Numerous tumour-challenge experiments in immunized rodents and studies with cancer-prone genetically modified mice show that vaccines can prevent tumour onset and progression.
Effective prevention requires vaccination at an early stage of tumour formation. The ability of a vaccine to protect decreases when a precancerous lesion reaches a more advanced stage.
The main reason why vaccines are effective in tumour prevention is that the target is a small precancerous lesion. So, most of the difficulties that are encountered by vaccines in the therapy of established tumours do not apply to prevention.
The immune mechanisms leading to the blocking of carcinogenesis are not solely dependent on cytotoxic T cells — they mostly rest on the coordinated activation of multiple mechanisms. CD4+ T-helper cells, the release of interferon-γ and the production of antibodies are often the key features of a sustained prevention.
The extended time-frame that characterizes tumour prevention favours the immune selection of escaping tumour-cell clones that have lost expression of target antigens. When the vaccine-elicited immune response is directed against antigens that control the neoplastic process (oncoantigens), the likelihood of this kind of selection is markedly reduced.
Oncoantigens expressed on tumour cell membranes are accessible to antibody-mediated reactions. These reactions are not impaired by down-modulation of major histocompatability complex class I (MHC-I) glycoproteins on the surface of tumour cells, which is a frequent mechanism by which tumours escape immune surveillance.
Because oncoantigens are self-antigens, there is the risk of vaccine-elicited autoimmune reactions. Overexpression of oncoantigens by the tumour and elicitation of low-avidity reactions in tolerant hosts render the immune reaction selective and reduce this risk.
Preclinical results in transgenic mice provide a rationale for the use of vaccines in the prevention of human tumours in high-risk individuals with multifocal pre-neoplastic lesions, a genetic predisposition to cancer or following carcinogenic exposures. Translation of these results to the clinical setting requires sequential approaches, starting from the prevention of tumour relapse in cancer patients after successful conventional management.
Despite tremendous progress in basic and epidemiological research, effective prevention of most types of cancer is still lacking. Vaccine use in cancer therapy remains a promising but difficult prospect. However, new mouse models that recapitulate significant features of human cancer progression show that vaccines can keep precancerous lesions under control and might eventually be the spearhead of effective and reliable ways to prevent cancer.
Attempts to prevent illness have been sought from time immemorial. Vaccination has since proved its great worth in the prevention of once fatal illnesses caused by bacteria and viruses1. In developed countries, however, cancer is now outstripping wounds and infectious diseases as a cause of death, and there is an urgent need for effective ways of preventing it2.
Many cancers are caused by exogenous agents. Exposure to industrial carcinogens is the subject of legislation, and the recreational contact with carcinogens such as tobacco smoke, alcohol and sunlight is being discouraged through educational information. The significance of these preventive measures is great, as they are markedly reducing the incidence of some common and lethal types of tumours, namely lung cancer, squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck, and melanoma3. As microorganisms are the cause of 10–20% of all human tumours2, vaccines that reduce infection with viruses that cause cancer are of the utmost importance in primary cancer prevention. Vaccination against hepatitis B virus, for example, has reduced the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma4 whereas vaccines against human papilloma viruses are expected to greatly reduce the incidence of cervical carcinoma5,6.
New ways to control the endogenous causes of cancer are needed, as these causes cannot be avoided. One example is cancer promotion caused by physiological oestrogen stimulation of the mammary gland during fertile life. The duration of fertile life — which could be increased by, for example, an early menarche — is a significant risk factor for breast cancer in women7. One form of control of endogenous causes is provided by the chronic administration of drugs that target components of the signalling pathways — an approach called chemoprevention8. For instance, selective oestrogen-receptor modulators such as tamoxifen can be chronically administered to women to reduce the risk of breast cancer9. However, in its present form, chemoprevention is only partially effective and can also be accompanied by serious side effects. For instance, although tamoxifen halves the risk of invasive breast cancer in high-risk women, it also increases the risk of endometrial cancer, deep-vein thrombosis and cerebral vascular incidents9. The ideal preventive agent should obviously cause no side effects, as it will be given to healthy people.
