-
leukaemia
or lymphoma
cells (graft-versus leukemia
(GvL / GVL) effect). At present, 50% of patients who could benefit
from BMT do not receive it because of the high incidence of GvHD in mismatched
donors
The recognition that the incidence of relapse
after autografting for recurrent or refractory lymphoma is usually substantial
and the emerging use of reduced-intensity (RI) allogeneic conditioning
regimens have resulted in the need to evaluate critically which lymphomas
are amenable to graft-versus-lymphoma (GVL) effects. A GVL effect can be
convincingly demonstrated only by the durable resolution of biopsy-proven
residual progressive disease after allografting in response to immunomodulation
such as withdrawal of immunosuppression or donor leukocyte infusion (DLI).
Indirect evidence may include eradication of active disease by minimally
cytotoxic conditioning regimens and allogeneic cell infusion and statistical
association between graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) with a lower risk
of relapse and T-cell depletion with a higher risk of relapse. Although
a substantial reduction in relapse with a plateau in disease-free survival
(DFS) after allogeneic versus autologous transplantation in comparable
patient groups would also be consistent with a GVL effect, the possible
contribution of reinfused autologous tumor cells to relapseref
[1] means that such observations are not definitive proof. A number of
comprehensive reviews of single-institution and registry studies of allografting
in lymphoma with both myeloablative and RI conditioning regimens have been
publishedref1,
ref2
[2 and 3].
Minor
histocompatibility antigens on leukemic cells can provoke a graft-versus-leukemia
responseref1,
ref2,
ref3.
Donor T cells reactive to recipient minor histocompatibility antigens inhibit
the growth of leukemic colonies and, in one study, prevented the development
of AML derived from human cells in immunologically susceptible miceref.
Difficulties in assessing the literature : there
are a number of difficulties in interpreting the literature on GVL effects.
-
registry analyses :
-
many have incorporated a number of lymphoma subtypes
with distinct histopathologic, molecular, and clinical characteristics
into a single group for the purposes of analysis of GVL effects, making
it difficult to evaluate responses in specific entities. For example, diffuse
small cleaved (often mantle cell [MCL]) and follicular large-cell lymphomas
have been regarded by the European Bone Marrow Transplant (EBMT) registry
as intermediate-grade lymphomas under the Working Formulation and analyzed
togetherref
[4], whereas another transplant analysis from this group classified patients
as having only low- or high-grade lymphomaref
[5]. In addition, many of these registry reviews include patients undergoing
different conditioning regimens and GVHD prophylaxis.
-
lack of centralized histologic review, so that the
reported diagnoses have not been independently verified.
-
probable imbalances in baseline pretransplantation
characteristics in studies comparing the outcome of autografts versus allograftsref
[4], together with potential variability in patient selection and standards
of supportive care over long periods of analysis.
-
not surprisingly, the results of these studies are
often inconsistent.
-
retrospective single-institution studies comparing
autografts with allografts are subject to various potential confounding
factors, such as referral bias, physician preference, and improvements
in outcome over time, such that definitive conclusions are rarely possible.
-
there are substantial differences in the intensity
of RI conditioning regimens. Fludarabine/melphalan 140 to 180 mg/m2,
for example, may well be myeloablative, because chimerism early after transplantation
is usually exclusively donor and because the risk of GVHD is comparable
to that with traditional myeloablative regimensref
[6]. In contrast, fludarabine/low-dose cyclophosphamide is clearly not
ablative, generally results in mixed chimerism, and has a relatively low
incidence of GVHDref[7].
Moreover, most RI conditioning studies from single institutions or registries
have short-term follow-up, so the durability of responses is not established.
-
the importance of documentation by biopsy of viable
residual disease after transplantation in assessing the response to DLI
or withdrawal of immunosuppression is particularly relevant because functional
imaging with positron emission tomography or gallium scanning may not always
reliably distinguish inflammatory from neoplastic tissue or indolent from
aggressive lymphoma, which may coexist.
-
although responses to DLI have been well documented
in some lymphomas, particularly follicular and MCLs, this does not necessarily
mean that all such lymphomas are immunologically responsive. Some cases
have documented a GVL effect in response to DLI that seems to alter the
natural history of previously progressive lymphoma but that is not durable,
suggesting that malignant clones may differ in their susceptibility to
immunotherapy.
GVL effects in histologic subtypes and proposed allograft
policies : data for each subtype will be discussed as follows: (1) DLI,
(2) single-institution and registry reviews of RI transplants, and (3)
institution and registry reviews of myeloablative transplants, including,
where available, an evaluation of the effect of GVHD on relapse.
