Research Article - (2013) Volume 4, Issue 8

Long Term Follow Up: Phase I Trial of

Neil Senzer1,2,3,4, Minal Barve3, Jacklyn Nemunaitis1, Joseph Kuhn5, Anton Melnyk6, Peter Beitsch4, Mitchell Magee7, Jonathan Oh3, Cynthia Bedell1, Padmasini Kumar2, Donald D Rao2, Beena O Pappen2, Gladice Wallraven2, Charles Brunicardi F8, Phillip B Maples2 and John Nemunaitis1,2,3,4*
1Mary Crowley Cancer Research Centers, Dallas, TX, USA, E-mail:
2Gradalis, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA, E-mail:
3Texas Oncology, P.A., Dallas, TX, USA, E-mail:
4Medical City Dallas Hospital, Dallas, TX, USA, E-mail:
5WLS Surgical Associates, P.A., Dallas, TX, USA, E-mail:
6Texas Cancer Center, Abilene, TX, USA, E-mail:
7Cardiovascular Specialty Associates of North Texas, P.A., Dallas, TX, USA, E-mail:
8Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA, E-mail:
*Corresponding Author: John Nemunaitis, 1700 Pacific, Suite 1100, Dallas, Texas 75201, USA, Tel: 214-658-1964, Fax: 214-658-1992 Email:


Study Background: Previously, we demonstrated safety and correlated induced immune response with survival in a Phase I study of FANG immunotherapy in advanced cancer patients. We now report long term follow-up (FU) of Phase I treated patients including assessment of relationships of dose, γIFN-ELISPOT response, and patient demographics to safety and survival. Methods: Safety, γIFN-ELISPOT response, and survival have been followed through 3+ years in advanced cancer patients who received ≥ 2-12 intradermal monthly injections of 1×107 or 2.5×107 cells/injection. Clinical and serological assessments were performed monthly, radiographic evaluations bimonthly, and γ-IFN-ELISPOT at baseline, and start of Cycle 2, 4, 6, 9, 12 then sequentially at FU. Results: Previously, we reported results on 45 patients with successful FANG construction followed for 1 year (28 treated (designated FANG); 17 not treated based on availability of other alternative treatments or failed manufacturing (designated No FANG)). We now report FU results through year 3 on those patients and an additional 29 patients (7 FANG, 22 No FANG) subsequently entered into Phase I study (total N=35 FANG; total N=39 No FANG). The median survival of the current expanded Phase I trial population is 562 days vs. 122 days (p=0.00001). This is similar to the originally published data from two years earlier. The γ-IFN-ELISPOT reaction was positive in 14 of the current FANG treated patients and negative in 12 FANG treated patients at Month 3 or less post first injection. Survival correlated with γ-IFN-ELISPOT reaction; median 836 days vs. 440 days with positive and negative ELISPOT respectively, (p=0.04). No long term adverse toxicity has been seen and there was no significant correlation of immune response or survival with either dose or demographics. Conclusions: Treatment with FANG vaccine continues to show long term safety and evidence of benefit in patients with many types of advanced cancer thereby justifying further efficacy testing.

Keywords: Cancer; RNA interference; Vaccine; Clinical


The autologous whole tumor cell FANG™ vaccine, the use of which provides the afferent arm of the immune system the full and relevant tumor antigen matrix, is comprised of a plasmid which encodes both GMCSF and bi-shRNA furin DNA, and is transfected into the harvested tumor cells via electroporation [1,2]. By design, this vaccine is a combinatorial immune therapeutic producing the intra and extra cellular adjuvant GMCSF protein which simultaneously expresses an innovative RNA interference (RNAi) moiety [3], bifunctional short hairpin RNA-furin (bi-shRNA-furin).Targeting the proproteinconvertase furin (which activates both TGF-β1 and β2) was previously shown to result in marked knockdown (>90%) of both TGF-β1 and β2 [2] in the Phase I clinical trial without interfering with GMCSF expression encoded by the same plasmid.

The motivating rationale of this “triad” vaccine was to overcome a core critical hurdle as defined at the recent “Immunotherapy Summit” of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC): the “complexity of cancer, tumor heterogeneity and immune escape [4].” The existence of genetic and, presumably, phenotypic antigenic intra- and inter-tumoral heterogeneity has now been convincingly established [5] and accounts for one of the reasons for the limited effectiveness of peptide-based vaccines. Despite immune escape due, in part, to the development of tolerance, tumor cells can retain their intrinsic immunogenicity and tolerance can be antigen-specific [6]. TGFβ allows for the development of regulatory functionality in indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase (IDO) competent plasmacytoiddendritic cells and human epidermoid Langerhans cells [7] which underlies the conversion into and maintenance of the tolerogenic pathway [8,9].

