4.7 Article

Immunophenotyping at the Time of Diagnosis Distinguishes Two Groups of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Patients: Implications for Adoptive Immunotherapy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 607-617

Publisher

IVYSPRING INT PUBL
DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.7.607

Keywords

NPC; EBV-specific CTL; immunotherapy; LMP1; immunophenotype

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [224 (30872981)]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Adoptive immunotherapy with EBV-specific CTLs (EBV-CTL) has been used to treat EBV-associated nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) but only a fraction of the patients shows noticeable clinical response. Patients and Methods: Sixty-seven newly diagnosed NPC patients from 2005 to 2007 and 21 healthy donors were collected. Immunological parameters and immune function of PBMCs and EBV-CTL were analyzed by flow cytometer analysis (FACS) and (51)Cr releasing experiment; Molecular characteristics on NPC tumor cells were investigated by immunochemical staining and statistic analysis. Results: NPC patients can be classified into two groups based on the percentage of CD(3+) T cells in peripheral blood before accepted any treatment, (>52.6%, mean-2SE from healthy controls, NPC Group 1; <52.6%, NPC Group 2). The patients in Group 2 showed a significant decrease of CD3(+)CD8(+) T-cells, CD3(+)CD4(+) T-cells and CD3(+)CD45RO(+) memory T cells, and increase of CD3-CD16(+) NK cells compared to Group 1 patients and healthy controls (P<0.001). EBV-specific T cell responses, were weaker in this group of patients and their tumor cells expressed lower levels of the EBV encoded latent membrane protein (LMP)-1 and HLA class II protein compared with the patients of NPC Group 1 (P<0.05). Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that NPC patients could be distinguished on the basis of their immune status which will affect the efficacy of EBV-CTL immunotherapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available