Therapeutic vaccination against cervical cancer – are we near?

Authors:

Details:

Diamantina Institute for Cancer, Immunology and Metabolic Medicine
University of Queensland, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, QLD, Australia


Abstract

Therapeutic vaccines developed to target the papillomavirus antigens that are expressed by cervical cancer induce immune responses, but have yet to show clinical efficacy. Transplantable tumour models expressing human papillomavirus antigens do not predict vaccine outcome in the clinic. Understanding how immune responses are influenced in a tumour antigen experienced host, and what surrogate marker or markers reflect the potential efficacy of therapeutic vaccines in the clinic, will be necessary to provide new approaches to immunotherapy for cervical cancer.


Human papillomavirus (HPV) causes cervical cancer

HPV infections are very common and it has been estimated that the lifetime risk for genital HPV infection is over 50% for sexually active women.1 Human papilloma viruses are the main etiological agent in cervical cancer and more than 99% of cervical cancers contain human papillomavirus DNA.2 Worldwide it is estimated that there are about 500,000 cancers of the cervix uteri diagnosed each year and 270,000 deaths, mainly in developing countries. Cervical cancer is the second most common malignant disease in women, with nearly 80% of the cases arising in developing countries.3 Despite the fact that millions of women have papillomavirus infection every year, most of them clear the infection within 18 months (Fig 1).4,5,6

Figure 1: The development of cervical cancer

More than 100 different HPV types have been described and they can be grouped into high and low-risk types, depending on their oncogenicity.7 Of these, about 30 types infect genital tract or other mucosal sites. In cervical cancer, HPV16 is the most prevalent (50-60%), followed by types 18, 31, 33, and 45.8,9,10 Papillomavirus infection can also lead to anal, vulvar, penile, oral and tonsillar cancers.11,12

Papillomavirus oncogenes as targets for immunotherapy

Human papillomaviruses are small DNA viruses that infect the basal cell layer of epidermis and their protein coding sequences (open reading frames) can be divided into early (E1-7) and late (L1, 2) according to their expression in the viral life cycle. L1 and L2 code for viral capsid proteins and are expressed only in differentiating keratinocytes. HPV has two major oncogenes, E6 and E7. These genes are expressed early in the basal layer of the epidermis and are the major targets for therapeutic approaches. E7 has been shown to be more highly expressed in cancer cells and is more immunogenic than E6 and is widely used in therapy models.13

The effectiveness of human papillomavirus oncogenes lies in the fact that they prevent the infected epithelial cells from differentiating. E6 protein binds to p53 and E7 to pRb preventing exit from the cell cycle. Cells continue to divide, permitting ongoing replication of the virus genome. Papillomavirus is a non-lytic virus that divides only in epithelial keratinocytes and encodes mainly short-lived proteins in the cells in which the virus replicates. These characteristics make it a hard target for immunotherapy.

Prophylactic vaccines (Gardasil® HPV6/11/16/18; Cervavix® HPV16/18), in which L1 capsid protein of the virus is used as an antigen, have been so far efficacious in clinical trials, providing 100% protection against infection with the HPV types incorporated in the vaccines.14 About 30% of cervical cancers are due to HPV types other than HPV16/18. However, these vaccines do not assist with the virus in already infected women.15 The duration of protection is not currently known and there are millions of HPV-infected women in the world who cannot benefit from the prophylactic vaccine. HPV is prevalent already in newborn babies and the effect of this early infection on prophylactic vaccine efficacy is unknown.16,17,18

An HPV therapeutic vaccine would therefore assist to help reduce the global burden of papillomavirus-related cancers. There are several challenges for development of therapeutic vaccines. These include viral and tumour determined immune escape mechanisms, poor immunogenicity of some viral antigens and the immuno-compromised state of cancer patients.  

