonstrated that granulocyte colony-stimulating factor-mobilized human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched donor peripheral blood stem cell infusion after regular chemotherapy, which is referred to as “microtransplantation,” improved the outcomes of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML)48,49). Notably, pentamer analysis revealed a significant increase in WT1+CD8+ T cells (donor and/or host origin) in 33 of 39 patients, and the number of infused CD3+ T cells was correlated with the therapeutic effects49). The underlying mechanism of their anti-leukemic activity remains incompletely understood, but it has been noted that microtransplantation provides an effective and safe strategy for patients with AML48-51).
In addition, Rubio et al. reported an ingenious approach in a mouse model of leukemia in which mandatory or spontaneous loss of donor chimerism after HSCT was associated with improved leukemia-free survival52). They demonstrated that host-derived interferon-γ was critical for mediating anti-leukemic effects52). Along with this preclinical study, some clinical cases with advanced hematologic malignancies who achieved complete remission after non-myeloablative HSCT, even though the transplanted graft was rejected, have been reported53,54). These preclinical and clinical observations suggest that host-versus-graft immunity in graft rejection also elicits host-versus-tumor effects52,54,55). Collectively, allogeneic cells that can cause a strong immunoreaction in the recipient may be useful for inducing not only donor-derived but also host-derived antitumor immunity.
Allogeneic immunotherapy to induce endogenous antitumor immunity
In the 1960s, before establishing the current style of HSCT, Alexander et al. proposed the concept of inducing host endogenous antitumor immunity by adoptive transfer of heterologous cells without utilizing HSCT56). The induced antitumor immunity prolonged the survival of the tumor-bearing host even though the transferred heterologous cells were rejected56). Other researchers have applied the same idea to induce host antitumor immunity in preclinical models in which lymphocytes with/without pre-immunization isolated from the spleen or lymph nodes were used as allogeneic cell sources57-59). The favorable immune response elicited by infused heterologous/allogeneic cells is referred to as the “allogenic effect”60). Then, several clinical studies have been conducted on patients with intractable cancers, with or without low-dose irradiation, cytokine therapy, or low to regular doses of chemotherapy prior to allogeneic cell infusion61-63). As a result, an objective response was sometimes observed in patients with hematologic malignancies and renal cell carcinoma62). However, such a preferable response is rarely observed in other refractory solid tumors, and the achievement of stable disease or a transient effect is usually the best response in many studies61,63). Furthermore, a shortage of information about the sustainability of responses due to allogeneic effects leaves the long-term efficacy of these strategies undetermined.
Therapeutic antitumor vaccinations with CD4+ T lymphocytes containing allogenic cells
More recently, studies have started using separated populations of allogeneic cells for the induction of host endogenous antitumor immunity, in which some of them used CD4+ T lymphocytes containing allogeneic cells (Table 1). Symons et al. conducted CD8+ T cell-depleted allogeneic donor lymphocyte infusion after the administration of cyclophosphamide. As a result, activated host immunity prolonged survival by a median of 10 and 7 days in mouse models of hematologic malignancy and solid tumors, respectively64). Their antitumor effect requires the presence of donor CD4+ T cells, host CD8+ T cells, and expression of alloantigens in normal host tissues64). Su et al. performed multiple injections of mitomycin C (MMC)-inactivated MHC-fully mismatched allogeneic leukocytes, which induced both innate and adaptive immune responses in B16F10 tumor-bearing mice65). The same group reported that multiple injections of tumor-antigen-primed inactivated haploidentical lymphocytes into mice with TC-1 lung cancer induced host tumor-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), in which tumor growth was delayed with prolonged overall survival66). According to their latest study, the sequential administration of cyclophosphamide, MMC-inactivated MHC-fully mismatched allogeneic leukocytes, and cancer cell vaccinations were required to achieve the best antitumor efficacy, which inhibited tumor growth and extended survival with a mean survival advantage of 8.8 days67).
Table 1.
