4.6 Article

Role of natural killer cell subsets and natural cytotoxicity receptors for the outcome of immunotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia

Journal

ONCOIMMUNOLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/2162402X.2015.1041701

Keywords

acute myeloid leukemia; immunotherapy; natural cytotoxicity receptors; natural killer cells

Funding

  1. Meda Pharma, Bad Homburg, Germany
  2. Swedish Research Council [2012-2047, 2012-3205, 2011-3003]
  3. Swedish Society for Medical Research (SSMF)
  4. Swedish Society of Medicine [SLS-406151]
  5. Swedish Cancer Society [CAN 212/595, CAN 213/550]
  6. Swedish state via the ALF agreement [ALFGBG-151441, ALFGBG-292701]
  7. Erna and Victor Hasselblad foundation
  8. Torsten and Ragnar Soderberg Foundation
  9. IngaBritt and Arne Lundberg Foundation
  10. BioCARE - a National Strategic Research Program at University of Gothenburg
  11. Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In a phase IV trial, 84 patients (age 18-79) with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in first complete remission (CR) received cycles of immunotherapy with histamine dihydrochloride (HDC) and low-dose human recombinant interleukin 2 (IL-2) for 18 months to prevent leukemic relapse. During cycles, the treatment resulted in expansion of CD56(bright) (CD3 /16 /56(bright)) and CD16(+) (CD3 /16(+)/56(+)) natural killer (NK) cells in the blood along with increased NK cell expression of the natural cytotoxicity receptors (NCRs) NKp30 and NKp46. Multivariate analyses correcting for age and risk group demonstrated that high CD56(bright) NK cell counts and high expression of NKp30 or NKp46 on CD16(+) NK cells independently predicted leukemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS). Our results suggest that the dynamics of NK cell subsets and their NCR expression may determine the efficiency of relapse-preventive immunotherapy in AML.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available