As vaccines are minimally associated with side effects and invasive procedures, it is time to consider whether they can also be used to prevent tumour development. However, three questions must first be unequivocally answered: why should vaccines be particularly effective in cancer prevention, which antigens should be targeted, and who should be vaccinated?
Therapeutic versus preventive vaccines
Anti-tumour vaccines are effective in preventing a subsequent tumour challenge in animals — this is a well-substantiated observation established through countless tumour-challenge experiments performed in immunized animals (immunization-tumour challenge experiments) using many different fast-growing and aggressive mouse tumours10. In these experiments, immunization against a tumour antigen is followed by a subcutaneous, intramuscular or orthotopic challenge with a lethal dose of a transplantable tumour. Vaccines being tested in these models range from those consisting of live, irradiated or genetically modified tumour cells, dendritic cells, proteins, peptides or naked DNA. Each of these vaccine preparations can be given alone or combined with cytokines and co-stimulatory factors. In a few cases, vaccines are given in association with the removal of regulatory T cell (Treg) suppressor activity11,12. In mice, effective immunity is often elicited and a successful pre-immunization against almost any kind of tumour seems to be feasible.
The essential distinction between prevention and cure, however, has been forgotten in the transition from experimental models to clinical practice, as vaccines are used for therapy rather than for prevention of human tumours. Transfer of these experimental results to the clinical setting and the prospect of curing cancer with therapeutic vaccines are therefore seen as feasible goals. In 2005, more than 200 clinical trials were in progress (see the ClinicalTrials.Gov Database of the National Cancer Institute and the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Protocols Database web sites). The results achieved so far, however, have been poor; partial responses are rare and complete responses extremely rare. Only in a few patients has the progression of previously growing tumours been halted and prolonged survivals observed. As benefits that are due to vaccination have been substantiated in no more than a handful of cases12, new strategies are being explored11,12, including vaccines based on engineered viral vectors, various approaches with dendritic cells, and strategies that are aimed at inhibiting immunosuppressive cells of lymphoid or myeloid origin. Perhaps vaccination alone is not the solution for treating existing tumours, and evidence is emerging that shows that combining immunotherapy with chemotherapy, radiotherapy, anti-angiogenic therapy and other approaches could yield synergistic or additive results13,14.
Therapeutic vaccines are also poorly effective in mouse models of cancer, so the lack of benefit seen in clinical trials is perhaps not surprising. We15,16,17 and others18 have shown that only a minority of tumour-bearing mice are cured by therapeutic vaccination, and even this limited efficacy is only obtained when the vaccine is given soon after the challenge. At present, monoclonal antibodies (mAb), based on B-cell immune responses, and not therapeutic vaccines to activate T-cell immune responses, have passed the acid test of clinical trials. A stark incongruity is evident between the clinical efficacy of B-cell-derived mAbs — such as trastuzumab for breast cancers that overexpress the protein product of ERBB2 (also known as HER2/NEU)19 or rituximab for lymphomas that express CD20 (Ref. 20) — and less successful attempts to selectively activate a T-cell response, primarily cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), by vaccination12.
Vaccines prevent cancer: preclinical models
The CTL chauvinism that dictates vaccine strategies21 stems from immunization-tumour challenge experiments showing that CTL reactivity is the only way to block a fast-growing tumour challenge. Conventional mouse models, however, do not provide an accurate assessment of prevention, as they measure acute rejection of a tumour challenge performed when mice are optimally immunized (Box 1).
More accurate models to investigate cancer prevention are those in which the entire natural history of the tumour in a single mouse is investigated. The conventional system is to subject mice to carcinogens22, whereas it is now more convenient to study genetically engineered mice (GEMs) that harbour activated oncogenes and/or inactivated tumour-suppressor genes that predispose them to develop cancer23. As assessment of the ability of a vaccine to inhibit the onset of an autochthonous tumour and control the progression of precancerous lesions in GEMs requires long experiments (typically 1 year or longer), relatively few studies have been completed. They do, however, provide a coherent picture of the great potential of vaccines to induce sustained prevention of cancer and demonstrate that a vaccine-alerted immune system effectively blocks aggressive carcinogenesis driven by the overexpression of distinct oncogenes (Table 1a,b).
