Skip to main content
Oncoimmunology logoLink to Oncoimmunology
. 2016 Feb 18;5(6):e1145332. doi: 10.1080/2162402X.2016.1145332

Prioritization schema for immunotherapy clinical trials in glioblastoma

Tiffany R Hodges a, Sherise D Ferguson a, Hillary G Caruso b, Gary Kohanbash c, Shouhao Zhou d, Timothy F Cloughesy e, Mitchel S Berger c, George H Poste f, Mustafa Khasraw g, Sujuan Ba h, Tao Jiang i, Tom Mikkelson j, WK Alfred Yung k, John F de Groot k, Howard Fine l, Lewis C Cantley m, Ingo K Mellinghoff n, Duane A Mitchell o, Hideho Okada c, Amy B Heimberger a,
PMCID: PMC4938323  PMID: 27471611

ABSTRACT

Background: Emerging immunotherapeutic strategies for the treatment of glioblastoma (GBM) such as dendritic cell (DC) vaccines, heat shock proteins, peptide vaccines, and adoptive T-cell therapeutics, to name a few, have transitioned from the bench to clinical trials. With upcoming strategies and developing therapeutics, it is challenging to critically evaluate the practical, clinical potential of individual approaches and to advise patients on the most promising clinical trials.

Methods: The authors propose a system to prioritize such therapies in an organized and data-driven fashion. This schema is based on four categories of factors: antigenic target robustness, immune-activation and -effector responses, preclinical vetting, and early evidence of clinical response. Each of these categories is subdivided to focus on the most salient elements for developing a successful immunotherapeutic approach for GBM, and a numerical score is generated.

Results: The Score Card reveals therapeutics that have the most robust data to support their use, provides a reference prioritization score, and can be applied in a reiterative fashion with emerging data.

Conclusions: The authors hope that this schema will give physicians an evidence-based and rational framework to make the best referral decisions to better guide and serve this patient population.

KEYWORDS: Clinical trial, glioblastoma, immunotherapy, prioritization, score card

Introduction

The current standard of care for GBM is maximal safe resection followed by adjuvant chemoradiation therapy. Despite recent advances in treatment and aggressive therapy, the median survival time remains slightly over 14 mo.1 Although these therapies prolong progression-free survival, recurrence is inevitable. Moreover, the nonspecific nature of conventional therapy for GBM often results in incapacitating damage to surrounding normal brain tissue. Despite scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of this disease, only modest improvements in survival have been achieved over the past 30 y. Interestingly, several immunotherapeutic strategies have transitioned from the bench to clinical trials. Although this is an exciting time in brain tumor immunotherapy, practitioners face a unique and difficult challenge in advising GBM patients on the most promising clinical trials. Frequently, the practitioner must guide this decision without sufficient information or understanding of how well a particular approach has been vetted. In addition, while there have been numerous early phase studies in the field, there is also a recognized wastage of valuable resources and time, as patients enroll onto trials out of desperation that may not have been sufficiently considered. Specifically in GBM there have been hundreds of studies that could have been aborted early on. The pace of development of immunotherapies in oncology, including GBM, is faster than the traditional pace of drug development, given the recognized need and patient and advocacy enthusiasm. It is difficult therefore to prioritize preclinical approaches that are rapidly progressing to clinical trial implementation, as potentially ineffective approaches could be rushed into development. Therefore, we propose a system to prioritize such therapies in an organized and data-driven fashion.

This schema is based on four categories of factors: robustness of the antigen target, ability to activate and sustain immune responses in the glioma microenvironment, preclinical vetting, and early evidence of clinical response (Table 1). Each category is subdivided to focus on the most salient elements for developing a successful immunotherapeutic approach for GBM, and a numerical score is generated. Considering the significant heterogeneity of GBMs, this system will ultimately favor combination strategies, as they are more likely to result in a meaningful outcome. This score card, which includes current immunotherapy trials for GBM patients, reveals which therapeutics have the most robust data to support their use, provides a reference prioritization score, and can be applied in a reiterative fashion with emerging data. The rationale of the score card's use can potentially be applied in a forthcoming global adaptive Bayesian clinical trial in GBM.2 The use of the score card also intends to encourage preclinical vetting and rationally selected combinatorial approaches for translational researchers and industry.

Table 1.

Prioritization “Score Card” for glioblastoma immunotherapeutics.

Target Frequency of target expression 0–33% (1)
34–66% (2)
66–100% (3)
Therapeutic targeting has benefit in other malignancy 1
Homogeneous tumor expression 1
Expression is sustained at recurrence 2
Mechanism of resistance 1
Specificity of expression in the tumor 1
Immune activation and effector response Activating component (i.e., costimulation, TLR) 1
Trafficking to the tumor microenvironment 1
Maintenance of effector response within tumor 1
Agent: Preclinical Glioma cancer stem cell activity 2
Efficacy in preclinical model Other model (1)
Clonotypic (1)
Xenograft/*GEMM (2)
Acceptable toxicity profile 2
Hits target (if known) in vivo 2
Agent: Clinical Clinical activity in GBM 3
Extreme responders 2
Combinatorial data 2
Acceptable phase I safety data 2

Abbreviation: *GEMM, genetically engineered murine model (of glioma).

Methods

Therapeutic selection

Current immunotherapy trials in GBM were identified through a systematic search on www.clinicaltrials.gov using the following keywords: “GBM” AND “immunotherapy” or “glioma” AND “immunotherapy.” The two initial searches yielded a combined total of 121 studies, many of which were duplicates. Nine trials were eliminated that did not have a primary immune therapeutic intent (e.g., PET imaging in patients treated with chemoradiation or immunotherapy, MR imaging in patients treating with DC therapy, evaluation of factors in human brain tumors) or were targeted to other cancers such as cholangiocarcinoma, grade II glioma, diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, ependymoma, and medulloblastoma/neuroectodermal tumors (i.e., they were misclassified). Two trials were listed in duplicate (TVI-Brain-1), both as a phase I and a phase II clinical trial (NCT01290692/NCT01081223). Six trials were eliminated that involved oncolytic viruses, which did not have an immunotherapeutic intent (AdV-tK/radiation, DNX-2401, HSV G207). Three studies had been terminated (IMA-950, IMA-950 and poly-ICLC, tumor-specific hybridomas). A phase I clinical trial of the IDH1 peptide vaccine (NCT02454634) was included in the Appendix, given that there is an active recruitment of grade IV gliomas in addition to grade III gliomas in this trial. Several trials evaluating the immune checkpoint inhibitors in GBM were not listed on either of the searches, and had to be searched for separately on www.clinicaltrials.gov using search terms “pembrolizumab” AND “GBM,” “nivolumab” AND “GBM,” “ipilimumab” AND “GBM.” Six trials (NCT02209376, NCT02026271, NCT02331693, NCT01904123, NCT02365662, NCT0181192) were also not listed in either of the searches on www.clinicaltrials.gov and had to be searched for separately using search terms “EGFRvIII” AND “chimeric antigen receptor,” “IL-12 adenovirus” AND “GBM,” “EGFR CAR” AND “GBM,” “STAT3” AND “GBM,” “ABBV” AND “GBM,” “Adv-TK” AND “Adv-Flt3L” AND “GBM.” Therefore, after eliminating duplicates, the complete search yielded a combined total of 68 trials, 34 of which were open and 34 of which were closed (Appendix 1).

In order to obtain more information on each of the immunotherapeutics in the aforementioned trials, each agent was then searched for via PubMed (with defined key search “name of agent” AND “glioma,” “name of agent” AND “GBM,” “name of agent” AND “cancer,” “name of agent” AND “brain”), the source data assessed for results related to the Score Card, and documented in the references listed in Tables 2 and 3. For the vetting of preclinical approaches, a search was then performed using the terms “GBM” AND “immunotherapy,” only eliminating review articles. Once these preclinical agents were found, a more specific PubMed search was undertaken regarding each preclinical agent of interest (with defined key search “name of agent” AND “glioma,” “name of agent” AND “GBM,” “name of agent” AND “cancer,” “name of agent” AND “brain”). The source data were assessed for results related to the Score Card and documented in the references listed in Tables 2 and 3. Our literature review adapted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines3 to minimize potential bias in the identification, selection, synthesis and summary of studies, and enhance the quality and transparency of our review.

Table 2.

Priority scores for glioblastoma immunotherapeutics with published clinical data.

          Immune checkpoints
Adoptive cellular
 
Therapeutic approach CDX 110 TGF-βAnti-sense HSP-96 EGFR Ab Anti-CTLA-4 Anti-PD-1PD-L1 Anti-IL-2Rα CSF-1R inhibitor DCs NK/LAK CMV T cell IL13Rα2CAR IL-12
Antigen/ Target Expression frequency 0–33% (1)34–66% (2)66–100 (3) 123-25 3126 3105,127 226,128,129   110   1130 315-17,131   315-17,131 3132,133  
Benefit in other malignancy 1   1134-136 014,137   147,138 148,139-144   159,60 1145-147     1148-150 194
Homogeneous expression 1     1105,127 126,128,129       157,151 116,17,131     1132,133  
Persistence at recurrence 2 2152,153 2126   226,128,129   19     265   265    
Mechanism of resistance 1 1152,153     126,128,129                  
Specificity of expression in the tumor 1 123-25               123-25     1132,133  
Immune activation and effector response Immune activation 1 14,5   1127 1154 1155-157       122,31,34,35,37,38,40   165 1158 189-91
Trafficking to the tumor 1 1159   1105   1155-157 18   158,160,161 122,34,35,37,40   165 1158 189,91
Maintenance of effector response within tumor 1     1105   18,157 18,162     122,34,35,37,40     1158 189
Agent:Preclinical Anti-stem cell activity 2   2163,164   2165         2166-168     2169 292
Efficacy in preclinical models Other (1)Clone (1)Xenograft/*GEMM (2) 1170,17124 143-452164   11652154 28,155,172,173 28,162 1532174 158,160158,160258,160 122122,34,35,37,40222 1175-1772178,179 161,65 11692158 189,90289,90,180
Acceptable toxicity profile 2 24,159,181 2182 2105 2154,183 247,184-190 248,49,139-144 254,174 258,60,160 222,40,98,191-195 262,63 265 270 290,93,196
Hits target in vivo 2 24,197       28,172,173 28,162 2174 258,160 222,37 2178,179   2158,169 290
Agent: Clinical Clinical activity in GBM 3 327,29 346 3104,105       354   322,30-35,98 362-64 360,64 370  
Extreme responders 2 229 245 2104   2198 248     222,30,31   260,64    
Combinatorial data 2 228,29   2104 0183,199 251   254   222,30-33   261    
Acceptable phase I safety data 2 2159,181 246,200 2105 2183,199 247,138,184-190 248,49,139-144 254 260 222,30-33 262-64 265 270 294
Score 23 20 18 16 16 15 14 14 30 12 19 23 15

Abbreviation: *GEMM, genetically-engineered murine model (of glioma).

Table 3.

Priority scores of glioblastoma immunotherapeutics in preclinical studies.

      Adoptive cellular
         
Therapeutic agent STAT3 inhibitor EGFRvIII × CD3 bispecific monoclonal Ab *EGFRvIII CAR *EGFRCAR *IDH1 peptide vaccine 4-1BB aptamer *Arginine *IDO inhibitor Adv-TK + Adv-Flt3L
Antigen/ Target Expression frequency 0–33% (1)34–66% (2)66–100 (3) 272 123-25 123-25 226,128,129 185,86     3201,202  
Benefit in other malignancy 1 1203-211                
Homogeneous expression 1       126,128,129          
Persistence at recurrence 2 2212 2152,153 2152,153 226,128,129 285,86        
Mechanism of resistance 1 1212 1152,153 1152,153 126,128,129       1202  
Specificity of expression in the tumor     123-25 123-25   185,86,213        
Immune activation and effector response Immune activation 1 1111,214 184,215 169,216 1217 187,218 1172,219-221 1109,110   195,96
Trafficking to the tumor 1 1214,222 184,215 166-68,216 1223 187,218 1224     195,96
Maintenance of effector response within tumor 1 0214 184,215 166,67,216   187 1172 1110   195,96
Agent: Preclinical Anti-stem cell activity 2 27,79-81     2223          
Efficacy in preclinical models Other (1)Clone (1)*GEMM/Xenograft (2) 1111,214 17,76,80,111,210,2142112,225 284,215 166-69266-69,216 12172223 1218287,218 1219,224,2262172,224   120228,202 195296
Acceptable toxicity profile 2 278,112,225 284,215 266-68,216 2217,223 287,218 2172,224,227 2228 28 295,96
Hits target in vivo 2 2112,210,225 284,215 266-68,216 2223 287,218     28 295,96
Score     20 14 15 17 14 8 4 11 10

Abbreviation: *GEMM, genetically-engineered murine model (of glioma).

Explanation and justification of score card

The components of the score card are based on characteristics that the authors believe are necessary to generate an optimal, antitumor immune-therapeutic response (Table 1). In order to ensure that the scoring system is properly balanced, three experts in the field evaluated the categories and provided point assignments for each category to be used in the score card, which was then reviewed by a biostatistician (SZ). First, an appropriate target is required, and the ideal target would be specific to the tumor and have a high frequency of expression. Additionally, target/antigen expression would preferably be homogeneous (with ubiquitous or near ubiquitous staining on immunohistochemistry) versus occurring as isolated islands of the antigen deposited in the tumor mass, to prevent negative clonotypic selection.4,5 Other desirable immune targets would be those that remain present at the time of tumor recurrence after standard-of-care therapy.

Generation and maintenance of a robust immune response are also critical components of a successful immunotherapeutic. Treatments/agents should be able to activate the immune response (e.g., T-cell signal, proinflammatory cytokines, toll-like receptor (TLR) agonists, DCs), support infiltration of the tumor site, and sustain immune effector function within the tumor microenvironment. Studies that have shown a lasting immune response in the setting of a tumor rechallenge in vivo or an antitumor immune response that results in a durable survival advantage were included in the score card. If there are no published data showing that the agent generates or maintains an immune response, then the categories are left blank. If the agent failed to generate or maintain an immune response, the category is scored as 0. It is clear that all of these attributes may be difficult for a single agent to achieve given that GBMs are notoriously heterogeneous regarding antigen expression, effector responses, and immunosuppressive mechanisms; hence, this scoring system favors combinatorial treatment strategies, which are more likely to impact a greater number of patients and result in longer, durable responses.

