Minor human antibody response to a mouse and chimeric monoclonal antibody after a single i.v. infusion in ovarian carcinoma patients: a comparison of five assays

Immunotherapy in hematologic malignancies: achievements, challenges and future prospects

The immune-cell origin of hematologic malignancies provides a unique avenue for the understanding of both the mechanisms of immune responsiveness and immune escape, which has accelerated the progress of immunotherapy. Several categories of immunotherapies have been developed and are being further evaluated in clinical trials for the treatment of blood cancers, including stem cell transplantation, immune checkpoint inhibitors, antigen-targeted antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, tumor vaccines, and adoptive cell therapies. These immunotherapies have shown the potential to induce long-term remission in refractory or relapsed patients and have led to a paradigm shift in cancer treatment with great clinical success. Different immunotherapeutic approaches have their advantages but also shortcomings that need to be addressed. To provide clinicians with timely information on these revolutionary therapeutic approaches, the comprehensive review provides historical perspectives on the applications and clinical considerations of the immunotherapy. Here, we first outline the recent advances that have been made in the understanding of the various categories of immunotherapies in the treatment of hematologic malignancies. We further discuss the specific mechanisms of action, summarize the clinical trials and outcomes of immunotherapies in hematologic malignancies, as well as the adverse effects and toxicity management and then provide novel insights into challenges and future directions.

Immunogenicity of engineered antibodies

Administration of a therapeutic antibody can lead to an anti-antibody response (AAR). Much effort has been applied to engineering antibodies with as little as possible non-human structure to minimize such responses. Here, we review reported AAR to murine, mouse-human chimeric, and humanized antibodies. Replacement of mouse immunoglobulin constant regions with human ones effects the largest immunogenicity reduction. Humanization of variable domains effects a further decrease.

Immunometric Assay Interference

Background: The primary aim of the study was to reduce interference in an in-house two-site, two-step immunometric assay.

Methods: In the running laboratory routine, 11 261 samples were tested with a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay with bovine immunoglobulin but no murine immunoglobulins in the buffer, in parallel to our routine CEA assay, using 15 mg/L heat-treated nonspecific murine immunoglobulin (MAK33) in the buffer and with the Fc fragments removed from the capture antibody.

Results: The frequency of interference was estimated to be 4.0% (95% confidence interval, 3.3–4.7%). The addition of 15 mg/L native MAK33 had little effect (frequency, 3.9%; 95% confidence interval, 3.2–4.6%), whereas adding 15 mg/L heat-treated MAK33 reduced interference to 0.86% (0.61–1.12%), and adding 50 mg/L reduced it further to 0.06% (0–0.13%). Removing the Fc fragments by itself reduced interference to 0.10% (0.02–0.19%). There were no statistically significant differences for age (P <0.23) or gender (P <0.40) between patients with interference (n = 210) and a randomly selected interference-negative control group (n = 186). Interference was not constant in patients: 15 of 25 individuals positive for interference and with four or more samples screened for interference had an interference-negative sample either before or after the peak of interference.

Conclusions: In a two-site, two-step immunometric assay using mouse monoclonal antibodies, use of heat-treated nonspecific murine immunoglobulin in the buffer or removal of the Fc fragment from the capture antibody could improve performance.

Phase I study of chimeric human/murine anti-ganglioside G(D2) monoclonal antibody (ch14.18) with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in children with neuroblastoma immediately after hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation: a Children's Cancer Group Study

PURPOSE

Ganglioside G(D2) is strongly expressed on the surface of human neuroblastoma cells. It has been shown that the chimeric human/murine anti-G(D2) monoclonal antibody (ch14.18) can induce lysis of neuroblastoma cells by antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity. The purposes of the study were (1) to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of ch14.18 in combination with standard dose granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) for patients with neuroblastoma who recently completed hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), and (2) to determine the toxicities of ch14.18 with GM-CSF in this setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients became eligible when the total absolute phagocyte count (APC) was greater than 1, 000/microL after HSCT. ch14.18 was infused intravenously over 5 hours daily for 4 consecutive days. Patients received GM-CSF 250 microg/m(2)/d starting at least 3 days before ch14.18 and continued for 3 days after the completion of ch14.18. The ch14.18 dose levels were 20, 30, 40, and 50 mg/m(2)/d. In the absence of progressive disease, patients were allowed to receive up to six 4-day courses of ch14.18 therapy with GM-CSF. Nineteen patients with neuroblastoma were treated.

