Robert O. Dillman

Monoclonal Antibodies for Treating Cancer

PURPOSE To assess the current status of in-vivo use of monoclonal antibodies for treating cancer. DATA IDENTIFICATION Publications appearing between 1980 and 1988 were identified by computer searches using MEDLINE and CANCERLIT, by reviewing the table of contents of recently published journals, and by searching bibliographies of identified books and articles. STUDY SELECTION More than 700 articles, including peer-reviewed articles and book chapters, were identified and selected for analysis. DATA EXTRACTION The literature was reviewed and 235 articles were selected as relevant and representative of the current issues and future applications for in-vivo monoclonal antibodies for cancer therapy and of the toxicity and efficacy which has been associated with clinical trials. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESES: Approaches include using antibody alone (interacting with complement or effector cells or binding directly with certain cell receptors) and immunoconjugates (antibody coupled to radioisotopes, drugs, toxins, or other biologicals). Most experience has been with murine antibodies. Trials of antibody alone and radiolabeled antibodies have confirmed the feasibility of this approach and the in-vivo trafficking of antibodies to tumor cells. However, tumor cell heterogeneity, lack of cytotoxicity, and the development of human antimouse antibodies have limited clinical efficacy. Although the immunoconjugates are very promising, heterogeneity and the antimouse immune response have hampered this approach as has the additional challenge of chemically or genetically coupling antibody to cytotoxic agents. CONCLUSIONS As a therapeutic modality, monoclonal antibodies are still promising but their general use will be delayed for several years. New approaches using human antibodies and reducing the human antiglobulin response should facilitate treatment.

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.

PURPOSE Belagenpumatucel-L is a nonviral gene-based allogeneic tumor cell vaccine that demonstrates enhancement of tumor antigen recognition as a result of transforming growth factor beta-2 inhibition. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a randomized, dose-variable, phase II trial involving stages II, IIIA, IIIB, and IV non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Each patient received one of three doses (1.25, 2.5, or 5.0 x 10(7) cells/injection) of belagenpumatucel-L on a monthly or every other month schedule to a maximum of 16 injections. Immune function, safety, and anticancer activity were monitored. RESULTS Seventy-five patients (two stage II, 12 stage IIIA, 15 stage IIIB, and 46 stage IV patients) received a total of 550 vaccinations. No significant adverse events were observed. A dose-related survival difference was demonstrated in patients who received > or = 2.5 x 10(7) cells/injection (P = .0069). Focusing on the 61 late-stage (IIIB and IV) assessable patients, a 15% partial response rate was achieved. The estimated probabilities of surviving 1 and 2 years were 68% and 52%, respectively for the higher dose groups combined and 39% and 20%, respectively, for the low-dose group. Immune function was explored in the 61 advanced-stage (IIIB and IV) patients. Increased cytokine production (at week 12 compared with patients with progressive disease) was observed among clinical responders (interferon gamma, P = .006; interleukin [IL] -6, P = .004; IL-4, P = .007), who also displayed an elevated antibody-mediated response to vaccine HLAs (P = .014). Furthermore, positive enzyme-linked immunospot reactions to belagenpumatucel-L showed a correlation trend (P = .086) with clinical responsiveness in patients achieving stable disease or better. CONCLUSION Belagenpumatucel-L is well tolerated, and the survival advantage justifies further phase III evaluation.

Antibodies as cytotoxic therapy.

PURPOSE This review was conducted to characterize the results of trials of unconjugated monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of cancer. This survey does not cover antibodies conjugated to drugs, isotopes, or toxins. METHODS An English-language literature search was used to identify reports of trials of unconjugated monoclonal antibodies in patients with cancer. RESULTS Most trials have been pilot or phase I to II in nature. The most encouraging results have been described for various antibodies directed against lymphoma, and for certain monoclonal antibodies that bind to glycolipid antigens on melanoma, sarcoma, and neuroblastoma. Toxicity has not been a major problem with these reagents, but human antimouse antibodies have limited the potential application of murine reagents. CONCLUSION At present, there are no unconjugated monoclonal antibodies that have proven therapeutic benefit in hematologic malignancies or solid tumors. The most active areas of current interest relate to antibodies to various growth factor receptors and the testing of humanized antibodies.

Therapy of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma with T101 monoclonal antibody.