-
follicular lymphoma (FL)
: a graft-versus-follicular lymphoma (FL) effect was suggested by case
reports of resolution of active disease by DLIref1,
ref2
[8 and 9] and was confirmed more recently in a British survey in which
8 of 13 patients with overt FL after allografting achieved complete remission
(CR) after DLIref
[10]. A high rate of remission after RI conditioning has been reportedref
[7], although most patients had nonbulky chemosensitive disease at transplantation
and although follow-up was relatively short in a disease with a propensity
for late relapse. An EBMT registry analysis of RI allografts in low-grade
lymphoma (Working Formulation) using a variety of conditioning regimens
in heavily pretreated patients, most with chemosensitive disease and with
sibling donors, demonstrated a 1-year probability of disease progression
of 21% and 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 54%; pretransplantation
chemosensitivity was the only significant factor predicting for progressionref
[5]. No relapses were seen beyond 1 year, although few patients were followed
up beyond 2 years. There are minimal data on the outcome after unrelated
donor transplantations for FL and other lymphomasref1,
ref2,
ref3,
ref4
[4, 5, 11 and 12]. Single-institution studies with long-term follow-up
have reported a low incidence of relapse after myeloablative allografts
for refractory or recurrent indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), predominantly
follicularref1,
ref2
[13 and 14], which seems less than after autograftsref
[15]; this is consistent with an EBMT registry analysisref
[4]. Recently the International Bone Marrow Transplant Registry (IBMTR)
and the Autologous Bone Marrow Transplant Registry, in a retrospective
study, compared the outcome of myeloablative allogeneic versus purged autologous
versus unpurged autologous transplantsref
[16]. Allografts had a higher treatment-related mortality and a lower risk
of recurrence. Few recurrences occurred after 2 years, although the maximum
follow-up of 5 years is still relatively short. Intriguingly, the relapse
rate was higher in unpurged versus purged autografts, and there was no
association between acute or chronic GVHD and recurrence. The EBMT registry
analysis also found no effect of acute GVHD on relapse, although in the
British review, the responses of FL to DLI correlated with both acute and
chronic GVHDref
[10]. Overall, these data suggest that the major benefit of allografting
in FL may relate to effective high-dose chemoradiotherapy followed by infusion
of uncontaminated stem cells rather than a GVL effect. The absence of a
significant difference in relapse risk after syngeneic versus allografts
for FL and the reduction in recurrence rate after syngeneic versus autologous
unpurged transplantation is consistent with thisref
[17], although a syngeneic GVL effect cannot be excluded. To complicate
the issue, however, a prospective randomized autograft study found no benefit
in PFS or overall survival between purged and unpurged marrowref
[18]. Long-term results of minimally cytotoxic conditioning regimens in
patients with active disease are needed to clearly evaluate the clinical
effect of a graft-versus-FL effect. Additional questions include the durability
of responses after RI allografts, the effect of the histologic grade in
FL on the incidence of relapse, the outcome after unrelated donor allografts,
and the identification of tumor antigens that are immunologically relevant
for allogeneic responses. Because of a relatively high risk of both early
and late relapse after autografting, in general an allograft is the transplant
option recommended if a compatible sibling is available. We consider patients
up to age 60 to 65 years, depending on their general fitness and level
of donor compatibility. A well-matched unrelated donor transplant is considered
in selected younger patients, generally younger than 45 years and with
a good performance status. The indications for transplantation are at least
1 of (1) progressive symptomatic disease within a year of CHOP-like (cyclophosphamide,
hydroxydaunomycin, vincristine, and prednisone) or purine analog-based
therapy either as induction or for relapse or (2) multiply relapsed disease.
Our preference is to attain a minimal residual disease state (usually with
fludarabine with or without cyclophosphamide with or without rituximab,
depending on prior therapy), and we use a very-low-intensity conditioning
regimen such as fludarabine/low-dose cyclophosphamide or fludarabine/low-dose
total body irradiationref
[12], with the addition of rituximab if not used previouslyref
[7]. This is based on our acceptance that a graft-versus-FL effect exists
to a degree. The intention is to achieve mixed chimerism early after transplantation
to reduce the risk of severe acute GVHD and to gradually convert to donor
chimerism either from the natural course of the transplantation or with
DLI. More intensive conditioning with increased organ toxicity and a higher
risk of GVHD due to early establishment of full donor chimerism (fludarabine/melphalan
or cyclophosphamide/total body irradiation) is reserved for patients with
bulky, aggressive, or chemorefractory disease.