Therapeutic vaccination with CD4+ T lymphocytes containing allogenic cells in mouse models of cancer
| Study group | Tumor cell | Particularity of allogenic cells | Times (routes) of Administration |
Required concomittant therapy | Reference |
| SKCCC at JH | A20/RENCA | CD8+ T cell-depleted lymphocytes | 1 time (i.v.) | CY | Symons et al. 2008 |
| PUMC and CAMS | B16F10 | MMC inactivated MHC-fully mismatched leukocytes | 2 times (i.v.) | Non | Su et al. 2008 |
| TC-1 | Tumor antigen primed and inactivated MHC-haploidentical T lymphocytes | 3 times (i.v.) | Non | Shi et al. 2014 | |
| TC-1 | MMC inactivated MHC-fully mismatched leukocytes | 3 times (i.t.) | CY+ MMC inactivated TC-1 vaccine |
Tang et al. 2017 | |
| HHUMC | BCL1 | CD3/CD28 cross-linked memory Th1 cells | 1-3 times (i.v.) | Non | Har-Noy et al. 2008 |
| 3 times (i.d.) | BCL1 lysate vaccine | Har-Noy et al. 2009 | |||
| 2 times (i.v. and i.t.) | Cryoablation of the tumor | Har-Noy et al. 2009 | |||
| UA and HHUMC | 12B1 | Effector/memory CD4+Th1 cells | 3 times (i.f.) | 12B1- derived CRCL vaccine | Janikashvili et al. 2011 |
| FMU | B16F1 | CD4+T cells activated by the host derived antigen presenting cells | 1 time (i.t.) | Non | Mochizuki et al. 2021 |
SKCCC at JH: Sidny Kimmel Complehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, PUMC: Pekin Union Medical College, CAMS: Chinese Academy of Medical Science, HHUMC: Hadassha-Hebrew University Medical Center, UA: University of Alizona, FMU: Fukushima Medical University, i.v.: intravenous, MMC: mytomycin C, 1.t.: intratumoral, Th1: T helper 1, i.d.: intradermal, i.f.: intrafootpad, CRCL: chaperone-rich cell lysate
With activated CD4+ T cells, Har-Noy et al. used T-helper 1 (Th1) memory cells generated by the ex vivo activation of allogeneic CD4+ T cells with anti-CD3/anti-CD28 stimulation. Prior to use, Th1 memory cells were further activated by anti-CD3/anti-CD28-coated nanobeads, which were then administered with the attached beads (named CD3/CD28 cross-linked Th1 memory cells)68,69). A single infusion of CD3/CD28 cross-linked Th1 memory cells switched the cytokine environment of tumor-bearing mice from Th2-dominant to Th1-dominant, which was capable of enhancing host endogenous antitumor immunity, with 31% of the mice cured68). In their combined method of CD3/CD28 cross-linked Th1 memory cells with tumor lysate vaccination, the mean survival time of mice with BCL1 leukemia was prolonged by 14.5 days in comparison to control mice, although no mice were cured69). They also demonstrated that cryoimmunotherapy, which consisted of intratumoral/intravenous administration of allogeneic CD3/CD28 cross-linked Th1 memory cells with cryoablation of the solid tumor, resulted in 40% of mice surviving for more than 90 days69). A subsequent study showed that approximately 40% of mice with leukemia survived for up to 40 days when allogeneic effector/memory CD4+ Th1 cells were combined with chaperone-rich cell lysate vaccination70). Based on these preclinical studies, a phase IIb clinical trial is currently being conducted in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (NCT04444622).
Although many of the abovementioned strategies require additional treatments such as chemotherapy, cancer vaccination, and/or cryoablation concomitantly with allogeneic cell infusions, these studies suggest that CD4+ T lymphocytes containing allogeneic cells have the unique potential to activate host endogenous antitumor immunity.
A novel antitumor immunotherapy using alloantigen-activated CD4+ T cells
We recently developed a novel strategy using allogeneic CD4+ T cells to reinvigorate host endogenous antitumor immunity in a mouse model of melanoma71). In a mixed lymphocyte culture, MHC class II-mismatched allogeneic CD4+ T cells were activated by host strain-derived DCs (Fig. 1). A single intratumoral injection of alloantigen-activated CD4+ (named AAA-CD4+) T cells causes Th1 inflammation in the tumor. The inflammation accelerates the infiltration of host professional APCs, host CD4+ T cells, and host CD8+ T cells into the tumor, which licenses the host endogenous CTLs to eliminate preestablished melanoma. The induced CTLs persisted long-term in vivo as memory CTLs to protect animals from tumor rechallenge. Notably, injected allogeneic CD4+ T cells diminished in vivo soon after tumor regression and failed to cause any immune-related complications or other unexpected adverse reactions71).