We previously published [1] results of a non-randomized, Phase I FANG vaccine trial in late stage, refractory cancer patients with expected survival of 6 months or less who received 1 of 2 dose levels (1×107 or 2.5×107 cells/injection), by intradermal injection, once a month for a maximum of 12 months. Safety was confirmed and there was no evidence of a dose-response relationship; thus, the 1×107 cell dose per injection was identified as the Phase II recommended dose. Preliminary evidence of a survival trend with γ-IFN-ELISPOT positive versus γ-IFN-ELISPOT negative patients was noted. We now present results through 3 years FU that confirm safety and provide additional evidence of benefit related to FANG-induced immune response.

Materials and Methods

The construction and cGMP manufacturing of FANG have been described [1,2]. Following protocol specific informed consent, tumor is excised, placed in sterile media, and brought to the Gradalis, Inc. manufacturing facility (Carrollton, TX). Under cGMP conditions, the harvested autologous tumors are mechanically and enzymatically dissociated into a single cell suspension followed by a count of viable cells. The FANG vector is then electroporated into the autologous tumor cells using a Bio-Rad electroporator (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA). The cells are incubated overnight to allow transcription of the bi-shRNAfurin and expression of the GMCSF protein. The following day the tumor cells are irradiated (10,000 cGy), then aliquoted and cryopreserved until the time of injection. The total processing time for vaccine manufacturing is less than 48 hours. Each vaccine is subjected to a quality control testing regimen (less than 4 weeks duration). Release criteria include minimum GMCSF expression (≥ 30 pg/106 cells/ml) and TGFβ1 and TGFβ2 knockdown (≥ 30% from baseline) [1,2].

Patient population

Study design has been previously published [1]. All eligible patients were treated in the outpatient facilities of MCCRC, Dallas, TX and Texas Cancer Center, Abilene, TX. Inclusion criteria have been previously published [1]. Following completion of previously published analysis, an amendment was established which enabled continued accrual of subset populations of patients fulfilling the same inclusion criteria with advanced NSCLC, hepatocellular cancer, triple negative breast cancer and Ewing’s sarcoma.

Imaging and lab assessment

Within 2 weeks prior to therapy, a complete medical evaluation, as previously described [1], was performed. Evaluations performed every 28 ± 3 days during therapy included: physical examination; ECOG assessment; CBC with differential and platelet count; serum chemistry and electrolytes; toxicity assessment; and clinical assessment of tumor response. Radiological assessments of tumors were obtained at months 2,4,6 and then quarterly as long as the patient remained alive and was under approved consent.


ELISPOT (Enzyme-Linked Immunospot) assay was performed using Enzyme-Linked Immunospot Assay for Interferon Gamma (BD Biosciences, San Jose, CA) as previously described [1,10]. A value of >10 spots and 2x baseline was considered a positive response. Quantitation provided by ZellNet Consulting, Fort Lee, NJ.


Survival was analyzed using SPSS to generate Kaplan Meier curves and included all patients procured as part of the clinical protocol with a malignant pathology. Survival of patients still alive was censored using the date of last follow-up. ELISPOT analysis was performed on patients receiving at least 2 vaccines and the response status at baseline and Month 3 or earlier from treatment start was compared using a paired t-test.


Long term response

Twenty-eight treated and 17 non-treated patients were described in our earlier report [1]. Including these total of 176 vaccines have now been administered to 35 patients. No long term toxic events have been reported or observed related to FANG. With long term follow up, individual survival durations of FANG-treated patients are shown in Figure 1. Long term survival comparison of the initial Phase I core patient population (FANG vs. No FANG) is also shown in Figure 2A. Further long term analysis incorporating 7 newly entered FANG treated patients (new total N=35) and 22 No FANG patients (new total N=39) are shown in Figure 2B. A total of 468 successful vaccines involving 56 patients (FANG and No FANG) have been constructed during Phase I trial production. Of the 39 No FANG patients who elected not to receive FANG, 24 patients had other treatment options and 15 patients did not as a result of failed vaccine manufacturing. Survival results between the original FANG and updated FANG populations are consistent and continue to demonstrate an advantage of FANG over No FANG and confirm safety. Long term FU also revealed no correlation of survival to dose, GMCSF expression, TGFβ1, and/or β2 knockdown, and/or furin knockdown or other demographic variables represented in Table 1.

Characteristic No FANG™ (n=39) FANG™ (n=35) All (n=74)
Age (years)      
Mean 56 56 56
Median 56 60 56
Range 19-84 18-84 18-84
Male 21 11 32
Female 18 24 42
African American 1 2 3
Asian 2 0 2
Caucasian 35 30 65
Hispanic/Latino 1 3 4
Dose Level      
1.0×107 cells/ml 15 16 31
2.5×107 cells/ml 11 19 30
Vaccine failure 6 N/A 6
Insufficient dose/cells 7 N/A 7

*All patients required prior surgical debulking

Table 1: Demographic Data of Evaluable Patients (n=74).