Advantages of immunotherapy

The main advantage of antigen specific immunotherapy is that it is specific towards tumour cells and does not harm healthy cells. The body’s immune system can, in principle, recognise a tumour as non-self and attack cells expressing tumour specific antigen. Systemic immune responses can target microscopic metastases anywhere in the body. William Coley is often regarded as the father of immunotherapy and developed immuno-therapeutics which activate the innate immune system.19 He treated sarcomas with massive bacterial infection and immune effector mechanisms associated with bacterial infection were able to control tumour growth. After his time, several researchers tried to treat cancers with similar non-antigen specific immunotherapy with limited success. Animal models of specific immune compromise have however, established that the innate and adaptive immune systems play a role in controlling the development of some tumours.20,21

What would be the clinical opportunity for using a HPV therapeutic vaccine? Cervical cancer develops through precancerous lesions, called cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Most CIN1 lesions regress spontaneously and some CIN2 lesions regress. New vaccines are relatively expensive and the cost/benefit-ratio might be very high if early CIN lesions, that could regress naturally, are treated. However, trials of HPV therapeutic vaccines in cervical cancer have shown poor results and this may be due to initiation of treatment when patients are already severely immuno-compromised. Recent vaccine trials have aimed to treat CIN2/3 lesions and have shown more encouraging results. It could be beneficial to direct immunotherapy to CIN2/3 lesions since after conventional surgical excision, recurrence occurs in about 5-20% of patients.30,31

Route and adjuvants

Muscle is not well provided with antigen presenting cells and novel methods are being considered to create better immune response for therapeutic vaccines.32 Since skin and mucosa contain greater numbers of dendritic cells, the transdermal route may be a better method of vaccine delivery. Many of the recent clinical trials (Table 1) have used subcutaneous immunisation.

Table 1: Clinicla trials with HPV therapeutic vaccines from last three years

Most vaccines have adjuvants that enhance the immunogenicity of the vaccine. Proteins and peptides are weakly immunogenic and adjuvants are needed to stimulate a strong immune response and possibly to help break the tolerance to tumour antigens. Aluminium hydroxide is widely used in prophylactic vaccines, but biases immune responses toward antibody production, and new adjuvants will be needed for therapeutic approaches, which will require activation of cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL)  responses. QS-21, a refined saponin from the bark of Quillaja Saponaria, can induce strong T Th1 (T helper 1) type responses in animal models.33 Certain cytokines (eg. IL-2 ,IFNγ) that direct T cells towards a Th1 type response, might also be considered.    

Clinical trials against HPV-induced diseases

Previously, clinical trials have been done in late stage cervical cancer patients who are often already immuno-suppressed and results from these trials have been poor; no clinically significant responses have been seen and immune responses were worse than with later clinical trials.20,21,30-35 Nowadays, the clinical trials have been directed to earlier, pre-cancerous CIN lesions.

One problem with clinical trials for therapy for CIN is that after the vaccination period, patients with high grade CIN cannot be observed long before treatment for CIN lesion has to be undertaken for ethical reasons. Generally, patients are vaccinated and after a short follow-up period, they are treated with conventional methods eg. loop excision of the cervix transformation zone.

Table 1 shows some recent clinical trials of HPV immunotherapy for women with CIN2 or CIN3 or genital warts. Where placebo controls have been used, there has been no evidence of significant efficacy. Comparison between trials is difficult since responses are measured with different indicators. In general, the results have not been astounding and many therapeutic approaches that have succeeded in animals (murine models), have failed in humans. 

Vaccine types

There are several vaccine strategies available today. Below, a few of the strategies are discussed briefly.

Peptide-based vaccines

Peptide-based vaccines have been used in clinical trials against human cancers,36,37however the problem is their weak immunogenicity, generating low affinity CTL responses and Th1 stimulation. Peptides from either E6 or E7 oncogenes are used in therapeutic vaccines against HPV-related cancers and pre-cancers. Recently, animal models have shown that cytokines might serve as effective adjuvants, increasing the efficacy of the vaccine.38 This has also been detected in clinical trials with peptide-based melanoma vaccines.39 Vaccines with long E6 and E7 peptides have been successfully tested with animals,40,41  and a phase I trial of immunogenicity and safety of these vaccines in humans has just been published.42 The trial showed that more than 50% of patients had specific CTL response against E6_E7 long peptides, but of 43 patients only one had complete response and five remained stable with a disease.

Protein vaccines

Protein vaccines have mainly used E7 protein fused to heat-shock protein (hspE7) or HPV L2 and E6 (TA-CIN) and they are safe vaccines. Several trials have been done recently,13,43,44 however the clinical results have not been plausible. Studies by Frazer and Hallez showed reduction in HPV DNA and viral load was seen as well as some CTL responses, however this didn’t correlate with clinical outcome (1/23 in CIN2/3 at Frazer, 0/5 in CIN3 at Hallez, cleared the lesion). Goldstone and colleagues showed that three out of 14 patients with warts cleared the lesion.    

Dendritic cell vaccines

Dendritic cell (DC) vaccines are cell-based vaccines where patients own naïve antigen presenting cells are pulsed with antigens and cultured to maturity with specific cytokines. These mature dendritic cells are introduced to the patient and theoretically they have the potential to induce both tumour-specific effector and memory T cells. The basics of DC therapy have been reviewed elsewhere.45 DC vaccines are highly effective at inducing immunity but difficult and expensive to produce. Animal experiments with DC vaccines against cervical cancer have given poor results.46 Two small DC therapy trials have been conducted against cervical cancer, CTL and/or antibody responses were seen in 3/1147 or 4/448 patients, however neither study showed any clinical responses, possibly due to late stage of the disease. Recently, a phase I clinical trial has been done in cervical cancer patients to test the efficacy and safety of DC therapy vaccine (Table 1)29 and it remains to be seen if DC therapy proves to be effective in treatment of CIN lesions or early stage cervical cancer.  

Plasmid DNA and recombinant viral vector vaccines

Plasmid DNA and recombinant viral vector vaccines contain protein-coding DNA that produces immunologically active antigens in live cells. These vaccines can induce antibody and CD4+ T cell helper responses and they induce strong CD8+ T cell responses because they express antigens intra-cellularly, introducing them directly into the MHC class I antigen processing and presentation pathway. Most promising results have been achieved with these viral vector vaccines, however only a few studies have been published.

A group of women were treated with MVA E2 (modified virus Ankara + E2, recombinant papillomavirus vaccine) vaccine and 20/34 showed complete response and 11/34 reduction in lesion size. All patients showed CTL and ab responses.27 In another study, 30 males with condylomas were treated with the same vaccine (MVA E2) and 28/30 showed complete responses; all had antibody responses and no recurrences were detected within a year.22 

However, all vaccines face the need to break immunological tolerance by vaccination, MHC class I and antigen loss on tumour cells, systemic defects in dendritic cells and secretion of immunosuppressive cytokines etc.49 More basic immunology studies are needed to clarify the immunological reactions behind the tumour development.

Animal models for cervical cancer vaccine

There are currently three animal models commonly used for studying cervical cancer immunotherapy. Most studies have been done with a model in which E6 and E7 expressing transformed mouse cells (TC-1) are injected into mice.50 These cells form tumours in normal mice and vaccines can be tested for their ability to prevent, or more preferably to cure, tumours. A problem with the TC-1 model is that it is “too successful”; therapeutic protocols have worked with this mouse model but human studies with the same therapy have shown very poor results.

A further animal model is a mouse that expresses papillomavirus oncogenes E6 or E7 or the whole HPV16 genome in epithelial cells from the keratin 14 promoter. Mice develop spontaneous tumours in old age,51 and tumours can be also induced by estrogen treatment. A problem with this mouse model is that the viral genes are expressed in all basal epithelial cells of all organs, including the thymus. The animals are therefore partially tolerant of these proteins52,53 and the model is a tough test for a vaccine.

A third model is a skin graft model where skin from E7 transgenic mice (previous model) is grafted on to a normal mouse. E7 skin grafts are not rejected. Since E7 is presented to the immune system in HPV infections, it is used in this setting as a model antigen. Therapeutic approaches are tested for ability to reject E7 skin graft. A problem in this model is the site of lesion (skin instead of cervix). However, we believe it is a good model to study some of the requirements for, and effectiveness of immunotherapy, because the antigen is expressed in the correct cell types, without the problems of tumour induced immunosuppression, and the efficacy of immunotherapy can be evaluated over the life of the animal.54,55 

Future directions for therapeutic vaccines against cervical cancer

Efficacy of therapeutic vaccines for cervical cancer remains to be demonstrated by clinical trials. However, there are several approaches that might increase the success of therapeutic vaccines which are discussed below.

1. Increasing effector T cell functions

Cytotoxic T cells specific to tumour antigens are the key players in tumour regressions. Enhancing the effector T cell function by either increasing the efficacy or the number of tumour specific T cells might lead to better eradication of the lesion. It is also possible to use cytokines, like IL-15, that prolong the life span of T cells.56

2. Overcoming the suppressive effect of regulatory T cells and macrophages

It is widely accepted that regulatory T cells (Treg) exist and prevent effective immune responses. Treg cells have been described to control autoimmune diseases, infection and transplantations and to regulate immune responses of tumours.57 They suppress immune responses either through direct cell to cell contact or through secreting suppressive cytokines such as IL10.58 A further regulatory population of myeloid suppressor cells seen in epithelial cancer are also able to prevent T cell effector function.

Tumour specific regulatory T cells

Tumour specific regulatory T cells have been identified and cell lines established from tumour patients. CIN and cervical cancer patients have increased Treg cell frequencies in peripheral blood and CD4(+) T cell fraction.59 Also, HPV E6 specific Treg cells have been identified in cervical cancer patients.60 In a study using TCR transgenic T cells specific for influenza virus hemagglutinin (HA) antigen, it was shown that immunotherapy will amplify the tumour specific regulatory T cells and thus reduce the effectiveness of immunotherapy.61 Similar results were obtained by using dendritic cell immunisation and targeting antigen through specific pathways.62

Vaccine induced T regulatory cells  

Chimeric papillomavirus like particles have been candidate vaccines for the treatment of cervical cancer,63 however it has been demonstrated in a clinical trial that no efficacy has been observed.24  We have shown that vaccination with chimeric PV VLPs can induce Treg cells and this might explain the unresponsiveness for the therapy.64 Others have also shown that immunisation through stimulate TLR4 also induce regulatory T cells.65

Collectively, these results suggest that immunisation may induce and expand existing tumor specific regulatory T cells, inhibiting cytotoxic T cell responses. In future, it needs to be considered how to overcome the inhibition of vaccine induced and expanded regulatory T cells. Current methods to eliminate regulatory T cells are to deplete these cells using antibodies, such as anti-CD25, anti-GITR. However, conventional T cells can change into regulatory T cells, and as currently no specific markers for regulatory T cells have been identified, antibody depletion might also deplete activated cytotoxic T cells. We found that when IL10 is neutralised at the time of vaccination, cytotoxic cells are not inhibited by regulatory cells.64,65,66 Recently, this concept has been tested in a mouse chronic viral infection model (HCMV), where immunisation plus neutralising IL10 can clear HCMV infection. This may provide a method for the development of therapeutic vaccine against chronic HPV infection and cervical cancer.  

3. Increasing tumour cells’ sensitivity to effector T cells

Clinical trial results often show successful generation of effector T cells that kill tumour cells in vitro but fail to demonstrate efficacy in vivo, even when effector T cells travel to the tumour site. Although increasing effector T cell trafficking to a tumour site is a focus of therapeutic vaccination, it has been well demonstrated that tumour micro-environment is suppressive to the effector T cells.67,68Tumour micro-environment contains suppressive cells including regulatory T cells, suppressive macrophages and high levels of IL10 and TGF beta. Recent results have demonstrated that local administration of pro-inflammatory agents such as TLR agonist (like imiquimod) will boost tumour rejection, although its effect could be at boosting effector T cell function at effector stage.69 At the same time, sensitivity of tumour cells to effector T cells increases, which may be another mechanism. 

Suppressive molecules on tumour cells, PD-1/PD-L1, belong to newly identified B7-CD28 family members which regulate the balance between the stimulatory and inhibitory signals for immuno-regulation.70,71,72 PD-L1 expression on peripheral tissues prevents autoimmunity.73 Tumour cells can use PD-1/PD-L1 pathway to facilitate immune evasion. PD-L1 expression on tumour cells is correlated with poor clinical prognosis of many types of cancers and has been found in many tumour tissues including squamous cell carcinoma;74 all 18 squamous cell carcinoma tumour samples tested express PD-L1. Tumour derived PD-L1 can promote tumour specific T cells apoptosis, through an unidentified receptor on effector T cells, thus resistant to the killing by effector T cells. More inhibitory molecules expressed on tumour cells have been identified and studies on how to overcome the suppressive functions by these molecules will provide better outcomes for therapeutic vaccine.

Interestingly, it was demonstrated that IFNg promotes the expression of PD-L1 on tumour cells.75  IFNg is also a critical component for tumour killing. Therefore, IFNg may play a dual role for the rejection of established tumour tissues. IFNg can enhance MHC class I restricted antigen presentation by tumour cells and increase T cell effector function. However, at the same time, it has been demonstrated that IFNg promotes the generation of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells, prevents inflammatory cells trafficking and promote Th1 cell apoptosis in a tumour model.76,77,78 More recently, we have shown that IFNg signalling promotes the secretion of IL10 by VLPs induced regulatory T cells and prevents the rejection of tumour antigen expressing skin graft in our tumour model (unpublished data). More work is needed to find out how to reduce the suppressive signals at the same time as trying to amplify tumour killing components like IFNg.

References

1. Baseman JG, Koutsky LA. The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infections. J Clin Virol 2005 32 Suppl 1: S16.

2. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Peto J, Meijer CJ, Munoz N. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999 189:12.

3. Parkin DM, Iscovich J. Risk of cancer in migrants and their descendants in Israel: II. Carcinomas and germ-cell tumours. Int J Cancer 1997 70: 654.

4. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998 338: 423.

5. Franco EL, Villa LL, Sobrinho JP, Prado JM, Rousseau MC, Desy M, Rohan TE. Epidemiology of acquisition and clearance of cervical human papillomavirus infection in women from a high-risk area for cervical cancer. J Infect Dis 1999 180: 1415.

6. Liaw KL, Hildesheim A, Burk RD, Gravitt P, Wacholder S, Manos MM, et al. A prospective study of human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 DNA detection by polymerase chain reaction and its association with acquisition and persistence of other HPV types. J Infect Dis 2001 183: 8.

7. de Villiers EM, Whitley C, Gunst K. Identification of new papillomavirus types. Methods Mol Med 2005 119:1.

8. Laimins LA. The biology of human papillomaviruses: from warts to cancer. Infect Agents Dis 1993 2: 74.

9. de Villiers EM. Human pathogenic papillomavirus types: an update. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 1994 186: 1.

10. zur Hausen H, de Villiers EM. Human papillomaviruses. Annu Rev Microbiol 1994 48: 427.

11. Parkin DM. The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002. Int J Cancer 2006 118: 3030.

12. D’Souza G, Kreimer AR, Viscidi R, Pawlita M, Fakhry C, Koch WM, et al. Case-control study of human papillomavirus and oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med 2007 356: 1944.

13. Frazer IH, Quinn M, Nicklin JL, Tan J, Perrin LC, Ng P, et al. Phase 1 study of HPV16-specific immunotherapy with E6E7 fusion protein and ISCOMATRIX adjuvant in women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Vaccine 2004 23: 172.

14. Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, Perez G, Harper DM, Leodolter S, et al. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med 2007 356: 1928.

15. Hildesheim A, Herrero R, Wacholder S, Rodriguez AC, Solomon D, Bratti MC, et al. Effect of human papillomavirus 16/18 L1 viruslike particle vaccine among young women with preexisting infection: a randomized trial. JAMA 2007 298: 743.

16. Frazer IH. The role of vaccines in the control of STDs: HPV vaccines. Genitourin Med 1996 72: 398.

17. Frazer IH. Immunology of papillomavirus infection. Curr Opin Immunol 1996 8: 484.

18. Rintala MA, Grenman SE, Jarvenkyla ME, Syrjanen KJ, Syrjanen SM. High-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in oral and genital mucosa of infants during their first 3 years of life: experience from the Finnish HPV Family Study. Clin Infect Dis 2005 41: 1728.

19. Coley WB. The treatment of malignant tumors by repeated inoculations of erysipelas. With a report of ten original cases. 1893. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991: 3.

20. Swann JB, Smyth MJ. Immune surveillance of tumors. J Clin Invest 2007117: 1137.

21. Smyth MJ, Swann J, Hayakawa Y. Innate tumor immune surveillance. Adv Exp Med Biol 2007 590: 103.

22. Albarran YCA, de la Garza A, Cruz Quiroz BJ, Vazquez Zea E, Diaz Estrada I, Mendez Fuentez E, et al. MVA E2 recombinant vaccine in the treatment of human papillomavirus infection in men presenting intraurethral flat condyloma: a phase I/II study. BioDrugs 2007 21: 47.

23. Einstein MH, Kadish AS, Burk RD, Kim MY, Wadler S, Streicher H, et al. Heat shock fusion protein-based immunotherapy for treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia III. Gynecol Oncol 2007 106: 453.

24. Kaufmann AM, Nieland JD, Jochmus I, Baur S, Friese K, Gabelsberger J, et al. Vaccination trial with HPV16 L1E7 chimeric virus-like particles in women suffering from high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2/3). Int J Cancer 2007 121: 2794.

25. Roman LD, Wilczynski S, Muderspach LI, Burnett AF, O’Meara A, Brinkman JA, et al. A phase II study of Hsp-7 (SGN-00101) in women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 2007 106: 558.

26. Fiander AN, Tristram AJ, Davidson EJ, Tomlinson AE, Man S, Baldwin PJ, et al. Prime-boost vaccination strategy in women with high-grade, noncervical anogenital intraepithelial neoplasia: clinical results from a multicenter phase II trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006 16: 1075.

27. Garcia-Hernandez E et al. Regression of papilloma high-grade lesions (CIN 2 and CIN 3) is stimulated by therapeutic vaccination with MVA E2 recombinant vaccine. Cancer Gene Ther 2006 13: 592.

28. Vandepapeliere P, Barrasso R, Meijer CJ, Walboomers JM, Wettendorff M, Stanberry LR, Lacey CJ. Randomized controlled trial of an adjuvanted human papillomavirus (HPV) type 6 L2E7 vaccine: infection of external anogenital warts with multiple HPV types and failure of therapeutic vaccination. J Infect Dis 2005 192: 2099.

29. Santin AD et al. Human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 E7-pulsed dendritic cell vaccination of stage IB or IIA cervical cancer patients: a phase I escalating-dose trial. J Virol 2008 82: 1968.

30.  Verguts J, Bronselaer B, Donders G, Arbyn M, Van Eldere J, Drijkoningen M, et al. Prediction of recurrence after treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: the role of human papillomavirus testing and age at conisation. Bjog 2006 113: 1303.

31. Xi LF, Koutsky LA, Hildesheim A, Galloway DA, Wheeler CM, Winer RL, et al. Risk for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia associated with variants of human papillomavirus types 16 and 18. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007 16: 4.

32. Huang CM. Topical vaccination: the skin as a unique portal to adaptive immune responses. Semin Immunopathol 2007 29: 71.

33.  Fernando GJ, Stewart TJ, Tindle RW, Frazer IH. Vaccine-induced Th1-type responses are dominant over Th2-type responses in the short term whereas pre-existing Th2 responses are dominant in the longer term. Scand J Immunol 1998 47: 459.

34. Steller MA, Gurski KJ, Murakami M, Daniel RW, Shah KV, Celis E, et al. Cell-mediated immunological responses in cervical and vaginal cancer patients immunized with a lipidated epitope of human papillomavirus type 16 E7. Clin Cancer Res 1998 4: 2103.

35. Baldwin PJ, van der Burg SH, Boswell CM, Offringa R, Hickling JK, Dobson J, et al. Vaccinia-expressed human papillomavirus 16 and 18 e6 and e7 as a therapeutic vaccination for vulval and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. Clin Cancer Res 2003 9: 5205.

36. Berzofsky JA, Oh S, Terabe M. Peptide vaccines against cancer. Cancer Treat Res 2005 123: 115.

37.  Weber J. Peptide vaccines for cancer. Cancer Invest 2002 20: 208.

38. Toubaji A, Hill S, Terabe M, Qian J, Floyd T, Simpson RM, et al. The combination of GM-CSF and IL-2 as local adjuvant shows synergy in enhancing peptide vaccines and provides long term tumor protection. Vaccine 2007 25: 5882.

39. Weber J, Sondak VK, Scotland R, Phillip R, Wang F, Rubio V, et al. Granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor added to a multipeptide vaccine for resected Stage II melanoma. Cancer 2003  97: 186.

40. Zwaveling S, Ferreira Mota SC, Nouta J, Johnson M, Lipford GB, et al. Established human papillomavirus type 16-expressing tumors are effectively eradicated following vaccination with long peptides. J Immunol 2002 169: 350.

41. Vambutas A, DeVoti J, Nouri M, Drijfhout JW, Lipford GB, Bonagura VR, et al. Therapeutic vaccination with papillomavirus E6 and E7 long peptides results in the control of both established virus-induced lesions and latently infected sites in a pre-clinical cottontail rabbit papillomavirus model. Vaccine 2005 23: 5271.

42. Kenter GG et al. Phase I immunotherapeutic trial with long peptides spanning the E6 and E7 sequences of high-risk human papillomavirus 16 in end-stage cervical cancer patients shows low toxicity and robust immunogenicity. Clin Cancer Res 2008 14: 169.

43. Goldstone SE, Palefsky JM, Winnett MT, Neefe JR. Activity of HspE7, a novel immunotherapy, in patients with anogenital warts. Dis Colon Rectum 2002 45: 502.

44. Hallez, S et al. Phase I/II trial of immunogenicity of a human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 E7 protein-based vaccine in women with oncogenic HPV-positive cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Cancer Immunol Immunother 2004 53: 642.

45. Palucka AK, Ueno H, Fay JW, Banchereau J. Taming cancer by inducing immunity via dendritic cells. Immunol Rev 2007 220: 129.

46. Chandy AG, Nurkkala M, Josefsson A, Eriksson K. Therapeutic dendritic cell vaccination with Ag coupled to cholera toxin in combination with intratumoural CpG injection leads to complete tumour eradication in mice bearing HPV 16 expressing tumours. Vaccine 2007 25: 6037. 

47. Ferrara A, Nonn M, Sehr P, Schreckenberger C, Pawlita M, Durst M, et al. Dendritic cell-based tumor vaccine for cervical cancer II: results of a clinical pilot study in 15 individual patients. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2003 129: 521.

48. Santin AD et al. HPV16/18 E7-pulsed dendritic cell vaccination in cervical cancer patients with recurrent disease refractory to standard treatment modalities. Gynecol Oncol 2006 100: 469. 

49. Drake CG, Jaffee E, Pardoll DM. Mechanisms of immune evasion by tumors. Adv Immunol 2006 90: 51.

50. Lin KY, Guarnieri FG, Staveley-O’Carroll KF, Levitsky HI, August JT, Pardoll DM, Wu TC. Treatment of established tumors with a novel vaccine that enhances major histocompatibility class II presentation of tumor antigen. Cancer Res 1996 56: 21.

51. Lambert PF, Pan H, Pitot HC, Liem A, Jackson M, Griep AE. Epidermal cancer associated with expression of human papillomavirus type 16 E6 and E7 oncogenes in the skin of transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci US 1993 90: 5583.

52. Doan T, Herd KA, Lambert PF, Fernando GJ, Street MD, Tindle RW. Peripheral tolerance to human papillomavirus E7 oncoprotein occurs by cross-tolerization, is largely Th-2-independent, and is broken by dendritic cell immunization. Cancer Res 2000 60: 2810.

53. Doan T, Chambers M, Street M, Fernando GJ, Herd K, Lambert P, Tindle R. Mice expressing the E7 oncogene of HPV16 in epithelium show central tolerance, and evidence of peripheral anergising tolerance, to E7-encoded cytotoxic T-lymphocyte epitopes. Virology 1998 244: 352.

54. Frazer IH, De Kluyver R, Leggatt GR, Guo HY, Dunn L, White O, et al. Tolerance or immunity to a tumor antigen expressed in somatic cells can be determined by systemic proinflammatory signals at the time of first antigen exposure. J Immunol 2001 167: 6180.

55. Matsumoto K, Leggatt GR, Zhong J, Liu X, de Kluyver RL, Peters T, et al. Impaired antigen presentation and effectiveness of combined active/passive immunotherapy for epithelial tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96: 1611.

56. Sakaguchi S, Hori S, Fukui Y, Sasazuki T, Sakaguchi N, Takahashi T. Thymic generation and selection of CD25+CD4+ regulatory T cells: implications of their broad repertoire and high self-reactivity for the maintenance of immunological self-tolerance. Novartis Found Symp 2003 252: 6.

57. Sakaguchi S, Hori S, Fukui Y, Sasazuki T, Sakaguchi N, Takahashi T. Thymic generation and selection of CD25+CD4+ regulatory T cells: implications of their broad repertoire and high self-reactivity for the maintenance of immunological self-tolerance. Novartis Found Symp 2003 252: 6. 

58. Fehervari Z, Sakaguchi S. CD4+ Tregs and immune control. J Clin Invest 2004 114: 1209.

59. Visser J, Nijman HW, Hoogenboom BN, Jager P, van Baarle D, Schuuring E, et al. Frequencies and role of regulatory T cells in patients with (pre)malignant cervical neoplasia. Clin Exp Immunol 2007 150: 199.

