- 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 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 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)
:
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 HSCT is dependent on tumor-antigen
recognition, subsequent 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 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 chimerismref1,
ref2,
ref3 [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 IFN-g
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-b productionref [66], downregulate IL-12
production by DCsref1,
ref2 [67 and 68], and influence Th1
Th2 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
rejectionref1,
ref2 [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-cellref1,
ref2,
ref3 [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 LPSref [76]. B cells activated by LPS
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 FL and SLL/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 SLL 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 DLBCL
to induce T-cell activation. Lymphochip technology
has demonstrated that DLBCL 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 CTCLs 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 HSCT 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 GVT 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 HSCT.
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