|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TRANSPLANTATION
From the Department of Pediatrics, Viral Diagnostic
Service, and Department of Heart Surgery, IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo,
Pavia, Italy; the Department of Medicine and Public Health,
Università dell' Insubria, Varese, Italy; the Cardiovascular
Department and Liver Transplant Center, Ospedali Riuniti, Bergamo,
Italy; the Liver Transplant Center, Ospedale Maggiore, Milano, Italy;
and the Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Istituto G. Gaslini,
Genova, Italy.
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated posttransplantation
lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLDs) are a well-recognized
complication of immunosuppression in solid organ transplant recipients.
The reported therapeutic approaches are frequently complicated by rejection, toxicity, and other infectious pathologies, and overall mortality in patients with unresponsive PTLD remains high. Thus, low-toxicity treatment options or, preferably, some form of
prophylactic/preemptive intervention are warranted to improve PTLD
outcome in this setting. We assessed whether transfer of EBV-specific
cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) generated in vitro from the peripheral
blood of allograft recipients receiving immunosuppression could
increase EBV-specific killing in vivo without augmenting the
probability of graft rejection. Autologous EBV-specific CTLs were
generated for 23 patients who were identified as being at risk of
developing PTLD through the finding of elevated EBV DNA load. Of the 23 patients, 7 received 1 to 5 infusions of EBV-specific CTLs. CTL
transfer was well tolerated, and none of the patients showed any
evidence of rejection. An increase of the EBV-specific cytotoxicity was
observed after infusion, notwithstanding continuation of
immunosuppressive therapy. EBV DNA levels had a 1.5- to 3-log decrease
in 5 patients, whereas in the other 2 graft recipients CTL transfer had
no apparent stable effect on EBV load. Our data suggest that the
infusion of autologous EBV-specific CTLs obtained from peripheral blood
mononuclear cells recovered at the time of viral reactivation is able
to augment virus-specific immune response and to reduce viral load in
organ transplant recipients. This approach may, therefore, be safely used as prophylaxis of EBV-related lymphoproliferative disorders in
these patients, following a strategy of preemptive therapy guided by
EBV DNA levels.
(Blood. 2002;99:2592-2598) Posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorder
(PTLD) is a potentially lethal complication of immunosuppression in
solid organ transplant (SOT) and bone marrow transplant (BMT)
recipients,1-3 mostly associated with the proliferation of
Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-infected B cells whose expansion in
immunocompetent individuals is controlled by cytotoxic T lymphocytes
(CTLs).4 There is ample evidence that an adoptive
immunotherapy approach with transfer of lymphocytes or EBV-specific
CTLs of donor origin is effective as prophylaxis and/or treatment of
EBV-related PTLD in recipients of T-cell-depleted BMT5-8;
data have shown that anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody can be an equally
useful therapeutic strategy when donor-derived EBV CTLs are not
available.9,10
Conversely, treatment of PTLD in patients receiving organ
allografts who fail to respond to reduction or discontinuation of immunosuppression,11-13 is still controversial. Antiviral
drugs,12 Therefore, alternative low-toxicity treatment options or,
preferably, some form of prophylactic/preemptive intervention are warranted to improve PTLD outcome after organ transplantation. Application of a cellular immunotherapy approach similar to that used
in BMT recipients is an appealing strategy, as it has been demonstrated
that high levels of EBV DNA in peripheral blood predict development of
PTLD also in organ transplant recipients.19,20 However,
PTLD in the latter setting are mainly of recipient
origin,21 and an HLA-matched donor is usually
unavailable.22 The choice of HLA-haploidentical
donor-derived virus-specific CTLs has proved only transiently
successful in inducing remission of PTLD after organ
transplantation,23 possibly because of a rapid immunologic clearance of CTLs secondary to allorecognition.
For these reasons, the use of autologous CTLs is probably a better
option in this setting. It has been shown that autologous CTLs
generated from pretransplant blood samples of SOT recipients are
effective in controlling EBV replication and enhancing EBV-specific cellular responses after transplantation.24 More
importantly, it has been demonstrated that EBV-specific cellular memory
response can be expanded in vitro from peripheral blood samples of SOT recipients even when they are receiving immunosuppressive therapy and
that CTLs thus reactivated display effective antiviral activity and
have therapeutic potential against PTLD.25,26 This
strategy has the advantage of allowing treatment of recipients who were seronegative before transplantation and, thus, at greater risk of
developing PTLD after primary EBV infection in the posttransplantation period.
Two open questions about the use of autologous EBV-specific CTLs
for the treatment of PTLD in allograft recipients concern the
possibility of maintaining long-term therapeutic levels of CTLs23,26 and the well-described potential danger of
inducing massive inflammatory reactions in the affected organ in
patients with bulky disease.8,26 In particular, the
reported dramatic systemic adverse effects of CTL expansion and
activity in the case of bulky disease could be lessened or, at best,
avoided by a preemptive strategy based on single or repeated CTL
infusion on the finding of EBV-polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
positivity and subsequent monitoring of viral load in blood and
EBV-specific cellular responses.