The findings accompanying the administration of 50 intravenous courses of monoclonal antibody to human T-cell (T101) in eight patients, four with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and four with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma are reported. Infusion rates of 0.7 to 1 mg/min were associated with unacceptable toxicity in the presence of circulating target cells, but slower rates were well-tolerated. Immunofluorescence techniques confirmed that circulating cells did bind the antibody in vivo and were subsequently removed from the circulation. Modulation of the antigen on target cells in the bone marrow and skin has important implications for the schedule of administration of such antibodies, and points out the possible limitation of effector cell-mediated cytotoxicity at the tissue level. Production of anti-mouse antibodies resulted in neutralization of therapy in two patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma, and suggests that whether such an anti-mouse response is produced may be secondary to the underlying immune status of the patient or the amount of mouse protein to which immunocompetent cells are exposed. The relative specificity and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy is encouraging, but the limited clinical benefit and problems of modulation and anti-mouse antibody production underscore the need for continued research into passive therapy and suggest that cytotoxic conjugates may be of more clinical value.

Monoclonal Antibodies in Cancer Therapy: 25 Years of Progress

In 1983, it was apparent that a major problem with current modalities of cancer treatment was the lack of specificity for the cancer cell. It was predicted that a major advancement in treatment of cancer would be the development of a class of agents that would have a greater degree of specificity for the tumor cell. Based on many animal studies and the treatment of fewer than 100 patients, it was evident in 1983 that monoclonal antibodies would be that major advance. The first patient treated in the United States with monoclonal antibody therapy was a patient with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nadler et al described the treatment using a murine monoclonal antibody designated AB 89. Although treatment was not successful in inducing a significant clinical response, it did represent the first proof of principle in humans that a monoclonal antibody could induce transient decreases in the number of circulating tumor cells, induce circulating dead cells, and form complexes with circulating antigen, all with minimal toxicity to the patient. Antibody could be detected on the surface of circulating lymphoma cells, and free antigen in the serum decreased with each infusion of antibody. After two courses of milligram doses of AB 89, a final and third course with 1.5 g of antibody was administered during a 6-hour period. A marked reduction in circulating antigen was noted, but these studies suggested to the authors that the quantity of circulating antigen was too great to effectively deliver AB 89 to the patient’s tumor cells in a therapeutically effective manner. In the Journal of Clinical Oncology review article cited earlier, evidence was reviewed from animal tumor models that clearly demonstrated both specificity and therapeutic efficacy with little serious toxicity. Whereas passive serotherapy of human cancer had shown little success, it was apparent in the earlier review that monoclonal antibodies could be used in the treatment of leukemia and lymphoma. In 1983, a review of the literature revealed approximately 10 published studies and one in-press article of therapeutic trials of monoclonal antibody therapy in humans. All of these studies used murine monoclonal antibodies and were phase I/II studies. Most were in leukemia or lymphoma, but the earliest solid tumor studies were also underway in melanoma and GI cancer. By 1983, the pioneers in monoclonal antibody research believed that a new era of cancer therapy had begun, and for the first time, true specific and targeted therapy was underway using hybridoma technology to produce monoclonal antibodies with exquisite specificity. It was also apparent, based on animal model studies, that monoclonal antibodies could be a vehicle to bring immunoconjugate therapy to the clinic by conjugating monoclonal antibodies to drugs, toxins, and radioisotopes using the specificity of the monoclonal antibody to carry enhanced killing capacity directly to the tumor cells. Thus, the era of monoclonal antibody therapy, as well as immunoconjugate therapy, had begun. Although there was much excitement (and skepticism) about this new treatment modality (the use of a form of biologic therapy with great specificity in patients with advanced cancer) there were also problems and limitations. As presented in Table 1, there were clinical toxicities with murine monoclonal antibodies, most of which were secondary to the interaction with the target antigen. However, the major limitation was their immunogenicity. Murine proteins are highly immunogenic, and it was soon found that only a few infusions of these foreign proteins could be given to patients with cancer because of the development of human antimouse antibody. Another problem quickly became apparent, in that some of the antigens on cancer cell surfaces modulated off the surface and into the circulation when antibody attached. Modulation could also cause internalization of the complex. It was recognized that this could represent a therapeutic advantage by using the antibody as carrier to internalize the toxic component of an immunoconjugate, potentially making it more therapeutically active. In 1983, few specific antigens found only in cancer cells had been identified, and there was much debate about the specificity of these antigens. Many of the antigens to which monoclonal antibodies were made were embryonic antigens or shared antigens found on cancer cells and some normal cells. Therefore, although the specificity of the antibody was exquisite for the antigen, the specificity for the antibody or immunoconjugate for cancer was not absolute. One fairly clear exception occurred early in the 1980s when Levy et al developed monoclonal antibodies to the idiotype of B-lymphoma cells. The first patient given this anti-idiotypic antibody had a complete response to therapy, and his lymphoma went into a sustained remission that lasted for years. As a direct result of these early studies with anti-idiotypic antibodies, there is now a series of idiotype vaccines that are in phase III trials in patients with low-grade follicular lymphomas. These antiidiotype vaccines will likely be the first truly custom-tailored, personalized anticancer vaccines to be approved for therapeutic use. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY C E L E B R A T I N G 2 5 Y E A R S O F J C O VOLUME 26 NUMBER 11 APRIL 1