Figure 1: Survival of adult treated patients since procurement in the FANG™ Phase I protocol (n=35). + = alive, || = historical expected survival, new patient designates patients treated with FANG following initial publication.


Figure 2: Survival comparison of FANG vs. no FANG patients since procurement (A): (update to original manuscript patients). Note: 1 patient grouped in the No FANG patient at the time of manuscript submission, has since been treated and is now reflected in the FANG group. Survival comparison of all current FANG vs. no FANG patients since procurement(B).

Comparison to prognostic score

Wheler et al. [11] recently identified 5 critical risk factors related to survival of a group composed of unselected Phase I trial patients. These include low albumin (<3.5 g/dL), high LDH (>ULN IU/L), increased number of metastasis (>2 anatomical sites), GI tumor type, and ECOG performance status ≥ 1). Using these same risk variables we assigned a score to each of the FANG treated patients for whom data were available (n=31) excluding LDH, insofar as it was not included as a standard laboratory assessment in this Phase I trial. As a consequence a conservative comparison, with reservation, of FANG treated patients to the 1,181 Phase I cancer patients described by Wheler is provided in the analysis shown in Table 2. Results suggest FANG treated patients achieve survival duration greater than prognostic score prediction.

MDACC Prognostic Score FANG Phase I Months Survival n = 31* MDA Months Survival (Wheler, et al.) n = 1,181
0 Low Risk 34.7 24.0
1 Low-intermediate Risk 25.0 15.2
2 Intermediate Risk 11.8 8.4
3 High-Intermediate Risk 26.1 6.2
4 High Risk 6.2 4.1

*4 patients did not have complete medical records access in long term follow up

Table 2: Survival of FANG Phase I patients by MDACC Prognostic Score.

Comparison of MDACC prognostic score between FANG and no FANG patients in Figure 2A revealed a score of 2.2 (higher risk) for former and 1.6 (lower risk) for the latter suggesting that biased patient entry (insofar as this Phase I study was not randomized) based on prognostic factors associated with survival of Phase I patient population are not responsible for the survival difference between FANG and No FANG treated patients.

Immune response advance to survival

In the initial Phase I publication [1], we described a correlation of FANG-induced γ-IFN-ELISPOT response with patient survival. At longer term FU with additional patients, correlation of survival with the month 3 γ-IFN-ELISPOT responses persists as shown in Figure 3. Individual γ-IFN-ELISPOT responses over time are shown in Figure 4. As seen, one patient had a baseline γ-IFN-ELISPOT of 10 spots that did not double (as per criteria for positive response) after FANG vaccination and two patients demonstrated a positive γ-IFN-ELISPOT response after month 3 with continued vaccination. These 3 patients were included in the γ-IFN-ELISPOT negative group for survival assessment in Figure 3 per protocol definition.


Figure 3: FANG Phase I survival relationship to immune response. ELISPOT(+) vs. ELISPOT(-) patients since treatment start: Results show survival comparison of adult patients, who had an ELISPOT assessment done at 3 months post treatment start, and showed positive ELISPOT immune response to FANG™ (blue) vs. those with a negative ELISPOT immune response to FANG™ (red).


Figure 4: ELISPOT FANGTM vaccine treated patient peripheral blood mononuclear cell response to non-transfected autologous tumor cells (n=26) overtime. Blue indicates multiple ELISPOT assessments of month 3 positive patients. Red indicates multiple ELISPOT assessments of month 3 negative response patients.

The median number of vaccines administered was 5.5. As is noted in Figure 4, patients continued to demonstrate ELISPOT responsiveness after discontinuation of FANG administration for as long as they could be evaluated under protocol. Thus far, no patient with a positive γ-IFNELISPOT response has experienced a persistent decrease in response after initial stimulation. Survival comparison of γ-IFN-ELISPOT positive response patients, negative response patients, and No FANG patients is shown in Figure 5. Interestingly, FANG treated patients with γIFN-ELISPOT negativity also demonstrated survival advantage over No FANG patients suggesting the possibility that immune mechanisms activated by FANG but not reflected in the γ-IFN-ELISPOT assay used may be at play.


Figure 5: FANG Phase I adult survival relationship to treatment status and ELISPOT status. FANG/ELISPOT (+) vs. FANG/ELISPOT (-) vs. no FANG since procurement survival results are shown.