Therefore, we assessed the feasibility of generating autologous
EBV-specific CTLs from the peripheral blood of organ transplantation patients receiving in vivo immunosuppression for prevention of graft
rejection and proceeded to verify whether transfer of recipient's virus-specific CTLs in this setting could increase in vivo EBV-specific killing and cellular immune responses without consistently increasing the probability of graft rejection.
Patients
EBV CTL lines were reactivated from 23 EBV-seropositive allograft
recipients, and 7 were subsequently infused. Of these 7 patients, 3 were adult men who were given heart transplants, whereas 4 were
children, 2 boys and 2 girls, who received heart (n = 2), liver
(n = 1), and kidney (n = 1) allografts. Other clinical features of
the 7 cases are summarized in Table 1.
Harvest and isolation of peripheral blood mononuclear cells Peripheral blood samples were collected from the patients at the time of enrollment. Part of the harvested peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was used to generate EBV-induced B-lymphoblastoid cell line (B-LCL), and the remaining cells were cryopreserved for later use to activate CTLs. In the case of insufficient recovery, a second sample for CTL reactivation was obtained once B-LCLs had expanded.PBMCs were isolated by Ficoll-Hypaque density gradient centrifugation, resuspended in RPMI 1640 medium (Gibco, Paisley, Scotland) supplemented with 2 mM L-glutamine and 10% heat-inactivated fetal calf serum (FCS; RPMI-FCS; Hyclone, Logan, UT), and used fresh or cryopreserved. Detection of EBV DNA EBV DNA was quantified by using an originally developed quantitative PCR.19 Briefly, PBMC samples were amplified in the presence of an internal reaction control and in parallel with serial dilutions of external standards (consisting of EBV EBNA1 gene PCR target sequence cloned in PCR 2000 plasmid). Gel densitometry was then used to quantitate PCR signals and to generate a standard curve for calculation of EBV DNA copy number.B-LCL production PBMCs were incubated with EBV-containing supernatant from the B95-8 cell line (American Type Culture Collection, Rockville, MD) in the presence of 800 ng/mL cyclosporin A (Sandoz Pharmaceuticals, Basel, Switzerland) in RPMI-FCS. Cells were continuously cultured for 3 to 4 weeks, following a protocol previously described.6Preparation and administration of EBV-specific T-cell lines EBV-specific CTLs were reactivated and expanded in vitro according to a method previously reported for preparation of BMT donor-derived T-cell lines, following general manufacturing practice standard procedures.6 In summary, EBV-specific CTLs were prepared from fresh or frozen PBMCs, plated in 2 mL RPMI-FCS at 2 × 106 cells per well, and stimulated with irradiated autologous B-LCL at a responder-to-stimulator (R:S) ratio of 40:1. After 10 days, cultures were restimulated with irradiated autologous B-LCL at a R:S ratio of 4:1. Starting on day 14, 20 U/mL recombinant interleukin 2 (rIL-2; Hoffman-La Roche, Basel, Switzerland) was added to the wells, and the cultures were subsequently restimulated weekly with irradiated autologous B-LCL in the presence of rIL-2. Before cryopreservation, T cells were examined for EBV specificity in a standard 51Cr-release assay against a panel of targets, including recipient B-LCL and phytohemagglutinin (PHA) blasts, HLA-mismatched allogeneic B-LCL and PHA blasts, and the lymphokine-activated killer-permissive Daudi cell line. Cell lines were also evaluated for immunophenotype and for sterility. Samples with satisfactory test results were thawed and administered intravenously to patients. The patients received a first dose of 2 × 107 CTL/m2, and subsequent dose schedule was decided on the basis of clinical evaluation, EBV PCR levels, and immunologic follow-up.The introduction of new regulations in the culture of cellular products for in vivo use since the beginning of the study prompted us to verify the feasibility of modifying the culture conditions at first use. These further studies provided evidence that the procedure can be performed by using X-VIVO 20 medium (BioWhittaker, Walkersville, MD) with 2% autologous plasma, and EBV CTL lines are now activated and expanded with the modified protocol. Flow cytometry Monoclonal antibodies used to characterize cultured cells were CD3 (anti-Leu-4) fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC), anti-HLA-DR phycoerythrin (PE), CD8 (anti-Leu-2a) FITC and PE, CD56 (anti-Leu-19) PE, anti-TCR  FITC, CD4 (anti-Leu-3a) PE, CD19
(anti-Leu-12) FITC, CD20 (anti-Leu-16) PE, and CD45 (anti-HLe-1) FITC
(Becton Dickinson, Mountain View, CA). Appropriate isotype-matched
controls were included. Cytofluorimetric analysis was performed by
means of direct immunofluorescence on a FACScan flow cytometer
(Becton Dickinson).