The degree of protection varies from one model to another and within the same model, ranging from a mere delay in tumour latency to complete protection from tumour onset for 1 year or even to near the end of the natural lifespan. The most successful vaccines have been combinations of the antigen with other immunological signals such as microbial CpG sequences24, cytokines25,26,27,28, allogeneic glycoproteins of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC)27,28,29 and/or co-stimulatory molecules30. Analysis of the variables involved in vaccine design indicates that different formulations (for example, cells, proteins, peptides or DNA) are equally effective, provided that the immune system is exposed to high concentrations of the antigen combined with potent adjuvants.
The data also endorse the concept that for vaccination to be effective it must be started at an early stage of tumour formation. Its ability to protect decreases or disappears when the precancerous lesion reaches a more advanced stage26,31,32. It is clear, therefore, that a vaccine capable of preventing cancer development cannot be expected to cure an established tumour. Vaccine-induced block of tumour onset that is macroscopically evident in the organs at risk is mirrored by microscopic findings showing that very few cells, if any, still express the transgene. In the protected mice, pathological observations coupled with gene-expression-profile analysis show that a vaccine can delay the progression of advanced pre-cancerous lesions29,33 for long periods. Various GEMs show true cancer syndromes with the synchronous or metachronous occurrence of neoplasms in several organs34,35,36 and vaccines have proved highly effective in preventing these tumours of diverse origin34,36. However, in some models, specific tumour types escape surveillance — in particular, sarcomas with low expression of the target antigens34. This is an important issue as the tumour histotype cannot always be predicted in humans.
Immune mechanisms of tumour prevention
As carcinogenesis is a lengthy process, the protection afforded by a preventive vaccine acquires significance only as time progresses. This requirement for long-term effectiveness of the protective immune response is the source of a significant difference between cancer prevention and therapy. Cancer therapy is typically given over a few months (around 1% of the patient's lifespan), and the most prolonged adjuvant therapies, such as tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors that are used to treat breast cancer, are typically given for 5 years (5–10% of the patient's lifespan)37,38. Acute management with cytotoxic drugs, as well as treatment with CTL and natural killer (NK) cells, seeks to rapidly destroy a tumour. By contrast, cancer prevention necessitates treatments that must be protracted throughout the individual's life to counteract the unpredictable and unremitting generation of neoplastic cells (Table 2).
This extended time-frame for tumour prevention must be considered in the development of vaccines: the vaccine must be able to elicit immune memory mechanisms that persist for very long periods. Results obtained by different laboratories with GEMs that are transgenic for the rat Erbb2 gene show that several vaccines afford almost lifelong protection against a genetic predisposition to mammary cancer (Table 1). In all cases, a long-lasting protective memory relies on repeated booster vaccinations. Identification of immune signals that could reduce this need for frequent boosting is a key issue in preventive vaccination research. However, unlike viruses (in which the requirement for memory maintenance has been thoroughly investigated39) induction of a prolonged immune memory to tumours is a more difficult task. In both humans and GEMs, tumour antigens are mostly self-antigens that are overexpressed by the tumour. This implies that a vaccine should be able to reverse a tolerant state40,41 and activate low-avidity immune reaction mechanisms that escaped central tolerance42,43. The requirements for maintaining a sustained low-avidity immune response are not clear.