-
mantle cell lymphoma (MCL)
: the role of allografting in MCL has been reviewed by Sweetenhamref
[19]. A graft-versus-MCL effect has been unequivocally documented in case
reports of resolution of progressive disease after withdrawal of immunosuppressionref1,
ref2
[20 and 21] or DLI [22]. This is broadly consistent with single-institution
studies reporting a low relapse rate after RIref
[23] and myeloablativeref
[21] conditioning for advanced or recurrent chemosensitive disease, although
the follow-up in both of these studies was relatively short. This contrasts
with a poor outcome in an EBMT registry survey in 22 older patients undergoing
RI allograftsref
[5]: this was due to a high early transplant-related mortality and a substantial
rate of relapse. The ability of a GVL effect to eradicate chemoresistant
MCL or to improve the poor outcome observed in patients autografted in
CR1 with high b2-microglobulinref
[24] is not proven. Moreover, although a GVL effect may occur in the diffuse
form of the diseaseref
[21], its activity against the more aggressive blastoid variant is not
known.
The effect of GVHD on relapse in MCL has not, to our knowledge, been evaluated.
Although there is some conflicting evidence, we believe that an allograft
is appropriate therapy for patients with relapsed MCL, because the autograft
results with readily available conditioning regimens are poorref
[25]. The intensity of conditioning used depends on disease status and
on patient age and performance status. Ideally, the allograft should be
offered in first relapse rather than subsequent relapses and limited to
patients with chemosensitive disease. The optimal approach to patients
in CR1 is controversial. Options include an autograftref
[26] or observation, the latter based on promising results with short-term
follow-up in patients receiving aggressive induction therapy, including
rituximab, without an autograftref
[27]. This has to be balanced against the strong evidence for an allogeneic
graft-versus-MCL effect. Currently our preferred option is a very-low-intensity
allograft in CR1 in patients younger than 60 years with a sibling donor,
particularly in those with increased ?2-microglobulin at diagnosis. A randomized
study addressing observation versus autograft versus RI allograft in CR1
is needed.
-
B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia
(B-CLL)
: a durable response to DLI has been reported in chronic lymphocytic leukemia
(CLL)ref
[28], although British data suggest that the response may be less frequent
than in FLref
[10]. Promising early results of RI conditioning allografts have been reported
by the EBMT registryref
[29] and Schetelig et al.ref
[30]. The former study reported a 2-year probability of relapse of 31%,
with no relapses beyond 12 months in patients receiving T cell-replete
grafts, contrasting with ongoing late relapses in those receiving T cell-depleted
grafts. The development of chronic GVHD was very significantly associated
with a lower risk of relapse. In the latter study, a graft-versus-CLL effect
was suggested by the late occurrence of remissions and the effectiveness
of DLI in early relapse; DLI was ineffective in patients with a high tumor
burden. Also consistent with, but not proof of, a graft-versus-CLL effect
are registry data suggesting a lower relapse rate after allografts than
autografts, with a plateau in DFS after allograftingref
[31]. Our policy is similar to that with FL. Grafting is offered to suitable
patients with disease relapsing early after, or refractory to, purine analog-based
therapy. The intensity of conditioning depends on the chemosensitivity
and bulk of disease before transplantation.
-
Hodgkin lymphoma
: the largest series documenting the response to DLI for Hodgkin lymphoma
(HL) relapsing after an allograft has been reported recentlyref[32].