Cytotoxicity assay Cytotoxic activity was measured as previously described.27 Spontaneous release from the target cells was consistently less than 25%. Results were expressed as the percentage of specific lysis.Limiting dilution assay for evaluation of EBV-specific cytotoxic T-cell precursors To evaluate cytotoxic T-cell precursor (CTLp) frequency to EBV, responder cells were stimulated with autologous irradiated B-LCL according to a limiting dilution assay partially derived from a previously described method.28 Briefly, 24 replicates of decreasing numbers (8 × 104, 6 × 104, 4 × 104, 2 × 104, 104, 5 × 103, and 2.5 × 103) of cryopreserved PBMCs used as responder cells were seeded in 96-well round-bottom microplates in a final volume of 200 µL RPMI-FCS in the presence of 104 autologous irradiated (7000 rads) B-LCL. On days 7 and 14, the cultures were restimulated with 104 autologous irradiated B-LCL. On day 21, the plates were split and tested against autologous or HLA-mismatched B-LCL in a standard cytotoxicity assay.Calculation of CTLp frequency Assay wells were defined as positive when 51Cr release exceeded the mean + 3 SD of control wells. The frequency of responding cells was determined by maximum likelihood estimation, using a statistical program, and the variance by the use of 95% confidence limits.
Generation of autologous EBV-specific CTL lines The most compelling issue in designing an immunotherapy protocol to prevent or treat EBV-related complications in SOT patients is to assess the probability of reactivating in vitro an EBV-specific CTL response from the PBMCs of these immunosuppressed hosts. In particular, it is important to understand whether most graft recipients are able to mount a memory EBV CTL response in vitro, and whether this response bears the characteristics observed in healthy donors.To address these points, autologous EBV-specific CTL lines were
generated at our institution for SOT recipients who were identified as
being at risk of developing EBV-related PTLD through the finding of
elevated numbers of EBV DNA genome copies on 2 or more consecutive samples. EBV-LCLs were initiated from PBMCs of the 60 graft recipients enrolled in the study. We succeeded in expanding and cryopreserving EBV-LCLs for 55 of the 60 patients, whereas in 5 cases initial growth
was followed by rapid apoptosis and loss of the EBV-transformed lines.
We then proceeded to activate autologous EBV-specific CTL lines in the
first 23 of the 55 patients whose LCLs had expanded, using the method
described by Rooney et al6,8 for BMT donors. CTL
lines were successfully generated in all 23 patients. Phenotypic analysis indicated that the 23 lines were 90% ± 8%
CD3+, 60% ± 21% CD8+, and 30% ± 23%
CD4+ and contained 10% ± 8% cells that were
CD3+/CD8+/CD56+ and 9% ± 9%
cells of natural killer phenotype
(CD56+/CD3
Effect of CTL transfer on EBV DNA load Of the 23 EBV-specific CTL lines activated in vitro, 7 were administered to patients on detection of persistent high levels of EBV DNA. Their phenotype analysis and specificity characteristics are reported in Tables 2 and 3.No modification of immunosuppressive therapy was introduced between the time of cell harvest, CTL generation, and the time before or during CTL infusion with the exception of those described later for patient 3. Autologous EBV-specific CTL infusions were well tolerated in all patients, as no toxic effects could be attributed to the T-cell therapy. None of the patients had clinical signs of graft rejection, and organ biopsies, when performed, showed no evidence of rejection after CTL infusions. The patients received an initial infusion of
2 × 107/m2 CTLs, and 2 to 4 subsequent doses
were administered on the basis of EBV DNA follow-up and after having
assessed the absence of signs of rejection. In patients 1 and 2, infusion of a single CTL dose was followed by a rapid decrease of EBV
DNA titers to reach levels below the detection threshold within 1 to 8 weeks from CTL therapy (Figure 1A). The
EBV load remained undetectable during the 46-month follow-up period in
both patients. Figure 2B shows data from
patients 3, 5, and 7. In patients 5 and 7, the first CTL infusion did
not produce a stable decrease of EBV load, and, therefore, further CTL
doses (3 and 2, respectively) were administered. In these 2 recipients,
EBV DNA levels showed a stable 1- to 1.5-log decrease, and during the
26 and 19 months of follow-up EBV load remained well below the
values observed before CTL infusion.