Because rat Erbb2-transgenic mice mirror several features of the stepwise mammary carcinogenesis in women44, these mice have been the most thoroughly investigated (see the BALB-neuT web page on the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Models web site). In BALB/c mice that are transgenic for activated rat Erbb2 (BALB-neuT GEMs), tolerance to the transgene Erbb2 impedes the activation of a high-avidity CD8+ CTL response42,45 to the dominant epitope of ERBB2 protein, which is recognized by wild-type BALB/c mice46. Despite the lack of such a crucial component of immune reactivity, we and others have shown that many different vaccines delay the onset of these mammary carcinomas and significantly extend the tumour-free survival25,27,28,30,32,42,47,48. The study of BALB-neuT GEMs that are rendered deficient in various immune components, as well as adoptive transfer experiments, have made it clear that the protection afforded rests on the activation of CD4+ T cells. This activation results in the release of interferon-γ (IFNγ) and the induction of anti-ERBB2 antibodies (Fig. 1). As most immunization-tumour challenge studies that were performed with ERBB2+ tumours emphasized the role of CTLs in tumour inhibition, it was somewhat surprising to find that anti-ERBB2 antibodies are both necessary and sufficient for protecting BALB-neuT GEMs, and that the IgG2a isotype is the most effective42,47,49,50. CD4+ T-helper (TH) cells that release IFNγ have a central role in controlling the switch of antibody isotype to IgG2a51. However, it seems that this is not their only activity. In protected mice, T cells infiltrate precancerous lesions and recruit granulocytes, orchestrating complex reactions of delayed-type hypersensitivity and inhibiting angiogenesis42,45. Adoptive-transfer experiments show that better protection is transferred when the recipient mice receive both antibodies and T cells from the immunized donor mice42, indicating that effective vaccines should be designed to elicit both humoral and cellular immunity. Anti-ERBB2 antibodies and IFNγ-producing T cells are easily monitored. The antibody response in young vaccinated mice predicts freedom from tumour onset at 1 year of age34. These parameters might therefore provide a way to monitor the vaccine efficacy in GEMs (and possibly in humans) and to design and optimize vaccination schedules and strategies.
Modulation of Treg cells combined with vaccine administration seems a promising way to improve the array of the immune mechanisms that are activated by a vaccine and improve their persistence52. Recent work by Ercolini et al.41 shows that latent pools of high-avidity CD8+ T cells are recruited by the removal of CD4+ CD25+ Treg cells during anti-ERBB2 protein vaccination in FVB-neuN GEMs. These findings fit in well with the burgeoning data on the role of Treg cells in controlling the reaction against self antigens53,54. Ongoing experiments on BALB-neuT GEMs show that the removal of Treg cells combined with DNA vaccination activates CD8+ CTLs against ERBB2 protein and extends the protective memory to almost the lifespan of immunized mice (E. Ambrosino and F.C., unpublished observations).
Therapeutic versus preventive mechanisms
There are many reasons why vaccination is poorly effective as a tumour therapy. The kinetics of tumour growth might just surpass the destructive potential of the immune system55. Tumours also orchestrate a large array of immunosuppressive activities56 and build a micro-environment that does not allow leukocyte extravasation and local recruitment of immune cells57. Proliferating tumours resist immune attack not only because of their cell number, but also because they actively secrete cytokines. These cytokines — for example, interleukin-10 (IL-10)58— can downmodulate the immune response. Other cytokines — for example, colony stimulating factors (CSFs) and vascular-endothelial growth factor (VEGF)59—elicit the expansion of immunosuppressive immature myeloid cells that express the Gr-1 (also known as Ly6G), MAC1 (also known as CD11b) and platelet/endothelial-cell-adhesion molecule (PECAM1, also known as CD31) surface markers.
In addition, following their initial genetic alteration, tumour cells become genomically unstable. Fuelled both by the crisis that precedes telomerase activation and by mutations in caretaker genes, this instability increases as the tumour progresses60. Therefore, an established tumour can be seen as an aggregate of millions of genetically and epigenetically different and unstable cells. The selective pressure exerted by the immune system, whether activated spontaneously or by vaccination, leads to the selection of tumour clones that either no longer express the antigen targeted by the immune attack or that can pre-empt immune-effector mechanisms61. Through this 'immunoediting', an immune response that is not strong enough to lead to tumour eradication results in the selection of tumour variants that are less antigenic and less sensitive to immune attack; a situation that is sometimes observed in clinical trials. Preventive vaccines that resulted in such an adverse effect would be totally unacceptable. Their chances of success must therefore be magnified to the utmost by selecting target antigens that are essential for tumour growth and progression (oncoantigens) (Box 2).