The continued evidence of safety of FANG over a prolonged time frame in conjunction with a maintained survival advantage correlating with tumor-specific immune response lends credence to the rationale underlying the use of the vaccine in advanced cancer patients. Evidence of a significant FANG induced γ-IFN-ELISPOT response in more than half of FANG treated patients (despite extensive prior treatment and the presence of bulky disease) supports the combinatorial mechanism of the GMCSF/bi-shRNA furin plasmid when transfected into autologous tumor cells and utilized as a monthly intradermal injection in advanced cancer patients. The persistence of the positive γ-IFNELISPOT responses suggests that the vaccine may contribute to the programming of long term effector-memory T cells [12,13]. Moreover, correlation between survival and elicited γ-IFN-ELISPOT response supports the contention that FANG vaccine can impact cancer patient survival. Analysis of prognostic indicators that correlate with survival of Phase I treated patients, particularly in the γ-IFN-ELISPOT responsive vs. non-responsive patients, adds further weight to the survival impact of the FANG vaccine in patients with advanced cancer. The MDACC prognosticscore comparison involved an expansive number of Phase I trial patients and long term follow up. It was interesting in comparison to the FANG data that differences held at every individual prognostic score level (0-4), although minimal advantage was demonstrated at the poorest prognostic score level (high risk, 4). Nevertheless, lacking a prospectively randomized control population, these results must remain inconclusive at this time.

Rejection of antigen-expressing tumor cells has been shown to be mediated by specific host cytolytic T cells (CD8+ CTL) [14,15], the presence of which correlate with survival. CD8+ CTL tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL) have been shown to mediate durable regression of established tumors in mice with advanced tumor burdens [16,17]. In patients bearing metastatic tumors, a number of groups have demonstrated the existence of anti-tumor CTL responses. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells as well as TIL contain populations of cells and individual clones that demonstrate tumor specificity; they lyse autologous tumor cells, but not natural killer targets, allogeneic tumors cells, or autologous fibroblasts [18-22]. Therefore, despite the successful process of immune escape, generally manifested as immune tolerance [23], in established cancer, tumor-specific antigens do exist on human tumor cells which can retain their intrinsic antigenicity insofar as the tolerant state can be antigen specific [6].

Transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) comprises a family of multi-functional proteins that regulate the growth and function of many normal and neoplastic cell types [24-27]. TGF-β2 signal transduction has been found to affect the expression of more than 20 different genes [28-31]. TGF-β exerts a wide range of effects on a variety of cell types and has been shown to stimulate or inhibit cell growth, induce apoptosis and increase angiogenesis [32-36]. Many tumors including, but not limited to, breast, ovarian, colon, esophageal, gastric, hepatocellular, pancreatic, SCLC and NSCLC produce high levels of active TGF-β isoforms [37-45]. Furthermore, overexpression of TGF-β has been correlated with tumor progression and poor prognosis [38,39]. Elevated TGFβ2 levels have also been linked with immunosuppression in both the afferent and efferent limbs of the immune response network [24-26,39,46-48]. Tumor-derived TGF-β1 induces the upregulation of PD-L1 in immunocompetent splenic dendritic cells and are causally related to the shift in dendritic cell phenotype from immunostimulatory to immunosuppressive transgenic in the LSL-K-rasG12D/+p53loxP/loxP murine model of induced metastatic ovarian cancer [49]. TGFβ2 inhibits T cell activation in response to antigen stimulation as well as targeting cytotoxic T cell cytolytic pathways [50]. Additionally, TGF-β2 has antagonistic effects on the Natural Killer (NK) cells as well as the induction and proliferation of the lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells [51-56].

The immune suppressor functions of TGF-β are likely to play a major role in modulating the effectiveness of cancer cell vaccines. TGF-β inhibits GMCSF induced maturation of bone marrow derived dendritic cells (DCs) [57] as well as expression of MHC Class II and co-stimulatory molecules [58]. It has been shown that antigen presentation by immature DCs result in T cell unresponsiveness [59]. TGFβ also inhibits activated macrophages [60] which not only includestheir antigen presenting function [61,62] vis-à-vis the adaptive immune pathway but, in addition, via its contribution to IL-4 induced M2 polarization [63] may also undercut activation of the innate immune pathway [64]. Therefore, both the ubiquitous expression and multifunctionality of the TGF-β isoforms, including the inhibitory effects of these isoforms on GMCSF immune modulatory function (see below), provide the basis fora combinatorial TGF-β-suppressed / GMCSF-expressing immune modulating therapeutic.

Tumor cells genetically modified to secrete GMCSF have demonstrated potent induction of anti-tumor immunity compared to other cytokines [65,66]. Limited clinical results also suggest that treatment with recombinant GMCSF protein or use of GMCSF DNA vectors [67] may translate into clinical advantage, through immune stimulation [68-70]. GMCSF is involved in the augmentation of tumor antigen presentation [65,71].