Patient 3 initially responded to the first CTL infusion with a decrease in EBV DNA levels. However, the patient received an increase in daily steroid dosage, and a new EBV DNA peak of 100 000 copies per 105 PBMCs was observed. Antiviral therapy was initiated with no effect on viral load. The infusion of 3 further CTL doses at weekly intervals succeeded in lowering the viral load by 2 logs, and DNA levels have now stabilized at 103 copies per 105 PBMCs notwithstanding continuation with the higher steroid schedule (Figure 1B). Administration of EBV-CTLs in patient 6 resulted in a small and temporary decrease in EBV DNA titer, but new peaks occurred after the first infusion. Therefore, this patient received 2 additional CTL infusions, but each T-cell line transfer was equally ineffective in obtaining a stable decrease in EBV load (Figure 1C). Comparable poor results were also observed in patient 4, who received a total of 5 CTL infusions with no apparent consistent effect on EBV DNA levels (Figure 1C). All 7 patients remain alive and with no sign of EBV-PTLD 4 to 46 months (median, 25) after CTL infusion. Effect of CTL transfer on T-cell immunity To determine the effect of CTL infusions on specific immune reconstitution of treated patients, the pattern of CTL regeneration and CTL precursor frequency was evaluated on peripheral blood samples obtained after CTL transfer.Measurement of CTLp frequency was performed in patients 4 to 7 (Table
4). In preinfusion samples obtained from
patient 5, EBV CTLp levels were detectable, although at values in the
lower end of the normal range. CTLp levels increased after each
transfer and maintained stable levels throughout the study period. In
patients 4, 6, and 7, EBV CTLp levels were low to undetectable before
immunotherapy. In patient 4, CTLp levels remained unchanged after the
first infusion but increased after each subsequent transfer. However,
in this patient, the precursor frequency gradually decreased between
infusions. In patient 6, CTL transfer caused a 1.5-log increase in
cytotoxic precursor frequency, and, although CTLp numbers showed a
slight decrease between infusions, posttransfer levels remained high during the follow-up months.
Unfortunately, because of a lack of sufficient numbers of preinfusion PBMCs, evaluation of CTLp frequency could not be performed in patients 1 to 3. Nevertheless, data on CTL regeneration from postinfusion peripheral blood samples are available for patients 1 and 2. These data indicate that, after each EBV CTL transfer, an increase in EBV-specific lytic activity was observed, accompanied by a decrease in cytotoxicity directed against HLA-mismatched targets (data not shown). A comparative phenotype analysis performed on the infused CTL line and
on peripheral blood collected before and 4 months after infusion from
patient 2 is shown in Figure 2. Although preinfusion peripheral blood
phenotype showed only 22% CD8+ and 3%
Our experience is in line with previously reported preliminary data25,26 on the feasibility of reactivating and expanding autologous EBV-specific CTLs from samples of patients receiving immunosuppression after SOT. The strategy of using PBMCs obtained at the time of EBV DNA detection rather than before the graft24 makes a prophylactic/preemptive intervention more advantageous in this setting, as it removes the need for storage of mononuclear cells from candidates to organ transplantation before the procedure and extends applicability to patients who develop EBV-related complications many years from transplantation and are, therefore, not likely to have pretransplantation samples stored. The method used, derived from Rooney et al,6,8 allowed us to generate EBV CTLs with characteristics comparable to those observed in EBV-specific lines from healthy donors.8 Furthermore, the CTLs could be expanded to reach values higher than 108 in all cases. Infusion of EBV-specific CD8+ CD4+ polyclonal T cells caused an increase of EBV-specific immunity in all evaluable patients, with stable decrease in viral load in 5 of 7 treated patients. Patient 3, who experienced an early increase of EBV load associated with the presence of fever and malaise and responded to each CTL infusion with a substantial reduction of EBV DNA levels, exemplifies the possible negative effects of steroids on CTL therapy. Because of the increased prednisone dosage, EBV load in this patient transiently reached a higher peak compared with preinfusion levels, probably because of inactivation or destruction of specific CTLp secondary to the action of the immunosuppressive agent. Nonetheless, the combination of antiviral therapy and repeated CTL infusions caused a decrease in viral load, which has remained below 104/105 cells notwithstanding maintenance of heavily immunosuppressive regimen. None of the patients showed evidence of graft rejection. Patients 4 and 6, who did not respond to repeated CTL infusion with a stable decrease in EBV DNA levels, received T-cell lines with more than 70% CD4+ cells. In the case of patient 4, cytotoxicity assays showed that specific killing was mediated by the 20% CD8+ cell population included in the CTL line, whereas in patient 6 specific cytotoxicity was mediated by both CD8+ and CD4+ cells. The low percentage of CD8+ cells infused in the former patient and the presence of CD4+ cytotoxic populations, whose specific activity is less efficient, in the second case could be deemed responsible for the poor results in terms of reduction of viral load. In both these patients an increase in CTLp frequency was observed after each CTL infusion. One may argue that the combination of lower immunologic efficacy and persistent immunosuppression might cause a rapid CTLp decrease between infusions. However, although a tendency to decrease was indeed observed, EBV-specific CTLp levels in the follow-up period were constantly higher than those observed before immunotherapy. More importantly, neither patient, including patient 4 who consistently