RESULTS

A total of 79 courses were administered. No toxic deaths occurred. The main toxicities were severe neuropathic pain, fever, nausea/vomiting, urticaria, hypotension, mild to moderate capillary leak syndrome, and neurotoxicity. Three dose-limiting toxicities were observed among six patients at 50 mg/m(2)/d: intractable neuropathic pain, grade 3 recurrent urticaria, and grade 4 vomiting. Human antichimeric antibody developed in 28% of patients.

CONCLUSION

ch14.18 can be administered with GM-CSF after HSCT in patients with neuroblastoma with manageable toxicities. The MTD is 40 mg/m(2)/d for 4 days when given in this schedule with GM-CSF.

Monoclonal antibody therapy for solid tumors

Monoclonal antibody therapy for solid tumors has many theoretical attractions and a long history. Until recently, with the approval and widespread use of rituximab (Rituxan) and trastuzumab (Herceptin), monoclonal antibody therapy for tumors had not had significant success. This article reviews basic theories behind antibody development and their clinical implementation as treatment for solid tumors. Medline was searched for articles over the past 15 years dealing with laboratory and clinical applications of antibody therapy for solid tumors. In addition, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstracts from the past 3 years were reviewed to complement the Medline search. This article focuses on treatment for common solid tumors, including breast, colon and lung cancers.

Human Anti-Animal Antibody Interferences in Immunological Assays

Purpose: The scope and significance of human anti-animal antibody interference in immunological assays is reviewed with an emphasis on human anti-animal immunoglobulins, particularly human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMAs).

Issues: Anti-animal antibodies (IgG, IgA, IgM, IgE class, anti-isotype, and anti-idiotype specificity) arise as a result of iatrogenic and noniatrogenic causes and include human anti-mouse, -rabbit, -goat, -sheep, -cow, -pig, -rat, and -horse antibodies and antibodies with mixed specificity. Circulating antibodies can reach gram per liter concentrations and may persist for years. Prevalence estimates for anti-animal antibodies in the general population vary widely and range from <1% to 80%. Human anti-animal antibodies cause interferences in immunological assays. The most common human anti-animal antibody interferent is HAMA, which causes both positive and negative interferences in two-site mouse monoclonal antibody-based assays. Strategies to prevent the development of human anti-animal antibody responses include immunosuppressant therapy and the use of humanized, polyethylene glycolylated, or Fab fragments of antibody agents. Sample pretreatment or assay redesign can eliminate immunoassay interferences caused by anti-animal antibodies. Enzyme immunoassays, immunoradiometric assays, immunofluorescence, and HPLC assays have been designed to detect HAMA and other anti-animal antibodies, but intermethod comparability is complicated by differences in assay specificity and lack of standardization.

Conclusions: Human anti-animal antibodies often go unnoticed, to the detriment of patient care. A heightened awareness on the part of laboratory staff and clinicians of the problems caused by this type of interference in routine immunoassay tests is desirable. Efforts should be directed at improving methods for identifying and eliminating this type of analytical interference.

cDNA sequence analysis of monoclonal antibody FU-MK-1 specific for a transmembrane carcinoma-associated antigen, and construction of a mouse/human chimeric antibody

Mouse monoclonal antibody (MAb) FU-MK-1, raised against a human gastric adenocarcinoma, recognizes a transmembrane antigen, GA733-2, present on most adenocarcinomas and seems to be of potential utility for immunodiagnosis and immunotherapy of those cancers. However, an inherent problem in their in vivo application is the human anti-mouse antibody response. In this study, we cloned and sequenced the variable region genes of the heavy and light chains (V(H) and Vkappa) of FU-MK-1 using the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction method. Then, we constructed a mouse/human chimeric antibody, designated as Ch FU-MK-1, by fusing the FU-MK-1 V(H) and Vkappa genes to the human Cgamma1 and Ckappa genes, respectively, and by ligating the chimeric H and L chain genes to each other in a mammalian cell expression vector. The final gene construct was transfected into mouse non-Ig-producing hybridoma cells by electroporation. The Ch FU-MK-1 antibody thus prepared bound to human adenocarcinoma cells and competitively inhibited the binding of the parental FU-MK-1 to the adenocarcinoma cells. Ch FU-MK-1 also showed a potent antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) with human peripheral blood mononuclear cells as effectors against the adenocarcinoma cells, indicating that this chimeric antibody seems to be suitable for in vivo therapeutic approaches.