In one study immunologic effects of B16 melanoma cells engineered to secrete either GMCSF or Flt-3-Ligand (FL) immunologic effects were reported [66]. Three profound differences between the 2 cytokines were described. First, GMCSF induced a subset of DCs that were superior for the phagocytosis of apoptotic tumor cells [72-74]. Second, compared to FL, GMCSF evoked higher levels of costimulatory molecules, which may have induced more efficient T cell stimulation, thereby broadening the arsenal to include lymphocyte effector mechanisms [75]. Third, GMCSF promoted uniformly high levels of CD1d on DCs, in contrast to FL, which triggered a more heterogeneous expression [76]. CD1d is a non-classical MHC Class I molecule that presents lipid antigens [77]. The CD1d lipid complex activates natural killer T cells (NKT) cells [78]. NKT cells play a pivotal role in therapeutic tumor responsiveness [79].

Based on the current results, the FANG vaccine has advanced to Phase II evaluation designed to 1) gain further evidence of effectiveness in a randomized study, 2) evaluate effectiveness in the adjuvant setting in patients with minimal residual disease, and 3) determine the feasibility of concurrent immune modulating therapeutic doses of chemotherapy and vaccine administration. These studies will hopefully also shed light on methods of optimizing the use of this combinatorial immunotherapy in patients with different therapeutic requirements contingent on tumor type and stage.


We gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the Jasper L. and Jack Denton Wilson Foundation, the Summerfield G. Roberts Foundation, the Crowley- Carter Foundation, the Crowley Shanahan Foundation, the Linda Tallen and David Paul Kane Cancer Educational and Research Foundation, the Marilyn Augur Family Foundation, the Young Texans Against Cancer, the Wipe Out Kids Cancer, and Gradalis, Inc. The following authors are shareholders in Gradalis, Inc.: N.S., J.O., P.K., D.D.R., B.O.P, G.W., F.C.B., P.B.M., and J.N. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.