showed high levels of EBV DNA during the 30-month observation time, has developed PTLD. The achievement and maintenance of a higher "set point" for EBV-specific T-cell precursor frequency is likely an important endpoint for any prophylactic therapy to reduce the risk of PTLD imposed on these patients by their continuing high virus load. Recent work may explain this discrepancy.29,30 EBV-infected resting memory B cells, expressing LMP2A as the only viral latency gene, accumulate in the peripheral blood of immunosuppressed patients and are associated with high EBV DNA levels. Only very small numbers of proliferating infected lymphoblasts are normally present in the peripheral circulation of these individuals, whereas lytically infected cells account for the portion of viral DNA levels not ascribable to resting B cells in 50% of the patients. Infused CTLs may clear EBV-transformed B cells carrying the full array of latency antigens, and consequently prevent PTLD development, but can only recognize and kill EBV-infected resting B cells through the subdominant LMP2A-specific response. Hence, the residual EBV loads observed in our patients may indicate not cell therapy failure but rather reflects the different patterns of EBV CTL reactivation and antiviral immunologic surveillance. In some patients, the presence of LMP2A-specific and/or lytic cycle-specific cells in the CTL line might control resting B cells carrying the antigen and lytically infected B cells, respectively; additionally, the in vivo expansion and cytokine production of transferred CTLs because of encounter with EBV might drive the expansion of endogenous cellular immune response directed against LMP2A and lytic cycle proteins, thus reaching the goal of a complete decline of EBV DNA levels. The question of CTL duration in these immunosuppressed patients,
central to the design of a prophylactic treatment schedule, remains
open. Direct evidence of CTL persistence in the peripheral blood of
these patients could not be obtained, as cells had not been marked
before infusion. Yet, the sequential peripheral blood phenotype
analysis performed in patient 2 was suggestive of an impressive in vivo
expansion of infused CTLs that persisted for several months after
infusion. An expansion of CD8+/CD56 In a general strategy of PTLD management, we favor a preemptive
approach over the treatment of established disease, in the attempt to
reduce the risk of therapy-related complications. As to the best
strategy, at present the available preemptive options include temporal
reduction of immune suppression, antiviral drugs, anti-CD20 monoclonal
antibodies, and CTLs. Reduction of immunosuppression is associated with
an augmented risk of graft rejection and can, therefore, be acceptable
only in non-life-saving transplantations, whereas antiviral drugs may
cause direct organ toxicity, rendering their use advisable only for a
short time span. The use of anti-CD20 for prophylaxis is to be
considered with caution, as administration may cause prolonged profound
B-cell depletion and hypogammaglobulinemia that exacerbates
immunodeficiency in transplantation patients.10,31 Moreover, the repeated use may select a population of
CD20 Overall, our findings suggest that the infusion of autologous EBV-specific CTLs obtained from PBMCs recovered at the time of viral reactivation augments virus-specific immune responses and reduces viral load in organ transplant recipients and can, therefore, be safely used as prophylaxis of EBV-related lymphoproliferative disorders in these patients, following a strategy of preemptive therapy guided by EBV DNA levels. The effectiveness of EBV CTL infusion in terms of PTLD prevention cannot be assessed in such a small cohort of patients. However, most of the untreated patients show persistently detectable EBV DNA levels, and the calculated incidence of PTLD in a historical control group of 74 SOT recipients with detectable EBV DNA levels was 8%. The positive predictive value of EBV DNA levels more than 1000 copies in the cohort of 120 studied patients was 64% for symptomatic EBV infection.19 A prospective randomized trial to compare CTL therapy with other prophylactic interventions is warranted to assess the real efficacy in terms of PTLD prevention and graft survival. On the basis of the issues discussed above, we propose to adopt, as cell therapy arm of the trial, a sequential CTL infusion approach.
We thank the patients who contributed; the Heart Transplant, Liver Transplant, and Kidney Transplant Units in Pavia, Bergamo, Milano, and Genova; and the Nord Italia Transplant program for their cooperation.
Submitted August 9, 2001; accepted November 27, 2001.
Supported in part by grants from the Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) to P.C., F.L., and R.M. and by grant RFM/97 from IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo.
The publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. Therefore, and solely to indicate this fact, this article is hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. section 1734.
Reprints: Patrizia Comoli, Laboratorio di Immunologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Pediatriche, IRCCS Policlinico S. Matteo, P.le Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia, Italia; e-mail: pcomoli{at}smatteo.pv.it.
1. Randhawa PS, Yousem SA, Paradis IL, et al. The clinical spectrum, pathology, and clonal analysis of Epstein-Barr virus-associated lymphoproliferative disorders in heart-lung transplant recipients. Am J Clin Pathol. 1989;92:177-185[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 2. Nalesnik MA. Posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD): current perspectives. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996;8:139-148[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
3.
Shapiro RS, McClain K, Frizzera G, et al.
Epstein-Barr virus associated B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders following bone marrow transplantation.
Blood.
1988;71:1234-1243 4. Rickinson AB, Moss DJ. Human cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses to Epstein-Barr virus infection. Annu Rev Immunol. 1997;15:405-431[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
5.
Papadopoulos EB, Ladanyi M, Emanuel D, et al.
Infusions of donor leukocytes to treat Epstein-Barr virus-associated lymphoproliferative disorders after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation.
N Engl J Med.
1994;330:1185-1191 6. Rooney CM, Smith CA, Ng CYC, et al. Use of gene-modified virus-specific T lymphocytes to control Epstein-Barr virus-related lymphoproliferation. Lancet. 1995;345:9-13[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 7. Heslop HE, Ng CY, Li C, et al. Long-term restoration of immunity against Epstein-Barr virus infection by adoptive transfer of gene-modified virus-specific T lymphocytes. Nat Med. 1996;2:551-555[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
8.
Rooney CM, Smith CA, Ng CYC, et al.
Infusion of cytotoxic T cells for the prevention and treatment of Epstein-Barr virus-induced lymphoma in allogeneic transplant recipients.
Blood.
1998;92:1549-1555 9. Faye A, Abeele TVD, Peuchman M, Mathieu-Boue A, Vilmer E. Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody for post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders. Lancet. 1998;352:1285[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
10.
Kuehnle I, Huls MH, Liu Z, et al.
CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab) for therapy of Epstein-Barr virus lymphoma after hemopoietic stem-cell transplantation.
Blood.
2000;95:1502-1505 11. Starzl TE, Nalesnik MA, Porter KA, et al. Reversibility of lymphomas and lymphoproliferative lesions developing under cyclosporin-steroid therapy. Lancet. 1984;ii:583-587. 12. Schaar CG, van der Pijl JW, van Hoek B, et al. Successful outcome with a "quintuple approach" of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder. Transplantation. 2001;71:47-52[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 13. Davis CL, Wood BL, Sabath DE, et al. Interferon-alpha treatment of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder in recipients of solid organ transplants. Transplantation. 1998;9:1770-1779.
14.
Shapiro RS, Chauvenet A, McGuire W, et al.
Treatment of B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders with interferon 15. Fisher A, Blanche S, Le Bidois J, et al. Anti-B-cell monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of severe B-cell lymphoproliferative syndrome following bone marrow and organ transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:1451-1456[Abstract].
16.
Gross TG, Hinrichs SH, Winner J, et al.
Treatment of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) following solid organ transplantation with low-dose chemotherapy.
Ann Oncol.
1998;9:339-340
17.
Mamzer-Bruneel MF, Lome C, Morelon E, et al.
Durable remission after aggressive chemotherapy for very late post-kidney transplant lymphoproliferation: a report of 16 cases observed in a single center.
J Clin Oncol.
2000;18:3622-3632 18. Cook RC, Connors JM, Gascoyne RD, Fradet G, Levy RD. Treatment of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease with rituximab monoclonal antibody after lung transplantation. Lancet. 1999;354:1698-1699[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
19.
Baldanti F, Grossi P, Furione M, et al.
High levels of Epstein-Barr virus DNA in blood of solid organ transplant recipients and their predictive value of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disorders.
J Clin Microbiol.
2000;38:613-619
20.
Stevens SJC, Verschuuren EAM, Pronk I, et al.
Frequent monitoring of Epstein-Barr virus DNA load in unfractionated whole blood is essential for early detection of posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease in high-risk patients.
Blood.
2001;97:1165-1171 21. O'Reilly R, Small TN, Papadopulos E, Lucas K, Lacerda J, Koulova L. Biology and adoptive cell therapy of Epstein-Barr-virus associated lymphoproliferative disorders in recipients of marrow allografts. Immunol Rev. 1997;157:195-216[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 22. O'Reilly R, Small TN, Papadopulos E, et al. Adoptive immunotherapy for Epstein-Barr-virus associated lymphoproliferative disorders complicating marrow allografts. Springer Semin Immunopathol. 1998;20:455-491[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]. 23. Emanuel DJ, Lucas KG, Mallory GB, et al. Treatment of post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease in the central nervous system of a lung transplant recipient using allogeneic leukocytes. Transplantation. 1997;63:1691-1694[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
24.
Haque T, Amlot PL, Helling N, et al.
Reconstitution of EBV-specific T cell immunity in solid organ transplant recipients.
J Immunol.
1998;160:6204-6209 25. Comoli P, Locatelli F, Gerna G, Grossi P, Viganò M, Maccario R. Autologous EBV-specific cytotoxic T cells to treat EBV-associated post transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) [abstract]. Blood. 1997;90:249a.
26.
Khanna R, Bell S, Sherritt M, et al.