Prior to advancing to clinical trials, the approach/agent should be vetted in preclinical testing—ideally in a variety of models. In the score card, credit was given to agents tested in multiple animal model systems. The xenograft and genetically engineered murine models (GEMMs) were weighted with more points since they potentially are more representative of human biology and recapitulate tumor heterogeneity. Furthermore, the agent ideally should demonstrate effector function in the glioma microenvironment. The role of glioma stem cells (GSCs) in tumor immunosuppression has been established (i.e., inhibition of T-cell activation, induction of regulatory T cells, and initiation of T-cell apoptosis6,7); therefore, a treatment strategy inhibiting GSCs will likely have a therapeutic advantage, and thus this was included in the assessment. Finally, safety is paramount, but given the dire prognosis of GBM, certain toxicities may be more acceptable, although it is challenging to define a threshold level. For immunotherapeutics that have advanced to phase II clinical trials, we took several additional factors into consideration. A clearly favorable clinical outcome in GBM patients and an acceptable safety/toxicity profile in phase I studies were weighed heavily. Additionally, clinical trial results that demonstrated the presence of extreme responders (i.e., patients with significantly lengthened survival times) were given special consideration and were a component of our analysis. As mentioned above, because successful initiation and maintenance of an adequate antitumor immune response are difficult for a single immunotherapeutic agent to achieve, combining immunotherapeutic strategies presents a feasible way to enhance the antitumor response (e.g., blockade against indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase [IDO], programmed cell death ligand 1 [PD-L1], and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4],8 or intratumoral IL-12 combined with CTLA-4 blockade). Additionally, any new immunotherapeutic will be better received if it can be easily and safely combined with conventional treatment regimens. With this in mind, agents for which there were combination therapy data were given additional points because these, in the authors' opinion, are most likely to have a meaningful therapeutic response.

Arbitration of conflicting data

In several instances, the use of the score card was confounded by conflicting reports. For example, in determining the target frequency score of PD-L1, one study found nearly ubiquitous staining,9 thus resulting in a score of 3; however, another study found significantly less10 staining, rendering a score of 1. Because there were concerns regarding the antibody staining in the former study, the results were ultimately scored based on the second study, which was also more aligned with the findings of PD-L1 expression in other solid malignancies.11,12 Another example occurs in the setting of therapeutic benefit found in phase II clinical trials of heat shock proteins in patients with solid malignancies, but ultimately phase III studies failed to confirm these results in melanoma and renal cell carcinoma.13,14 As such, the phase III data were prioritized and the benefit in other malignancies was scored as 0. Yet there is an active phase II clinical trial evaluating heat shock protein in GBM (NCT02122822).

Additionally, the association between cytomegalovirus (CMV) and GBM has remained controversial.15-17 There is not a uniform consensus in the scientific community regarding the expression of CMV in GBM.18-20 Regardless of the conflicting data, two clinical trials focused on targeting CMV in GBM have emerged, including the use of valganciclovir hydrochloride21 and DC immunotherapy against CMV antigen pp65.22 For the purposes of this paper, adoptive cellular approaches that target CMV received the highest score (3) on antigen expression given the recent data (Table 2).

Clinical versus preclinical designation

If the approach had entered clinical trials in other malignancies and/or is in phase I or II trials for GBM patients, with published results, then the assignment was made to the clinical score card (i.e., IL-12). If the approach was not tested in other malignancies and/or is in phase I testing, without reported data, then the approach was classified as preclinical (i.e., IDH1 peptide).

Results

Overall, phase III immune therapeutic strategies scored the highest

The DC-based strategies and the EGFRvIII peptide vaccine (CDX 110) had the highest priority scores (Table 2), and both are in final phase III clinical trial testing. These agents have been vetted preclinically and have been efficacious in phase II clinical trials. CDX 110 peptide vaccine targets the tumor-specific antigen epidermal growth factor receptor variant III (EGFRvIII).4 The mutant is ligand independent and constitutively active, resulting in sustained activation of oncogenic pathways, but is only found in approximately a 30% of GBMs.23-26 Restriction of EGFRvIII to GBM has made it an excellent target for immunotherapy, but treatment failure corresponds to the loss of the antigenic target, and only a select subset of patients could benefit27 (i.e., EGFRvIII-positive patients). CDX 110 has been extensively studied in phase II clinical trials, with prolonged survival in patients with newly diagnosed GBM compared to historical controls27-29 and has completed phase III testing, with the final results pending.

In contrast, DC vaccinations typically include multiple antigenic targets and do not require biomarker selection. The basic strategy for DC vaccination is to give the patient autologous DCs that have been manipulated ex vivo to present autologous tumor antigens. DC administration has varied by route, schedule, and combination with other treatment modalities. Vaccination with DCs is safe and has been well tolerated in patients.22,30-33 Some studies have shown clinical responses, either in tumor regression or improved survival relative to historical or contemporary controls.22,31,34-36 Immune responses have also been demonstrated with the use of surrogate endpoints.22,31,34-39 In patients who underwent reoperation after vaccination with DCs, some had infiltration of cytotoxic T cells within the tumor.35,40 Although there are no published data yet on the DCVax phase II trial, it has moved to phase III clinical testing. The most recent Nature paper by Mitchell et al.22 showed that preconditioning the vaccine site with tetanus/diphtheria (Td) toxoid, a potent recall antigen, can significantly improve the lymph node homing and efficacy of tumor-antigen-specific DCs, and these patients (n = 6) had median survival times that exceeded 40 mo. This report enhanced the score of this approach.

Yet, use of trabedersen or AP 12009 (a TGF-β antisense compound) did not score as highly compared to the other phase III immunotherapeutic strategies, despite an ongoing phase III SAPHIRRE study. The transforming growth factor 2 (TGF-β2) is overexpressed in more than 90% of malignant gliomas, and its levels are closely related to tumor progression.41,42 Inhibition of TGF-β2 in tumor tissue leads to reversal of tumor-induced immune suppression as well as inhibition of tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis.43,44 Trabedersen (AP 12009) has been studied in three phase I/II studies,45 and a randomized, active-controlled dose-finding phase IIb study,46 with established safety and efficacy. Trabedersen treatment of patients with recurrent high-grade glioma led to some long-lasting tumor responses, but trabedersen treatment does not activate or maintain an immune effector response, which contributes to its lower score relative to the other phase III immunotherapeutic strategies.

Immune checkpoints (CTLA-4, PD-1) rank equivalently

The immune system regulates itself using immune checkpoints, and these mechanisms are either upregulated or appropriated in GBM. When T cells are activated, they upregulate membrane CTLA-4 and PD-1 proteins. CTLA-4 competes with CD28 to bind B7, and PD-1 will bind to its ligand, PD-L1; both signals will inhibit ongoing T-cell activation. Blockage of these immune inhibitory pathways has emerged as a powerful immunotherapeutic strategy, and antibody-based targeting of immune checkpoints (checkpoint inhibitors) has been heavily investigated as single agents, or in combination. Commonly targeted checkpoints include: PD-1, CTLA-4, and regulatory T cells (Tregs). The use of blocking humanized monoclonal antibodies, such as ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4), is FDA approved for treating patients with metastatic melanoma.47 Antibody targeting of the PD-1/PD-L1 axis has also demonstrated robust preclinical efficacy in an established murine model of glioma, including in synergy with ipilimumab.8 Anti-PD-1 antibodies (nivolimumab, pembrolizumab) have also been clinically tested in melanoma patients,48-50 and have been FDA-approved for treating advanced melanoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma. The application of the score card did not reveal an advantage of one approach over the other (Table 2), but target elucidation indicates that only a subset of patients is likely to benefit in the context of monotherapy. It should be noted that although ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody) has demonstrated prolonged overall survival in randomized phase III trials,47 anti-PD-1 agents (pembrolizumab, nivolumab) have a better toxicity profile.51

The score of daclizumab, an antibody against IL-2Rα that depletes Tregs, ranked equivalently with the immune checkpoint inhibitors. Tregs are populations of T cells responsible for modulating immunity in a number of cancers, including GBM.52 Daclizumab treatment was well tolerated in three patients, with no symptoms of autoimmune toxicity, and it resulted in a significant reduction in the frequency of circulating CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ Tregs in comparison with saline controls.53,54 A significant inverse correlation between the frequency of Tregs and the level of EGFRvIII-specific humoral responses suggests that the depletion of Tregs may be linked to increased vaccine-stimulated humoral immunity.54 Of note, daclizumab works by binding CD25, the α subunit of the IL-2 receptor, and therefore can target other CD25+ T cells as well as Tregs. Daclizumab has also been shown in multiple sclerosis to reduce CNS inflammation in randomized phase III clinical trials, possibly by targeting regulatory NK cells,55 suggesting that this antibody has activity beyond just targeting Tregs.

The effectiveness of other immune modulatory agents, such as those targeting colony-stimulating factor (CSF-1), also ranked equivalently with the immune checkpoint inhibitors. Tumor-associated macrophages are associated with high tumor grade and poor prognosis in gliomas.56,57 Macrophages depend upon CSF-1 for differentiation and survival; therefore, CSF-1R inhibitors represent an alternative strategy to target tumor-associated macrophages and microglia. In a mouse proneural GBM model, the use of a CSF-1R inhibitor dramatically increased survival, shrank established tumors, and slowed intracranial growth of patient-derived glioma xenograft.58 PLX3397 and JNJ-40346527, both small molecule CSF-1R inhibitors, are currently being studied in other malignancies in clinical trials.59 One published phase I/II study showed that CSF-1R inhibition was well tolerated, although preliminary antitumor results suggested limited activity as a monotherapy in the treatment of relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma.60 Discussions are ongoing about the initiation of this strategy in GBM patients.

Adoptive cell-based strategies rank heterogeneously

Adoptive cell-based strategies, including DC therapy, CMV T-cell therapy, NK/LAK cells, EGFRvIII-CAR, IL13Rα2-CAR, and EGFR-CAR show heterogeneous ranking as a group, with a wide range of priority scores. Adoptive transfer therapy is a form of passive immunotherapy in which immune cells are activated and amplified ex vivo and administrated to a patient, either by systemic injection or directly into the tumor or tumor resection cavity. Cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), lymphocyte-activated killer cells (LAK), and genetically-engineered T cells expressing chimeric antigen receptors (CARs) have all been used for this. The first is based on the trafficking of tumor antigen-specific T cells to the desired malignant target. To accomplish this, autologous tumor-specific CTLs are collected, activated ex vivo, expanded, and then readministered to the subject. LAK cells are natural killer (NK) cells and NK T-like cells that, when stimulated with IL-2, become nonspecific tumoricidal cells. Several phase I and II studies have exploited this tactic in the treatment of GBM.61-65 For example, autologous CMV-specific T-cell therapy is safe, with minimal side effects, and may offer clinical benefit for patients with recurrent GBM. During one study,65 4 of 10 patients who completed the treatment remained progression free.

Genetically engineering T cells to express CARs, fusion proteins that combine the single chain variable fragment of naturally occurring monoclonal antibodies with the signaling molecules that act downstream of TCR engagement, redirect T-cell specificity to surface tumor-associated antigen independently of MHC presentation. Two CAR T-cell therapies, targeting EGFRvIII and IL13Rα2, have been shown to be efficacious in murine model systems of glioma and CNS melanoma.66-69 As such, the EGFRvIII-CAR (NCT02209376, NCT01454596) and IL13Rα2-CAR (NCT02208362) are being investigated in phase I clinical trials in GBM. Moreover, a pilot study of three patients treated with intracranial delivery of IL13Rα2-specific CAR T cells for recurrent GBM demonstrated safety and feasibility with transient antitumor activity for some patients.70 Currently, CAR T cell therapies are limited to antigens restricted from normal tissue expression, to avoid on-target, off-tissue toxicity. However, preclinical studies have shown CARs can be generated to fine tune T-cell activity to the level of EGFR expression in which a CAR with reduced affinity can enable T cells to distinguish tumor from non-tumor cells, potentially expanding application of CAR T cells to additional targets.71 Of the CAR approaches thus far devised, the IL13Rα2 faired best, ranking similarly to CDX 110, based on more advanced clinical development, the ubiquity of the target, and the anti-stem-cell properties. The EGFR CAR and EGFRvIII CAR strategies however ranked similarly among the preclinical therapeutic strategies.

STAT3 inhibition ranks high among preclinical therapeutic strategies

The STAT3 pathway is a potent regulator of tumorigenesis, tumor-mediated immune suppression, and metastasis to the brain. STAT3 is overexpressed in gliomas72 and propagates tumorigenesis by preventing apoptosis and enhancing proliferation, angiogenesis, invasiveness, and metastasis.73,74 The STAT3 pathway also becomes constitutively active in diverse tumor-infiltrating immune cells, markedly impairing their antitumor effector responses75 and enhancing the functional activity of immunosuppressive Tregs76 and myeloid-derived suppressor cells.77,78 GSCs also depend on the STAT3 pathway, including for their immunosuppressive properties.7,79,80 Given that STAT3 is a molecular hub of both tumor-mediated immune suppression and tumorigenesis, it is not surprising that inhibition of this target ranked very highly as a novel therapeutic strategy. Because p-STAT3 blockade agents inhibit Tregs,76 enhance cytotoxic responses,75 inhibit growth of glioma cancer stem cells in vitro,81 and reverse immune suppression, p-STAT3 inhibitors have the potential to further enhance peptide-based vaccination strategies, such as with the PEP-3-KLH/CDX 110 vaccine, possibly including patients with bulky tumors who are unable to undergo surgical resection. Although STAT3 is widely recognized as a highly desirable therapeutic target, small molecule inhibitors have been problematic for lack of specificity and associated toxicity leading to discontinuation as therapeutics.82 The clinical trial implementation of another STAT3 inhibitor, WP1066, was delayed secondary to poor water solubility, which has recently been solved by using it in a spray-dried nanoparticle formulation (SDD1).83 The preclinical data available for WP1066 are sufficiently compelling to justify considering its use in human clinical trials.

The fourth highest-scoring preclinical approach employed an EGFRvIII-CD3 bispecific monoclonal antibody construct. In order to promote an antitumor immune response, bispecific antibodies simultaneously bind to receptors on the surface of immune effector cells and to transmembrane molecules on the surface of cancer cells. An EGFRvIII-CD3 bispecific monoclonal antibody construct (bscEGFRvIIIxCD3) has shown efficacy, specificity, and potency in vitro and in vivo.84 Upon binding to both targets, the construct resulted in potent tumor cell lysis, T-cell proliferation, secretion of Th1-type cytokines, and upregulation of T-cell activation markers. Systemic administration produced complete cures in up to 75% of mice with established EGFRvIII-expressing intracerebral tumors, while no effect was observed among those with intracerebral tumors lacking EGFRvIII expression.84 Formal toxicity studies of this agent are currently underway in preparation for clinical trials, with no apparent toxicity detected to date.