Fig. 1.

Tumor mouse model: Host C57BL/6 mice were subcutaneously injected with B16F1 tumor cells on day zero. ①: Dendritic cells (DCs) were generated from c-kit-positive cells in the bone marrow of other C57BL/6 mice. ②-③: CD4+ T cells isolated from the spleens of BALB/c mice were activated in mixed-lymphocyte cultures with C57BL/6 mouse-derived DCs. ④: Nine days after B16F1 inoculation, alloantigen-activated CD4+ T cells (AAA-CD4+ T cells) were directly injected into the tumor. The tumor size and changes in the physical condition of the animals were monitored every two-three days.
In terms of applying ex vivo activated allogeneic CD4+ T cells that induce a Th1 environment and host antitumor immunity, the strategies of Har-Noy et al. and ours seem to be similar, but the cell products differ from each other. One of the most significant differences is the method of activation, and therefore, the reactivity of allogeneic CD4+ T cells. They used a CD3/CD28 antibody to activate allogeneic CD4+ T cells, in which nearly all allogeneic CD4+ T cells, including both host antigen-reactive and host antigen-nonreactive fractions, were activated. As the estimated frequency of allogeneic CD4+ T cells that are reactive to alloantigens is approximately 1 in 10-100 of all allogeneic CD4+ T cells, only a limited fraction of their activated allogeneic CD4+ T cells can be reactive to the alloantigens of the tumor-bearing host72). In contrast, many of our AAA-CD4+ T cells were reactive to host alloantigens because they were activated by DCs derived from the same host strain. The mismatched MHC class II molecules between the tumor-bearing host and CD4+ T cell donor are the most likely target antigens of AAA-CD4+ T cells. Because MHC molecules are among the strongest antigens in transplantation immunology, AAA-CD4+ T cells can cause robust graft-versus-host-directed inflammation in tumors after intratumoral administration. AAA-CD4+ T cells may then be eliminated by host-versus-graft-directed inflammation, during which time the host endogenous antitumor immunity can be reinvigorated. Although the molecular mechanisms remain to be elucidated, our results suggest that alloantigen-activated CD4+ T cells can be used to induce host antitumor CTLs in cancer immunotherapy.
Future perspectives
The allogeneic immune response is a conserved immune reaction; thus, the current concept of AAA-CD4+ T cell therapy in animal models may be translated into human clinical trials. Since a large number of human DCs are induced from monocytes obtained by peripheral blood apheresis, human AAA-CD4+ T cells can be generated by the activation of allogeneic CD4+ T cells with monocyte-derived DCs from patients with cancer, which recognize and react to the mismatched HLA class II antigens of patients28). Along with clinical development, we also aimed to understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the induction of strong endogenous antitumor immunity using our strategy. Because we found a significant accumulation of host-activated DCs and activated macrophages in the tumor after AAA-CD4+ T cell injection, these professional APCs may play important roles in inducing current antitumor immunity71). However, their practical roles in our model have not been elucidated, although allogeneic inflammation can lead to their migration and activation in tumors. Intriguingly, it has been reported that many distinct types of macrophages exist in tumors, but their functions remain undefined73-77). For instance, some of them elicit antitumor immunity, whereas others are tumor supportive73-77). Furthermore, many other types of immune-related cells also exist in the tumor, such as tumor-infiltrating neutrophils, myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and cancer-associated fibroblasts, all of which may be involved in the induction of current endogenous antitumor immunity78-82). The discovery of a novel molecular mechanism through which endogenous antitumor immunity is reinvigorated by allogeneic cells could be further translated for the development of new therapeutic targets in next-generation cancer immunotherapy.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI, Grant Number JP22K07237 (K. Mochizuki).
Conflict of interest disclosure
Our university received financial support from Nobelpharma Co., Ltd. to obtain a patent associated with AAA-CD4+ T cell therapy.