Humanization of an antibody recognizing a breast cancer specific epitope by CDR-grafting

BACKGROUND

Muc1-H23 is a cell surface mucin that is expressed on normal breast luminal epithelial cells and over-expressed in most breast tumors. In addition, Muc-1 expressed by malignant cells is glycosylated differently than Muc-1 expressed by normal cells. This difference in glycosylation exposes a peptide epitope on malignant cells which is not exposed on normal cells. Murine monoclonal antibody H23 recognizes this epitope and stains 91% of breast cancers, but only 1/56 non-malignant breast tissue samples.

OBJECTIVE

To create a human antibody that was equivalent to H23 for potential uses in imaging and/or the therapy of breast cancer.

STUDY DESIGN

We decided to humanize H23 by CDR-grafting using overlap PCR, and to this end, designed and constructed a bacterial expression vector that would allow V-regions, cloned via unique restriction sites, to be expressed as Fab fragments. In this way, we hoped to be able to rapidly evaluate Fab constructs for binding to Muc-1 and to cells and tissue sections that expressed the antigen.

RESULTS

A fully humanized Fab fragment was able to bind Muc-1 peptide, as well as breast cancer cells known to express the epitope and tissue sections, generally showing the same reactivity as the native antibody. In addition, an analysis of sFab expressed with a [His]6 tag preceded by a factor Xa proteolytic cleavage site suggested that E. coli periplasmic signal peptidase was able to cleave the factor Xa site, thereby removing the [His]6 tag.

CONCLUSION

We have generated a human antibody that is capable of recognizing a tumor specific epitope expressed by 91% of breast cancers.

Selection of monoclonal antibody E48 IgG or U36 IgG for adjuvant radioimmunotherapy in head and neck cancer patients

Preliminary data from recent clinical radioimmunoscintigraphy studies indicate that 99mTc-labelled murine monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) E48 and U36 have a similar ability to target squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (HNSCC) selectively. In the present study we describe additional aspects of murine and chimeric MAb (mMAb and cMAb) E48 and U36, which might influence the selection of one MAb for adjuvant radioimmunotherapy. To make direct comparison possible, ten patients received 11.2 +/- 0.3 and 11.1 +/- 0.2 mg (n = 5) or 51.1 +/- 0.1 and 51.0 +/- 0.4 mg (n = 5) of both mE48 IgG and mU36 IgG labelled with 131I and 125I simultaneously and underwent surgery 7-8 days after injection. The mean uptake of iodine-labelled mE48 IgG and mU36 was highest in tumour tissue, 8.9 +/- 8.9 and 8.2 +/- 4.4 %ID kg(-1) respectively. Tumour to non-tumour ratios for oral mucosa, skin, muscle, blood and bone marrow aspirate were 2.5, 5.5, 25.2, 4.7 and 4.0 respectively in the case of mE48 IgG and 2.3, 4.1, 21.0, 5.8 and 5.8 respectively in the case of mU36 IgG. The distribution of mMAbs E48 and U36 throughout tumours that had been collected in previous studies was heterogeneous when administered at a dose of 1 or 12 mg, and homogeneous when administered at a dose of 52 mg. Administration of mE48 IgG (1-52 mg) resulted in a human anti-mouse antibody response in 12 out of 28 patients, while for mU36 IgG (1-52 mg), this figure was three out of 18 patients. cMAb E48 was shown to be highly effective in mediating antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity in vitro, while cMAb U36 and mMAbs E48 and U36 were not effective at all. Rationales are provided that give priority to the start of adjuvant radioimmunotherapy trials with 186Re-labelled cMAb U36 IgG in head and neck cancer patients who are at high risk for the development of locoregional recurrences and distant metastases.