Ranking equivalently as the EGFRvIII-CD3 bispecific monoclonal antibody construct, the fourth highest-scoring preclinical agent was also the IDH1 peptide vaccine. IDH1 mutations, specifically at the R132H site, are present in most low-grade gliomas and define secondary GBM.85 Although found in approximately 12% of GBMs, IDH1 mutations may drive the progression of a lower grade tumor to GBM.86 An IDH1(R132H) peptide vaccine has recently been developed and has been shown to induce a specific antitumor immune response against IDH1(R132H)-mutated tumors in an MHC-humanized animal model.87 Moreover, it has been shown that targeting the IDH1(R132H) mutation in an intracranial glioma model system can significantly prolong survival, with a cure rate of 25%.88 There is an active phase I trial underway evaluating the IDH1 peptide vaccine in IDH1(R132H)-mutated grade III-IV gliomas.

Therapeutic agents without an antigenic target score lower

Approaches lacking an antigenic target such as anti-IL-2Rα, arginine, NK/LAK cellular therapy, 4-1BB aptamers, Adv-TK + Adv-Flt3L, and IL-12 adenoviral therapy had a lower priority score overall. Given that systemic IL-12 therapy can be toxic, mutant herpes simplex (HSV) vectors expressing IL-12 for gene therapy have been developed.89-92 IL-12 has potent antitumor properties, possesses antiangiogenic properties, and enhances the cytolytic activity of NK cells and CTLs. IL-12-secreting HSV has shown antiglioma immune activity in a murine glioma model,89,91 and has been shown to be safe in a non-human primate model.93 Phase I trial results with this agent in human breast cancer have been acceptable,94 and this modality is currently being evaluated in a phase I clinical trial in GBM (NCT02026271). Adv-TK + Adv-Flt3L, a combinatorial gene mediated immunotherapeutic strategy, utilizes the genes for Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 ligand, which attracts DCs, and thymidine kinase. This strategy, with ganciclovir treatment, has been shown to prolong survival and shrink intracranial tumors in murine models.95,96 A phase I clinical trial utilizing this combined gene immunotherapeutic strategy is currently recruiting patients harboring resectable primary GBM (NCT01811992). Although CTLA-4 inhibition does not have an antigenic target, as CTLA-4 expression is restricted directly to T cells, this therapeutic actually ranked highly, given its immune activation/effector response, preclinical, and clinical scores.

Therapeutic agents without immune activation and effector response properties score lower

TGF-β antisense compounds, anti-IL-2Rα, NK/LAK adoptive cellular therapy, and IDO inhibitors all ranked lower. Each of these agents had a priority score of 0 in the immune activation and effector response category, as there is no published evidence to date that any of these agents activate an immune response, induce immune trafficking to the tumor, and/or maintain an effector response within the tumor. Although neutralizing TGF-β has been shown to result in an enhanced immune effector response,97 traberderson, an antisense phosphorothioate oligodeoxynucleotide, has not been shown to activate or maintain an immune effector response in vivo.

Arginine, 4-1BB aptamers, Adv-TK + Adv-Flt3L, and IDO therapies show the lowest scores of the preclinical agents

Considering that arginine-based therapy, Adv-TK + Adv-Flt3L, and 4-1BB aptamers do not have a dedicated antigenic target, and that IDO therapy has not been shown to activate or maintain an immune response (Table 3), these therapies had the lowest priority scores. Both IDO inhibitors and arginine-based therapies are in initial phase I clinical trial testing in GBM, and if there is a favorable safety profile, they could be considered in combination with T-cell-enhancing therapies and antigen-targeted approaches. Of course, with additional emerging data, the relative merits of a given approach to others would be expected to change.

Discussion

In many instances, agents/approaches such as CDX 110 and DCs that are most advanced in clinical trials demonstrate the highest priority score. Although the EGFRvIII peptide vaccine scored well in the clinical category, other tumor-specific or tumor-associated antigens are being targeted such as cancer-testes antigens, tumor-differentiation antigens, viral-related antigens, or mutated oncogenic proteins. EGFRvIII is a driver of gliomagenesis, and it is not clear whether the other targets will elicit similar responses. The peptides selected for cancer vaccines are typically short, around 9 or 10 amino acids long, and are capable of binding to MHC class I molecules, which leads to activation of cytotoxic T cells. It is unclear whether individual peptides or whole tumor lysates induce a better immune response, as they have never been studied head to head. However, these alternative approaches may provide distinct advantages by treating more than a select subset of GBM patients (as is the case for CDX 110) or targeting a greater percentage of the tumor's cells, as EGFRvIII staining is isolated and heterogeneous.

In the DC strategy, immune responses have also been demonstrated with the use of surrogate endpoints. In patients who underwent reoperation after vaccination with DCs, some have had infiltration of CTLs within the tumor.35,40,98 The priority score here has benefited from the recent findings of Mitchell et al.,22 showing the presence of extreme responders (>40 mo survival); however, this was a small group of patients and required preconditioning of the vaccine site with tetanus/diphtheria (Td) toxoid, a potent recall antigen. Moreover, the antigenic target here was CMV pp65, which has also been used in the setting of adoptive T-cell immune therapy.22

Ultimately, we predict that therapeutic approaches that activate the immune response, induce trafficking to the tumor, and maintain effector function will most likely be of clinical benefit. An example of this strategy would be a peptide vaccine (providing an immunogenic target) combined with an antibody that triggers costimulation plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Alternatively, patients could be selected who have a tumor that elaborates immune-attracting chemokines or be treated with an agent that induces this tumor property. For example, the TLR3 agonist poly-ICLC significantly enhances the homing of peptide vaccine-induced CTLs to the glioma site via induction of relevant chemokines in mouse glioma models.99,100 Moreover, use of proinflammatory cytokines (such as IL-12, IL-7, and IL-15), activating antibodies to costimulatory molecules (such as CD40), or blocking antibodies to immune inhibitory cytokines (such as IL-10 or TGF-β) could all potentially enhance clinical activity. The lack of therapeutic effect of many prior immunotherapy tactics, such as the use of poly-ICLC and TLR agonists,101-103 is probably related to the fact that only one essential component of the antitumor immune cascade was addressed. However, combinatory use of these agents with other therapeutic approaches is actively being evaluated.

One of the more surprising findings was the relatively lower score of the heat shock protein (HSP) vaccine. This vaccine is generated by purification of HSP from the resected GBM, with subsequent reinfusion of the complex to allow the chaperone to interact with antigen-presenting cells (APCs), thus priming the lymphocytes with a varied cohort of antigenic peptides. However, the score was influenced by the absence of in vivo preclinical glioma models supporting its use and failure to demonstrate therapeutic efficacy in phase III clinical trials with other solid malignancies.13,14 Nevertheless, ongoing clinical trials are using lymphodepleting regimens that may influence its therapeutic profile. Additionally, clinical trials in patients with recurrent GBM have shown that this treatment elicits both adaptive and innate immune responses, is well tolerated, and may improve survival when compared with historic controls.104,105 One caveat regarding such conflicting data is whether treatment failure in phase III clinical trials with other malignancies should be used to penalize an approach in GBM. If so, to what degree? Certainly most clinical trials evaluating DCs have not been efficacious in other types of malignancies.106-108 Similarly, there is a paucity of preclinical studies evaluating oral arginine in GBM, even though arginine has been shown to enhance immunotherapy in other preclinical tumor models.109,110 However, given that such an agent is cost effective and nontoxic, this therapy is currently being investigated in a phase I clinical trial in GBM

Areas that merit additional investigation include small molecule inhibitors and those agents that target the innate immune system. Blocking M2 polarization with the inhibitor CSF-1R has been shown to suppress glioma growth.58 A small molecule inhibitor of CSF-1R, PLX3397, is currently being tested in patients with solid malignancies (NCT01346358, NCT02452424). STAT3 blockade agents have multiple mechanisms of activity, including direct tumor-cytotoxic effects and the ability to overcome the negative modulatory effects of the local tumor microenvironment, allowing for immunological recognition and clearance of cancer cells, including stem cells.111-113 Thirdly, agents that target the innate immune system has overall lower scores; yet, in the case of GBM patients that have little antigenic expression, innate immune therapeutic strategies, such as adoptive NK treatment, may actually have a benefit.

Even though the score card is dynamic and updatable, it has certain limitations. A key one results from the limited proprietary information offered by pharma, which can result in an artificially low priority score. Additionally, the accuracy of the reported data and the cut-off points for several of these categories may be arbitrary. For example, there is no perfect single preclinical model system that is appropriate for GBM research, as xenograft use is limited due to a compromised host immune system, some preclinical tumor models may be more difficult to treat than others, and the obvious variation of different lab protocols, experimental designs, etc. Indeed, spontaneous tumors in immunocompetent murine models (i.e., GL261, GEMMs, VM/Dk, etc) are the most applicable to the human behavior and nature of these tumors at this time, and provide a promising avenue for studying immunotherapy and immunosuppression in this horrible disease.114 Even so, their use is also limited due to reproducibility, labor intensive procedures, latency of tumor formation, and cost. Unfortunately, the scoring system is not sensitive enough to take all of these differences into account. Moreover, a therapeutic that has an antigen target (EGFRvIII) is given more weight in the score card than a therapeutic that does not (IL-12); these agents instead may be associated with a variety of other mechanisms of potential antitumor immunoreactivity. The expression of antigens and other immune targets can also be quite inducible after various immunotherapeutic interventions (i.e., IFN-gamma induces PD-L1 expression).115 Therefore, if there is a defined antigen, should a clinical trial be penalized if it does not use it for stratification/eligibility consideration? So, the reservation exists that the scoring of antigen targets and other molecular targets within the same scoring system may not be entirely appropriate.

Also, the score card does not take into account the overall mutational and neoantigen load. Using precision medicine to target the genetic features of a malignancy is an exciting subject in oncologic immunotherapy. For example, overall mutational load, neoantigen load, and expression of cytolytic markers in the immune microenvironment are associated with clinical response to immune checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies) in melanoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma.116-118 The accumulation of somatic mutations in GBM could possibly improve the response to such therapies as well, and including high mutational burden as a “target” could be considered in the score card.

Moreover, the current analysis was confined to published works and clinical trials listed on www.clinicaltrials.gov, but it did not include a variety of historical or unpublished studies. For example, there have been several cytokine stimulation approaches, such as with IL-2, that have been studied in a variety of cancers. Although IL-2 has been used successfully in the treatment of melanoma and119 renal-cell cancer,120 it has not shown benefit in GBM (unpublished data, personal communication from Dr Elizabeth Grimm), and thus was not included. Similarly, TLR agonists were also not included. TLRs are pattern-recognition receptors whose activation initiates innate and adaptive immunity. The potent immunostimulatory properties of TLRs and their associated ligands have been utilized as an immunotherapeutic strategy for cancer therapy, including with glioma.121 To date, three clinical trials of TLR agonists/poly-ICLC in GBM have been completed, with marginal improvement in survival.101-103 However, they may have activity when combined with other immunotherapeutic agents, as shown in other clinical trials.31,122,123 Moreover, the score card did not include agents in phase I clinical trials in GBM without any published preclinical/clinical data in this disease process: these include the multipeptide vaccines (ICT107, SL-701, IMA950 in which the clinical trial was terminated), and some of the personalized approaches (GAPVAC, Neovax, ERC1671, ADU-623, TRC105). As more data becomes available on these approaches, these can certainly be added to the score card, which is dynamic and updatable.

Another major limitation is the way in which the DC strategies were amalgamated. Given that there are multiple DC strategies (use of tumor lysates, cell fusions, RNA, peptides) with different antigen targets (CMV pp65, EGFRvIII, HER2, gp100, etc.), all of them were combined in one column in the score card for the sake of simplicity in presentation. However, this approach may require its own separate score card, including HLA-typing requirements, for patients who are capable/willing to travel to a specialized center that manufactures these therapies. Moreover, the score card prioritizes the presence of extreme responders, but it is challenging to reconcile if extreme responses are due to selection bias, other factors unrelated to the therapeutic in question, or the actual therapeutic. Most importantly, the criteria chosen to score these therapies have not been validated as being predictive of the ultimate efficacy, marketability, or adoptability of a given therapeutic approach in oncology.

Finally, the score card does not include categories for cost effectiveness and global practicality given that exact cut-points for these categories are not feasible; however, these categories should be considered in a global adaptive Bayesian clinical trial.2 In general, an agent that can be industrially manufactured (i.e., a small molecule inhibitor or an antibody) is fairly inexpensive to produce; on the other hand, cellular products like DCs cost significantly more to produce per patient. The caveat here is that although antibody therapies may be relatively inexpensive to produce,124 the cost per patient may not reflect this reality.125 Practicality, such as off-the-shelf strategies, for global use relates to the ability to implement the immunotherapeutic strategy internationally or in community hospital settings. As patients with GBM may have mobility limitations, therapy at a local cancer community center may be more convenient for some patients. Therefore, commercially available agents would potentially score higher in these categories. Cell-based therapies would score lower in these categories because cellular immune therapeutics are patient-specific, uniformity of the therapeutic products is likely to vary, and they pose a greater regulatory hurdle. Most patients do not have access to the specialized medical centers necessary to produce and administer cell-based therapies, and even among these, complex cellular processing approaches are limited and not uniform. Because of the time and processing required to generate the product, the cost will be significantly higher. Ultimately, determining a therapeutic benefit to cost ratio (i.e., extended months of survival/cost) for each strategy could further refine a score for this category and may justify more labor-intensive strategies.

The score card may also provide guidance for go/no-go translational developmental efforts. For example, if the antigen/target score is >5 or the immune activation/effector score is >2, then the agent could go to therapeutic development. If the preclinical score is >7, then the agent goes to phase I clinical trials. If the clinical score is >4, then the agent goes to phase II clinical trials. Notably when the PD-1 and PD-L1 agents were evaluated with the score card in the context of the preclinical melanoma data, the total target, immune activation, and preclinical score was 13—similar to the score of these agents in glioma. Ultimately, these checkpoint inhibitors were approved in melanoma but there are too few immunotherapy examples to definitively define cut points for continued development and clinical trial implementation.

The score card can also be updated as new data becomes available. The authors propose a few alternatives to how this can be implemented. One method includes crowdsourcing the information by neurosurgeons, neuro-oncologists, pathologists, basic and clinical neuroscientists, etc., where information can be entered “online” into a live database as new data becomes available on immunotherapeutics. The other alternative is to have uninterested parties review the literature periodically to update the score card as new data becomes available. One other alternative includes having an expert committee to review the literature periodically and update the score card.

In summary, one of the more promising strategies for the treatment of gliomas is immunotherapy. Recently, there has been much excitement regarding the immunotherapeutic agents advancing into clinical trials. The authors propose a prioritization method for evaluating the immunotherapeutic drugs available. This prioritization score card, which includes published evidence, is based on what the authors believe are the key features defining a successful immunotherapeutic tactic, providing a rational method of evaluating immunotherapies. Ultimately, we hope that this score card will be a useful tool for providers, so that they will be better informed and hence better equipped to advise and serve this challenging patient population.