Recognition of antigens by CTLs rests on the expression of the antigenic protein itself and correct functioning of the machinery that leads to the membrane translocation of class I MHC glycoproteins (MHC-I) presenting a fragment (peptide) of the antigenic protein62. Large masses of genetically unstable tumour cells escape CTL recognition through downmodulation of the antigenic protein, MHC-I or peptide-processing machinery. Between 70% and 95% of all human tumours downregulate MHC-I expression63,64, an impressive percentage that is higher than the percentage of tumours that have p53 mutations and is on a par with that of telomerase activation. As complete loss of MHC-I activates the NK-cell reaction, tumour cells that express a low level of MHC-I simultaneously minimize recognition by both T- and NK-cells65. Although several other molecular pathways through which tumours evade a CTL attack have been described66, appraisal of their frequency in human tumours is still lacking.
The main reason why vaccines that are poorly effective in tumour therapy are effective in tumour prevention is that the target of the prevention is an oncoantigen that has not yet initiated tumorigenesis (or at least not at a level that we can detect) or is only a precancerous lesion. This implies that most of the difficulties of using vaccines in the therapy of malignant tumours simply do not apply to prevention (Fig. 2). Although recent data on cancer progression have shifted the onset of genetic instability to the early phases of the natural history of tumours, the accumulation of genetic 'hits' that leads to cancer progression is a function of time60. The low proliferation rate of indolent pre-neoplastic lesions cuts down the likelihood of selecting immune-resistant clones, whereas the vaccine-alerted immune response might inhibit the lesion before complete neoplastic transformation takes place. Usually, precancerous lesions are not yet sheltered from the immune attack by the fibroblastic stroma, nor do they show either the tissue organization or the immunosuppressive abilities of large, proliferating tumour masses67.
Precancerous lesions might also be ignored by the immune system as they are too small to be perceived. This avoids the induction of various suppressive and regulatory cells and peripheral tolerance triggered by inappropriate antigen presentation, as happens when tumour antigens are presented by proliferating tumour cells in the absence of co-stimulatory signals36,68. By contrast, when an ignored antigen is first recognized through optimal presentation by the vaccine, the probability of eliciting an efficacious immune response is much greater. Therefore, a person with a precancerous lesion might be expected to mount a more effective response than a patient with a tumour who has already been treated in various ways. The chances that a vaccine-alerted immune system will eradicate a precancerous lesion should be greater than when dealing with an invasive tumour67.
Target antigens for cancer prevention
The extended time-frame that characterizes tumour prevention makes immune selection of antigen-loss clones that escape the vaccine more likely. This possibility calls for the use of target antigens that are directly involved in promoting the neoplastic process, which we have called oncoantigens in this Review (Box 2). Targeting the immune response against such antigens minimizes the likelihood of selecting antigen-loss clones. When this kind of target is expressed on the cell surface (membrane oncoantigens), a vaccine's ability to activate an antibody response will also minimize the importance of the loss of MHC-I, which is required for presentation of the antigen to T cells. In addition, once a persistent immunity is elicited, it should remain effective for long periods, which will offset the appearance of genetically unstable tumour cells. Targeting the immune response to oncoantigens and inducing an antibody response are therefore key elements for the success of preventive vaccines.
The long-lasting prevention of mammary and salivary carcinomas that arise in GEMs that are transgenic for rat Erbb2 probably rests mostly on the fact that the immune response is elicited against the ERBB2 protein, which is a tyrosine-kinase membrane receptor. The ERBB2 receptor is not only the product of an oncogene that is instrumental for carcinogenesis69, but also an antigen recognized by the immune system — a combination of properties that makes it a very attractive oncoantigen. In GEMs that are transgenic for the rat Erbb2 oncogene, mammary and salivary carcinogenesis is driven by ERBB2-receptor expression, whereas downmodulation or loss of the receptor blocks tumour progression29,70, at least during the early phases. In the course of tumour progression, additional genetic hits might make ERBB2-receptor signalling redundant as other oncogenes and signalling pathways are activated71. As preventive vaccines operate during the early phases of carcinogenesis, effective inhibition of the ERBB2 receptor arrests the whole process and renders the selection of ERBB2-receptor-loss variants unlikely. The ERBB2 receptor and many other oncoantigens are ideal targets in tumour prevention. This is because their key role in the maintenance of the transformed phenotype restrains the emergence of antigen-loss variants35,72, provided that preventive vaccination is undertaken during the early carcinogenic stages before further genetic hits take place.