References
- 1.Yang Y. Cancer immunotherapy: harnessing the immune system to battle cancer. J Clin Invest, 125: 3335-3337, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Zou W, Chen L. Inhibitory B7-family molecules in the tumour microenvironment. Nat Rev Immunol, 8(6): 467-477, 2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sun C, Mezzadra R, Schumacher TN. Regulation and Function of the PD-L1 Checkpoint. Immunity, 48(3): 434-452, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Topalian SL, Drake CG, Pardoll DM. Immune checkpoint blockade: a common denominator approach to cancertherapy. Cancer Cell, 27(4): 450-461, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Brahmer JR, Tykodi SS, Chow LQ, et al. Safety and activity of anti-PD-L1 antibody in patients with advanced cancer. N Engl J Med, 366(26): 2455-2465, 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ansell SM, Lesokhin AM, Borrello I, et al. PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma. N Engl J Med, 372(4): 311-319, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Zhang X, Yang Z, An Y, et al. Clinical benefits of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with metastatic colorectalcancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol, 20(1): 93, 2022. doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02549-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Chen L, Mo DC, Hu M, Zhao SJ, Yang QW, Huang ZL. PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a meta-analysis. Am J Otolaryngol, 43(2): 103324, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2021.103324. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Zhao X, Subramanian S. Intrinsic resistance of solid tumors to immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Cancer Res, 77: 817-822, 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Pitt JM, Vétizou M, Daillère R, et al. Resistance mechanisms to immune-checkpoint blockade in cancer: tumor-intrinsic and -extrinsic factors. Immunity, 44: 1255-1269, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Postow MA, Sidlow R, Hellmann MD. Immune-Related Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Blockade. N Engl J Med, 378: 158-168, 2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Young A, Quandt Z, Bluestone JA. The Balancing Act between Cancer Immunity and Autoimmunity in Response to Immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res, 6(12): 1445-1452, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Maude SL, Laetsch TW, Buechner J, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in Children and Young Adults with B-Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia. N Engl J Med, 378: 439-448, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Fry TJ, Shah NN, Orentas RJ, et al. CD22-targeted CAR T cells induce remission in B-ALL that is naive or resistant to CD19-targeted CAR immunotherapy. Nat Med, 24(1): 20-28, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ali SA, Shi V, Maric I, et al. T cells expressing an anti-B-cell maturation antigen chimeric antigen receptor cause remissions of multiple myeloma. Blood, 128(13): 1688-1700, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Louis CU, Savoldo B, Dotti G, et al. Antitumor activity and long-term fate of chimeric antigen receptor-positive T cells in patients with neuroblastoma. Blood, 118(23): 6050-6056, 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Klebanoff CA, Rosenberg SA, Restifo NP. Prospects for gene-engineered T cell immunotherapy for solid cancers. Nat Med, 22(1): 26-36, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.D’Aloia MM, Zizzari IG, Sacchetti B, Pierelli L, Alimandi M. CAR-T cells: the long and winding road to solid tumors. Cell Death Dis, 9(3): 282, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41419-018-0278-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Majzner RG, Mackall CL. Tumor Antigen Escape from CAR T-cell Therapy. Cancer Discov, 8: 1219-1226, 2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Zhao Y, Aldoss I, Qu C, et al. Tumor-intrinsic and -extrinsic determinants of response to blinatumomab in adults with B-ALL. Blood, 137(4): 471-484, 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Reinert J, Beitzen-Heineke A, Wethmar K, Stelljes M, Fiedler W, Schwartz S. Loss of CD22 expression and expansion of a CD22dim subpopulation in adults with relapsed/refractory B-lymphoblastic leukaemia after treatment with Inotuzumab-Ozogamicin. Ann Hematol, 100(11): 2727-2732, 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kuhn NF, Purdon TJ, van Leeuwen DG, et al. CD40 Ligand-Modified Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells Enhance Antitumor Function by Eliciting an Endogenous Antitumor Response. Cancer Cell, 35: 473-488, 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kuhn NF, Lopez AV, Li X, Cai W, Daniyan AF, Brentjens RJ. CD103+ cDC1 and endogenous CD8+ T cells are necessary for improved CD40L-overexpressing CAR T cell antitumor function. Nat Commun, 11(1): 6171, 2020. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19833-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li X, Daniyan AF, Lopez AV, Purdon TJ, Brentjens RJ. Cytokine IL-36γ improves CAR T-cell functionality and induces endogenous antitumor response. Leukemia, 35(2): 506-521, 2021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Schreiber RD, Old LJ, Smyth MJ. Cancer immunoediting: integrating immunity’s roles in cancer suppression and promotion. Science, 331: 1565-1570, 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Chen DS, Mellman I. Oncology meets immunology: the cancer-immunity cycle. Immunity, 39(1): 1-10, 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Melief CJM, Van Hall T, Arens R, Ossendorp F, Van der Burg SH. Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines. J Clin Invest, 125(9): 3401-3412, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Akiyama Y, Tanosaki R, Inoue N, et al. Clinical response in Japanese metastatic melanoma patients treated with peptide cocktail-pulsed dendritic cells. J Transl Med, 3(1): 4, 2005. doi: 10.1186/1479-5876-3-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Verheye E, Melgar JB, Deschoemaeker S, et al. Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy in Multiple Myeloma: Challenges, Opportunities, and Future Directions. Int J Mol Sci, 23(2): 904, 2022. doi: 10.3390/ijms23020904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Bezu L, Kepp O, Cerrato G, et al. Trial watch: Peptide-based vaccines in anticancer therapy. Oncoimmunology, 7(12): e1511506, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Melero I, Gaudernack G, Gerritsen W, et al. Therapeutic vaccines for cancer: an overview of clinical trials. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 11(9): 509-524, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Rosenberg SA, Yang JC, Restifo NP. Cancer Immunotherapy: Moving Beyond Current Vaccines. Nat Med, 10, 909-915, 2004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Negrin RS. Graft-versus-host disease versus graft-versus-leukemia. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program, 225-230, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Blazar BR, Hill GR, Murphy WJ. Dissecting the biology of allogeneic HSCT to enhance the GvT effect whilst minimizing GvHD. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 17: 475-492, 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kolb HJ. Graft-versus-leukemia effects of transplantation and donor lymphocytes. Blood, 112: 4371-4383, 2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Reddy P, Maeda Y, Liu C, Krijanovski OI, Korngold R, Ferrara JLM. A crucial role for antigen-presenting cells and alloantigen expression in graft-versus-leukemia response. Nat Med, 11(11): 1244-1249, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Boatsman EE, Fu CH, Song SX, Moore TB. Graft-versus-leukemia Effect on Infant Lymphoblastic Leukemia Relapsed After Sibling Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol, 32(2): e57-60, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.WangY, Liu DH, Xu LP, et al. Superior Graft-versus-leukemia effect associated with transplantation of haploidentical compared with HLA-identical sibling donor grafts for high- risk acute leukemia: an historic comparison. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 17: 821-830, 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Yu S, Huang F, Wang Y, et al. Haploidentical transplantation might have superior graft-versus-leukemia effect than HLA-matched sibling transplantation for high-risk acute myeloid leukemia in first complete remission: a prospective multicentre cohort study. Leukemia, 34: 1433-1443, 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Childs R, Chernoff A, Contentin N, et al. Regression of metastatic renal- cell carcinoma after nonmyeloablative allogeneic peripheral- blood stem- cell transplantation. N Engl J Med, 343(11): 750-758, 2000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Aglietta M, Barkholt L, Schianca FC, et al. Reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in metastatic colorectal cancer as a novel adoptive cell therapy approach. The European group for blood and marrow transplantation experience. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 15(3): 326-335, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Bishop MR, Fowler DH, Marchigiani D, et al. Allogeneic lymphocytes induce tumor regression of advanced metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 22(19): 3886-3892, 2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Carella AM, Beltrami G, Corsetti MT, et al. Reduced intensity conditioning for allograft after cytoreductive autograft in metastatic breast cancer. Lancet, 366(9482): 318-320, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Schianca FC, Ricchiardi A, Capaldi A, et al. Allogeneic hemopoietic stem cell transplantation in solid tumors. Transplant Proc, 37(6): 2664-2666, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2005.06.050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Barisic S, Childs RW. Graft-Versus-Solid-Tumor Effect: From Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation to Adoptive Cell Therapies. Stem Cells, 40(6): 556-563, 2022. doi: 10.1093/stmcls/sxac021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Yoshida H, Kusuki S, Hashii Y, Ohta H, Morio T, Ozono K. Ex vivo-expanded donor CD4(+) lymphocyte infusion against relapsing neuroblastoma: A transient graft-versus-tumor effect. Pediatr Blood Cancer, 52(7): 895-897, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Sano H, Mochizuki K, Kobayashi S, et al. T-cell replete haploidentical stem cell transplantation with low dose anti-thymocyte globulin for relapsed/refractory Ewing sarcoma family tumors. Cancer Rep (Hoboken), 5(7): e1519, 2022. doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Guo M, Hu KX, Yu CL, et al. Infusion of HLA-mismatched peripheral blood stem cells improves the outcome of chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia in elderly patients. Blood, 17: 936-941, 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Guo M, Hu KX, Liu GX, et al. HLA-mismatched stem-cell microtransplantation as postremission therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol, 30: 4084-4090, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Guo M, Chao NJ, Li JY, et al. HLA-Mismatched Microtransplant in Older Patients Newly Diagnosed With Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Results From the Microtransplantation Interest Group. JAMA Oncol, 4: 54-62, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Hu KX, Du X, Guo M, et al. Comparative study of micro-transplantation from HLA fully mismatched unrelated and partly matched related donors in acute myeloid leukemia. Am J Hematol, 95: 630-636, 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Rubio MT, Kim YM, Sachs T, Mapara M, Zhao G, Sykes M. Antitumor effect of donor marrow graft rejection induced by recipient leukocyte infusions in mixed chimeras prepared with nonmyeloablative conditioning: critical role for recipient-derived IFN-gamma. Blood, 102(6): 2300-2307, 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Dey BR, McAfee S, Colby C, et al. Impact of prophylactic donor leukocyte infusions on mixed chimerism, graft-versus-host disease, and antitumor response in patients with advanced hematologic malignancies treated with nonmyeloablative conditioning and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 9(5): 320-329, 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.O'Donnell PV, Luznik L, Jones RJ, et al. Nonmyeloablative bone marrow transplantation from partially HLA-mismatched related donors using posttransplantation cyclophosphamide. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 8(7): 377-386, 2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Mapara MY, Sykes M. Tolerance and cancer: mechanisms of tumor evasion and strategies for breaking tolerance. J Clin Oncol, 22(6): 1136-1151, 2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Alexander P, Delorme EJ, Hall JG. The effect of lymphoid cells from the lymph of specifically immunized sheep on the growth of primary sarcomata in rats. Lancet, 1186-1189, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- 57.Katz DH, Ellman L, Paul WE, Green I, Benacerra B. Resistance of Guinea Pigs to Leukemia following transfer of immunocompetent allogeneic lymphoid cells. Cancer Res, 32: 133-140, 1972. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Fefer A. Treatment of a moloney lymphoma with cyclophosphamide and H-2-incompatible spleen cells. Cancer Res, 33: 641-644, 1973. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Ellman L, Katz DH, Green I, Paul WE, Benacerraf B. Mechanisms involved in the antileukemic effect of immunocompetent allogeneic lymphoid cell transfer. Cancer Res, 32(1): 141-148, 1972. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Osborne DP Jr, Katz DH. The allogeneic effect in inbred mice.I.Experimental conditions for the enhancement of hapten-specific secondary antibody responses by the graft-versus-host reaction. J Exp Med, 136(3): 439-454, 1972. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Porter DL, Connors JM, Van Deerlin VMD, et al. Graft-versus-tumor induction with donor leukocyte infusions as primary therapy for patients with malignancies. J Clin Oncol, 17: 1234-1243, 1999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Strair RK, Schaar D, Medina D, et al. Antineoplastic effects of partially HLA-matched irradiated blood mononuclear cells in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol, 21: 3785-3791, 2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Ballenn KK, Becker PS, Emmons RVB, et al. Low-dose total body irradiation followed by allogeneic lymphocyte infusion may induce remission in patients with refractory hematologic malignancy. Blood, 100: 442-450, 2002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Symons HJ, Levy MY, Wang J, et al. The allogeneic effect revisited: exogenous help for endogenous, tumor-specific T cells. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant, 14: 499-509, 2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Su X, Guo S, Zhou C, Wang D, Ma W, Zhang S. A simple and effective method for cancer immunotherapy by inactivated allogeneic leukocytes infusion. Int J Cancer, 124: 1142-1151, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Shi G, Zhou C, Wang D, Ma W, Liu B, Zhang S. Antitumor enhancement by adoptive transfer of tumor antigen primed, inactivated MHC-haploidentical lymphocytes. Cancer Lett, 343: 42-50, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Tang Y, Ma W, Zhou C, Wang D, Zhang S. A tritherapy combination of inactivated allogeneic leukocytes infusion and cell vaccine with cyclophosphamide in a sequential regimen enhances antitumor immunity. J Chin Med Assoc, 81: 316-323, 2018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Har-Noy M, Zeira M, Weiss L, Slavin S. Completely Mismatched Allogeneic CD3/CD28 Cross-Linked Th1 Memory Cells Elicit Anti-Leukemia Effects in Unconditioned Hosts Without GVHD Toxicity. Leuk Res, 32(12): 1903-1913, 2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Har-Noy M, Zeira M, Weiss L, Fingerut E, Or R, Slavin S. Allogeneic CD3/CD28 cross-linked Th1 memory cells provide potent adjuvant effects for active immunotherapy of leukemia/lymphoma. Leuk Res, 33: 525-538, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Janikashvili N, LaCasse CJ, Larmonier C, et al. Allogeneic effector/memory Th-1 cells impair FoxP3 regulatory T lymphocytes and synergize with chaperone-rich cell lysate vaccine to treat leukemia. Blood, 117: 1555-1564, 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71.Mochizuki K, Kobayashi S, Takahashi N, et al. Alloantigen-activated (AAA) CD4+ T cells reinvigorate host endogenous T cell immunity to eliminate pre-established tumors in mice. J Exp Clin Cancer Res, 40(1): 314, 2021. doi: 10.1186. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.SuchinEJ, Langmuir PB, Palmer E, Sayegh MH, Wells AD, Turka LA. Quantifying the frequency of alloreactive T cells in vivo: new answers to an old question. J Immunol, 166(2): 973-981, 2001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73.Yang M, McKay D, Pollard JW, Lewis CE. Diverse Functions of Macrophages in Different Tumor Microenvironments. Cancer Res, 78(19): 5492-5503, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Petty AJ, Yang Y. Tumor-associated macrophages: implications in cancer immunotherapy. Immunotherapy, 9(3): 289-302, 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Noy R, Pollard JW. Tumor-Associated Macrophages: From Mechanisms to Therapy. Immunity, 41: 49-61, 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Qian BZ, Pollard JW. Macrophage Diversity Enhances Tumor Progression and Metastasis. Cell, 141: 39-51, 2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Mantovani A, Marchesi F, Malesci A, Laghi L, Allavena P. Tumour-associated macrophages as treatment targets in oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 14(7): 399-416, 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78.Shiga K, Hara M, Nagasaki T, Sato T, Takahashi H, Takeyama H. Cancer-Associated Fibroblasts: Their Characteristics and Their Roles in Tumor Growth. Cancers (Basel), 7(4): 2443-2458, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Hurt B, Schulick R, Edil B, El Kasmi KC, Barnett CJ. Cancer-promoting mechanisms of tumor-associated neutrophils. Am J Surg, 214(5): 938-944, 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.Bu L, Baba H, Yoshida N, et al. Biological heterogeneity and versatility of cancer-associated fibroblasts in the tumor microenvironment. Oncogene, 38: 4887-4901, 2019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Binnewies M, Roberts EW, Kersten K, et al. Understanding the Tumor Immune Microenvironment (TIME) for effective therapy. Nat Med, 24: 541-550, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Hinshaw DC, Shevde LA. The Tumor Microenvironment Innately Modulates Cancer Progression. Cancer Res, 79: 4557-4566, 2019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
