Next-generation DC vaccines with an immunogenic trajectory against cancer: therapeutic opportunities vs. resistance mechanisms
Jenny Sprooten,Abhishek D. Garg
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41435-024-00294-3
2024-08-29
Genes and Immunity
Abstract:Dendritic cells (DCs) have attracted considerable attention as potential targets for the development of therapeutic cancer vaccines. This approach generally involves the differentiation of DCs from autologous, patient-derived monocytes, followed by ex vivo DC exposure to an appropriate source of tumour associated antigens (TAAs) or neoantigens in the context of immunostimulatory maturation cocktails, and culminating with the reinfusion of these stimulated DCs back into the patient [1, 2]. Accumulating clinical evidence demonstrates that this approach often promotes some degree of TAA/neoantigen-specific T cell driven immunity in patients [3, 4]. However, the success of such therapeutic regimens in the clinic has been inconsistent, raising an acute need for innovation in this field. This is especially relevant for tumours that display an immunosuppressive phenotype, distinguished by low T cell infiltration but high myeloid content, since these are almost completely resistant to all the current immunotherapies [5, 6]. Although the field of therapeutic DC vaccination has made vast progress through a plethora of preclinical and clinical research, DC vaccines still need to move towards a 'next-generation' that is clinically useful [7, 8]. Currently, there are at least three areas in which the development of next-generation DC vaccines is progressing: (1) utilization of specific DC subsets [9], (2) the source of antigen entailing either personalized neoantigens or more immunogenic forms of cancer cell death to allow more effective antigen "pulsing" of DCs, and (3) the stimulatory factors used for activating DCs [10, 11]. Besides, for DC vaccines to succeed in the future, it is important to understand the exact immunological resistance pathway limiting its efficacy. The latter area has received less attention than the former three. Moreover, the gaps between preclinical and clinical settings from the angle of cross-species translational immunology have been seldom addressed. Next, we wanted to understand the in vivo mechanism of action as well as possible mechanisms behind the failure of a DCvax-IT formulation. Hence, we created a preclinical version of DCvax-IT using a combination of immunogenic cancer cell death (ICD) with IFNβ that faithfully recapitulated the clinical immunogenic DC trajectory in terms of an upregulated antigen presentation, type I IFN response and pro-inflammatory immuno-cytokine profile. Indeed, this DCvax-IT favoured type I IFN responses over macrophage-like and mreg DC-like phenotypes. In vivo, DCvax-IT showed a high capacity at inducing preventive anticancer immunity but failed to induce a curative immunity against murine immunosuppressive tumours. This, despite the observations that, DCvax-IT was successfully reaching the lymph node (LN). This hinted at a potential (hitherto unknown) resistance mechanism that might be limiting T cell activation following anticancer vaccination.
genetics & heredity,immunology