Activation and adoptive transfer of Epstein-Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T cells in solid organ transplant patients with posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
1999;96:10391-10396 27. Comoli P, Montagna D, Moretta A, Zecca M, Locatelli F, Maccario R. Alloantigen-induced human lymphocytes rendered nonresponsive by a combination of anti-CD80 monoclonal antibodies and cyclosporin-A suppress mixed lymphocyte reaction in vitro. J Immunol. 1995;155:5506-5511[Abstract]. 28. Moretta A, Comoli P, Montagna D, et al. High frequency of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) lymphoblastoid cell line-reactive lymphocytes in cord blood: evaluation of cytolytic activity and IL-2 production. Clin Exp Immunol. 1997;107:312-320[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve].
29.
Babcock GJ, Decker LL, Freeman RB, Thorley-Lawson DA.
Epstein-Barr virus-infected resting memory B cells, not proliferating lymphoblasts, accumulate in the peripheral blood of immunosuppressed patients.
J Exp Med.
1999;190:567-576
30.
Yang J, Tao Q, Flinn IW, et al.
Characterization of Epstein-Barr virus-infected B cells in patients with posttransplantation lymphoproliferative disease: disappearance after rituximab therapy does not predict clinical response.
Blood.
2000;96:4055-4063
31.
Zecca M, De Stefano P, Nobili B, Locatelli F.
Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody for the treatment of severe, immune-mediated, pure red cell aplasia and hemolytic anemia.
Blood.
2001;97:3995-3997
32.
Davis TA, Czerwinski DK, Levy R.
Therapy of B cell lymphoma with anti-CD20 antibodies can result in the loss of CD20 antigen expression.
Clin Cancer Res.
1999;5:611-615
© 2002 by The American Society of Hematology.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
  M. E. Dudley and S. A. Rosenberg Clinical Trials Investigating Adoptive Cell Therapy Combined with Lymphodepletion for Patients with Advanced Cancer ASCO Educational Book, January 1, 2009; 2009(1): 516 - 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Baldanti, M. Gatti, M. Furione, S. Paolucci, C. Tinelli, P. Comoli, P. Merli, and F. Locatelli Kinetics of Epstein-Barr Virus DNA Load in Different Blood Compartments of Pediatric Recipients of T-Cell-Depleted HLA-Haploidentical Stem Cell Transplantation J. Clin. Microbiol., November 1, 2008; 46(11): 3672 - 3677. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Y. Zafar, D. N. Howell, and J. P. Gockerman Malignancy After Solid Organ Transplantation: An Overview Oncologist, July 1, 2008; 13(7): 769 - 778. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Carbone, A. Gloghini, and G. Dotti EBV-Associated Lymphoproliferative Disorders: Classification and Treatment Oncologist, May 1, 2008; 13(5): 577 - 585. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Bhaduri-McIntosh, M. J. Rotenberg, B. Gardner, M. Robert, and G. Miller Repertoire and frequency of immune cells reactive to Epstein-Barr virus-derived autologous lymphoblastoid cell lines Blood, February 1, 2008; 111(3): 1334 - 1343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. P. Barry, G. Silvestri, J. T. Safrit, B. Sumpter, N. Kozyr, H. M. McClure, S. I. Staprans, and M. B. Feinberg Depletion of CD8+ Cells in Sooty Mangabey Monkeys Naturally Infected with Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Reveals Limited Role for Immune Control of Virus Replication in a Natural Host Species J. Immunol., June 15, 2007; 178(12): 8002 - 8012. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Montagna, R. Maccario, F. Locatelli, E. Montini, S. Pagani, F. Bonetti, L. Daudt, I. Turin, D. Lisini, C. Garavaglia, et al. Emergence of antitumor cytolytic T cells is associated with maintenance of hematologic remission in children with acute myeloid leukemia Blood, December 1, 2006; 108(12): 3843 - 3850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Savoldo, J. A. Goss, M. M. Hammer, L. Zhang, T. Lopez, A. P. Gee, Y.-F. Lin, R. E. Quiros-Tejeira, P. Reinke, S. Schubert, et al. Treatment of solid organ transplant recipients with autologous Epstein Barr virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs) Blood, November 1, 2006; 108(9): 2942 - 2949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. A. Willemsen, Z. Sebestyen, C. Ronteltap, C. Berrevoets, J. Drexhage, and R. Debets CD8{alpha} Coreceptor to Improve TCR Gene Transfer to Treat Melanoma: Down-Regulation of Tumor-Specific Production of IL-4, IL-5, and IL-10 J. Immunol., July 15, 2006; 177(2): 991 - 998. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Choquet, V. Leblond, R. Herbrecht, G. Socie, A.