Supplementary Material

KONI_A_1145332_s02.doc

Disclosure of potential conflict of interest

ABH has received research grants from Merck, has been a paid consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb, and receives licensing and royalty fees from Celldex Therapeutics. HO has inventions exclusively licensed to Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. and to Intrexon.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to David M. Wildrick, Ph.D. and Audria Patrick for their editorial and administrative support.

Funding

This study was funded by The Dr Marnie Rose Foundation, the Ben and Catherine Ivy Foundation, The University of Texas at MD Anderson Cancer Center GBM Moonshot Program, and the National Institutes of Health grants CA1208113, P50 CA127001, and P30 CA016672.

References

  • 1.Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, Weller M, Fisher B, Taphoorn MJ, Belanger K, Brandes AA, Marosi C, Bogdahn U et al.. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:987-96; PMID:15758009; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa043330 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.GBM AGILE (An Adaptive, Global, Innovative Learning Environment) to Implement Unprecedented International Clinical Trial. National Biomarker Development Alliance 2015; http://nbdabiomarkers.org/gbm-agile [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151:264-9, W64; PMID:19622511; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heimberger AB, Crotty LE, Archer GE, Hess KR, Wikstrand CJ, Friedman AH, Friedman HS, Bigner DD, Sampson JH. Epidermal growth factor receptor VIII peptide vaccination is efficacious against established intracerebral tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9:4247-54; PMID:14519652 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Sampson JH, Crotty LE, Lee S, Archer GE, Ashley DM, Wikstrand CJ, Hale LP, Small C, Dranoff G, Friedman AH et al.. Unarmed, tumor-specific monoclonal antibody effectively treats brain tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97:7503-8; PMID:10852962; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.130166597 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Murat A, Migliavacca E, Gorlia T, Lambiv WL, Shay T, Hamou MF, de Tribolet N, Regli L, Wick W, Kouwenhoven MC et al.. Stem cell-related “self-renewal” signature and high epidermal growth factor receptor expression associated with resistance to concomitant chemoradiotherapy in glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3015-24; PMID:18565887; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.7164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wei J, Barr J, Kong LY, Wang Y, Wu A, Sharma AK, Gumin J, Henry V, Colman H, Priebe W et al.. Glioblastoma cancer-initiating cells inhibit T-cell proliferation and effector responses by the signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 pathway. Mol Cancer Ther 2010; 9:67-78; PMID:20053772; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wainwright DA, Chang AL, Dey M, Balyasnikova IV, Kim C, Tobias AL, Cheng Y, Kim J, Qiao J, Zhang L et al.. Durable therapeutic efficacy utilizing combinatorial blockade against IDO, CTLA-4 and PD-L1 in mice with brain tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:5290-301; PMID:24691018; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0514 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Berghoff AS, Kiesel B, Widhalm G, Rajky O, Ricken G, Wohrer A, Dieckmann K, Filipits M, Brandstetter A, Weller M et al.. Programmed death ligand 1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2015; 17:1064-75; PMID:25355681; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nou307 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nduom EK, Wei J, Yaghi NK, Huang N, Kong LY, Gabrusiewicz K, Ling X, Zhou S, Ivan C, Chen JQ et al.. PD-L1 expression and prognostic impact in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol In Press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ali HR, Glont SE, Blows FM, Provenzano E, Dawson SJ, Liu B, Hiller L, Dunn J, Poole CJ, Bowden S et al.. PD-L1 protein expression in breast cancer is rare, enriched in basal-like tumours and associated with infiltrating lymphocytes. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:1488-93; PMID:25897014; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/annonc/mdv518.22 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.D'Angelo SP, Shoushtari AN, Agaram NP, Kuk D, Qin LX, Carvajal RD, Dickson MA, Gounder M, Keohan ML, Schwartz GK et al.. Prevalence of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and PD-L1 expression in the soft tissue sarcoma microenvironment. Hum Pathol 2015; 46:357-65; PMID:25540867; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.humpath.2014.11.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Testori A, Richards J, Whitman E, Mann GB, Lutzky J, Camacho L, Parmiani G, Tosti G, Kirkwood JM, Hoos A et al.. Phase III comparison of vitespen, an autologous tumor-derived heat shock protein gp96 peptide complex vaccine, with physician's choice of treatment for stage IV melanoma: the C-100-21 Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:955-62; PMID:18281670; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9941 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wood C, Srivastava P, Bukowski R, Lacombe L, Gorelov AI, Gorelov S, Mulders P, Zielinski H, Hoos A, Teofilovici F et al.. An adjuvant autologous therapeutic vaccine (HSPPC-96; vitespen) versus observation alone for patients at high risk of recurrence after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase III trial. Lancet 2008; 372:145-54; PMID:18602688; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60697-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cobbs C, Harkins L, Samanta M, Gillespie G, Bharara S, King P, Nabors L, Cobbs C, Britt W. Human cytomegalovirus infection and expression in human malignant glioma. Cancer Res 2002; 62:3347-50; PMID:12067971 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Mitchell DA, Xie W, Schmittling R, Learn C, Friedman A, McLendon RE, Sampson JH. Sensitive detection of human cytomegalovirus in tumors and peripheral blood of patients diagnosed with glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2008; 10:10-8; PMID:17951512; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1215/15228517-2007-035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ranganathan P, Clark PA, Kuo JS, Salamat MS, Kalejta RF. Significant association of multiple human cytomegalovirus genomic Loci with glioblastoma multiforme samples. J Virol 2012; 86:854-64; PMID:22090104; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1128/JVI.06097-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lawler SE. Cytomegalovirus and glioblastoma; controversies and opportunities. J Neurooncol 2015; 123:465-71; PMID:25682092; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11060-015-1734-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Wick W, Platten M. CMV infection and glioma, a highly controversial concept struggling in the clinical arena. Neuro Oncol 2014; 16:332-3; PMID:24523454; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nou002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Cobbs CS, Soroceanu L, Denham S, Zhang W, Kraus MH. Modulation of oncogenic phenotype in human glioma cells by cytomegalovirus IE1-mediated mitogenicity. Cancer Res 2008; 68:724-30; PMID:18245472; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-2291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stragliotto G, Rahbar A, Solberg NW, Lilja A, Taher C, Orrego A, Bjurman B, Tammik C, Skarman P, Peredo I et al.. Effects of valganciclovir as an add-on therapy in patients with cytomegalovirus-positive glioblastoma: a randomized, double-blind, hypothesis-generating study. Int J Cancer 2013; 133:1204-13; PMID:23404447; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/ijc.28111 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mitchell DA, Batich KA, Gunn MD, Huang MN, Sanchez-Perez L, Nair SK, Congdon KL, Reap EA, Archer GE, Desjardins A et al.. Tetanus toxoid and CCL3 improve dendritic cell vaccines in mice and glioblastoma patients. Nature 2015; 519:366-9; PMID:25762141; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nature14320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Moscatello DK, Holgado-Madruga M, Godwin AK, Ramirez G, Gunn G, Zoltick PW, Biegel JA, Hayes RL, Wong AJ. Frequent expression of a mutant epidermal growth factor receptor in multiple human tumors. Cancer Research 1995; 55:5536-9; PMID:7585629 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Shinojima N, Tada K, Shiraishi S, Kamiryo T, Kochi M, Nakamura H, Makino K, Saya H, Hirano H, Kuratsu J et al.. Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Res 2003; 63:6962-70; PMID:14583498 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wikstrand CJ, McLendon RE, Friedman AH, Bigner DD. Cell surface localization and density of the tumor-associated variant of the epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFRvIII. Cancer Res 1997; 57:4130-40; PMID:9307304 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Heimberger AB, Hlatky R, Suki D, Yang D, Weinberg J, Gilbert M, Sawaya R, Aldape K. Prognostic effect of epidermal growth factor receptor and EGFRvIII in glioblastoma multiforme patients. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11:1462-6; PMID:15746047; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sampson JH, Heimberger AB, Archer GE, Aldape KD, Friedman AH, Friedman HS, Gilbert MR, Herndon JE 2nd, McLendon RE, Mitchell DA et al.. Immunologic escape after prolonged progression-free survival with epidermal growth factor receptor variant III peptide vaccination in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:4722-9; PMID:20921459; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.6963 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Reardon DA, Schuster JM, Tran DD, Fink KL, Nabors LB, Li G, Bota DA, Lukas RV, Desjardins A, Ashby LS et al.. 107 ReACT: Overall Survival From a Randomized Phase II Study of Rindopepimut (CDX-110) Plus Bevacizumab in Relapsed Glioblastoma. Neurosurgery 2015; 62 Suppl 1:198-9; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1227/01.neu.0000467069.86811.3f [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Schuster J, Lai RK, Recht LD, Reardon DA, Paleologos NA, Groves MD, Mrugala MM, Jensen R, Baehring JM, Sloan A et al.. A phase II, multicenter trial of rindopepimut (CDX-110) in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: the ACT III study. Neuro Oncol 2015; 17:854-61; PMID:25586468; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nou348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Hunn MK, Bauer E, Wood CE, Gasser O, Dzhelali M, Ancelet LR, Mester B, Sharples KJ, Findlay MP, Hamilton DA et al.. Dendritic cell vaccination combined with temozolomide retreatment: results of a phase I trial in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. J Neurooncol 2015; 121:319-29; PMID:25366363; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11060-014-1635-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Okada H, Kalinski P, Ueda R, Hoji A, Kohanbash G, Donegan TE, Mintz AH, Engh JA, Bartlett DL, Brown CK et al.. Induction of CD8+ T-cell responses against novel glioma-associated antigen peptides and clinical activity by vaccinations with {alpha}-type 1 polarized dendritic cells and polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid stabilized by lysine and carboxymethylcellulose in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:330-6; PMID:21149657; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.7744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ardon H, Van Gool S, Lopes IS, Maes W, Sciot R, Wilms G, Demaerel P, Bijttebier P, Claes L, Goffin J et al.. Integration of autologous dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in the primary treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a pilot study. J Neurooncol 2010; 99:261-72; PMID:20146084; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11060-010-0131-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ardon H, Van Gool SW, Verschuere T, Maes W, Fieuws S, Sciot R, Wilms G, Demaerel P, Goffin J, Van Calenbergh F et al.. Integration of autologous dendritic cell-based immunotherapy in the standard of care treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma: results of the HGG-2006 phase I/II trial. Cancer Immunol Immun 2012 Nov; 61(11):2033-44; PMID:22527250; http://dx.doi.org/24883189 10.1007/s00262-012-1261-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Everson RG, Jin RM, Wang X, Safaee M, Scharnweber R, Lisiero DN, Soto H, Liau LM, Prins RM. Cytokine responsiveness of CD8(+) T cells is a reproducible biomarker for the clinical efficacy of dendritic cell vaccination in glioblastoma patients. J Immunother Cancer 2014; 2:10; PMID:24883189; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/2051-1426-2-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Liau LM, Prins RM, Kiertscher SM, Odesa SK, Kremen TJ, Giovannone AJ, Lin JW, Chute DJ, Mischel PS, Cloughesy TF et al.. Dendritic cell vaccination in glioblastoma patients induces systemic and intracranial T-cell responses modulated by the local central nervous system tumor microenvironment. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11:5515-25; PMID:16061868; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Yu JS, Wheeler CJ, Zeltzer PM, Ying H, Finger DN, Lee PK, Yong WH, Incardona F, Thompson RC, Riedinger MS et al.. Vaccination of malignant glioma patients with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells elicits systemic cytotoxicity and intracranial T-cell infiltration. Cancer Research 2001; 61:842-7; PMID:11221866 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nair SK, De Leon G, Boczkowski D, Schmittling R, Xie W, Staats J, Liu R, Johnson LA, Weinhold K, Archer GE et al.. Recognition and killing of autologous, primary glioblastoma tumor cells by human cytomegalovirus pp65-specific cytotoxic T cells. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:2684-94; PMID:24658154; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-3268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Prins RM, Cloughesy TF, Liau LM. Cytomegalovirus immunity after vaccination with autologous glioblastoma lysate. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:539-41; PMID:18669440; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMc0804818 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yu P, Lee Y, Liu W, Chin RK, Wang J, Wang Y, Schietinger A, Philip M, Schreiber H, Fu YX. Priming of naive T cells inside tumors leads to eradication of established tumors.[see comment]. Nat Immunol 2004; 5:141-9; PMID:14704792; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/ni1029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Yu J, Liu G, Ying H, Yong W, Black K, Wheeler CJ. Vaccination with tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cells elicits antigen-specific, cytotoxic T-cells in patients with malignant glioma. Cancer Res 2004; 64:4973-9; PMID:15256471; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-3505 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kjellman C, Olofsson SP, Hansson O, Von Schantz T, Lindvall M, Nilsson I, Salford LG, Sjogren HO, Widegren B. Expression of TGF-beta isoforms, TGF-beta receptors, and SMAD molecules at different stages of human glioma. Int J Cancer 2000; 89:251-8; PMID:10861501; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/1097-0215(20000520)89:3%3c251::AID-IJC7%3e3.0.CO;2-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Maxwell M, Galanopoulos T, Neville-Golden J, Antoniades HN. Effect of the expression of transforming growth factor-beta 2 in primary human glioblastomas on immunosuppression and loss of immune surveillance. JNeurosurg 1992; 76:799-804; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3171/jns.1992.76.5.0799 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jachimczak P, Bogdahn U, Schneider J, Behl C, Meixensberger J, Apfel R, Dorries R, Schlingensiepen KH, Brysch W. The effect of transforming growth factor-beta 2-specific phosphorothioate-anti-sense oligodeoxynucleotides in reversing cellular immunosuppression in malignant glioma. JNeurosurg 1993; 78:944-51; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3171/jns.1993.78.6.0944 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Jachimczak P, Hessdorfer B, Fabel-Schulte K, Wismeth C, Brysch W, Schlingensiepen KH, Bauer A, Blesch A, Bogdahn U. Transforming growth factor-beta-mediated autocrine growth regulation of gliomas as detected with phosphorothioate antisense oligonucleotides. Int J Cancer 1996; 65:332-7; PMID:8575854; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19960126)65:3%3c332::AID-IJC10%3e3.0.CO;2-C [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hau P, Jachimczak P, Schlingensiepen R, Schulmeyer F, Jauch T, Steinbrecher A, Brawanski A, Proescholdt M, Schlaier J, Buchroithner J et al.. Inhibition of TGF-beta2 with AP 12009 in recurrent malignant gliomas: from preclinical to phase I/II studies. Oligonucleotides 2007; 17:201-12; PMID:17638524; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1089/oli.2006.0053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bogdahn U, Hau P, Stockhammer G, Venkataramana NK, Mahapatra AK, Suri A, Balasubramaniam A, Nair S, Oliushine V, Parfenov V et al.. Targeted therapy for high-grade glioma with the TGF-beta2 inhibitor trabedersen: results of a randomized and controlled phase IIb study. Neuro Oncol 2011; 13:132-42; PMID:20980335; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/noq142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hodi FS, O'Day SJ, McDermott DF, Weber RW, Sosman JA, Haanen JB, Gonzalez R, Robert C, Schadendorf D, Hassel JC et al.. Improved Survival with Ipilimumab in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:711-23; PMID:20525992; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1003466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hamid O, Robert C, Daud A, Hodi FS, Hwu WJ, Kefford R, Wolchok JD, Hersey P, Joseph RW, Weber JS et al.. Safety and tumor responses with lambrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:134-44; PMID:23724846; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1305133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Robert C, Ribas A, Wolchok JD, Hodi FS, Hamid O, Kefford R, Weber JS, Joshua AM, Hwu WJ, Gangadhar TC et al.. Anti-programmed-death-receptor-1 treatment with pembrolizumab in ipilimumab-refractory advanced melanoma: a randomised dose-comparison cohort of a phase 1 trial. Lancet 2014; 384:1109-17; PMID:25034862; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60958-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Topalian SL, Sznol M, McDermott DF, Kluger HM, Carvajal RD, Sharfman WH, Brahmer JR, Lawrence DP, Atkins MB, Powderly JD et al.. Survival, durable tumor remission, and long-term safety in patients with advanced melanoma receiving nivolumab. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:1020-30; PMID:24590637; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.0105 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Larkin J, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Grob JJ, Cowey CL, Lao CD, Schadendorf D, Dummer R, Smylie M, Rutkowski P et al.. Combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab or Monotherapy in Untreated Melanoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:23-34; PMID:26027431; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1504030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Heimberger AB, Abou-Ghazal M, Reina-Ortiz C, Yang DS, Sun W, Qiao W, Hiraoka N, Fuller GN. Incidence and prognostic impact of FoxP3+ regulatory T cells in human gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:5166-72; PMID:18698034; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mitchell DA, Cui X, Schmittling RJ, Sanchez-Perez L, Snyder DJ, Congdon KL, Archer GE, Desjardins A, Friedman AH, Friedman HS et al.. Monoclonal antibody blockade of IL-2 receptor alpha during lymphopenia selectively depletes regulatory T cells in mice and humans. Blood 2011; 118:3003-12; PMID:21768296; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1182/blood-2011-02-334565 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sampson JH, Schmittling RJ, Archer GE, Congdon KL, Nair SK, Reap EA, Desjardins A, Friedman AH, Friedman HS, Herndon JE 2nd et al.. A pilot study of IL-2Ralpha blockade during lymphopenia depletes regulatory T-cells and correlates with enhanced immunity in patients with glioblastoma. PLoS One 2012; 7:e31046; PMID:22383993; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0031046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gold R, Giovannoni G, Selmaj K, Havrdova E, Montalban X, Radue EW, Stefoski D, Robinson R, Riester K, Rana J et al.. Daclizumab high-yield process in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (SELECT): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2013; 381:2167-75; PMID:23562009; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62190-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Hussain SF, Yang D, Suki D, Aldape K, Grimm E, Heimberger AB. The role of human glioma-infiltrating microglia/macrophages in mediating antitumor immune responses. Neuro Oncol 2006; 8:261-79; PMID:16775224; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1215/15228517-2006-008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Komohara Y, Ohnishi K, Kuratsu J, Takeya M. Possible involvement of the M2 anti-inflammatory macrophage phenotype in growth of human gliomas. J Pathol 2008; 216:15-24; PMID:18553315; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/path.2370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Pyonteck SM, Akkari L, Schuhmacher AJ, Bowman RL, Sevenich L, Quail DF, Olson OC, Quick ML, Huse JT, Teijeiro V et al.. CSF-1R inhibition alters macrophage polarization and blocks glioma progression. Nat Med 2013; 19:1264-72; PMID:24056773; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nm.3337 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ries CH, Hoves S, Cannarile MA, Ruttinger D. CSF-1/CSF-1R targeting agents in clinical development for cancer therapy. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2015; 23:45-51; PMID:26051995; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.coph.2015.05.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.von Tresckow B, Morschhauser F, Ribrag V, Topp MS, Chien C, Seetharam S, Aquino R, Kotoulek S, de Boer CJ, Engert A. An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase I/II Study of JNJ-40346527, a CSF-1R Inhibitor, in Patients with Relapsed or Refractory Hodgkin Lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21:1843-50; PMID:25628399; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1845 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Crough T, Beagley L, Smith C, Jones L, Walker DG, Khanna R. Ex vivo functional analysis, expansion and adoptive transfer of cytomegalovirus-specific T-cells in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Immunol Cell Biol 2012; 90:872-80; PMID:22508289; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/icb.2012.19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Dillman RO, Duma CM, Ellis RA, Cornforth AN, Schiltz PM, Sharp SL, DePriest MC. Intralesional lymphokine-activated killer cells as adjuvant therapy for primary glioblastoma. J Immunother 2009; 32:914-9; PMID:19816190; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3181b2910f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Dillman RO, Duma CM, Schiltz PM, DePriest C, Ellis RA, Okamoto K, Beutel LD, De Leon C, Chico S. Intracavitary placement of autologous lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells after resection of recurrent glioblastoma. J Immunother 2004; 27:398-404; PMID:15314549; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/00002371-200409000-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Ishikawa E, Tsuboi K, Saijo K, Harada H, Takano S, Nose T, Ohno T. Autologous natural killer cell therapy for human recurrent malignant glioma. Anticancer Res 2004; 24:1861-71; PMID:15274367 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Schuessler A, Smith C, Beagley L, Boyle GM, Rehan S, Matthews K, Jones L, Crough T, Dasari V, Klein K et al.. Autologous T-cell therapy for cytomegalovirus as a consolidative treatment for recurrent glioblastoma. Cancer Res 2014; 74:3466-76; PMID:24795429; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0296 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Choi BD, Suryadevara CM, Gedeon PC, Herndon JE 2nd, Sanchez-Perez L, Bigner DD, Sampson JH. Intracerebral delivery of a third generation EGFRvIII-specific chimeric antigen receptor is efficacious against human glioma. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21:189-90; PMID:24054399; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jocn.2013.03.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Miao H, Choi BD, Suryadevara CM, Sanchez-Perez L, Yang S, De Leon G, Sayour EJ, McLendon R, Herndon JE 2nd, Healy P et al.. EGFRvIII-specific chimeric antigen receptor T cells migrate to and kill tumor deposits infiltrating the brain parenchyma in an invasive xenograft model of glioblastoma. PLoS One 2014; 9:e94281; PMID:24722266; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0094281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Johnson LA, Scholler J, Ohkuri T, Kosaka A, Patel PR, McGettigan SE, Nace AK, Dentchev T, Thekkat P, Loew A et al.. Rational development and characterization of humanized anti-EGFR variant III chimeric antigen receptor T cells for glioblastoma. Sci Transl Med 2015; 7:275ra22; PMID:25696001; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa4963 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Ohno M, Ohkuri T, Kosaka A, Tanahashi K, June CH, Natsume A, Okada H. Expression of miR-17-92 enhances anti-tumor activity of T-cells transduced with the anti-EGFRvIII chimeric antigen receptor in mice bearing human GBM xenografts. J Immunother Cancer 2013; 1:21; PMID:24829757; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/2051-1426-1-21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Brown CE, Badie B, Barish ME, Weng L, Ostberg JR, Chang WC, Naranjo A, Starr R, Wagner J, Wright C et al.. Bioactivity and Safety of IL13Ralpha2-Redirected Chimeric Antigen Receptor CD8+ T Cells in Patients with Recurrent Glioblastoma. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21(18):4062-72; PMID:26059190; http://dx.doi.org/19088040 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-0428. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Caruso HG, Hurton LV, Najjar A, Rushworth D, Ang S, Olivares S, Mi T, Switzer K, Singh H, Huls H, et al. Tuning Sensitivity of CAR to EGFR Density Limits Recognition of Normal Tissue While Maintaining Potent Antitumor Activity. Cancer Res 2015; 75(17):3505–18; PMID:26330164; http://dx.doi.org/19088040 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Abou-Ghazal M, Yang DS, Qiao W, Reina-Ortiz C, Wei J, Kong LY, Fuller GN, Hiraoka N, Priebe W, Sawaya R et al.. The incidence, correlation with tumor-infiltrating inflammation, and prognosis of phosphorylated STAT3 expression in human gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:8228-35; PMID:19088040; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Huang S. Regulation of metastases by signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 signaling pathway: clinical implications. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:1362-6; PMID:17332277; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2313 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Yu H, Jove R. The STATs of cancer–new molecular targets come of age. Nat Rev Cancer 2004; 4:97-105; PMID:14964307; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nrc1275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Yu H, Kortylewski M, Pardoll D. Crosstalk between cancer and immune cells: role of STAT3 in the tumour microenvironment. Nat Rev Immunol 2007; 7:41-51; PMID:17186030; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nri1995 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Kong LY, Wei J, Sharma AK, Barr J, Abou-Ghazal MK, Fokt I, Weinberg J, Rao G, Grimm E, Priebe W et al.. A novel phosphorylated STAT3 inhibitor enhances T cell cytotoxicity against melanoma through inhibition of regulatory T cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2009; 58:1023-32; PMID:19002459; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00262-008-0618-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Nefedova Y, Huang M, Kusmartsev S, Bhattacharya R, Cheng P, Salup R, Jove R, Gabrilovich D. Hyperactivation of STAT3 is involved in abnormal differentiation of dendritic cells in cancer. J Immunol 2004; 172:464-74; PMID:14688356; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4049/jimmunol.172.1.464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Nefedova Y, Nagaraj S, Rosenbauer A, Muro-Cacho C, Sebti SM, Gabrilovich DI. Regulation of dendritic cell differentiation and antitumor immune response in cancer by pharmacologic-selective inhibition of the janus-activated kinase 2/signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 pathway. Cancer Res 2005; 65:9525-35; PMID:16230418; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-0529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Sherry MM, Reeves A, Wu JK, Cochran BH. STAT3 is required for proliferation and maintenance of multipotency in glioblastoma stem cells. Stem Cells 2009; 27:2383-92; PMID:19658181; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/stem.185 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wei J, Barr J, Kong LY, Wang Y, Wu A, Sharma AK, Gumin J, Henry V, Colman H, Sawaya R et al.. Glioma-associated cancer-initiating cells induce immunosuppression. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:461-73; PMID:20068105; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 81.Ashizawa T, Miyata H, Iizuka A, Komiyama M, Oshita C, Kume A, Nogami M, Yagoto M, Ito I, Oishi T et al.. Effect of the STAT3 inhibitor STX-0119 on the proliferation of cancer stem-like cells derived from recurrent glioblastoma. Int J Oncol 2013; 43:219-27; PMID:23612755; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3892/ijo.2013.1916 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Plimack ER, Lorusso PM, McCoon P, Tang W, Krebs AD, Curt G, Eckhardt SG. AZD1480: a phase I study of a novel JAK2 inhibitor in solid tumors. Oncologist 2013; 18:819-20; PMID:23847256; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Zielinski R, Rusin A, Madden T, Conrad C, Johansen M, Fokt I, Skora S, Jayakumar A, Heimberger A, Priebe W. Abstract 4540:Development of orally bioavailable formulatin of WP1066 and its evaluation in vivo AACR 106th Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA: Cancer Res, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Choi BD, Gedeon PC, Sanchez-Perez L, Bigner DD, Sampson JH. Regulatory T cells are redirected to kill glioblastoma by an EGFRvIII-targeted bispecific antibody. Oncoimmunology 2013; 2:e26757; PMID:24475376; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4161/onci.26757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G, McLendon R, Rasheed BA, Yuan W, Kos I, Batinic-Haberle I, Jones S, Riggins GJ et al.. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med 2009; 360:765-73; PMID:19228619; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa0808710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X, Lin JC, Leary RJ, Angenendt P, Mankoo P, Carter H, Siu IM, Gallia GL et al.. An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science 2008; 321:1807-12; PMID:18772396; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1126/science.1164382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Pellegatta S, Valletta L, Corbetta C, Patane M, Zucca I, Riccardi Sirtori F, Bruzzone MG, Fogliatto G, Isacchi A, Pollo B et al.. Effective immuno-targeting of the IDH1 mutation R132H in a murine model of intracranial glioma. Acta neuropathologica communications 2015; 3:4; PMID:25849072; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/s40478-014-0180-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Schumacher T, Bunse L, Pusch S, Sahm F, Wiestler B, Quandt J, Menn O, Osswald M, Oezen I, Ott M et al.. A vaccine targeting mutant IDH1 induces antitumour immunity. Nature 2014; 512:324-7; PMID:25043048; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nature13387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Hellums EK, Markert JM, Parker JN, He B, Perbal B, Roizman B, Whitley RJ, Langford CP, Bharara S, Gillespie GY. Increased efficacy of an interleukin-12-secreting herpes simplex virus in a syngeneic intracranial murine glioma model. Neuro Oncol 2005; 7:213-24; PMID:16053696; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1215/S1152851705000074 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Markert JM, Cody JJ, Parker JN, Coleman JM, Price KH, Kern ER, Quenelle DC, Lakeman AD, Schoeb TR, Palmer CA et al.. Preclinical evaluation of a genetically engineered herpes simplex virus expressing interleukin-12. J Virol 2012; 86:5304-13; PMID:22379082; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1128/JVI.06998-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Parker JN, Gillespie GY, Love CE, Randall S, Whitley RJ, Markert JM. Engineered herpes simplex virus expressing IL-12 in the treatment of experimental murine brain tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97:2208-13; PMID:10681459; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.040557897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Wakimoto H, Kesari S, Farrell CJ, Curry WT Jr., Zaupa C, Aghi M, Kuroda T, Stemmer-Rachamimov A, Shah K, Liu TC et al.. Human glioblastoma-derived cancer stem cells: establishment of invasive glioma models and treatment with oncolytic herpes simplex virus vectors. Cancer Res 2009; 69:3472-81; PMID:19351838; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-08-3886 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Roth JC, Cassady KA, Cody JJ, Parker JN, Price KH, Coleman JM, Peggins JO, Noker PE, Powers NW, Grimes SD et al.. Evaluation of the safety and biodistribution of M032, an attenuated herpes simplex virus type 1 expressing hIL-12, after intracerebral administration to aotus nonhuman primates. Human gene therapy Clinical development 2014; 25:16-27; PMID:24649838; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1089/humc.2013.201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.John J, Nemunaitis GPL, Haythem A, Lebel F, Barrett JA, Reed T, Krishnan S, Lewis J, Norton L. Ad-RTS-hIL-12 + veledimex regulation of IL-12 expression in advanced Breast Cancer (BC) and Melanoma Patients. AACR Annual Meeting 2014, 2014 [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Ali S, King GD, Curtin JF, Candolfi M, Xiong W, Liu C, Puntel M, Cheng Q, Prieto J, Ribas A et al.. Combined immunostimulation and conditional cytotoxic gene therapy provide long-term survival in a large glioma model. Cancer Res 2005; 65:7194-204; PMID:16103070; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Curtin JF, Liu N, Candolfi M, Xiong W, Assi H, Yagiz K, Edwards MR, Michelsen KS, Kroeger KM, Liu C et al.. HMGB1 mediates endogenous TLR2 activation and brain tumor regression. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e10; PMID:19143470; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Tran TT, Uhl M, Ma JY, Janssen L, Sriram V, Aulwurm S, Kerr I, Lam A, Webb HK, Kapoun AM et al.. Inhibiting TGF-beta signaling restores immune surveillance in the SMA-560 glioma model. Neuro Oncol 2007; 9:259-70; PMID:17522330; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1215/15228517-2007-010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Yu J, Wheeler C, Zeltzer P, Ying H, Finger D, Lee P, Yong W, Incardona F, Thompson R, Riedinger M et al.. Vaccination of malignant glioma patients with peptide-pulsed dendritic cells elicits systemic cytotoxicity and intracranial T-cell infiltration. Cancer Res 2001; 61:842-7; PMID:11221866 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Zhu X, Fallert-Junecko BA, Fujita M, Ueda R, Kohanbash G, Kastenhuber ER, McDonald HA, Liu Y, Kalinski P, Reinhart TA et al.. Poly-ICLC promotes the infiltration of effector T cells into intracranial gliomas via induction of CXCL10 in IFN-alpha and IFN-gamma dependent manners. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2010; 59:1401-9; PMID:20549206; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00262-010-0876-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Zhu X, Nishimura F, Sasaki K, Fujita M, Dusak JE, Eguchi J, Fellows-Mayle W, Storkus WJ, Walker PR, Salazar AM et al.. Toll like receptor-3 ligand poly-ICLC promotes the efficacy of peripheral vaccinations with tumor antigen-derived peptide epitopes in murine CNS tumor models. J Transl Med 2007; 5:10; PMID:17295916; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/1479-5876-5-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Butowski N, Chang SM, Junck L, DeAngelis LM, Abrey L, Fink K, Cloughesy T, Lamborn KR, Salazar AM, Prados MD. A phase II clinical trial of poly-ICLC with radiation for adult patients with newly diagnosed supratentorial glioblastoma: a North American Brain Tumor Consortium (NABTC01-05). J Neurooncol 2009; 91:175-82; PMID:18797818; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11060-008-9693-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Carpentier A, Metellus P, Ursu R, Zohar S, Lafitte F, Barrie M, Meng Y, Richard M, Parizot C, Laigle-Donadey F et al.. Intracerebral administration of CpG oligonucleotide for patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a phase II study. Neuro Oncol 2010; 12:401-8; PMID:20308317; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nop047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Rosenfeld MR, Chamberlain MC, Grossman SA, Peereboom DM, Lesser GJ, Batchelor TT, Desideri S, Salazar AM, Ye X. A multi-institution phase II study of poly-ICLC and radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide in adults with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2010; 12:1071-7; PMID:20615924; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/noq071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Bloch O, Crane CA, Fuks Y, Kaur R, Aghi MK, Berger MS, Butowski NA, Chang SM, Clarke JL, McDermott MW et al.. Heat-shock protein peptide complex-96 vaccination for recurrent glioblastoma: a phase II, single-arm trial. Neuro Oncol 2014; 16:274-9; PMID:24335700; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/not203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Crane CA, Han SJ, Ahn B, Oehlke J, Kivett V, Fedoroff A, Butowski N, Chang SM, Clarke J, Berger MS et al.. Individual patient-specific immunity against high-grade glioma after vaccination with autologous tumor derived peptides bound to the 96 KD chaperone protein. Clin Cancer Res 2013; 19:205-14; PMID:22872572; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3358 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Ramalingam S, Crawford J, Chang A, Manegold C, Perez-Soler R, Douillard JY, Thatcher N, Barlesi F, Owonikoko T, Wang Y et al.. Talactoferrin alfa versus placebo in patients with refractory advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (FORTIS-M trial). Ann Oncol 2013; 24:2875-80; PMID:24050956; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/annonc/mdt371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Schadendorf D, Ugurel S, Schuler-Thurner B, Nestle FO, Enk A, Brocker EB, Grabbe S, Rittgen W, Edler L, Sucker A et al.. Dacarbazine (DTIC) versus vaccination with autologous peptide-pulsed dendritic cells (DC) in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic melanoma: a randomized phase III trial of the DC study group of the DeCOG. Ann Oncol 2006; 17:563-70; PMID:16418308; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/annonc/mdj138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Small EJ, Schellhammer PF, Higano CS, Redfern CH, Nemunaitis JJ, Valone FH, Verjee SS, Jones LA, Hershberg RM. Placebo-controlled phase III trial of immunologic therapy with sipuleucel-T (APC8015) in patients with metastatic, asymptomatic hormone refractory prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:3089-94; PMID:16809734; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.5252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Fletcher M, Ramirez ME, Sierra RA, Raber P, Thevenot P, Al-Khami AA, Sanchez-Pino D, Hernandez C, Wyczechowska DD, Ochoa AC et al.. l-Arginine depletion blunts antitumor T-cell responses by inducing myeloid-derived suppressor cells. Cancer Res 2015; 75:275-83; PMID:25406192; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-1491 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Lieberman MD, Nishioka K, Redmond HP, Daly JM. Enhancement of interleukin-2 immunotherapy with L-arginine. Ann Surg 1992; 215:157-65; PMID:1546902; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/00000658-199202000-00011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Hussain SF, Kong LY, Jordan J, Conrad C, Madden T, Fokt I, Priebe W, Heimberger AB. A novel small molecule inhibitor of signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 reverses immune tolerance in malignant glioma patients. Cancer Res 2007; 67:9630-6; PMID:17942891; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Kong LY, Wu AS, Doucette T, Wei J, Priebe W, Fuller GN, Qiao W, Sawaya R, Rao G, Heimberger AB. Intratumoral mediated immunosuppression is prognostic in genetically engineered murine models of glioma and correlates to immunotherapeutic responses. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16:5722-33; PMID:20921210; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1693 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Wu A, Wei J, Kong LY, Wang Y, Priebe W, Qiao W, Sawaya R, Heimberger AB. Glioma cancer stem cells induce immunosuppressive macrophages/microglia. Neuro Oncol 2010; 12:1113-25; PMID:20667896; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/noq082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Oh T, Fakurnejad S, Sayegh ET, Clark AJ, Ivan ME, Sun MZ, Safaee M, Bloch O, James CD, Parsa AT. Immunocompetent murine models for the study of glioblastoma immunotherapy. J Transl Med 2014; 12:107; PMID:24779345; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/1479-5876-12-107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Soliman H, Khalil F, Antonia S. PD-L1 expression is increased in a subset of basal type breast cancer cells. PLoS One 2014; 9:e88557; PMID:24551119; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0088557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Snyder A, Makarov V, Merghoub T, Yuan J, Zaretsky JM, Desrichard A, Walsh LA, Postow MA, Wong P, Ho TS et al.. Genetic basis for clinical response to CTLA-4 blockade in melanoma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:2189-99; PMID:25409260; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1406498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Champiat S, Ferte C, Lebel-Binay S, Eggermont A, Soria JC. Exomics and immunogenics: Bridging mutational load and immune checkpoints efficacy. Oncoimmunology 2014; 3:e27817; PMID:24605269; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4161/onci.27817 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Van Allen EM, Miao D, Schilling B, Shukla SA, Blank C, Zimmer L, Sucker A, Hillen U, Geukes Foppen MH, Goldinger SM et al.. Genomic correlates of response to CTLA4 blockade in metastatic melanoma. Science 2015; 9;350(6257):207–11; PMID:26359337; http://dx.doi.org/10561265 10.1126/science.aad0095. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Atkins MB, Lotze MT, Dutcher JP, Fisher RI, Weiss G, Margolin K, Abrams J, Sznol M, Parkinson D, Hawkins M et al.. High-dose recombinant interleukin 2 therapy for patients with metastatic melanoma: analysis of 270 patients treated between 1985 and 1993. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:2105-16; PMID:10561265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.McDermott DF, Regan MM, Clark JI, Flaherty LE, Weiss GR, Logan TF, Kirkwood JM, Gordon MS, Sosman JA, Ernstoff MS et al.. Randomized phase III trial of high-dose interleukin-2 versus subcutaneous interleukin-2 and interferon in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:133-41; PMID:15625368; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Grauer OM, Molling JW, Bennink E, Toonen LW, Sutmuller RP, Nierkens S, Adema GJ. TLR ligands in the local treatment of established intracerebral murine gliomas. J Immunol 2008; 181:6720-9; PMID:18981089; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4049/jimmunol.181.10.6720 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Okada H, Butterfield LH, Hamilton RL, Hoji A, Sakaki M, Ahn BJ, Kohanbash G, Drappatz J, Engh J, Amankulor N et al.. Induction of robust type-I CD8+ T-cell responses in WHO grade 2 low-grade glioma patients receiving peptide-based vaccines in combination with poly-ICLC. Clin Cancer Res 2015; 21:286-94; PMID:25424847; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1790 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Pollack IF, Jakacki RI, Butterfield LH, Hamilton RL, Panigrahy A, Potter DM, Connelly AK, Dibridge SA, Whiteside TL, Okada H. Antigen-specific immune responses and clinical outcome after vaccination with glioma-associated antigen peptides and polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid stabilized by lysine and carboxymethylcellulose in children with newly diagnosed malignant brainstem and nonbrainstem gliomas. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:2050-8; PMID:24888813; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Large-Scale Production of Monoclonal Antibodies In: Antibodies NRCUCoMoPM, ed Monoclonal Antibody Production. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Shaughnessy AF. Monoclonal antibodies: magic bullets with a hefty price tag. BMJ 2012; 345:e8346; PMID:23236036; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.e8346 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Frei K, Gramatzki D, Tritschler I, Schroeder JJ, Espinoza L, Rushing EJ, Weller M. Transforming growth factor-beta pathway activity in glioblastoma. Oncotarget 2015; 6:5963-77; PMID:25849941; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.18632/oncotarget.3467 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Srivastava PK, Udono H, Blachere NE, Li Z. Heat shock proteins transfer peptides during antigen processing and CTL priming. [Review] [52 refs]. Immunogenetics 1994; 39:93-8; PMID:8276462; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00188611 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Hu X, Miao W, Zou Y, Zhang W, Zhang Y, Liu H. Expression of p53, epidermal growth factor receptor, Ki-67 and O-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase in human gliomas. Oncology letters 2013; 6:130-4; PMID:23946790; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3892/ol.2013.1317 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Nicholas MK, Lukas RV, Jafri NF, Faoro L, Salgia R. Epidermal growth factor receptor - mediated signal transduction in the development and therapy of gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:7261-70; PMID:17189397; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0874 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Szulzewsky F, Pelz A, Feng X, Synowitz M, Markovic D, Langmann T, Holtman IR, Wang X, Eggen BJ, Boddeke HW et al.. Glioma-associated microglia/macrophages display an expression profile different from m1 and m2 polarization and highly express gpnmb and spp1. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0116644; PMID:25658639; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0116644 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Dziurzynski K, Chang SM, Heimberger AB, Kalejta RF, McGregor Dallas SR, Smit M, Soroceanu L, Cobbs CS. Consensus on the role of human cytomegalovirus in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol 2012; 14:246-55; PMID:22319219; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nor227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Debinski W, Gibo DM, Hulet SW, Connor JR, Gillespie GY. Receptor for interleukin 13 is a marker and therapeutic target for human high-grade gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5:985-90; PMID:10353730 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Debinski W, Gibo DM, Slagle B, Powers SK, Gillespie GY. Receptor for interleukin 13 is abundantly and specifically over-expressed in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Int J Oncol 1999; 15:481-6; PMID:10427128; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3892/ijo.15.3.481 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Lacouture ME, Morris JC, Lawrence DP, Tan AR, Olencki TE, Shapiro GI, Dezube BJ, Berzofsky JA, Hsu FJ, Guitart J. Cutaneous keratoacanthomas/squamous cell carcinomas associated with neutralization of transforming growth factor beta by the monoclonal antibody fresolimumab (GC1008). Cancer Immunol Immunother 2015; 64:437-46; PMID:25579378; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00262-015-1653-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Nemunaitis J, Dillman RO, Schwarzenberger PO, Senzer N, Cunningham C, Cutler J, Tong A, Kumar P, Pappen B, Hamilton C et al.. Phase II study of belagenpumatucel-L, a transforming growth factor beta-2 antisense gene-modified allogeneic tumor cell vaccine in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:4721-30; PMID:16966690; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.5335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Nemunaitis J, Nemunaitis M, Senzer N, Snitz P, Bedell C, Kumar P, Pappen B, Maples PB, Shawler D, Fakhrai H. Phase II trial of Belagenpumatucel-L, a TGF-beta2 antisense gene modified allogeneic tumor vaccine in advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Cancer Gene Ther 2009; 16:620-4; PMID:19287371; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/cgt.2009.15 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Testori A, Richards J, Whitman E, Mann GB, Lutzky J, Camacho L, Parmiani G, Tosti G, Kirkwood JM, Hoos A et al.. Phase III comparison of vitespen, an autologous tumor-derived heat shock protein gp96 peptide complex vaccine, with physician's choice of treatment for stage IV melanoma: the C-100-21 Study Group. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:955-62; PMID:18281670; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9941 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Kantoff PW, Higano CS, Shore ND, Berger ER, Small EJ, Penson DF, Redfern CH, Ferrari AC, Dreicer R, Sims RB et al.. Sipuleucel-T immunotherapy for castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:411-22; PMID:20818862; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1001294 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Ansell SM, Lesokhin AM, Borrello I, Halwani A, Scott EC, Gutierrez M, Schuster SJ, Millenson MM, Cattry D, Freeman GJ et al.. PD-1 blockade with nivolumab in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:311-9; PMID:25482239; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1411087 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Brahmer JR, Hammers H, Lipson EJ. Nivolumab: targeting PD-1 to bolster antitumor immunity. Future Oncol 2015; 11:1307-26; PMID:25798726; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2217/fon.15.52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Brayer J, Fishman M. Regression of metastatic clear cell kidney cancer with interleukin-2 treatment following nivolumab (anti-PD-1) treatment. J Immunother 2014; 37:187-91; PMID:24598453; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/CJI.0000000000000024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 142.Faghfuri E, Faramarzi MA, Nikfar S, Abdollahi M. Nivolumab and pembrolizumab as immune-modulating monoclonal antibodies targeting the PD-1 receptor to treat melanoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2015; 15:981-93; PMID:26313415; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1586/14737140.2015.1074862 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Geynisman DM. Anti-programmed Cell Death Protein 1 (PD-1) Antibody Nivolumab Leads to a Dramatic and Rapid Response in Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma with Sarcomatoid and Rhabdoid Features. Eur Urol 2015; 68(5):912-4; PMID:26194044; http://dx.doi.org/22658127 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Topalian SL, Hodi FS, Brahmer JR, Gettinger SN, Smith DC, McDermott DF, Powderly JD, Carvajal RD, Sosman JA, Atkins MB et al.. Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti-PD-1 antibody in cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:2443-54; PMID:22658127; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1056/NEJMoa1200690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Palucka AK, Dhodapkar MV, Paczesny S, Burkeholder S, Wittkowski KM, Steinman RM, Fay J, Banchereau J. Single injection of CD34+ progenitor-derived dendritic cell vaccine can lead to induction of T-cell immunity in patients with stage IV melanoma. J Immunother 2003; 26:432-9; PMID:12973032; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/00002371-200309000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Palucka AK, Dhodapkar MV, Paczesny S, Ueno H, Fay J, Banchereau J. Boosting vaccinations with peptide-pulsed CD34+ progenitor-derived dendritic cells can expand long-lived melanoma peptide-specific CD8+ T cells in patients with metastatic melanoma. J Immunother 2005; 28:158-68; PMID:15725960; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/01.cji.0000154249.74383.17 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Podrazil M, Horvath R, Becht E, Rozkova D, Bilkova P, Sochorova K, Hromadkova H, Kayserova J, Vavrova K, Lastovicka J et al.. Phase I/II clinical trial of dendritic-cell based immunotherapy (DCVAC/PCa) combined with chemotherapy in patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer. Oncotarget 2015; 6:18192-205; PMID:26078335; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.18632/oncotarget.4145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Kawakami K, Husain SR, Kawakami M, Puri RK. Improved anti-tumor activity and safety of interleukin-13 receptor targeted cytotoxin by systemic continuous administration in head and neck cancer xenograft model. Mol Med 2002; 8:487-94; PMID:12435859 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Kawakami K, Kawakami M, Joshi BH, Puri RK. Interleukin-13 receptor-targeted cancer therapy in an immunodeficient animal model of human head and neck cancer. Cancer Res 2001; 61:6194-200; PMID:11507072 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Kioi M, Kawakami M, Shimamura T, Husain SR, Puri RK. Interleukin-13 receptor alpha2 chain: a potential biomarker and molecular target for ovarian cancer therapy. Cancer 2006; 107:1407-18; PMID:16902988; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/cncr.22134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Komohara Y, Horlad H, Ohnishi K, Ohta K, Makino K, Hondo H, Yamanaka R, Kajiwara K, Saito T, Kuratsu J et al.. M2 macrophage/microglial cells induce activation of Stat3 in primary central nervous system lymphoma. Journal of clinical and experimental hematopathology: JCEH 2011; 51:93-9; PMID:22104307; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3960/jslrt.51.93 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 152.van den Bent MJ, Gao Y, Kerkhof M, Kros JM, Gorlia T, van Zwieten K, Prince J, van Duinen S, Sillevis Smitt PA, Taphoorn M et al.. Changes in the EGFR amplification and EGFRvIII expression between paired primary and recurrent glioblastomas. Neuro Oncol 2015; 17:935-41; PMID:25691693; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nov013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 153.Lv S, Teugels E, Sadones J, De Brakeleer S, Duerinck J, Du Four S, Michotte A, De Greve J, Neyns B. Correlation of EGFR, IDH1 and PTEN status with the outcome of patients with recurrent glioblastoma treated in a phase II clinical trial with the EGFR-blocking monoclonal antibody cetuximab. Int J Oncol 2012; 41:1029-35; PMID:22752145; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3892/ijo.2012.1539188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 154.Martens T, Laabs Y, Gunther HS, Kemming D, Zhu Z, Witte L, Hagel C, Westphal M, Lamszus K. Inhibition of glioblastoma growth in a highly invasive nude mouse model can be achieved by targeting epidermal growth factor receptor but not vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:5447-58; PMID:18765536; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 155.Agarwalla P, Barnard Z, Fecci P, Dranoff G, Curry WT Jr. Sequential immunotherapy by vaccination with GM-CSF-expressing glioma cells and CTLA-4 blockade effectively treats established murine intracranial tumors. J Immunother 2012; 35:385-9; PMID:22576343; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/CJI.0b013e3182562d59 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 156.Peggs KS, Quezada SA, Chambers CA, Korman AJ, Allison JP. Blockade of CTLA-4 on both effector and regulatory T cell compartments contributes to the antitumor activity of anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. J Exp Med 2009; 206:1717-25; PMID:19581407; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1084/jem.20082492 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 157.Quezada SA, Peggs KS, Curran MA, Allison JP. CTLA4 blockade and GM-CSF combination immunotherapy alters the intratumor balance of effector and regulatory T cells. Journal of Clinical Investigation 2006; 116:1935-45; PMID:16778987; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1172/JCI27745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 158.Kong S, Sengupta S, Tyler B, Bais AJ, Ma Q, Doucette S, Zhou J, Sahin A, Carter BS, Brem H et al.. Suppression of human glioma xenografts with second-generation IL13R-specific chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:5949-60; PMID:22966020; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0319 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 159.Scott AM, Lee FT, Tebbutt N, Herbertson R, Gill SS, Liu Z, Skrinos E, Murone C, Saunder TH, Chappell B et al.. A phase I clinical trial with monoclonal antibody ch806 targeting transitional state and mutant epidermal growth factor receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2007; 104:4071-6; PMID:17360479; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0611693104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 160.Coniglio SJ, Eugenin E, Dobrenis K, Stanley ER, West BL, Symons MH, Segall JE. Microglial stimulation of glioblastoma invasion involves epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and colony stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF-1R) signaling. Mol Med 2012; 18:519-27; PMID:22294205; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2119/molmed.2011.00217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 161.Markovic DS, Vinnakota K, Chirasani S, Synowitz M, Raguet H, Stock K, Sliwa M, Lehmann S, Kalin R, van Rooijen N et al.. Gliomas induce and exploit microglial MT1-MMP expression for tumor expansion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2009; 106:12530-5; PMID:19617536; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0804273106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 162.Kim JE, Patel MA, Mangraviti A, Velarde E, Theodros D, Mathios D, Jackson CM, Tyler B, Ye X, Brem H et al.. 143 The Combination of anti-TIM-3 and anti-PD-1 Checkpoint Inhibitors With Focused Radiation Resulted in a Synergistic Antitumor Immune Response in a Preclinical Glioma Model. Neurosurgery 2015; 62 Suppl 1):212; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1227/01.neu.0000467105.60300.04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 163.Penuelas S, Anido J, Prieto-Sanchez RM, Folch G, Barba I, Cuartas I, Garcia-Dorado D, Poca MA, Sahuquillo J, Baselga J et al.. TGF-beta increases glioma-initiating cell self-renewal through the induction of LIF in human glioblastoma. Cancer Cell 2009; 15:315-27; PMID:19345330; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ccr.2009.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 164.Hardee ME, Marciscano AE, Medina-Ramirez CM, Zagzag D, Narayana A, Lonning SM, Barcellos-Hoff MH. Resistance of glioblastoma-initiating cells to radiation mediated by the tumor microenvironment can be abolished by inhibiting transforming growth factor-beta. Cancer Res 2012; 72:4119-29; PMID:22693253; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-12-0546 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 165.Randriarimanana T, Chateau A, Faivre B, Pinel S, Boura C. Sensitivity of glioma initiating cells to a monoclonal anti-EGFR antibody therapy under hypoxia. Life Sci 2015; 137:74-80; PMID:26239438; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.lfs.2015.07.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 166.Xu Q, Liu G, Yuan X, Xu M, Wang H, Ji J, Konda B, Black KL, Yu JS. Antigen-specific T-cell response from dendritic cell vaccination using cancer stem-like cell-associated antigens. Stem Cells 2009; 27:1734-40; PMID:19536809; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/stem.102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 167.Pellegatta S, Poliani PL, Corno D, Menghi F, Ghielmetti F, Suarez-Merino B, Caldera V, Nava S, Ravanini M, Facchetti F et al.. Neurospheres enriched in cancer stem-like cells are highly effective in eliciting a dendritic cell-mediated immune response against malignant gliomas. Cancer Res 2006; 66:10247-52; PMID:17079441; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-2048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 168.Vik-Mo EO, Nyakas M, Mikkelsen BV, Moe MC, Due-Tonnesen P, Suso EM, Saeboe-Larssen S, Sandberg C, Brinchmann JE, Helseth E et al.. Therapeutic vaccination against autologous cancer stem cells with mRNA-transfected dendritic cells in patients with glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2013; 62:1499-509; PMID:23817721; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00262-013-1453-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 169.Zhu X, Prasad S, Gaedicke S, Hettich M, Firat E, Niedermann G. Patient-derived glioblastoma stem cells are killed by CD133-specific CAR T cells but induce the T cell aging marker CD57. Oncotarget 2015; 6:171-84; PMID:25426558; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.18632/oncotarget.2767 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 170.Wei Q, Clarke L, Scheidenhelm DK, Qian B, Tong A, Sabha N, Karim Z, Bock NA, Reti R, Swoboda R et al.. High-grade glioma formation results from postnatal pten loss or mutant epidermal growth factor receptor expression in a transgenic mouse glioma model. Cancer Res 2006; 66:7429-37; PMID:16885338; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-0712 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 171.Holland EC, Hively WP, DePinho RA, Varmus HE. A constitutively active epidermal growth factor receptor cooperates with disruption of G1 cell-cycle arrest pathways to induce glioma-like lesions in mice. Genes Dev 1998; 12:3675-85; PMID:9851974; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1101/gad.12.23.3675 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 172.Belcaid Z, Phallen JA, Zeng J, See AP, Mathios D, Gottschalk C, Nicholas S, Kellett M, Ruzevick J, Jackson C et al.. Focal radiation therapy combined with 4-1BB activation and CTLA-4 blockade yields long-term survival and a protective antigen-specific memory response in a murine glioma model. PLoS One 2014; 9:e101764; PMID:25013914; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0101764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 173.Vom Berg J, Vrohlings M, Haller S, Haimovici A, Kulig P, Sledzinska A, Weller M, Becher B. Intratumoral IL-12 combined with CTLA-4 blockade elicits T cell-mediated glioma rejection. J Exp Med 2013; 210:2803-11; PMID:24277150; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1084/jem.20130678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 174.Fecci PE, Sweeney AE, Grossi PM, Nair SK, Learn CA, Mitchell DA, Cui X, Cummings TJ, Bigner DD, Gilboa E et al.. Systemic anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody administration safely enhances immunity in murine glioma without eliminating regulatory T cells. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12:4294-305; PMID:16857805; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 175.Jacobs SK, Wilson DJ, Kornblith PL, Grimm EA. In vitro killing of human glioblastoma by interleukin-2- activated autologous lymphocytes. JNeurosurg 1986; 64:114-7; PMID:3001247; http://dx.doi.org/3486696 10.3171/jns.1986.64.1.0114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 176.Jacobs SK, Melin G, Holcomb B, Parham CW, Kornblith PL, Grimm EA. Lymphokine activated killer (LAK) cell-mediated lysis of murine glioma: trypsin-chymotrypsin-sensitive glioma protein is responsible for tumor-selective recognition by LAK cells. Brain Res 1986; 372:386-9; PMID:3486696; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/0006-8993(86)91150-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 177.Jacobs SK, Parham CW, Holcomb B, Ikejiri B, Kornblith PL, Grimm EA. Lymphokine activated killer (LAK) cell mediated killing of human glioma: effect of pretreating glioma with various membrane modifying agents. J Neurooncol 1987; 5:5-10; PMID:3037036; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00162760 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 178.Wang P, Yu JP, Gao SY, An XM, Ren XB, Wang XG, Li WL. Experimental study on the treatment of intracerebral glioma xenograft with human cytokine-induced killer cells. Cell Immunol 2008; 253:59-65; PMID:18522858; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cellimm.2008.04.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 179.Poli A, Wang J, Domingues O, Planaguma J, Yan T, Rygh CB, Skaftnesmo KO, Thorsen F, McCormack E, Hentges F et al.. Targeting glioblastoma with NK cells and mAb against NG2/CSPG4 prolongs animal survival. Oncotarget 2013; 4:1527-46; PMID:24127551; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.18632/oncotarget.1291 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 180.Barrett JA, Hongliang C, Miao J, Murray M, Gable E, Blake D, Krishnan S, Chiocca EA, Nagpal S, Raizer J, et al.. Intratumoral regulated expression of IL-12 as a gene therapy approach to treatment of glioma. Neuro Oncol 2015; 17(suppl 5):v113–v115; doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nov217.03. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 181.Sampson JH, Archer GE, Mitchell DA, Heimberger AB, Herndon JE 2nd, Lally-Goss D, McGehee-Norman S, Paolino A, Reardon DA, Friedman AH et al.. An epidermal growth factor receptor variant III-targeted vaccine is safe and immunogenic in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Mol Cancer Ther 2009; 8:2773-9; PMID:19825799; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 182.Schlingensiepen R, Goldbrunner M, Szyrach MN, Stauder G, Jachimczak P, Bogdahn U, Schulmeyer F, Hau P, Schlingensiepen KH. Intracerebral and intrathecal infusion of the TGF-beta 2-specific antisense phosphorothioate oligonucleotide AP 12009 in rabbits and primates: toxicology and safety. Oligonucleotides 2005; 15:94-104; PMID:15989424; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1089/oli.2005.15.94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 183.Hasselbalch B, Lassen U, Hansen S, Holmberg M, Sorensen M, Kosteljanetz M, Broholm H, Stockhausen MT, Poulsen HS. Cetuximab, bevacizumab, and irinotecan for patients with primary glioblastoma and progression after radiation therapy and temozolomide: a phase II trial. Neuro Oncol 2010; 12:508-16; PMID:20406901; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/neuonc/nop063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 184.Ansell SM, Hurvitz SA, Koenig PA, LaPlant BR, Kabat BF, Fernando D, Habermann TM, Inwards DJ, Verma M, Yamada R et al.. Phase I study of ipilimumab, an anti-CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody, in patients with relapsed and refractory B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15:6446-53; PMID:19808874; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 185.Horinouchi H, Yamamoto N, Fujiwara Y, Sekine I, Nokihara H, Kubota K, Kanda S, Yagishita S, Wakui H, Kitazono S et al.. Phase I study of ipilimumab in phased combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in Japanese patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Invest New Drugs 2015; 33:881-9; PMID:25924991; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10637-015-0243-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 186.McDermott D, Haanen J, Chen TT, Lorigan P, O'Day S, Investigators MDX. Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in metastatic melanoma patients surviving more than 2 years following treatment in a phase III trial (MDX010-20). Ann Oncol 2013; 24:2694-8; PMID:23942774; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/annonc/mdt291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 187.O'Day SJ, Maio M, Chiarion-Sileni V, Gajewski TF, Pehamberger H, Bondarenko IN, Queirolo P, Lundgren L, Mikhailov S, Roman L et al.. Efficacy and safety of ipilimumab monotherapy in patients with pretreated advanced melanoma: a multicenter single-arm phase II study. Ann Oncol 2010; 21:1712-7; PMID:20147741; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/annonc/mdq013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 188.Weber J, Hamid O, Amin A, O'Day S, Masson E, Goldberg SM, Williams D, Parker SM, Chasalow SD, Alaparthy S et al.. Randomized phase I pharmacokinetic study of ipilimumab with or without one of two different chemotherapy regimens in patients with untreated advanced melanoma. Cancer Immun 2013; 13:7; PMID:23833564 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 189.Weber JS, Amin A, Minor D, Siegel J, Berman D, O'Day SJ. Safety and clinical activity of ipilimumab in melanoma patients with brain metastases: retrospective analysis of data from a phase 2 trial. Melanoma Res 2011; 21:530-4; PMID:22051508; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/CMR.0b013e32834d3d88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 190.Weber JS, O'Day S, Urba W, Powderly J, Nichol G, Yellin M, Snively J, Hersh E. Phase I/II study of ipilimumab for patients with metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:5950-6; PMID:19018089; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.1927 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 191.Chang CN, Huang YC, Yang DM, Kikuta K, Wei KJ, Kubota T, Yang WK. A phase I/II clinical trial investigating the adverse and therapeutic effects of a postoperative autologous dendritic cell tumor vaccine in patients with malignant glioma. J Clin Neurosci 2011; 18:1048-54; PMID:21715171; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jocn.2010.11.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 192.Iwami K, Shimato S, Ohno M, Okada H, Nakahara N, Sato Y, Yoshida J, Suzuki S, Nishikawa H, Shiku H et al.. Peptide-pulsed dendritic cell vaccination targeting interleukin-13 receptor alpha2 chain in recurrent malignant glioma patients with HLA-A*24/A*02 allele. Cytotherapy 2012; 14:733-42; PMID:22424217; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3109/14653249.2012.666633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 193.Phuphanich S, Wheeler CJ, Rudnick JD, Mazer M, Wang H, Nuno MA, Richardson JE, Fan X, Ji J, Chu RM et al.. Phase I trial of a multi-epitope-pulsed dendritic cell vaccine for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2013; 62:125-35; PMID:22847020; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s00262-012-1319-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 194.Trepiakas R, Berntsen A, Hadrup SR, Bjorn J, Geertsen PF, Straten PT, Andersen MH, Pedersen AE, Soleimani A, Lorentzen T et al.. Vaccination with autologous dendritic cells pulsed with multiple tumor antigens for treatment of patients with malignant melanoma: results from a phase I/II trial. Cytotherapy 2010; 12:721-34; PMID:20429791; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3109/14653241003774045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 195.Yamanaka R, Abe T, Yajima N, Tsuchiya N, Homma J, Kobayashi T, Narita M, Takahashi M, Tanaka R. Vaccination of recurrent glioma patients with tumor lysate-pulsed dendritic cells elicits immune responses: Results of a clinical phase I/II trial. Br J Cancer 2003; 89:1172-9; PMID:14520441; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 196.Nemunaitis JJ, Linette GP, Hamid O, Agarwala SS, Starodub A, Sun L, Lebel F, Barrett JA, Lewis J. Regulated intratumoral expression of IL-12 as a basis for combination therapy in melanoma. J Transl Med. 2014; 12(Suppl 1):O11; http:dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/1479-5876-12-S1-O11. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 197.Sampson JH, Archer GE, Mitchell DA, Heimberger AB, Bigner DD. Tumor-specific immunotherapy targeting the EGFRvIII mutation in patients with malignant glioma. Semin Immunol 2008; 20:267-75; PMID:18539480; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.smim.2008.04.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 198.Lebbe C, Weber JS, Maio M, Neyns B, Harmankaya K, Hamid O, O'Day SJ, Konto C, Cykowski L, McHenry MB et al.. Survival follow-up and ipilimumab retreatment of patients with advanced melanoma who received ipilimumab in prior phase II studies. Ann Oncol 2014; 25:2277-84; PMID:25210016; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/annonc/mdu441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 199.Neyns B, Sadones J, Joosens E, Bouttens F, Verbeke L, Baurain JF, D'Hondt L, Strauven T, Chaskis C, In't Veld P et al.. Stratified phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with recurrent high-grade glioma. Ann Oncol 2009; 20:1596-603; PMID:19491283; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/annonc/mdp032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 200.Fakhrai H, Mantil JC, Liu L, Nicholson GL, Murphy-Satter CS, Ruppert J, Shawler DL. Phase I clinical trial of a TGF-beta antisense-modified tumor cell vaccine in patients with advanced glioma. Cancer Gene Ther 2006; 13:1052-60; PMID:16826191; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/sj.cgt.7700975 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 201.Mitsuka K, Kawataki T, Satoh E, Asahara T, Horikoshi T, Kinouchi H. Expression of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and correlation with pathological malignancy in gliomas. Neurosurgery 2013; 72:1031-8; discussion 8-9; PMID:23426156; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31828cf945 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 202.Wainwright DA, Balyasnikova IV, Chang AL, Ahmed AU, Moon KS, Auffinger B, Tobias AL, Han Y, Lesniak MS. IDO expression in brain tumors increases the recruitment of regulatory T cells and negatively impacts survival. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18:6110-21; PMID:22932670; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 203.Horiguchi A, Oya M, Marumo K, Murai M. STAT3, but not ERKs, mediates the IL-6-induced proliferation of renal cancer cells, ACHN and 769P. Kidney international 2002; 61:926-38; PMID:11849447; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2002.00206.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 204.Khoury JD, Medeiros LJ, Rassidakis G, Yared MA, Tsioli P, Leventaki V, Schmitt-Graeff A, Herling M, Amin HM, Lai R. Differential expression and clinical significance of tyrosine-phosphorylated STAT3 in ALK+ and ALK- anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9:3692-9; PMID:14506160 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 205.Masuda M, Toh S, Koike K, Kuratomi Y, Suzui M, Deguchi A, Komiyama S, Weinstein IB. The roles of JNK1 and Stat3 in the response of head and neck cancer cell lines to combined treatment with all-trans-retinoic acid and 5-fluorouracil. Jpn J Cancer Res 2002; 93:329-39; PMID:11927016; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2002.tb02176.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 206.McLoughlin RM, Jenkins BJ, Grail D, Williams A, Fielding C, Parker CR, Ernst M, Topley N, Jones SA. IL-6 trans-signaling via STAT3 directs T cell infiltration in acute inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005. 102:9589-94; PMID:15976028; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.0501794102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 207.Gong W, Wang L, Yao J, Ajani JA, Wei D, Aldape K, Xie K, Sawaya R, Huang S. Expression of activated signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 predicts expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in and angiogenic phenotype of human gastric cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11:1386-93; PMID:15746037; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 208.Horiguchi A, Oya M, Shimada T, Uchida A, Marumo K, Murai M. Activation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 in renal cell carcinoma: A study of incidence and its association with pathological features and clinical outcome. J Urology 2002; 168:762-5; PMID:12131365; http://dx.doi.org/12067972 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64741-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 209.Masuda M, Suzui M, Yasumatu R. Constitutive activation of signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 correlates with cyclin D1 overexpression and may provide a novel prognostic marker in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Res 2002; 62:3351-5; PMID:12067972 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 210.Kupferman ME, Jayakumar A, Zhou G, Xie T, Dakak-Yazici Y, Zhao M, Ju J, Mandal M, Jasser S, Madden T et al.. Therapeutic suppression of constitutive and inducible JAK\STAT activation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Exp Ther Oncol 2009; 8:117-27; PMID:20192118 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 211.Xi S, Gooding WE, Grandis JR. In vivo antitumor efficacy of STAT3 blockade using a transcription factor decoy approach: implications for cancer therapy. Oncogene 2005; 24:970-9; PMID:15592503; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/sj.onc.1208316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 212.de Groot J, Liang J, Kong LY, Wei J, Piao Y, Fuller G, Qiao W, Heimberger AB. Modulating antiangiogenic resistance by inhibiting the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 pathway in glioblastoma. Oncotarget 2012; 3:1036-48; PMID:23013619; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.18632/oncotarget.663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 213.Bleeker FE, Lamba S, Leenstra S, Troost D, Hulsebos T, Vandertop WP, Frattini M, Molinari F, Knowles M, Cerrato A et al.. IDH1 mutations at residue p.R132 (IDH1(R132)) occur frequently in high-grade gliomas but not in other solid tumors. Hum Mutat 2009; 30:7-11; PMID:19117336; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/humu.20937 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 214.Kong LY, Abou-Ghazal MK, Wei J, Chakraborty A, Sun W, Qiao W, Fuller GN, Fokt I, Grimm EA, Schmittling RJ et al.. A novel inhibitor of signal transducers and activators of transcription 3 activation is efficacious against established central nervous system melanoma and inhibits regulatory T cells. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:5759-68; PMID:18794085; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0377 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 215.Choi BD, Kuan CT, Cai M, Archer GE, Mitchell DA, Gedeon PC, Sanchez-Perez L, Pastan I, Bigner DD, Sampson JH. Systemic administration of a bispecific antibody targeting EGFRvIII successfully treats intracerebral glioma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110:270-5; PMID:23248284; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/pnas.1219817110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 216.Sampson JH, Choi BD, Sanchez-Perez L, Suryadevara CM, Snyder DJ, Flores CT, Schmittling RJ, Nair SK, Reap EA, Norberg PK et al.. EGFRvIII mCAR-modified T-cell therapy cures mice with established intracerebral glioma and generates host immunity against tumor-antigen loss. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:972-84; PMID:24352643; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 217.Caruso HG, Hurton LV, Najjar A, Rushworth D, Ang S, Olivares S, Mi T, Switzer K, Singh H, Huls H et al.. Tuning Sensitivity of CAR to EGFR Density Limits Recognition of Normal Tissue While Maintaining Potent Antitumor Activity. Cancer Res 2015; 75:3505-18; PMID:26330164; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-15-0139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 218.Schumacher T, Bunse L, Pusch S, Sahm F, Wiestler B, Quandt J, Menn O, Osswald M, Oezen I, Ott M et al.. A vaccine targeting mutant IDH1 induces antitumour immunity. Nature 2014; 512(7514):324-7; PMID:25043048; http://dx.doi.org/9176498 10.1038/nature13387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 219.Melero I, Shuford WW, Newby SA, Aruffo A, Ledbetter JA, Hellstrom KE, Mittler RS, Chen L. Monoclonal antibodies against the 4-1BB T-cell activation molecule eradicate established tumors. Nat Med 1997; 3:682-5; PMID:9176498; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nm0697-682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 220.Pollok KE, Kim YJ, Zhou Z, Hurtado J, Kim KK, Pickard RT, Kwon BS. Inducible T cell antigen 4-1BB. Analysis of expression and function. J Immunol 1993; 150:771-81; PMID:7678621 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 221.Shuford WW, Klussman K, Tritchler DD, Loo DT, Chalupny J, Siadak AW, Brown TJ, Emswiler J, Raecho H, Larsen CP et al.. 4-1BB costimulatory signals preferentially induce CD8+ T cell proliferation and lead to the amplification in vivo of cytotoxic T cell responses. J Exp Med 1997; 186:47-55; PMID:9206996; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1084/jem.186.1.47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 222.Kong G, Anyarambhatla G, Petros WP, Braun RD, Colvin OM, Needham D, Dewhirst MW. Efficacy of liposomes and hyperthermia in a human tumor xenograft model: importance of triggered drug release. Cancer Res 2000; 60:6950-7; PMID:11156395 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 223.Han J, Chu J, Keung Chan W, Zhang J, Wang Y, Cohen JB, Victor A, Meisen WH, Kim SH, Grandi P et al.. CAR-Engineered NK Cells Targeting Wild-Type EGFR and EGFRvIII Enhance Killing of Glioblastoma and Patient-Derived Glioblastoma Stem Cells. Sci Rep 2015; 5:11483; PMID:26155832; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/srep11483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 224.Schrand B, Berezhnoy A, Brenneman R, Williams A, Levay A, Kong LY, Rao G, Zhou S, Heimberger AB, Gilboa E. Targeting 4-1BB costimulation to the tumor stroma with bispecific aptamer conjugates enhances the therapeutic index of tumor immunotherapy. Cancer Immunol Res 2014; 2:867-77; PMID:24938283; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-14-0007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 225.Iwamaru A, Szymanski S, Iwado E, Aoki H, Yokoyama T, Fokt I, Hess K, Conrad C, Madden T, Sawaya R et al.. A novel inhibitor of the STAT3 pathway induces apoptosis in malignant glioma cells both in vitro and in vivo. Oncogene 2007; 26:2435-44; PMID:17043651; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/sj.onc.1210031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 226.Kocak E, Lute K, Chang X, May KF Jr., Exten KR, Zhang H, Abdessalam SF, Lehman AM, Jarjoura D, Zheng P et al.. Combination therapy with anti-CTL antigen-4 and anti-4-1BB antibodies enhances cancer immunity and reduces autoimmunity. Cancer Res 2006; 66:7276-84; PMID:16849577; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-05-2128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 227.Schrand B, Berezhnoy A, Brenneman R, Williams A, Levay A, Gilboa E. Reducing toxicity of 4-1BB costimulation: targeting 4-1BB ligands to the tumor stroma with bi-specific aptamer conjugates. Oncoimmunology 2015; 4:e970918; PMID:25949891; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.4161/21624011.2014.970918 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 228.Daly JM, Reynolds J, Thom A, Kinsley L, Dietrick-Gallagher M, Shou J, Ruggieri B. Immune and metabolic effects of arginine in the surgical patient. Ann Surg 1988; 208:512-23; PMID:3140744; http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/00000658-198810000-00013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

KONI_A_1145332_s02.doc

Articles from Oncoimmunology are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES