|
1.IntroductionAdoptive immunotherapy based on antigen-presenting cells (APCs) vaccine generation for primary CNS tumors has been an active area of research, and the results of several clinical trials using dendritic cell (DC) vaccines have been reported1–5 The results of phase I/II trials have suggested efficacy, but it is still undetermined whether immunotherapy can ultimately be beneficial to patients with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Further development of APC-based cancer vaccines is required in order to improve efficacy and tolerability. DCs are immune cells specialized for antigen presentation to naïve T cells, and, as such, they have been used as APCs in the vast majority of immunization studies. Recent work has shown that DCs are part of the mononuclear phagocyte system and that they are indistinguishable from macrophages (Ma) in several key areas including developmental pathways, markers and efficacy as APCs.6 Therefore, DCs have no unique adaptation for antigen presentation that is not shared by other Ma, and, as such, it is not surprising that both cell types are equally active vis-a-vis antigen presentation. Due to the presence of the blood–brain barrier, the brain is relatively isolated from the systemic circulation and therefore, the initiation of significant immune responses is somewhat limited compared to other types of cancers. In addition, the production of immunosuppressive factors and diminished or absent major histocompatibility complex class I expression on glioma cells could limit the effects of immunotherapy.7 Nevertheless, Ma and lymphocytes are often found in large numbers in these tumors, clearly indicating that the immune system is actively engaged.8–10 Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a light-based technology that has been used as an adjuvant for the treatment of a variety of cancers including GBM.11–14 This localized treatment approach has been proposed as a method to enhance the effectiveness of vaccines for cancer therapy.15–17 Although PDT destroys tumor cells directly, a significant immunological component has also been observed.18–21 Importantly, for the present work, PDT of glioma cells has been shown to generate multiple antigenic (tumor) peptides, which can be used to activate APCs ex vivo.15 The present work is based on the hypothesis that Ma can act as effective APCs in cell-mediated adoptive immunotherapy and the efficacy of the immune response can be increased by ex vivo PDT treatment of the tumor cells, which are used to activate the Ma. In addition, it is hypothesized that the injection of allogeneic tumor cells directly into brain tumors will initiate an immunological rejection reaction, thereby enhancing the specific response in the tumor to the Ma vaccine. This is a proof-of-concept study using Ma as APCs and a rat orthotopic glioma model in which newly implanted glioma cells are used as a mimic for the infiltrating cells remaining in the resection margin following surgical removal of bulk tumor in patients. The model is an experimental representation of postoperative clinical treatment in which APC vaccination would be initiated at the time of minimal residual disease following surgical resection. 2.Materials and Methods2.1.Cell LinesRat alveolar Ma (8383) and rat glioma cells (F98) were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, Virginia). The rat glioma cell line was obtained from Oslo University Hospital (Oslo, Norway). The cell line was originally derived from transformed fetal BD-IX rat brain cells after exposure to ethyl—nitrosourea. Both F98 and cells were grown as monolayers in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Carlsbad, California) with 10% fetal bovine serum, 25 mM HEPES buffer (pH 7.4), penicillin (), and streptomycin () at 37°C and 5% . 2.2.Effects of Photodynamic Therapy on F98 CellsThe direct effect of PDT on F98 glioma cell viability was first assayed in monolayers. For each light level investigated, eight wells (in a 96-well flat bottomed plate) were seeded with F98 at a density of 5000 cells per well and incubated for 24 h. Cells were aliquoted in every third column to reduce light exposure from neighboring wells under illumination. About of was added to the cells and the incubation was continued for an additional 18 h. The cells were washed twice in fresh medium to remove excess photosensitizer. Light treatment was accomplished with a 670-nm diode laser (Intense, North Brunswick, New Jersey) coupled to a diameter optical fiber at an irradiance of . The cells were irradiated for increasing times resulting in a range of radiant exposures between 0 and . Following light treatment, incubation was continued for 48 h, at which point the culture medium was replaced with fresh clear buffer containing MTS reagents (Promega, Madison, Wisconsin) and incubated for an additional 2 h. The optical density was measured using an ELx 800uv Universal Microplate Reader (BIO-TEK Instruments, Inc., Winooski, Vermont). 2.3.Flow CytometryFlow cytometry was used to determine the fraction of viable, apoptotic, and necrotic cells following PDT. Two different fluorescent labels were used: Annexin V-FITC (Beckton, Dickson and Company, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey) to distinguish apoptotic cells, and propidium iodide (PI; Sigma, St. Louis, Missouri) to label necrotic cells. Unlabeled cells were assumed to be viable. The two labels were added to F98 cells with of Annexin V-FITC and of PI. The solutions were gently agitated and incubated for 15 min at room temperature in the dark. For each experiment, a set of control solutions was also prepared. One control remained unlabeled, the second labeled only with Annexin V-FITC, and the third labeled only with PI. Finally, after 15 min of dark incubation, each tube was analyzed in a flow cytometer (FACS Calibur; Beckton, Dickson and Company) along with CellQuest software. 2.4.Generation of PDT-Ma VaccineF98 monolayers were grown in T25 flasks until subconfluence and were incubated with photosensitizer (; ) for 18 h. The cells were detached from the flask by enzyme treatment, washed twice to remove excess photosensitizer, and irradiated with light at an irradiance and radiant exposure of and , respectively. The PDT-treated F98 cells () were cocultured with Ma for 24 h. The antigen activated Ma are designated in the text and figures. To evaluate morphological changes of the Ma after exposure to PDT-treated F98 cells, cells were placed on a glass bottomed imaging dish and incubated for 18 h. Phase contrast microscopy was carried out both on and “empty” Ma for comparison. 2.5.Experimental AnimalsInbred male Fischer rats weighing about 350 g were purchased from Simonsen Laboratories, Inc. (Gilroy, California). Animal care and protocols were in accordance with institutional guidelines. Animal holding rooms were maintained at constant temperature and humidity on a 12-h light and dark schedule at an air exchange rate of . For the surgical procedures, animals were anaesthetized with isoflurane. A postoperative analgesic (buprenorphine: s.c.) was administered following surgery and twice per day for 3 days thereafter. All animals were euthanized at the end of the study or at the first signs of distress. Euthanasia was accomplished via inhalation. 2.6.Tumor Cell InjectionF98 and cells were injected stereotactically into the brains of Fischer rats, as previously described.22 Briefly, anaesthetized rats were fixed in a stereotactic frame. The skin was incised and a 1.0-mm burr hole was made at the following coordinates: 1 mm posterior to the bregma, 2 mm to the right of the midline, and at a depth of 2 mm. The injection device consisted of a 30-G blunt cannula connected through a catheter (Hamilton Co., Reno, Nevada) to an infusion pump (Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, Massachusetts). The cannula was fixed in the electrode holder of the stereotactic frame and then vertically introduced into the brain. A total of F98 and/or cells in PBS were injected into the brain over a period of 2 min. Following injection, the cannula remained in place for 2 min. Closure was done with bone wax and sutures. 2.7.Experimental ProtocolAnimals were divided into five cohort groups. The basic protocols for these five groups are shown in Fig. 1. Each group consisted of three animals. Since this was a proof-of-principle histological study, with no survival arm, the limited number of animals used was considered sufficient. Group 1: animals were injected with F98 cells only. Group 2: animals were injected with F98 cells in the right hemisphere (syngeneic controls) and cells in the left hemisphere (allogeneic controls). Group 3: animals were injected with a mixture of F98 and cells in the right hemisphere. Group 4: animals were injected (i.p.) with a combination of PDT-treated F98 tumor cells and . Forty-eight hours following immunization, F98 cells were injected into the right hemisphere. Group 5: animals were injected (i.p.) as in group 4. Forty-eight hours following immunization, a mixture of F98 and cells were injected into the right hemisphere. The animals were followed for 14 days, euthanized, and the brains removed. Histology of removed brains was performed with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. 3.Results and Discussion3.1.PDT Response of F98 CellsThe direct effects of PDT on F98 cell monolayers are shown in Fig. 2(a). At a radiant exposure of , less than 3% of the cells were viable. This radiant exposure was therefore used in the subsequent experiments. The results of flow cytometry for two PDT radiant exposures are shown in Fig. 2(b). At , most of the cells were viable as was also seen in the MTS assay [Fig. 2(a)]. At , only a small fraction of F98 cells were viable as most of the cells died via apoptosis. Figure 2 shows flow plots of apoptosis of untreated (c) or PDT-treated (d) F98 cells stained with annexin V-FITC and PI. Early apoptotic cells were defined as annexin V-FITC+ but PI−. These findings are in good agreement with previous results showing that apoptosis is the primary mode of cell death following low irradiance PDT.23–25 Several reports have demonstrated that apoptotic cells are superior to necrotic cells in inducing antitumor immunity.26–30 Recent research has led to the concept of immunogenic cell death, which refers to an immunogenic form of apoptosis or necrosis. Cells undergoing immunogenic apoptosis are more potent inducers of antitumor immune responses than cells dying via necrosis. Recent work by Ji et al.31 has shown that ALA-PDT is capable of generating immunogenic apoptotic cells and that these cells can activate immature DCs. Vaccines using these activated DCs inhibited the growth of squamous cell carcinoma in mice. 3.2.Morphology of Ma and MaF98Coincubation of Ma with PDT-treated F98 cells led to pronounced morphological changes of the compared to nonstimulated Ma. As shown in the phase contrast micrographs [Fig. 2(e)], 8383 rat Ma are round, to in diameter and are composed of an equal population of both adherent and floating cells in vitro. By contrast, [Fig. 2(f)] were significantly larger and irregular in shape with increased intracellular inclusions. Additionally, the majority of the cells were adherent. 3.3.Effects of Implanting Syngeneic or Allogeneic Glioma Cells in Nonimmunized AnimalsControl animals implanted with F98 cells into the brain developed large tumors 14 days postinjection (Fig. 3). The lack of encapsulation and significant infiltration of F98 cells into normal brain has been observed previously.32 F98 glioma cells have been used in numerous experimental brain tumor studies since the tumors share many fundamental traits with human GBM, including infiltration, rapid growth, extensive neovascularization, absence of encapsulation, and weak immunogenicity.33 The weak immunogenicity of the F98 model is a significant advantage in evaluating the effects of vaccines compared to other rat glioma models (e.g., C6 and 9L gliosarcoma), which can be highly immunogenic and can therefore evoke intense immune responses on their own. Group two animals received F98 cells in their right hemisphere and allogeneic cells in their left hemisphere. As illustrated in Fig. 4, all F98-cells developed into tumors while no tumors were observed in the -injected hemispheres. This clearly demonstrates the rejection of allogeneic glioma cells in the brain. By contrast, cells readily formed tumors when injected into the brains of syngeneic BD-IX rats.34 Interestingly, the syngeneic F98 tumors in these animals were much smaller in comparison to the F98-only tumors implanted in group one animals. Injecting a mixture of F98 and cells into the same hemisphere (group 3) also resulted in the development of tumors (Fig. 5) similar in size to those seen in the group 2 animals (Fig. 4). Taken together, these findings indicated that the rejection reaction against the cells could slow tumor progression but was insufficient to completely prevent F98 tumor formation. Although the underlying mechanism of the antitumor immunity observed in these experiments remains to be determined, allogeneic cells likely contain antigen determinants shared with the syngeneic tumor, leading to the observed reduction in tumor growth. This hypothesis is in agreement with the findings of Stathopoulos et al.,35 who reported that Fischer rats, after initially rejecting subcutaneous C6 allogeneic tumors, failed to develop tumors after subcutaneous injection of syngeneic 9L glioma cells. 3.4.Tumor Development in Immunized AnimalsMa were coincubated with PDT-treated apoptotic F98 () cells for 24 h. A new cohort of animals (Group 4) were inoculated (i.p.) with the resulting mixture of the two cell types. Forty-eight hours following immunization, F98 cells were injected into the right hemisphere. Fourteen days later, the brains were removed and sectioned. The resulting histological sections are shown in Fig. 6. Although tumors developed in all of these immunized animals, the tumors were significantly smaller than in the nontreated controls (group 1) as well as in the groups receiving both F98 and intracranial injection (groups 2 and 3). In the final cohort (group 5), allogeneic cells were injected along with the F98 glioma cells into immunized hosts. As illustrated in Fig. 7, histological sections revealed that there was no evidence of tumor development in any of the animals. Although small remnants of the initial cell inoculate could be seen [Figs. 7(a) and 7(b)], no tumor growth or infiltration was evident. The addition of an allogeneic immune response therefore appeared to enhance the efficacy of the vaccine. High magnification () H&E histological sections of tumors removed from nontreated controls (group 1), implants (group 3), immunized animals (group 4), and immunized (group 5) are shown in Figs 8(a)–8(d), respectively. Control tumors were extremely cell rich and compact [Fig. 8(a)], whereas the tumors from the immunized animals demonstrated a much lower cell density [Fig. 8(c)] with areas in the tumor that contained almost no visible tumor cells. Sections from group 5 animals showed only small remnants of the initial cell inoculate, as shown in Fig. 8(d). The generation of vaccines using PDT has been attempted by a number of groups. For example, Shixiang et al.36 generated DC vaccines using PDT-treated C6 glioma cell antigenic peptides. Vaccine efficacy was assessed ex vivo by DC-induced cytotoxic T lymphocyte mediated lysis of C6 target cells. They concluded that PDT of C6 cells significantly enhanced tumor cell immunogenicity compared to freeze-thawed C6 cells. The use of established allogeneic cell lines to generate glioma vaccines based on HLA typing of individual patients was proposed by Zang et al.,37 who suggested that HLA typing can predict which combination of cell lines is capable of producing a customized allogeneic vaccine containing the relevant antigens to stimulate the patient’s immune system. Alternatively, this approach would allow for autologous DC vaccines to be generated using lysates containing these relevant antigens. Based on previous studies, Stathopoulos et al.38 reported a prototype brain cancer vaccine against glioma cells containing multivalent antigens derived from both allogeneic and syngeneic cells and lysates. In a subcutaneous tumor model, they demonstrated arrested progression of tumor growth when the vaccine was codelivered with costimulatory agents. The results of a clinical phase I trial on nine recurrent GBM patients have recently been reported.39 The immunization approach, consisting of combined administration of multiple allogeneic and autologous tumor-isolated antigens derived from the patient’s surgically removed tumor tissue and glioma tumor tissue from three allogeneic donor patients, was based on the preclinical approach described in CNS-1 Lewis rats.38 A phase II trial (NCT01903330) employing this approach is currently ongoing. Although the strategy used in the present proof-of-concept study reported here (i.e., Ma vaccine generated by PDT treatment of the tumor cells combined with direct intracranial alloimmune stimulation) has proven promising, work is in progress aimed at inducing more efficient immunization in a larger number of animals. In the present protocol, the immunizing loaded were injected i.p., however, direct injection into the lymph nodes, where T cell priming occurs, is likely a better approach. Specifically, studies have shown that priming of T cells by APCs in the cervical lymph nodes can induce a homing pattern toward locations within the brain.40 Additionally, live allogeneic cells were injected directly into the brain and, as such, this approach is not translatable to the clinic. Developing an Ma vaccine using PDT treatment of both the syngeneic and allogeneic cells, to prime the Ma, as well as a more realistic postoperative brain tumor model are currently being explored. 4.ConclusionsThe results on the limited number of animals used in the various arms in this pilot study indicated that allogeneic glioma cells injected into the brain did not form tumors but did slow the growth of syngeneic tumors induced in the same animal. Furthermore, although immunization with Ma (acting as APCs), primed with PDT-treated tumor cells (), significantly slowed the growth of F98-induced tumors in the brain, it failed to prevent tumor formation. Complete suppression of tumor development was obtained by inoculation combined with direct intracranial injection of allogeneic cells. No deleterious effects were noted in any of the animals during the 14-day observation period. DisclosuresThe authors have no relevant financial interests in this article and no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. AcknowledgmentsThe present work is an expansion of studies previously reported in Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 9690, 96900D1-6, 2016. The authors are grateful for support from the Norwegian Radium Hospital Research Foundation. Portions of this work were made possible through access to the LAMMP Program NIBIB P41EB015890. S.J.M. acknowledges the support of the Tony and Renee Marlon Charitable Foundation. ReferencesH. Ardon et al.,
“Integration of autologous dendritic cell based immunotherapy in the primary treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma multiforme: a pilot study,”
J. Neuro-oncol., 99 261
–272