-M. Stoppa, P. Vandenberghe, A. Fischer, F. Morschhauser, G. Salles, W. Feremans, et al. Efficacy and safety of rituximab in B-cell post-transplantation lymphoproliferative disorders: results of a prospective multicenter phase 2 study Blood, April 15, 2006; 107(8): 3053 - 3057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Schaft, B. Lankiewicz, J. Drexhage, C. Berrevoets, D. J. Moss, V. Levitsky, M. Bonneville, S. P. Lee, A. J. McMichael, J.-W. Gratama, et al. T cell re-targeting to EBV antigens following TCR gene transfer: CD28-containing receptors mediate enhanced antigen-specific IFN{gamma} production Int. Immunol., April 1, 2006; 18(4): 591 - 601. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Williams and D. H. Crawford Epstein-Barr virus: the impact of scientific advances on clinical practice Blood, February 1, 2006; 107(3): 862 - 869. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Comoli, P. Pedrazzoli, R. Maccario, S. Basso, O. Carminati, M. Labirio, R. Schiavo, S. Secondino, C. Frasson, C. Perotti, et al. Cell Therapy of Stage IV Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma With Autologous Epstein-Barr Virus-Targeted Cytotoxic T Lymphocytes J. Clin. Oncol., December 10, 2005; 23(35): 8942 - 8949. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. M. Ghobrial, T. M. Habermann, M. J. Maurer, S. M. Geyer, K. M. Ristow, T. S. Larson, R. C. Walker, S. M. Ansell, W. R. Macon, G. G. Gores, et al. Prognostic Analysis for Survival in Adult Solid Organ Transplant Recipients With Post-Transplantation Lymphoproliferative Disorders J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2005; 23(30): 7574 - 7582. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. M. Straathof, C. M. Bollard, U. Popat, M. H. Huls, T. Lopez, M. C. Morriss, M. V. Gresik, A. P. Gee, H. V. Russell, M. K. Brenner, et al. Treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma with Epstein-Barr virus-specific T lymphocytes Blood, March 1, 2005; 105(5): 1898 - 1904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. E. Heslop Biology and Treatment of Epstein-Barr Virus-Associated Non-Hodgkin Lymphomas Hematology, January 1, 2005; 2005(1): 260 - 266. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. M. Bollard, L. Aguilar, K. C. Straathof, B. Gahn, M. H. Huls, A. Rousseau, J. Sixbey, M. V. Gresik, G. Carrum, M. Hudson, et al. Cytotoxic T Lymphocyte Therapy for Epstein-Barr Virus+ Hodgkin's Disease J. Exp. Med., December 20, 2004; 200(12): 1623 - 1633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Islas-Ohlmayer, A. Padgett-Thomas, R. Domiati-Saad, M. W. Melkus, P. D. Cravens, M. d. P. Martin, G. Netto, and J. V. Garcia Experimental Infection of NOD/SCID Mice Reconstituted with Human CD34+ Cells with Epstein-Barr Virus J. Virol., December 15, 2004; 78(24): 13891 - 13900. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Comoli, R. De Palma, S. Siena, A. Nocera, S. Basso, F. Del Galdo, R. Schiavo, O. Carminati, A. Tagliamacco, G. F. Abbate, et al. Adoptive transfer of allogeneic Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific cytotoxic T cells with in vitro antitumor activity boosts LMP2-specific immune response in a patient with EBV-related nasopharyngeal carcinoma Ann. Onc., January 1, 2004; 15(1): 113 - 117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Comoli, S. Basso, A. Azzi, A. Moretta, R. De Santis, F. Del Galdo, R. De Palma, U. Valente, A. Nocera, F. Perfumo, et al. Dendritic Cells Pulsed with Polyomavirus BK Antigen Induce Ex Vivo Polyoma BK Virus-Specific Cytotoxic T-Cell Lines in Seropositive Healthy Individuals and Renal Transplant Recipients J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., December 1, 2003; 14(12): 3197 - 3204. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C.M. Straathof, C. M. Bollard, C. M. Rooney, and H. E. Heslop Immunotherapy for Epstein-Barr Virus-Associated Cancers in Children Oncologist, February 1, 2003; 8(1): 83 - 98. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. E. Heslop, F. K. Stevenson, and J. J. Molldrem Immunotherapy of Hematologic Malignancy Hematology, January 1, 2003; 2003(1): 331 - 349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
| Copyright © 2002 by American Society of Hematology Online ISSN: 1528-0020 | |||||||||
Top
Abstract
Introduction
interferon,
). EBV specificity of the CTL lines
was indicated by the fact that all CTL lines showed strong lysis of the
autologous EBV-LCL, whereas little or no reactivity was observed
against HLA-mismatched LCLs, autologous PHA blasts, allogeneic
HLA-mismatched PHA blasts, and Daudi cell line. Moreover, antibody
inhibition studies showed that cytotoxicity was mostly class I
HLA-restricted (excluding the case of a CTL line that was more than
70% CD4+ and showed a class II HLA-restriction). Table
) and 2 (
),
(B) refers to patients 3 (
), 5 (
), and 7 (
); and (C) refers to
patients 4 (