Continuous interleukin-2 and lymphokine-activated killer cells for advanced cancer: a National Biotherapy Study Group trial.

We conducted a multicenter, phase II trial of continuous-infusion recombinant interleukin-2 (rIL-2) and lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells. Patients had advanced cancer, measurable disease, and a good performance level. Treatment included a 5-day continuous infusion of 18 x 10(6) IU/m2/d of rIL-2 followed by 1 day of rest, 4 days of leukapheresis to collect cells for in vitro augmentation of cellular cytotoxicity, and 5 more days of rIL-2 infusion with reinfusion of LAK cells for 3 successive days. Therapy was repeated after 2 weeks. There were 117 patients enrolled: 63% were males, with a median age of 51 years. Eighty-two percent were managed in oncology units, and 18% were in intensive care units. Six patients died within 1 month of initiating therapy. In renal cell carcinoma, the response rate was one of 31 patients (3%), with a median survival of 10.7 months. In melanoma, the response rate was four of 33 patients (12%), with a median survival of 6.1 months. For all other histologies, response rate was three of 53 patients (5%), with a median survival of 7.4 months. All responders were asymptomatic when therapy was initiated. This trial confirms the feasibility of administering continuous rIL-2 and LAK cells outside the intensive care unit environment. Antitumor activity in melanoma was similar to that seen in multicenter trials of bolus rIL-2 and LAK cells. Activity in renal cell cancer was disappointing.

Intracavitary placement of autologous lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells after resection of recurrent glioblastoma

This study was performed to obtain safety and survival data for patients with histologically confirmed recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) who received intralesional lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells following surgery. LAK cells were generated by incubating peripheral blood mononuclear cells with interleukin-2 for 3 to 5 days in vitro. Forty patients with pathologic confirmation of GBM at surgery had placement of autologous LAK cells into the tumor cavity. The 23 men and 17 women had a median age of 48 years (range 21–76). The median interval from the original diagnosis of glioma to LAK treatment was 10.9 months. Patients received an average of 2.0 ± 1.0 × 109 LAK cells, with viability of 91 ± 6.8%. Treatment was well tolerated; there was one death within 60 days. At a median follow-up of 2.3 years, median survival post-LAK was 9.0 months; 1-year survival was 34%. Gender, age, location of tumor, LAK cell lytic activity, number of cells implanted, and inclusion of interleukin-2 at cell instillation were not correlated with outcome. Median survival from the date of original diagnosis for 31 patients who had GBM at initial diagnosis was 17.5 months versus 13.6 months for a control group of 41 contemporary GBM patients (p2 = 0.012). This treatment is safe and feasible. The median survival rates are higher than reported in most published series of patients who underwent reoperation for recurrent GBM. A randomized trial would be needed to establish therapeutic benefit.

