Opinion: Making Cancer Vaccines Work

Armed with the right adjuvant system, vaccines are poised to tackle one of the world’s most intractable diseases. 

By | March 31, 2015

Electron micrograph of HPVWIKIMEDIA, NIH

More than four decades and billions of dollars since President Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, the disease is still the second most common cause of death in the U.S. According to American Cancer Society, nearly 600,000 Americans are expected to die of cancer in 2015, while more than 1.6 million new cancer cases are estimated to be diagnosed. Although we have learned much about the disease and improved outcomes for many patients, we are still relying on surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to treat cancer, just as we did four decades ago. But, as widespread sequencing of tumors has revealed, no two cancers are identical, limiting the effectiveness of such homogenous treatment strategies.

One force partially equipped to address this magnitude of cancer diversity is the immune system, which constantly patrols the body for deadly foreign invaders such as pathogens and abnormal cells. Immunotherapy approaches—and specifically, cancer vaccines—harness and enhance the immune system’s ability to recognize and eliminate tumor cells.

To date, several vaccine candidates have yielded consistent and reproducible therapeutic responses in many preclinical studies. However, the translation of such preclinical success to the clinic has proven difficult. In fact, sipuleucel-T, a vaccine that targets advanced prostate cancer, is the only therapeutic cancer vaccine so far approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The limited success of these vaccines in the clinic is mainly due to the lack of tumor-associated antigens (TAAs; proteins expressed on or in many or most types of cancers), which are seen by the immune system as foreign. But the high failure rate does not invalidate the potential of this approach. Rather, researchers must now focus on optimizing cancer vaccines, by selecting relevant antigens and effective adjuvant systems to induce efficacious immune responses and overcome immune evasion mechanisms.

One effort to improve cancer vaccines focuses on the use of immune adjuvants, which can enhance the ability of vaccine to stimulate a response that leads to long-term protection. Several class of adjuvants have been tested as part of cancer vaccine formulations, including alum-salts, bacterial products such as lipopolysaccharides, liposomes, and cytokines. Unfortunately, the majority of such adjuvants had only modest efficacy, coupled with toxicity concerns that raise significant regulatory hurdles. In fact, alum-salt-based adjuvants were the only ones used clinically in the U.S. until 2010, when monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL), in combination with aluminum hydroxide, was approved by the FDA as adjuvant component of Cervarix, a preventive vaccine against human papillomavirus (HPV).These concerns have posed a major challenge for researchers in the selection of appropriate adjuvants.

However, recent advances in understanding how cancer cells escape immune attack and how key co-stimulatory molecules are involved in regulating immune responses have enabled the design of adjuvants with known molecular actions and desired activities—namely, to boost the quantity and quality of innate and adaptive immunity and subdue regulatory immunity. Because the cellular and molecular heterogeneity of cancer is difficult to overcome with single target, combining multiple adjuvants directed at multiple targets will be the goal of next-generation vaccines.

One specific goal of new adjuvant systems is to preferentially activate T cell immunity while reversing tumor-induced T cell inhibition. Several of these adjuvants—including anti-CD137, anti-CD134, anti-CTLA-4, and anti-PD-1—have, alone or in combination, already demonstrated significant promise in preclinical or clinical studies. Along the same lines, we have recently demonstrated that a combination of two different classes of adjuvants with distinct mechanisms of action—SA-4-1BBL as a co-stimulatory molecule and MPL as a nontoxic, FDA-approved Toll-like receptor 4 agonist—had robust efficacy in two preclinical tumor models. SA-4-1BBL has pleiotropic and robust positive effects on effector cells of innate and adaptive immunity, while negatively impacting regulatory immune responses without detectable toxicity.