Of 7 patients with progressive (n = 6) or residual (n = 1) disease who
received DLI in the absence of chemotherapy, 3 achieved a CR, 2 of whom
remained in remission with follow-up > 12 months. No response was seen
in 2 patients, and a partial remission was seen in the other 2. Responses
correlated with the development of GVHD. Of note, most patients had nodular
sclerosing histology, had undergone a prior autograft, had disease that
had run a relatively indolent course over a number of years, and did not
have a rapidly progressive recent relapse. Updated data from this group,
reported in abstract form, are consistent with a response rate in approximately
half of this selected patient cohortref
[33]. Responses with and without GVHD after DLI have been reported by other
authors, but concomitant chemotherapy, absence of histologic detail, and
only short-term follow-up make these data difficult to interpretref1,
ref2
[34 and 35]. Longer follow-up of various recently published single-institution
and registry series of RI conditioning allograftsref1,
ref2,
ref3
[36, 37 and 38] may provide useful information. The results of the largest
of these studies, published in abstract formref
[37], argue against the existence of a profound graft-versus-HL effect,
because the outcome was poor in chemoresistant disease and there was no
plateau in PFS in the second year after transplantation. A smaller single-institution
study demonstrated little effectiveness of this approach in patients with
rapidly progressive disease relapsing early after autograftingref
[39]. Another study used fludarabine/low-dose cyclophosphamide followed
by DLI or peripheral blood stem cells in 8 patients with HL relapsing after
autograftingref
[36]; 5 did not respond, 2 died of acute GVHD, and only 1 patient was alive
in CR, notably, without evidence of donor engraftment. Results of myeloablative
allografts for HL are disappointing. The IBMTR reported a 3-year probability
of relapse of 65% and a DFS rate of 15% in 100 patients with advanced HL
undergoing sibling allograftsref
[40]. There are conflicting data about the effect of GVHD on relapse and
whether allografts have a lower rate of relapse than autografts. A trend
for a lower probability of relapse after allografting compared with autografting
in patients with chemosensitive disease has been reported [41]. An early
EBMT registry analysis found a significantly lower risk of relapse with
acute GVHD grade II or higher [42]. A more recent EBMT analysis, however,
reported no influence of acute GVHD on the rate of relapse and in fact
reported a higher risk of relapse after allografts versus autografts for
HL, although the former group almost certainly contained a higher proportion
of patients with advanced chemoresistant diseaseref
[6]. A collaborative international effort is under way among various investigators
examining the outcome of patients undergoing RI allografts for HL relapsing
after autografts. The effect of factors such as histology (classic versus
lymphocyte predominant; the latter clinically behaves as a low-grade B-cell
lymphoma and is likely to be immunologically responsive), different conditioning
regimens, and acute and chronic GVHD on relapse and survival will be examined
in addition to DLI/withdrawal of immunosuppression in biopsy-proven active
disease. Prospective studies under consideration include an autograft followed
by an RI allograft in poor-prognosis patients, the feasibility of which
has been establishedref
[43]. An allograft for classic histology is considered only if all of the
following conditions apply:
-
biopsy-proven relapsed disease after autografting
in which the duration of remission after autografting is >6 months.
-
the relapse is not rapidly progressive, is not chemosensitive,
is not amenable to local radiotherapy (eg, pulmonary relapse), and is preferably
not associated with "B" symptoms.
-
a second autograft is not feasible (eg, insufficient
stem cells)ref
[44].
The choice of conditioning regimen and whether to
consider an unrelated donor depends on factors such as patient age, time
since previous high-dose therapy, organ function, and degree of donor match.
Ideally, these patients should be enrolled on a prospective study (see
below).
-
diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
(DLBCL)
: to our knowledge, there is no published systematic review of the role
of DLI in diffuse large-cell lymphoma (DLCL). There are only 2 reports
of a durable response to DLI after allografting: 1 in a patient with relapsed
mediastinal B-cell NHLref
[2] and the other with Richter transformation of CLLref
[45]. A remission lasting ?140 days after cessation of tacrolimus for relapsed
T cell-rich B-cell NHL has been reported; 3 other patients with relapsed
DLCL did not respond to withdrawal of cyclosporine and DLIref
[46]. Failure of DLI despite GVHD has been documented in anaplastic large-cell
NHLref
[47] and in lymphomatoid granulomatosis and B-cell DLCLref
[48]. 2 patients with high-grade NHL relapsing after a nonmyeloablative
allograft did not respond to DLIref
[35]. Single-institution and registry data in this area are difficult to
interpret for the reasons outlined previously. Of note, many RI conditioning
studies have been published as abstracts only (without peer review). Most
studies have varied with respect to histology, status at transplantation,
and T-cell depletion. The EBMT registry reported the results of RI conditioning
regimens (mainly fludarabine based and varying from low-dose cyclophosphamide
to high-dose melphalan) in 62 patients with high-grade lymphoma, including
transformed low-grade diseaseref