A second key feature of the ERBB2 receptor is its membrane localization, which preserves its antigenicity and accessibility to antibodies even in escaping tumour-cell clones that express little or no MHC-I. Although processed ERBB2-receptor peptides presented by MHC-I are recognized by CD8+ CTLs73, ERBB2-expressing tumour cells can avoid T-cell recognition by downregulating MHC-I (Refs 74, 75). One of the Achilles' heels of T-cell immunity is that immune recognition is disjointed from the function of the target antigen because T cells recognize pro-cessed peptides rather than functional proteins. By contrast, antibodies bind to target antigens that are functional and on the cell surface, independently of their processing and MHC-I presentation. In this case, the only escape would be through the selection of antigen-loss variants. Targeting the immune response to membrane oncoantigens minimizes the emergence of immunoresistant tumour variants that are due to the loss of either the antigen or MHC-I. Relatively few of the tumour antigens that are commonly targeted by therapeutic vaccines are oncoantigens or membrane oncoantigens because such properties are of little relevance for CTL-based immunotherapeutic strategies.
The risks of preventive cancer vaccines
As for all preventive medicine, an extremely low incidence of adverse effects is a prerequisite of preventive cancer vaccines. Although, in general, vaccines are among the safest products of modern medicine, they are constantly the subject of suspicion and apprehension76. In a patient with a life-threatening cancer, the side effects of treatment are, on balance, worth putting up with as long as benefit is achieved, and might be evaluated as surrogate markers of an effective immune response. For example, in patients with melanoma the appearance of vitiligo following therapeutic vaccination is taken as evidence that the immune response is destroying melanin-forming cells77. However, this sort of side effect would be unacceptable for preventive vaccines that are to be given to healthy people for long periods of their life.
Inflammatory reactions that accompany the destruction of an anticancer vaccine by leukocytes are usually local and transient (Fig. 3). The release of pro-inflammatory cytokines might induce a mild, systemic flu-like syndrome that is usually transient and tapers off with repeated administrations of the vaccine. A major cause of concern is the choice of adjuvants. Whereas vaccines that are approved for the prevention of infectious diseases use alum — a bland, well-tolerated adjuvant — vaccines used in cancer therapy adopt more toxic adjuvants — for example, incomplete freund's adjuvant — because they induce more potent anti-tumour immune responses. Experimental vaccines that are tested in mice use various powerful adjuvants, ranging from complete Freund's adjuvant to cytokines such as IL-12. Vaccine components might also have an adjuvant role. Local damage associated with in vivo electroporation and the presence of CpG sequences have an adjuvant role in DNA vaccines, whereas with whole-cell vaccines many antigenic signals can have an adjuvant role78. Experimental evidence shows that almost all vaccines fail to immunize the host if the antigen is administered without adjuvants79. In the translation from preclinical studies to clinical application, the choice of adjuvant remains a crucial and poorly explored issue that might cause dramatic losses of immunogenicity.
The most important long-term concern is the induction of autoimmunity80, which depends on the kind of tumour antigen that is targeted and the response that is elicited. We found no signs of autoimmunity in the heart, kidney and liver of 1-year-old GEMs that were transgenic for rat Erbb2 and that had been protected against mammary cancer development by repeated rat Erbb2 DNA vaccinations42. In these mice, anti-ERBB2 immunity successfully controlled the progression of mammary pre-neoplastic lesions that overexpressed the ERBB2 receptor through coordinate activation of low-avidity reaction mechanisms. A low-avidity response might be crucial in discriminating between quantitative differences in the expression of the target antigen81. The absence of overt autoimmune lesions is attributable to the combination of the poor expression of ERBB2 oncoantigen by the tissues of adult mice and the inability of transgenic mice to generate a high-affinity immune response. In contrast to high-avidity mAbs, the immune response elicited by immunization in naturally tolerant mice (and possibly patients) is not expected to attack the heart or nervous system. Signs of autoimmunity were only found in the mammary gland of vaccinated mice82. This gland continues to develop in adult life after hormone stimulation when differentiating cells that overexpress the ERBB2 receptor are present, and it also maintains its normal structure83. The alteration of the histological structure of the mammary gland in long-term vaccinated mice is restricted to the cells that overexpress ERBB2, and resulted in the reduction of branching of ducts and lactation ability, an acceptable price for carcinoma prevention. Generation of tissue-restricted autoimmune responses might even be an additional approach to cancer immunotherapy that will allow treatment of cancers arising from non-vital organs such as breast, prostate, thyroid and testis. This issue is of practical importance for young women at hereditary risk of breast cancer, for whom an 'immunological mastectomy' would represent a great improvement over prophylactic surgical double mastectomy84.