Although the war on cancer has not shown much promise in last several decades, recent FDA approval of two breakthrough immunotherapeutic agents, anti-CTLA-4 (ipilimumab) and anti-PD-1 (pembrolizumab) against metastatic melanoma, have staged cancer immunotherapy at the forefront of treatments for cancer. These clinical developments, along with a more comprehensive understanding of the immune system, provide great opportunities to further accelerate the development of more effective and less-toxic strategies. In the realm of cancer vaccines, in addition to incorporating novel TAAs that are immunogenic and tumor specific, adjuvant systems that generate effector immune responses will be required to provide the boost to the immune system  to defeat this deadly disease.

Abhishek Srivastava is a postdoctoral fellow at the surgery branch of the National Cancer Institute, where he works on developing new immunotherapy strategies against advanced cancers. Haval Shirwan, an expert in cancer vaccine research, is a professor and Dr. Michael and Joan Hamilton Endowed Chair at the University of Louisville.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: mlerman

mlerman

Posts: 71

March 31, 2015

Only combined gene therapy of cancer (CGTC) developed in 2008 would halt and cure cancer. Michael Lerman, Ph.D., M.D.

Avatar of: Steffen Gay

Steffen Gay

Posts: 1

March 31, 2015

One should not forget, that many tumor cells in solid tumors are surrounded by matrix collagens, glycoproteins and PGs preventing also the attack by the immune system, as already shown many years ago.

Avatar of: BillInLA

BillInLA

Posts: 5

March 31, 2015

An equally relevant set of questions is how the heck you scientists expect the society to be able to afford these immunotherapies, especially given the limited benefits shown to date.  Take the one you cited, sipuleucel-T, a.k.a. Provenge.  I vividly recall being called an array of interesting names on the stock message board of the vendor, Dendreon, when I suggested that the price was likely to be prohibitive -- in excess of $30,000.  As it turned out, the cost of treatment ended up being more than $60,000 ... and this for old men whose cancer had survived all the other prostate cancer therapies, AND the added median survival was in the range of four months.  AND another disadvantage of Provenge is that it's a custom drug, individually tailored to each patient. The way the payment system was set up, the physician or patient had to front that money.  The realities of this ridiculous therapy are visible in DNDN's stock: when approved it soared from a nadir of $2+ per share to numbers in the $40s per share...and then it crashed.  Now, it's a penny stock. 

The  long and the short is that you scientists need to come up with affordable answers.

Avatar of: BillInLA

BillInLA

Posts: 5

March 31, 2015

An equally relevant set of questions is how the heck you scientists expect the society to be able to afford these immunotherapies, especially given the limited benefits shown to date.  Take the one you cited, sipuleucel-T, a.k.a. Provenge.  I vividly recall being called an array of interesting names on the stock message board of the vendor, Dendreon, when I suggested that the price was likely to be prohibitive -- in excess of $30,000.  As it turned out, the cost of treatment ended up being more than $60,000 ... and this for old men whose cancer had survived all the other prostate cancer therapies, AND the added median survival was in the range of four months.  AND another disadvantage of Provenge is that it's a custom drug, individually tailored to each patient. The way the payment system was set up, the physician or patient had to front that money.  The realities of this ridiculous therapy are visible in DNDN's stock: when approved it soared from a nadir of $2+ per share to numbers in the $40s per share...and then it crashed.  Now, it's a penny stock -- and only four of those pennies per share as of today.  

The  long and the short is that you scientists need to come up with affordable answers.

Popular Now

  1. Thousands of Mutations Accumulate in the Human Brain Over a Lifetime
  2. Two Dozen House Republicans Do an About-Face on Tuition Tax
  3. 2017 Top 10 Innovations
    Features 2017 Top 10 Innovations

    From single-cell analysis to whole-genome sequencing, this year’s best new products shine on many levels.

  4. The Biggest DNA Origami Structures Yet
    Daily News The Biggest DNA Origami Structures Yet

    Three new strategies for using DNA to generate large, self-assembling shapes create everything from a nanoscale teddy bear to a nanoscale Mona Lisa.

FreeShip