[7]. The results were disappointing despite most patients having chemosensitive
disease before transplantation: the probability of disease progression
at 2 years was 79%, with a PFS of 13%. The myeloablative allograft data
are inconclusive. There were no survivors in a series of 14 patients who
received allografts with a myeloablative regimen for advanced intermediate-grade
NHL (predominantly DLCL) reported by the M.D. Anderson group in the mid
1990s; all died of progression or toxicityref
[49]. A French review found no effect of acute or chronic GVHD (although
the data were not provided) in a series of allografts for aggressive NHL,
predominantly DLCLref
[50]. In this series, the 5-year survival was 23% in 48 patients not in
CR at transplantation—results not obviously different from those of autografting
in a similar patient group. A more recent survey from the EBMT registry
reported a lower relapse rate after myeloablative allografting compared
with autografting for intermediate-grade NHL by using the Working Formulation
[6]. As discussed previously, this category includes follicular large-cell,
diffuse large-cell, and diffuse small cleaved (most likely mantle cell)
histologies, so the specific GVL effects in these individual histologies
cannot be elucidated. Acute GVHD was associated with a reduced rate of
relapse, but insufficient data were available to analyze the effect of
chronic GVHD. In contrast, the recent review by Bierman et al.ref
[17] showed no difference in relapse rate for intermediate- or high-grade
NHL between syngeneic, allogeneic T cell-replete or-depleted, or autologous
transplants, although the mix of histologies, imbalances in pretransplantation
characteristics, and small numbers (particularly in the syngeneic and T
cell-depleted groups) make interpretation of these results difficult. There
are few specific data on the outcome of allografting for peripheral T-cell
lymphomas. The Milan group have reported in abstract form the outcome of
RI conditioning in 8 patients with relapsed nodal peripheral T-cell lymphomas,
most with chemorefractory disease and in half of whom a previous autograft
had failedref
[51]. With a short median follow-up of 18 months, all were alive and in
remission. Questions that need to be addressed in properly designed studies
include the effect of immunophenotype (B versus T cell), histology (de
novo B-cell DLCL versus follicular large cell versus transformed low grade),
and location (nodal versus site specific, eg, mediastinal or bony) on the
outcome after transplantation. We are not convinced that a clinically relevant
graft-versus-de novo B-cell DLCL effect commonly exists. Hence, an allograft
is not generally offered to patients with primary refractory disease, chemorefractory
relapse, or postautograft relapse. Possible exceptions include those with
transformed low-grade NHL (based hypothetically on a higher chance of a
GVL effect in the presence of an underlying low-grade component) relapsing
more than 6 months after autografting without rapid disease progression
or mediastinal lymphoma [2]. An allograft is also considered in patients
with chemosensitive first relapse in whom sufficient autologous stem cells
cannot be collected or in whom the collection is overtly contaminated with
lymphoma. Rituximab is offered after allografting to patients with CD20+
B-cell tumors who have not previously received this drug, on the basis
of promising preliminary experience with this approach [52].
-
lymphoblastic lymphoma : a single report of late-onset
cutaneous relapse of T-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma (LBL) that responded
durably to withdrawal of cyclosporine and a flare of cutaneous GVHD has
been publishedref
[46]. A recent publication from the IBMTR and the Autologous Bone Marrow
Transplant Registry compared autologous versus myeloablative non-T cell-depleted
allografts for LBLref
[53]. The relapse rate beyond 6 months after transplantation was significantly
lower in the allograft patients and was independent of disease status at
the time of transplantation. A graft-versus-LBL effect cannot be concluded
unequivocally from these data, however, because infusion of contaminated
autologous cells may have contributed to a higher risk of relapse. GVHD
had no significant effect on the risk of relapse, but the study was not
powered adequately to detect a small effect. EBMT studies have also demonstrated
a lower risk after allografting for LBL and suggested a reduced risk with
acuteref
[6] and chronicref
[54] GVHD. A myeloablative allograft is offered to suitable patients with
high-risk LBL in CR1 or those with chemosensitive relapse. Immunosuppression
is tapered early in the absence of GVHDref
[55].
-
Burkitt's lymphoma
: there is a paucity of data in this area and no convincing evidence that
allografting can cure adult patients with Burkitt lymphoma relapsing after,
or refractory to, intensive induction regimens. A response to withdrawal
of immunosuppression has been reported, but this was not durableref
[56]. The M.D. Anderson group reported the results of myeloablative allografts
in 10 patients with diffuse small noncleaved lymphoma and noted a very
high rate of rapid disease progression after transplantationref
[49]. No difference in relapse rate between autologous and allogeneic transplants
for Burkitt lymphoma and no effect of acute GVHD on the rate of relapse
have been reported by the EBMTref
[6]. Allografts are not offered to patients with Burkitt lymphoma, because
most patients are either cured by aggressive induction regimensref
[57] or relapse early with rapidly progressive chemoresistant disease.
-
cutaneous T-cell NHL : a graft-versus-mycosis fungoides
effect has been reported by a number of investigators. In one case, histologically
and molecularly documented persistent disease at day +60 after a nonmyeloablative
allograft regressed after withdrawal of cyclosporine and development of
cutaneous GVHD. Remission was maintained for ?24 months of follow-upref
[58]. In a second case, mycosis fungoides recurring 9 months after a myeloablative
allograft subsequently resolved after cessation of cyclosporine and development
of lichenoid chronic GVHD. However, low-grade cutaneous disease subsequently
recurred over the next 4 years and responded temporarily to DLI ref[59].
The latter case points out the necessity of long-term follow-up in evaluating
GVL effects. We have observed a patient with large-cell transformation
of mycosis fungoides in whom the low-grade cutaneous disease regressed
with the onset of chronic GVHD but in whom the large-cell component progressed.
Resolution after withdrawal of immunosuppression of a cutaneous CD30? large
T-cell lymphoma persisting after a nonmyeloablative allograft has been
reportedref
[60]. A GVL effect was suggested by infiltration of the skin tumors by
donor lymphocytes. Suitable patients with relapsed mycosis fungoides are
considered for an allograft. Large-cell transformation is a contraindication.
GVL criteria for various types of lymphoma
: there are insufficient data to comment meaningfully for histologies such
as peripheral T-cell NHL, hepatosplenic lymphoma, and nodular lymphocyte-predominant
HL.
NE indicates not evaluable, ie, insufficient data
or duration of follow-up; Allo, allogeneic transplantation; Auto, autologous
transplantation; IS, immunosuppression.
A number of collaborative groups have phase II
trials under way evaluating the role of RI conditioning regimens in diseases
such as HL, in which the existence of a GVL effect is controversial. Enrollment
of patients in these prospective studies is strongly encouraged because
without a collaborative systemic approach in a large number of patients,
it is unlikely that the questions raised in this article will be answered.
Ultimately, however, randomized trials will be required for definitive
conclusions.
GVL immunobiology
: by examining the mechanisms by which malignant B cells may be induced
to function as effective antigen-presenting cells (APC) to allogeneic T
cells, we may better understand (1) the observed variations in sensitivity
of lymphoma subtypes to GVL effects and (2) how to successfully manipulate
interactions between T cells and lymphoma to maximize eradication of residual
disease while minimizing GVHD. The induction of a GVL effect after allogeneic
stem cell transplantation (SCT) is dependent on tumor-antigen recognition,
subsequent cytotoxic T lymphocyte (CTL) generation, and sensitivity of
the lymphoma to cytotoxicity effector mechanisms. Activation of resting
donor T cells follows recognition of alloantigens or tumor-specific antigens
expressed on the surface of either professional APCs, such as dendritic
cells (DC), or lymphoma cells themselves. Host APCs are central to donor
T-cell activation, as demonstrated in animal models in which GVHD and GVL
effects diminish and are eventually lost as initial mixed APC chimerism
evolves to full donor chimerism [61, 62 and 63]. Once activated, CTLs mediate
the effector phase of GVHD/GVL via cytotoxicity produced either by cell/cell
contact mechanisms (Fas, perforin, and TNF-a)
or by the production of soluble mediators, including interferon-? and soluble
TNF-aref
[64].
-
B-cell lymphoma : the question arises whether B lymphoma
cells represent competent APCs for direct activation of alloresponsive
T cells or whether B lymphoma cells are subsequent targets for CTLs generated
initially by the allostimulatory effects of host DCs. Normal B cells constitutively
express both major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I and II, along
with co-stimulatory molecules, including CD80 and CD86, which are essential
for generation of CTLs from naive T cells. It is important to note that
the activation status of B cells is central to their ability to act as
APCs. Resting normal B cells have been variously shown to induce direct
tolerance of antigen-specific CD8+ T cellsref
[65], induce T-cell anergy via TGF-? productionref
[66], downregulate IL-12 production by DCs [67 and 68], and influence T-helper
type 1 and 2 differentiation via the production of regulatory cytokines,
including IL-10ref
[69]. Similarly, resting B cells exert a regulatory function in in vivo
models of T-cell immunity, including tumor rejection [70 and 71]. Conversely,
B cells activated via ligation of CD40 are potent inducers of T-cell activation,
which in turn can deliver antitumor immune responses against both non-B-cellref
[72] and B-cell [73, 74 and 75] malignancies in vivo. The expression of
co-stimulatory surface-bound molecules is significantly enhanced after
B-cell activation by a range of stimuli, including CD40L and lipopolysaccharideref
[76]. B cells activated by lipopolysaccharide and IL-4, however, fail to
induce effector T-cell responsesref[75],
and this may lead to T-cell toleranceref
[66], thus underlining the importance of the different outcomes of B-cell
activation depending on the stimulating signal used. These studies indicate
that normal B cells can potentially be induced to act as effective APCs
for the generation of T-cell immune responses.