  1. Senzer N, Barve M, Kuhn J, Melnyk A, Beitsch P, et al. (2012) Phase I trial of "bi-shRNAi(furin)/GMCSF DNA/autologous tumor cell" vaccine (FANG) in advanced cancer. Mol Ther 20: 679-686.
  2. Maples PB, Kumar P, Yu Y, Wang Z, Jay CM, et al. (2010) FANG Vaccine: Autologous Tumor Vaccine Genetically Modified to Express GM-CSF and Block Production of Furin. BioProcessing Journal 8: 4-14.
  3. Rao DD, Maples PB, Senzer N, Kumar P, Wang Z, et al. (2010) Enhanced target gene knockdown by a bifunctional shRNA: a novel approach of RNA interference. Cancer Gene Ther 17: 780-791.
  4. Fox BA, Schendel DJ, Butterfield LH, Aamdal S, Allison JP, et al. (2011) Defining the critical hurdles in cancer immunotherapy. J Transl Med 9: 214.
  5. Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, et al. (2012) Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med 366: 883-892.
  6. Willimsky G, Blankenstein T (2005) Sporadic immunogenic tumours avoid destruction by inducing T-cell tolerance. Nature 437: 141-146.
  7. von Bubnoff D, Bausinger H, Matz H, Koch S, Häcker G, et al. (2004) Human epidermal langerhans cells express the immunoregulatory enzyme indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase. J Invest Dermatol 123: 298-304.
  8. Belladonna ML, Volpi C, Bianchi R, Vacca C, Orabona C, et al. (2008) Cutting edge: Autocrine TGF-beta sustains default tolerogenesis by IDO-competent dendritic cells. J Immunol 181: 5194-5198.
  9. Pallotta MT, Orabona C, Volpi C, Vacca C, Belladonna ML, et al. (2011) Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase is a signaling protein in long-term tolerance by dendritic cells. Nat Immunol 12: 870-878.
  10. Olivares J, Kumar P, Yu Y, Maples PB, Senzer N, et al. (2011) Phase I trial of TGF-beta 2 antisense GM-CSF gene-modified autologous tumor cell (TAG) vaccine. Clin Cancer Res 17: 183-192.
  11. Wheler J, Tsimberidou AM, Hong D, Naing A, Falchook G, et al. (2012) Survival of 1,181 patients in a phase I clinic: the MD Anderson Clinical Center for targeted therapy experience. Clin Cancer Res 18: 2922-2929.
  12. Chiong B, Wong R, Lee P, Delto J, Scotland R, et al. (2004) Characterization of long-term effector-memory T-cell responses in patients with resected high-risk melanoma receiving a melanoma Peptide vaccine. J Immunother 27: 368-379.
  13. Arens R, Schoenberger SP (2010) Plasticity in programming of effector and memory CD8 T-cell formation. Immunol Rev 235: 190-205.
  14. Prehn RT, Main JM (1957) Immunity to methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 18: 769-778.
  15. Kripke ML (1974) Antigenicity of murine skin tumors induced by ultraviolet light. J Natl Cancer Inst 53: 1333-1336.
  16. Yang JC, Perry-Lalley D, Rosenberg SA (1990) An improved method for growing murine tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes with in vivo antitumor activity. J Biol Response Mod 9: 149-159.
  17. Barth RJ Jr, Mulé JJ, Spiess PJ, Rosenberg SA (1991) Interferon gamma and tumor necrosis factor have a role in tumor regressions mediated by murine CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. J Exp Med 173: 647-658.
  18. Anichini A, Mazzocchi A, Fossati G, Parmiani G (1989) Cytotoxic T lymphocyte clones from peripheral blood and from tumor site detect intratumor heterogeneity of melanoma cells. Analysis of specificity and mechanisms of interaction. J Immunol 142: 3692-3701.
  19. Topalian SL, Solomon D, Rosenberg SA (1989) Tumor-specific cytolysis by lymphocytes infiltrating human melanomas. J Immunol 142: 3714-3725.
  20. Van den Eynde B, Hainaut P, Hérin M, Knuth A, Lemoine C, et al. (1989) Presence on a human melanoma of multiple antigens recognized by autologous CTL. Int J Cancer 44: 634-640.
  21. Darrow TL, Slingluff CL Jr, Seigler HF (1989) The role of HLA class I antigens in recognition of melanoma cells by tumor-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes. Evidence for shared tumor antigens. J Immunol 142: 3329-3335.
  22. Knuth A, Wölfel T, Klehmann E, Boon T, Meyer zum Büschenfelde KH (1989) Cytolytic T-cell clones against an autologous human melanoma: specificity study and definition of three antigens by immunoselection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86: 2804-2808.
  23. Dunn GP, Old LJ, Schreiber RD (2004) The three Es of cancer immunoediting. Annu Rev Immunol 22: 329-360.
  24. Sporn MB, Roberts AB, Wakefield LM, Assoian RK (1986) Transforming growth factor-beta: biological function and chemical structure. Science 233: 532-534.
  25. Massagué J (1987) The TGF-beta family of growth and differentiation factors. Cell 49: 437-438.
  26. Border WA, Ruoslahti E (1992) Transforming growth factor-beta in disease: the dark side of tissue repair. J Clin Invest 90: 1-7.
  27. Jachimczak P, Bogdahn U, Schneider J, Behl C, Meixensberger J, et al. (1993) The effect of transforming growth factor-beta 2-specific phosphorothioate-anti-sense oligodeoxynucleotides in reversing cellular immunosuppression in malignant glioma. J Neurosurg 78: 944-951.
  28. Baker JC, Harland RM (1997) From receptor to nucleus: the Smad pathway. Curr Opin Genet Dev 7: 467-473.
  29. Heldin CH, Miyazono K, ten Dijke P (1997) TGF-beta signalling from cell membrane to nucleus through SMAD proteins. Nature 390: 465-471.