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-010-0131-y JEPOEC 0731-8898 Google Scholar
J. S. Yu et al.,
“Vaccination with tumor lysate pulsed dendritic cells elicits antigen specific, cytotoxic T cells in patients with malignant glioma,”
Cancer Res., 64 4973
–4979
(2004). https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-3505 CNREA8 0008-5472 Google Scholar
R. Yamanaka et al.,
“Clinical evaluation of dendritic cell vaccination for patients with recurrent glioma: results of a clinical phase I/II trial,”
Clin. Cancer Res., 11 4160
–4167
(2005). https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0120 Google Scholar
M. J. Hickey et al.,
“Cellular and vaccine therapeutic approaches for gliomas,”
J. Transl. Med., 8 100
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-8-100 Google Scholar
S. Inogés et al.,
“A phase II trial of autologous dendritic cell vaccination and radio-chemotherapy following fluorescence–guided surgery in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients,”
J. Transl. Med., 15 104
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-017-1202-z Google Scholar
D. A. Hume,
“Macrophages as APC and the dendritic cell myth,”
J. Immunol., 181 5829
–5835
(2008). https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.181.9.5829 JOIMA3 0022-1767 Google Scholar
M. Weller and A. Fontana,
“The failure of current immunotherapy for malignant glioma. Tumor derived TGF-β, T cell apoptosis, and the immune privilege of the brain,”
Brain Res. Rev., 21 128
–151
(1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0173(95)00010-0 BRERD2 0165-0173 Google Scholar
M. L. Rossi et al.,
“Immunohistochemical study of mononuclear cell infiltrate in malignant gliomas,”
Acta Neuropathol. (Berlin), 74 269
–277
(1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00688191 Google Scholar
M. Shinonaga et al.,
“Immunohistochemical evaluation of macrophage infiltrates in brain tumors,”
J. Neurosurg., 68 259
–265
(1988). https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1988.68.2.0259 JONSAC 0022-3085 Google Scholar
S. Miescher et al.,
“In situ characterization, clonogenic potential, and antitumor cytolytic activity of T lymphocytes infiltrating human brain cancers,”
J. Neurosurg., 68 438
–448
(1988). https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.1988.68.3.0438 JONSAC 0022-3085 Google Scholar
S. S. Stylli et al.,
“Photodynamic therapy of high grade glioma–long term survival,”
J. Clin. Neurosci., 12 389
–398
(2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2005.01.006 Google Scholar
P. J. Muller and B. C. Wilson,
“Photodynamic therapy of brain tumor–a work in progress,”
Laser Surg. Med., 38 384
–389
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9101 Google Scholar
H. Stepp et al.,
“ALA and malignant glioma: fluorescence-guided resection and photodynamic treatment,”
J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol., 26 157
–164
(2007). https://doi.org/10.1615/JEnvironPatholToxicolOncol.v26.i2 Google Scholar
M. S. Eljamel, C. Goodman and H. Moseley,
“ALA and photofrin fluorescence-guided resection and repetitive PDT in glioblastoma multiforme: a single centre phase III randomized controlled trial,”
Lasers Med. Sci., 23 361
–367
(2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-007-0494-2 Google Scholar
M. Korbelik and J. Sun,
“Photodynamic-generated vaccine cancer therapy,”
Cancer Immunol. Immunother., 55 900
–909
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00262-005-0088-4 CIIMDN 0340-7004 Google Scholar
S. O. Gollnick, L. Vaughan and B. W. Henderson,
“Generation of effective antitumor vaccines using photodynamic therapy,”
J. Cancer Res., 3
(15), 1604
–1608
(2002). Google Scholar
N. Maeding, T Verwanger and B. Krammer,
“Boosting tumor-specific immunity using PDT,”
Cancers, 8
(10), 91
(2016). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers8100091 Google Scholar
D. E. Dolmans, D. Fukumura and R. K. Jain,
“Photodynamic therapy for cancer,”
Nat. Rev. Cancer, 3 380
–387
(2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1071 NRCAC4 1474-175X Google Scholar
A. P. Castano, P. Mroz and M. R. Hamblin,
“Photodynamic therapy and anti-tumour immunity,”
Nat. Rev. Cancer, 6 535
–545
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1894 NRCAC4 1474-175X Google Scholar
P. C. Kousis et al.,
“Photodynamic therapy enhancement of antitumor immunity is regulated by neutrophils,”
Cancer Res., 67 10501
–10510
(2007). https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-1778 CNREA8 0008-5472 Google Scholar
C. M. Brackett and S. O. Gollnick,
“Photodynamic therapy enhancement of anti-tumor immunity,”
Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 10 649
–652
(2011). https://doi.org/10.1039/c0pp00354a PPSHCB 1474-905X Google Scholar
H. Hirschberg et al.,
“Minimally invasive photodynamic therapy (PDT) tumor ablation of experimental rat glioma,”
Minimally Invasive Neurosurg., 49