60. Wang HY, Lee DA, Peng G, Guo Z, Li Y, Kiniwa Y, et al. Tumor-specific human CD4+ regulatory T cells and their ligands: implications for immunotherapy. Immunity 2004 20: 107.

61. Zhou G, Drake CG, Levitsky HI. Amplification of tumor-specific regulatory T cells following therapeutic cancer vaccines. Blood 2006 107: 628.

62. Maksimow M, Miiluniemi M, Marttila-Ichihara F, Jalkanen S, Hanninen A. Antigen targeting to endosomal pathway in dendritic cell vaccination activates regulatory T cells and attenuates tumor immunity. Blood 2006 108: 1298.

63. Peng S, Frazer IH, Fernando GJ, Zhou J. Papillomavirus virus-like particles can deliver defined CTL epitopes to the MHC class I pathway. Virology 1998 240: 147.

64. Liu XS, Dyer J, Leggatt GR, Fernando GJ, Zhong J, Thomas R, Frazer IH. Overcoming original antigenic sin to generate new CD8 T cell IFN-gamma responses in an antigen-experienced host. J Immunol 2006 177: 2873.

65. den Haan JM, Kraal G, Bevan MJ. Cutting edge: Lipopolysaccharide induces IL-10-producing regulatory CD4+ T cells that suppress the CD8+ T cell response. J Immunol 2007 178: 5429.

66. Liu XS. IL-10 mediates suppression of the CD8 T cell IFN-gamma response to a novel viral epitope in a primed host. J Immunol 2003 171: 4765.

67. Buckanovich RJ, Facciabene A, Kim S, Benencia F, Sasaroli D, Balint K, et al. Endothelin B receptor mediates the endothelial barrier to T cell homing to tumors and disables immune therapy. Nat Med 2008 14: 28.

68. Zou W. Immunosuppressive networks in the tumour environment and their therapeutic relevance. Nat Rev Cancer 2005 5: 263.

69. Zhong J, Hadis U, De Kluyver R, Leggatt GR, Fernando GJ, Frazer IH. TLR7 stimulation augments T effector-mediated rejection of skin expressing neo-self antigen in keratinocytes. Eur J Immunol 2008 38: 73.

70. Sharpe AH, Wherry EJ, Ahmed R, Freeman GJ. The function of programmed cell death 1 and its ligands in regulating autoimmunity and infection. Nat Immunol 2007 8: 239.

71. Keir ME, Francisco LM, Sharpe AH. PD-1 and its ligands in T-cell immunity. Curr Opin Immunol 2007 19: 309.

72. Keir ME, Butte MJ, Freeman GJ, Sharpe AH. PD-1 and Its Ligands in Tolerance and Immunity. Annu Rev Immunol 2008.

73. Martin-Orozco N, Wang YH, Yagita H, Dong C. Cutting Edge: Programmed death (PD) ligand-1/PD-1 interaction is required for CD8+ T cell tolerance to tissue antigens. J Immunol 2006 177: 8291.

74.  Dong H, Strome SE, Salomao DR, Tamura H, Hirano F, Flies DB, Roche PC. Tumor-associated B7-H1 promotes T-cell apoptosis: a potential mechanism of immune evasion. Nat Med 2002 8: 793.

75. Tsushima F, Tanaka K, Otsuki N, Youngnak P, Iwai H, Omura K, et al. Predominant expression of B7-H1 and its immunoregulatory roles in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol 2006 42: 268. 

76. Wang Z, Hong J, Sun W, Xu G, Li N, Chen X, et al. Role of IFN-gamma in induction of Foxp3 and conversion of CD4+ CD25- T cells to CD4+ Tregs. J Clin Invest 2006 116: 2434.

77. Boehm U, Klamp T, Groot M, Howard JC. Cellular responses to interferon-gamma. Annu Rev Immunol 1997 15: 749.

78. Berner V, Liu H, Zhou Q, Alderson KL, Sun K, Weiss JM, et al. IFN-gamma mediates CD4+ T-cell loss and impairs secondary antitumor responses after successful initial immunotherapy. Nat Med 2007 13: 354.

Be the first to know when a new issue is online. Subscribe today.