  30. Stiles JD, Ostrow PT, Balos LL, Greenberg SJ, Plunkett R, et al. (1997) Correlation of endothelin-1 and transforming growth factor beta 1 with malignancy and vascularity in human gliomas. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol 56: 435-439.
  31. Yingling JM, Datto MB, Wong C, Frederick JP, Liberati NT, et al. (1997) Tumor suppressor Smad4 is a transforming growth factor beta-inducible DNA binding protein. Mol Cell Biol 17: 7019-7028.
  32. Merzak A, McCrea S, Koocheckpour S, Pilkington GJ (1994) Control of human glioma cell growth, migration and invasion in vitro by transforming growth factor beta 1. Br J Cancer 70: 199-203.
  33. Jennings MT, Kaariainen IT, Gold L, Maciunas RJ, Commers PA (1994) TGF beta 1 and TGF beta 2 are potential growth regulators for medulloblastomas, primitive neuroectodermal tumors, and ependymomas: evidence in support of an autocrine hypothesis. Hum pathol 1994 25: 464-475.
  34. Jennings MT, Pietenpol JA (1998) The role of transforming growth factor beta in glioma progression. J Neurooncol 36: 123-140.
  35. Ashley DM, Kong FM, Bigner DD, Hale LP (1998) Endogenous expression of transforming growth factor beta1 inhibits growth and tumorigenicity and enhances Fas-mediated apoptosis in a murine high-grade glioma model. Cancer Res 58: 302-309.
  36. Ashley DM, Sampson JH, Archer GE, Hale LP, Bigner DD (1998) Local production of TGF beta1 inhibits cerebral edema, enhances TNF-alpha induced apoptosis and improves survival in a murine glioma model. J Neuroimmunol 86: 46-52.
  37. Constam DB, Philipp J, Malipiero UV, ten Dijke P, Schachner M, et al. (1992) Differential expression of transforming growth factor-beta 1, -beta 2, and -beta 3 by glioblastoma cells, astrocytes, and microglia. J Immunol 148: 1404-1410.
  38. Levy L, Hill CS (2006) Alterations in components of the TGF-beta superfamily signaling pathways in human cancer. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 17: 41-58.
  39. Bierie B, Moses HL (2006) Tumour microenvironment: TGFbeta: the molecular Jekyll and Hyde of cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 6: 506-520.
  40. Eastham JA, Truong LD, Rogers E, Kattan M, Flanders KC, et al. (1995) Transforming growth factor-beta 1: comparative immunohistochemical localization in human primary and metastatic prostate cancer. Lab Invest 73: 628-635.
  41. Friedman E, Gold LI, Klimstra D, Zeng ZS, Winawer S, et al. (1995) High levels of transforming growth factor beta 1 correlate with disease progression in human colon cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 4: 549-554.
  42. Jakowlew SB, Mathias A, Chung P, Moody TW (1995) Expression of transforming growth factor beta ligand and receptor messenger RNAs in lung cancer cell lines. Cell Growth Differ 6: 465-476.
  43. Kong FM, Anscher MS, Murase T, Abbott BD, Iglehart JD, et al. (1995) Elevated plasma transforming growth factor-beta 1 levels in breast cancer patients decrease after surgical removal of the tumor. Ann Surg 222: 155-162.
  44. Yamada N, Kato M, Yamashita H, Nistér M, Miyazono K, et al. (1995) Enhanced expression of transforming growth factor-beta and its type-I and type-II receptors in human glioblastoma. Int J Cancer 62: 386-392.
  45. Eder IE, Stenzl A, Hobisch A, Cronauer MV, Bartsch G, et al. (1996) Transforming growth factors-beta 1 and beta 2 in serum and urine from patients with bladder carcinoma. J Urol 156: 953-957.
  46. Bodmer S, Strommer K, Frei K, Siepl C, de Tribolet N, et al. (1989) Immunosuppression and transforming growth factor-beta in glioblastoma. Preferential production of transforming growth factor-beta 2. J Immunol 143: 3222-3229.
  47. Chen TC, Hinton DR, Yong VW, Hofman FM (1997) TGF-B2 and soluble p55 TNFR modulate VCAM-1 expression in glioma cells and brain derived endothelial cells. J Neuroimmunol 73: 155-161.
  48. Li MO, Wan YY, Sanjabi S, Robertson AK, Flavell RA (2006) Transforming growth factor-beta regulation of immune responses. Annu Rev Immunol 24: 99-146.
  49. Scarlett UK, Rutkowski MR, Rauwerdink AM, Fields J, Escovar-Fadul X, et al. (2012) Ovarian cancer progression is controlled by phenotypic changes in dendritic cells. J Exp Med 209: 495-506.
  50. Thomas DA, Massagué J (2005) TGF-beta directly targets cytotoxic T cell functions during tumor evasion of immune surveillance. Cancer Cell 8: 369-380.
  51. Rook AH, Kehrl JH, Wakefield LM, Roberts AB, Sporn MB, et al. (1986) Effects of transforming growth factor beta on the functions of natural killer cells: depressed cytolytic activity and blunting of interferon responsiveness. J Immunol 136: 3916-3920.
  52. Kasid A, Bell GI, Director EP (1988) Effects of transforming growth factor-beta on human lymphokine-activated killer cell precursors. Autocrine inhibition of cellular proliferation and differentiation to immune killer cells. J Immunol 141: 690-698.
  53. Tsunawaki S, Sporn M, Ding A, Nathan C (1988) Deactivation of macrophages by transforming growth factor-beta. Nature 334: 260-262.
  54. Hirte H, Clark DA (1991) Generation of lymphokine-activated killer cells in human ovarian carcinoma ascitic fluid: identification of transforming growth factor-beta as a suppressive factor. Cancer Immunol Immunother 32: 296-302.