Even if lengthy studies on vaccine-mediated cancer prevention in GEMs have not disclosed severe side effects, induction of autoimmunity remains the greatest theoretical concern in the use of preventive cancer vaccines aimed at inducing long-term protection in healthy individuals. Its avoidance must be sought through further, accurate preclinical investigation.
Who would be vaccinated?
The data on the ability of vaccines to prevent a tumour emerging from immunization-tumour challenge experiments and those from GEMs cannot be directly translated to humans. This is not only because of the idiosyncrasy of each experimental system, but mostly because it is almost impossible to rule out the possibility that the different patterns and timing of transgene expression in GEMs lead to an immune tolerance to oncoantigens different from that of humans. Nevertheless, the results reviewed here provide a serious preclinical rationale and indicate that vaccines are an effective prospect for the prevention of carcinogenesis. Induction of a specific immune response against the most common onco-antigens overexpressed by pre-neoplastic lesions might constitute a new scenario in cancer prevention.
The translation of this rationale into novel preventive treatments requires sequential clinical approaches, as vaccination of a healthy individual is not the same as a compassionate attempt to help a patient with advanced cancer. Given the long latency of tumour development and the many difficult issues there are to tackle, early trials should be aimed at using vaccines to prevent tumour relapse in patients at high risk after successful tumour management. Several cancer vaccines are now entering phase III clinical testing in the setting of minimal residual disease, in which they are aimed at preventing tumour recurrence and prolonging survival. Even if they fail to show clinical benefit, as the immune system of these patients is imprinted by the primary tumour and weakened by previous treatments, they will nevertheless provide preliminary information on the ability of vaccines to overcome tolerance to oncoantigens and on the risks of autoimmunity.
Vaccination against selected oncoantigens of healthy people who have a specific genetic risk of cancer, who have been exposed to an exogenous carcinogen, or who bear multifocal pre-neoplastic lesions (such as those with the basal nevous syndrome35 would provide a more appropriate scenario. One can also envisage a further application of vaccines to prevent tumours in the general population85. Because of the extensive data on ERBB2 as a model oncoantigen, clinical trials that are focused on this antigen would be reasonable. Early intervention would possibly lead to a reduced incidence of carcinomas with the worst prognosis, whereas a compensatory increase in other less-aggressive subtypes might not be precluded. However, as only about 20–30% of breast carcinomas overexpress ERBB2, a primary prevention trial would require a large number of patients and long-term follow-up to have the statistical power to show an effect. The logistical hurdles and the costs of such a trial would not be too dissimilar from those of other large cancer-prevention trials9.
Moreover, as we remain ignorant of what enables immunity to be maintained for decades86, how can 'successful' cancer vaccination be assessed before waiting for disease development? Can induction of an antibody response to oncoantigens be equated to a successful result? The positive data from the clinical trials with mAbs indicate that the vaccine elicitation of a de novo response against an oncoantigen is a significant surrogate end point. Initially, vaccine boosting schedules will be based on the induction and maintenance of a significant antibody response. How much the preventive ability of vaccine is optimized by an additional triggering of IFNγ-producing T cells and other components of cell-mediated immunity will probably only be established through the clinical use of vaccine formulations that induce a humoral or cellular response individually or in combination.
It is expected that increasingly predictive oncology will assess the individual risk of cancer as a function of sex, age, family history, genetic makeup and lifestyle (see the American Cancer Society Who is at Risk and the Your Disease Risk web sites), whereas gene expression profiles and molecular biology outline the probability that a particular oncoantigen will be expressed by the tumour for which the person is at risk. By combining this information, one can select those for whom preventive vaccination might be useful.
Plotkin, S. A. Vaccines: past, present and future. Nature Med. 11 (Suppl.), S5–S11 (2005).