Continuous interleukin‐2 and tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes as treatment of advanced melanoma. A national biotherapy study group trial

Melanoma metastases were harvested from 82 patients for the purpose of growing and expanding tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL). Tumor tissue cell suspensions were incubated with interleukin‐2 (IL‐2), followed by repeated exposure to tumor antigen with or without OKT3 monoclonal antibody (MoAb). Initial growth success was achieved in 56 of 82 cultures (72%). Efforts were made to expand 26 of these 56 cultures for therapeutic TIL; 23 of 26 early cultures (88%) were successfully expanded for in vivo therapy. It took a mean of 78.5 ± 25.4 days to grow sufficient TIL for treatment. Therapy included cyclophosphamide (1 g/m2) on day 1, followed by a 96‐hour continuous infusion of IL‐2 (18 × 106 IU/m2/d) on days 2 to 5, and approximately 1011 (mean 1.49 ± 0.93 × 1011) TIL on day 2. Patients who responded received monthly IL‐2 as a 96‐hour infusion. Median patient age was 45 years of age. Sixty‐seven percent of the patients were men. Performance status was 0 to 1 in 77% of patients. Thirty‐four percent of the patients had liver metastases. The usual IL‐2 toxicities were seen. Response rate for 21 patients was 24% (95% confidence interval, 10% to 49%). One complete response was achieved with cells 98% CD4+; four partial responses were achieved with cells 80%, 94%, 98%, and 98% CD8+, respectively. Four of eight patients who received TIL, which had never been stimulated with OKT3, had tumor response. The authors conclude that a treatment plan for IL‐2/TIL is technically difficult, costly, and effective for only a minority of patients. Overall, clinical results are not clearly superior to those obtained with other IL‐2 regimens.

Monoclonal Antibodies in the Treatment of Malignancy: Basic Concepts and Recent Developments

Antibodies have long been considered to be potential anticancer agents because of their specificity for cell-membrane antigens. Applications of hybridoma and recombinant DNA technology have led to the production of unlimited quantities of clinical-grade murine, chimeric, and humanized monoclonal antibodies for clinical use. Whole antibodies may produce anticancer effects in conjunction with the immune system by interaction with complement proteins and/or effector cells via the Fc portion of the antibody molecule. Antibodies may also neutralize circulating ligands or block cell membrane receptors and thus interrupt ligand/receptor interactions and signal transduction that are associated with proliferative or anti-apoptotic effects. The anti-idiotype network cascade provides a rationale for antibodies as vaccine therapy. Antibodies may also serve as the guiding or targeting system for other cytotoxic pharmaceutical products such as (i) radiolabeled antibodies for radioimmunodetection and radioimmunotherapy; (ii) immunotoxins; (iii) chemotherapy/antibody conjugates; (iv) cytokine/antibody conjugates; and (v) immune cell/antibody conjugates. After years of anticipation, as of late 1999 there were four monoclonal antibodies that had been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration based on activity against human malignancy, all of which are in widespread clinical use. Several other products are in various stages of clinical trial testing. Monoclonal antibodies have joined interferon-alpha, interleukin-2 (IL-2), and various hematopoietic growth factors as well-established components of biological therapy, the fourth modality of cancer treatment.

Intralesional Lymphokine-activated Killer Cells as Adjuvant Therapy for Primary Glioblastoma

Despite recent advances, median survival for patients with resectable glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is only 12 to 15 months. We previously observed minimal toxicity and a 9.0-month median survival after treatment with intralesional autologous lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells in 40 patients with recurrent GBM. In this study, GBM patients were treated with adjuvant intralesional LAK cells. Eligible patients had completed primary therapy for GBM without disease progression. LAK cells were produced by incubating autologous peripheral blood mononuclear cells with interleukin-2 for 3 to 7 days and then placed into the surgically exposed tumor cavity by a neurosurgeon. The 19 men and 14 women had a median age of 57 years. Prior therapy included surgical resection (97%), partial brain irradiation (97%), γ knife radiosurgery (97%), and temozolomide chemotherapy (70%). Median time from diagnosis to LAK cell therapy was 5.3 months (range: 3.0 to 11.1 mo). LAK cell treatment was well tolerated; average length of hospitalization was 3 days. At the time of this analysis, 27 patients have died; the median survival from the date of original diagnosis is 20.5 months with a 1-year survival rate of 75%. In subset analyses, superior survival was observed for patients who received higher numbers of CD3+/CD16+/CD56+ (T-LAK) cells in the cell products, which was associated with not taking corticosteroids in the month before leukopheresis. Intralesional LAK cell therapy is safe and the survival sufficiently encouraging to warrant further evaluation in a randomized phase 2 trial of intralesional therapies with LAK or carmustine-impregnated wafers.