  55. Ruffini PA, Rivoltini L, Silvani A, Boiardi A, Parmiani G (1993) Factors, including transforming growth factor beta, released in the glioblastoma residual cavity, impair activity of adherent lymphokine-activated killer cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 36: 409-416.
  56. Naganuma H, Sasaki A, Satoh E, Nagasaka M, Nakano S, et al. (1996) Transforming growth factor-beta inhibits interferon-gamma secretion by lymphokine-activated killer cells stimulated with tumor cells. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 36: 789-795.
  57. Yamaguchi Y, Tsumura H, Miwa M, Inaba K (1997) Contrasting effects of TGF-beta 1 and TNF-alpha on the development of dendritic cells from progenitors in mouse bone marrow. Stem Cells 15: 144-153.
  58. Geissmann F, Revy P, Regnault A, Lepelletier Y, Dy M, et al. (1999) TGF-beta 1 prevents the noncognate maturation of human dendritic Langerhans cells. J Immunol 162: 4567-4575.
  59. Steinman RM, Hawiger D, Liu K, Bonifaz L, Bonnyay D, et al. (2003) Dendritic cell function in vivo during the steady state: a role in peripheral tolerance. Ann N Y Acad Sci 987: 15-25.
  60. Ashcroft GS (1999) Bidirectional regulation of macrophage function by TGF-beta. Microbes Infect 1: 1275-1282.
  61. Takeuchi M, Alard P, Streilein JW (1998) TGF-beta promotes immune deviation by altering accessory signals of antigen-presenting cells. J Immunol 160: 1589-1597.
  62. Du C, Sriram S (1998) Mechanism of inhibition of LPS-induced IL-12p40 production by IL-10 and TGF-beta in ANA-1 cells. J Leukoc Biol 64: 92-97.
  63. Gong D, Shi W, Yi SJ, Chen H, Groffen J, et al. (2012) TGFβ signaling plays a critical role in promoting alternative macrophage activation. BMC Immunol 13: 31.
  64. O'Sullivan T, Saddawi-Konefka R, Vermi W, Koebel CM, Arthur C, et al. (2012) Cancer immunoediting by the innate immune system in the absence of adaptive immunity. J Exp Med 209: 1869-1882.
  65. Dranoff G, Jaffee E, Lazenby A, Golumbek P, Levitsky H, et al. (1993) Vaccination with irradiated tumor cells engineered to secrete murine granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor stimulates potent, specific, and long-lasting anti-tumor immunity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90: 3539-3543.
  66. Mach N, Dranoff G (2000) Cytokine-secreting tumor cell vaccines. Curr Opin Immunol 12: 571-575.
  67. Senzer NN, Kaufman HL, Amatruda T, Nemunaitis M, Reid T, et al. (2009) Phase II clinical trial of a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-encoding, second-generation oncolytic herpesvirus in patients with unresectable metastatic melanoma. J Clin Oncol 27: 5763-5771.
  68. Spitler LE, Grossbard ML, Ernstoff MS, Silver G, Jacobs M, et al. (2000) Adjuvant therapy of stage III and IV malignant melanoma using granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor. J Clin Oncol 18: 1614-1621.
  69. Rini BI, Weinberg V, Bok R, Small EJ (2003) Prostate-specific antigen kinetics as a measure of the biologic effect of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in patients with serologic progression of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 21: 99-105.
  70. Anderson PM, Markovic SN, Sloan JA, Clawson ML, Wylam M, et al. (1999) Aerosol granulocyte macrophage-colony stimulating factor: a low toxicity, lung-specific biological therapy in patients with lung metastases. Clin Cancer Res 5: 2316-2323.
  71. Huang AY, Golumbek P, Ahmadzadeh M, Jaffee E, Pardoll D, et al. (1994) Role of bone marrow-derived cells in presenting MHC class I-restricted tumor antigens. Science 264: 961-965.
  72. Young JW, Inaba K (1996) Dendritic cells as adjuvants for class I major histocompatibility complex-restricted antitumor immunity. J Exp Med 183: 7-11.
  73. Pulendran B, Lingappa J, Kennedy MK, Smith J, Teepe M, et al. (1997) Developmental pathways of dendritic cells in vivo: distinct function, phenotype, and localization of dendritic cell subsets in FLT3 ligand-treated mice. J Immunol 159: 2222-2231.
  74. Shen Z, Reznikoff G, Dranoff G, Rock KL (1997) Cloned dendritic cells can present exogenous antigens on both MHC class I and class II molecules. J Immunol 158: 2723-2730.
  75. Murtaza A, Kuchroo VK, Freeman GJ (1999) Changes in the strength of co-stimulation through the B7/CD28 pathway alter functional T cell responses to altered peptide ligands. International immunology 11: 407-416.
  76. Kawano T, Cui J, Koezuka Y, Toura I, Kaneko Y, et al. (1997) CD1d-restricted and TCR-mediated activation of valpha14 NKT cells by glycosylceramides. Science 278: 1626-1629.
  77. Yamaguchi H, Furukawa K, Fortunato SR, Livingston PO, Lloyd KO, et al. (1990) Human monoclonal antibody with dual GM2/GD2 specificity derived from an immunized melanoma patient. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87: 3333-3337.
  78. Bendelac A, Rivera MN, Park SH, Roark JH (1997) Mouse CD1-specific NK1 T cells: development, specificity, and function. Annu Rev Immunol 15: 535-562.
  79. Smyth MJ, Crowe NY, Hayakawa Y, Takeda K, Yagita H, et al. (2002) NKT cells - conductors of tumor immunity? Curr Opin Immunol 14: 165-171.
Citation: Senzer N, Barve M, Nemunaitis J, Kuhn J, Melnyk A, et al. (2013) Long Term Follow Up: Phase I Trial of “Bi-Shrnafurin/GMCSF DNA/Autologous Tumor Cell” Immunotherapy (FANG™) in Advanced Cancer. J Vaccines Vaccin 4:209.

Copyright: © 2013 Senzer N, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.