(3), 135
–142
(2006). https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-932216 Google Scholar
T. M. Sitnik and B. W. Henderson,
“The effect of fluence rate on tumor and normal tissue responses to photodynamic therapy,”
Photochem. Photobiol., 67 462
–466
(1998). https://doi.org/10.1111/php.1998.67.issue-4 PHCBAP 0031-8655 Google Scholar
S. K. Bisland et al.,
“Metronomic photodynamic therapy as a new paradigm for photodynamic therapy: rationale and preclinical evaluation of technical feasibility for treating malignant brain tumors,”
Photochem. Photobiol., 80 22
–30
(2004). https://doi.org/10.1562/2004-03-05-RA-100.1 PHCBAP 0031-8655 Google Scholar
M. S. Mathews et al.,
“Effects of ultra low fluence rate single and repetitive photodynamic therapy on glioma spheroids,”
Lasers Surg. Med., 41 578
–584
(2009). https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.v41:8 LSMEDI 0196-8092 Google Scholar
S. R. Scheffer et al.,
“Apoptotic, but not necrotic, tumor cell vaccines induce a potent immune response in vivo,”
Int. J. Cancer, 103 205
–211
(2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0215 IJCNAW 1097-0215 Google Scholar
R. S. Goldszmid et al.,
“Dendritic cells charged with apoptotic tumor cells induce long-lived protective CD4+ and CD8+ T cell immunity against B16 melanoma,”
J. Immunol., 171 5940
–5947
(2003). https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.171.11.5940 JOIMA3 0022-1767 Google Scholar
W. C. Bartholomae et al.,
“T cell immunity induced by live, necrotic, and apoptotic tumor cells,”
J. Immunol., 173 1012
–1022
(2004). https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.173.2.1012 JOIMA3 0022-1767 Google Scholar
A. D. Garg et al.,
“Immunogenic cell death, DAMPs and anticancer therapeutics: an emerging amalgamation,”
Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 1805
(1), 53
–71
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2009.08.003 BBACAQ 0006-3002 Google Scholar
D. V. Krysko et al.,
“Immunogenic cell death and DAMPs in cancer therapy,”
Nat. Rev. Cancer, 12
(12), 860
–875
(2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3380 NRCAC4 1474-175X Google Scholar
J. Ji et al.,
“Improvement of DC vaccine with ALA-PDT induced immunogenic apoptotic cells for skin squamous cell carcinoma,”
Oncotarget, 6
(19), 17135
–17146
(2015). https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.v6i19 Google Scholar
S. J. Madsen, K. Kharkhuu and H. Hirschberg,
“Utility of the F98 rat glioma model for photodynamic therapy,”
J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol., 26
(2), 149
–155
(2007). https://doi.org/10.1615/JEnvironPatholToxicolOncol.v26.i2 JEPOEC 0731-8898 Google Scholar
R. F. Barth,
“Rat brain tumor models in experimental neuro-oncology: the 9L, C6, T9, F98, RG2 (D74), RT-2 and CNS-1 gliomas,”
J. Neurooncol., 36 91
–102
(1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005805203044 Google Scholar
E. Angell-Petersen et al.,
“Influence of light fluence rate on the effects of photodynamic therapy in an orthotopic rat glioma model,”
J. Neurosurg., 104 109
–117
(2006). https://doi.org/10.3171/jns.2006.104.1.109 JONSAC 0022-3085 Google Scholar
A. Stathopoulos et al.,
“Therapeutic vaccination against malignant gliomas based on allo-recognition and syngeneic tumor antigens: proof of principle in two strains of rat,”
Vaccine, 26 1764
–1772
(2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.01.039 VACCDE 0264-410X Google Scholar
Y. Shixiang et al.,
“Antitumor efficacy of a photodynamic therapy-generated dendritic cell glioma vaccine,”
Med. Oncol., 28 S453
–S461
(2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-010-9713-y Google Scholar
J. G. Zhang et al.,
“Antigenic profiling of glioma cells to generate allogeneic vaccines or dendritic cell based therapeutics,”
Clin. Cancer Res., 13
(2), 566
–575
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1576 Google Scholar
A. Stathopoulos et al.,
“Exploring the therapeutic efficacy of glioma vaccines based on allo- and syngeneic antigens and distinct immunological costimulation activators,”
J. Clin. Cell Immunol., Suppl. 5 004
(2012). https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-9899.S5-004 Google Scholar
V. E. Schijns et al.,
“First clinical results of a personalized immunotherapeutic vaccine against recurrent, incompletely resected, treatment-resistant glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tumors, based on combined allo and auto-immune tumor reactivity,”
Vaccine, 33
(23), 2690
–2696
(2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.03.095 VACCDE 0264-410X Google Scholar
T. Calzascia et al.,
“Homing phenotypes of tumor-specific CD8 T cells are predetermined at the tumor site by crosspresenting APCs,”
Immunity, 22 175
–184
(2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2004.12.008 IUNIEH 1074-7613 Google Scholar
|