-
follicular lymphoma (FL)
and mantle cell lymphoma
(MCL)
: parallel to findings in normal B cells, some malignant lymphoma cells
may also demonstrate an APC phenotype. B cells isolated from follicular
NHL and small lymphocytic lymphoma/CLL share phenotypic similarities to
normal resting B cells in both their expression of MHC and co-stimulatory
molecules and in their responses to CD40L. These lymphomas consistently
show high levels of CD80, CD86, and CD40 expressionref1,
ref2
[77 and 78]. Similarly, the B cells from MCL express CD40 and show intense
upregulation of CD80 and CD86 after treatment with CD40Lref
[79]. The sensitivity of small-cell lymphomas to T-cell cytotoxicity has
been demonstrated by studies of autologous vaccination with either DCsref1,
ref2
[80 and 81] or killed autologous lymphoma cellsref
[82]. In these studies of autologous immunotherapy, CTL generation against
B-cell idiotype was successfully achieved from within the patient’s naive-T-cell
population. In the post-allogeneic SCT setting, there is potential not
only for a greater range of CTLs to be generated from the donor T-cell
repertoire, but also for residual lymphoma B cells to act as functional
APCs. Activation of resting lymphoma B cells may occur in response to CD40L
provided by donor CD4+ T cells alloreactive to host major or
minor histocompatibility antigens. When activated by CD40L, the lymphoma
B cells, in turn, can drive the subsequent activation of allogeneic CD8+
T cells to CTLs. Once generated, both activated CD8+ T cellsref
[83] and subsets of CD4+ T cellsref
[84] are capable of inducing the cytotoxicity of the stimulatory APCs and
eradicating residual disease. This hypothesis is supported by the observation
that these lymphoma subtypes are those that show convincing responses to
an allogeneic GVL effect.
-
diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
(DLBCL)
and B-cell LBL : in contrast to small-cell lymphoma, DLBCL and B-cell LBL
express significantly less CD86ref
[77] and demonstrate MHC class I downregulation in both animal modelsref
[85] and clinical samplesref
[86] of B-cell DLCL. These biological features of large-cell lymphomas
lead to failure of recognition by CTLs and likely escape from immune attack.
There may, however, not be uniformity in the apparent inability of B-cell
DLCL to induce T-cell activation. Lymphochip technology has demonstrated
that B-cell DLCL can be separated on the basis of gene expression into
either a normal germinal center phenotype or an activated peripheral blood
B-cell phenotyperef1,
ref2
[87 and 88]. Although the latter group shows a poorer prognosis when treated
with conventional chemotherapy, these genotypic differences may indicate
a greater ability to initiate a cytotoxic response by allogeneic T cells.
This is countered by the finding that the antiapoptotic genes PDCE4B and
PKC? are overexpressed in these subgroups. Clinical studies are required
to clarify the effect of genotypic differences on susceptibility to GVL
effects.
-
CTL trafficking : to take advantage of the potential
APC function of B cells, T cells must first gain access to the sites of
lymphoma involvement. Although naive T cells can freely access the secondary
lymphoid tissues, activated CTLs are excluded from doing so by the downregulation
of the chemokine receptor CCR7ref
[89]. As a consequence, T cells activated by exposure to alloantigens expressed
on APCs outside of the lymph nodes, such as DCs resident within epithelial
tissues, are actively excluded from "seeing" residual lymphoma cells within
a lymph node. Thus, for a GVL effect to occur, both the activation and
effector phases of the GVL effect must occur within the lymphomatous node,
as occurs in the lymphoid hypoplasia associated with GVHDref
[90]. T-cell trafficking to sites of lymphomatous involvement may also
vary between lymphoma subtypes. For example, CLL B cells actively attract
CD4+ T-cell help via the expression of chemokine ligand 22ref
[91]. The implication of these variations in T-cell trafficking is that
after allogeneic BMT, residual CLL may actively recruit allogeneic T cells
and be activated into APC function, as outlined previously. The requirement
for both activation and effector responses to occur within the lymph node
may limit the application of adoptive transfer of ex vivo-activated CTLs
and may necessitate in vivo CTL generation either by allogeneic
transplantation or vaccination strategies. To this end, manipulation of
allogeneic T-cell trafficking by using the sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor
agonist FTY720, which traps allogeneic T cells within the secondary lymphoid
tissues, has been used to promote a GVL effect while preventing the development
of GVHD in the peripheral tissues in a haploidentical mouse modelref
[92]. This agent has not, however, been successful in treating established
GVHD in a nonidentical canine modelref
[93]. The differences in outcome observed between these models likely reflect
the fundamental differences between preventing the onset of GVHD and attempting
to suppress activated circulating T cells.
