22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Immune-Based Therapies for Sarcoma

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Immunotherapy has shown promise in a number of tumor types, but its exact role in sarcoma remains to be defined. Advanced bone and soft tissue sarcomas are challenging diseases to treat with an unmet need for effective systemic therapy. Previous reports have suggested that immune-based treatments may be effective in sarcoma, but such approaches have not yet become part of standard clinical practice. A number of sarcoma subtypes express targets known as cancer testis antigens and hence may be excellent targets for immunotherapy. This paper will focus on the recent advances and understanding of cancer testis antigens in sarcoma and also clinical data of immunotherapeutic approaches in these diseases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Osteosarcoma: a randomized, prospective trial of the addition of ifosfamide and/or muramyl tripeptide to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate.

          To determine whether the addition of ifosfamide and/or muramyl tripeptide (MTP) encapsulated in liposomes to cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate (HDMTX) could improve the probability for event-free survival (EFS) in newly diagnosed patients with osteosarcoma (OS). Six hundred seventy-seven patients with OS without clinically detectable metastatic disease were treated with one of four prospectively randomized treatments. All patients received identical cumulative doses of cisplatin, doxorubicin, and HDMTX and underwent definitive surgical resection of the primary tumor. Patients were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive ifosfamide and/or MTP in a 2 double dagger 2 factorial design. The primary end point for analysis was EFS. Patients treated with the standard arm of therapy had a 3-year EFS of 71%. We could not analyze the results by factorial design because we observed an interaction between the addition of ifosfamide and the addition of MTP. The addition of MTP to standard chemotherapy achieved a 3-year EFS rate of 68%. The addition of ifosfamide to standard chemotherapy achieved a 3-year EFS rate of 61%. The addition of both ifosfamide and MTP resulted in a 3-year EFS rate of 78%. The addition of ifosfamide in this dose schedule to standard chemotherapy did not enhance EFS. The addition of MTP to chemotherapy might improve EFS, but additional clinical and laboratory investigation will be necessary to explain the interaction between ifosfamide and MTP.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            High-dose interferon alfa-2b significantly prolongs relapse-free and overall survival compared with the GM2-KLH/QS-21 vaccine in patients with resected stage IIB-III melanoma: results of intergroup trial E1694/S9512/C509801.

            Vaccine alternatives to high-dose interferon alfa-2b therapy (HDI), the current standard adjuvant therapy for high-risk melanoma, are of interest because of toxicity associated with HDI. The GM2 ganglioside is a well-defined melanoma antigen, and anti-GM2 antibodies have been associated with improved prognosis. We conducted a prospective, randomized, intergroup trial to evaluate the efficacy of HDI for 1 year versus vaccination with GM2 conjugated to keyhole limpet hemocyanin and administered with QS-21 (GMK) for 96 weeks (weekly x 4 then every 12 weeks x 8). Eligible patients had resected stage IIB/III melanoma. Patients were stratified by sex and number of positive nodes. Primary end points were relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Eight hundred eighty patients were randomized (440 per treatment group); 774 patients were eligible for efficacy analysis. The trial was closed after interim analysis indicated inferiority of GMK compared with HDI. For eligible patients, HDI provided a statistically significant RFS benefit (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.47, P = .0015) and OS benefit (HR = 1.52, P = .009) for GMK versus HDI. Similar benefit was observed in the intent-to-treat analysis (RFS HR = 1.49; OS HR = 1.38). HDI was associated with a treatment benefit in all subsets of patients with zero to > or = four positive nodes, but the greatest benefit was observed in the node-negative subset (RFS HR = 2.07; OS HR = 2.71 [eligible population]). Antibody responses to GM2 (ie, titers > or = 1:80) at days 29, 85, 365, and 720 were associated with a trend toward improved RFS and OS (P2 = .068 at day 29). This trial demonstrated a significant treatment benefit of HDI versus GMK in terms of RFS and OS in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Addition of muramyl tripeptide to chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic osteosarcoma: a report from the Children's Oncology Group.

              The addition of liposomal muramyl tripeptide phosphatidylethanolamine (MTP-PE) to chemotherapy has been shown to improve overall survival in patients with nonmetastatic osteosarcoma (OS). The authors report the results of addition of liposomal MTP-PE to chemotherapy for patients with metastatic OS. Intergroup-0133 was a prospective randomized phase 3 trial for the treatment of newly diagnosed patients with OS. The authors compared 3-drug chemotherapy with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and high-dose methotrexate (Regimen A) to the same 3 drugs with the addition of ifosfamide (Regimen B). The addition of liposomal MTP-PE to chemotherapy was evaluated. Five-year event-free survival (EFS) for patients who received liposomal MTP-PE (n = 46) was 42% versus 26% for those who did not (n = 45) (relative risk for liposomal MTP-PE, 0.72; P = .23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.2). The 5-year overall survival for patients who received MTP-PE versus no MTP-PE was 53% and 40%, respectively (relative risk for liposomal MTP-PE, 0.72; P = 0.27; 95% CI, 0.40-1.3). The comparison of Regimen A with Regimen B did not suggest a difference for EFS (35% vs 34%, respectively; relative risk for Regimen B, 1.07; P = .79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.8) or overall survival (52% vs 43%, respectively; relative risk for Regimen B, 1.1, P = .75; 95% CI, 0.61-2.0). When the metastatic cohort was considered in isolation, the addition of liposomal MTP-PE to chemotherapy did not achieve a statistically significant improvement in outcome. However, the pattern of outcome is similar to the pattern in nonmetastatic patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Sarcoma
                SRCM
                Sarcoma
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                1357-714X
                1369-1643
                2011
                23 January 2011
                : 2011
                : 438940
                Affiliations
                Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, 825 Eastlake Avenue East, G3630, Seattle, WA 98109-1023, USA
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Stephen Lessnick

                Article
                10.1155/2011/438940
                3034923
                21331153
                383dfc17-b655-4837-88ca-9c0fb73a35b5
                Copyright © 2011 Seth M. Pollack et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 15 October 2010
                : 3 January 2011
                Categories
                Review Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article