-
T-cell lymphoma : the ability of T lymphoma cells
to function as APCs in the activation of antilymphoma CTLs is less well
described than for B cells. Normal T cells express MHC class I and, when
activated, high levels of MHC class II in addition to low levels of co-stimulatory
molecules. In vitro studies demonstrate that T cells may also be targeted
by CTL clonesref
[94]. Low-grade cutaneous T-cell lymphomas express high levels of MHC class
II, which initiate allogeneic cytotoxicity sufficient to eradicate the
lymphomaref
[95]. The challenges faced in the application of allogeneic SCT to the
treatment of lymphomas center on limiting GVHD and identifying those subtypes
of lymphoma that are sensitive to CTL-mediated cytotoxicity. It is likely
that the B-cell malignancies that are genotypically or phenotypically similar
to normal B cells able to differentiate into an effective APC phenotype,
sensitive to apoptosis induction and permissive to T-cell trafficking,
will be more sensitive to GVL effects. Whether genotype analyses with microarray
technology can help in identifying immunoresponsive lymphoma subgroups
is unknown. To date, lymphoma-specific antigenic targets for the GVL effect
remain limited; hence, it is not yet possible to achieve adoptive immunotherapy
with highly selected, ex vivo-expanded GVL-specific CTLs. As a result,
means of controlling allogeneic T-cell function are the current focus of
research. It has been suggested that delaying T-cell infusions until after
resolution of the cytokine storm may maintain the antitumor efficacy of
engrafted T cells while limiting nonspecific alloreactivity. This is an
attractive hypothesis and has been effectively demonstrated in animal modelsref1,
ref2
[96 and 97], but it is hindered by the dual observations that maximal GVL
effect is dependent on a state of mixed APC chimerism and that prediction
of GVHD risk at any given dose of DLI is impreciseref
[98]. Given the difficulties of minimizing GVHD by manipulating T-cell
doses or timing, there has been increased interest in the use of regulatory
cell populations to restrict the action of allogeneic CTLs. Both regulatory
T cellsref
[99] and regulatory DCsref
[100] are capable of limiting GVHD while preserving the GVL effect. These
phenomena are yet to be tested in the clinical setting. Given the central
role of host APCs in the induction of GVL after SCT, vaccination with either
autologous DCs or irradiated, ex vivo-activated lymphoma cells may
lead to enhanced re-stimulation of engrafted allogeneic T-cell responses
against minimal residual disease and result in lower rates of recurrence.
Mouse models of pretransplantation vaccination of donorsref1,
ref2,
ref3
[101, 102 and 103] and posttransplantation vaccinationref1,
ref2
[104 and 105] of recipients have been shown to result in enhanced graft-versus-tumor
effects without exacerbation of GVHD. These strategies have not yet been
demonstrated in a clinical setting, but they offer great potential in the
delivery of enhanced immunotherapy as an adjunct to allogeneic SCT.
GVL effects can be induced in tolerant mixed chimeras
prepared with nonmyeloablative conditioning. GVL effects can be amplified
by post-grafting DLI. Unfortunately, DLI is frequently associated with
GVHD. Intentionally mismatched DLIs, which induce potent GVL effects,
can be followed by elimination of alloreactive donor T cells by cyclophosphamide
to prevent lethal GvHD. Mice inoculated with BCL1 leukemia
cells and mismatched DLIs were treated 2 weeks later with low-dose or high-dose
cyclophosphamide. All mice receiving cyclophosphamide 2 weeks after DLI
survived GvHD, and no residual disease was detected by PCR; all control
mice receiving DLI alone died of GVHD. Analysis of host (female) and donor
(male) DNA showed that cyclophosphamide treatment eradicated most alloreactive
donor cells, yet mixed chimerism was converted to full donor chimerism
following transient self-limited GVHD. Short-term yet effective and safe
adoptive immunotherapy of leukemia may be accomplished early post-transplantation
using alloreactive donor lymphocytes, with prevention of GVHD by elimination
of GVL effector cellsref.
Various immunoregulatory cells that