World Cancer Report (eds Stewart, B. W. & Kleihues, P. ) (IARC Press, Lyon, 2003).
Stewart, B. W. & Coates, A. S. Cancer prevention: a global perspective. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 392–403 (2005).
Chang, M. H. et al. Hepatitis B vaccination and hepatocellular carcinoma rates in boys and girls. JAMA 284, 3040–3042 (2000).
Villa, L. L. et al. Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncol. 6, 271–278 (2005).
Goymer, P. Gardasil — the perfect guard? Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 840 (2005).
Colditz, G. A. Epidemiology and prevention of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 14, 768–772 (2005).
Sporn, M. B. & Suh, N. Chemoprevention: an essential approach to controlling cancer. Nature Rev. Cancer 2, 537–543 (2002).
Cuzick, J. et al. Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials. Lancet 361, 296–300 (2003).
Ostrand-Rosenberg, S. Animal models of tumor immunity, immunotherapy and cancer vaccines. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 16, 143–150 (2004).
Finn, O. J. Cancer vaccines: between the idea and the reality. Nature Rev. Immunol. 3, 630–641 (2003).
Rosenberg, S. A., Yang, J. C. & Restifo, N. P. Cancer immunotherapy: moving beyond current vaccines. Nature Med. 10, 909–915 (2004).
Mihich, E. Cellular immunity for cancer chemoimmunotherapy — an overview. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 52, 661–662 (2003).
Cuadros, C. et al. Cooperative effect between immunotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy leads to effective tumor rejection in tolerant Her-2/neu mice. Cancer Res. 63, 5895–5901 (2003).
Cavallo, F. et al. Protective and curative potential of vaccination with interleukin-2-gene-transfected cells from a spontaneous mouse mammary denocarcinoma. Cancer Res. 53, 5067–5070 (1993).
Cavallo, F. et al. Antitumor efficacy of adenocarcinoma cells engineered to produce interleukin 12 (IL-12) or other cytokines compared with exogenous IL-12. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 89, 1049–1058 (1997).
Allione, A. et al. Immunizing and curative potential of replicating and nonreplicating murine mammary adenocarcinoma cells engineered with interleukin (IL)-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-7, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor α, granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor, and γ-interferon gene or admixed with conventional adjuvants. Cancer Res. 54, 6022–6026 (1994).
Zitvogel, L. et al. Eradication of established murine tumors using a novel cell-free vaccine: dendritic cell-derived exosomes. Nature Med. 4, 594–600 (1998).
Vogel, C. L. et al. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 719–726 (2002).
Maloney, D. G. et al. IDEC-C2B8: results of a phase I multiple-dose trial in patients with relapsed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J. Clin. Oncol. 15, 3266–3274 (1997).
Houghton, A. N. & Lloyd, K. O. Stuck in the MUC on the long and winding road. Nature Med. 4, 270–271 (1998).
Noguchi, Y., Jungbluth, A., Richards, E. C. & Old, L. J. Effect of interleukin 12 on tumor induction by 3-methylcholanthrene. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 93, 11798–11801 (1996). Shows that IL-12-mediated stimulation of the immune response effectively counteracts chemical carcinogenesis.
Green, J. E. & Hudson, T. The promise of genetically engineered mice for cancer prevention studies. Nature Rev. Cancer 5, 184–198 (2005).
Woodland, D. L. & Blackman, M. A. Vaccine development: baring the 'dirty little secret'. Nature Med. 11, 715–716 (2005).
Rovero, S. et al. Insertion of the DNA for the 163–171 peptide of IL1β enables a DNA vaccine encoding p185(neu) to inhibit mammary carcinogenesis in Her-2/neu transgenic BALB/c mice. Gene Ther. 8, 447–452 (2001).
Spadaro, M. et al. Cure of mammary carcinomas in Her-2 transgenic mice through sequential stimulation of innate (neo-adjuvant IL-12) and adaptive (DNA vaccine electroporation) immunity. Clin. Cancer Res. 11, 1941–1952 (2005).
Nanni, P. et al. Combined allogeneic tumor cell vaccination and systemic interleukin 12 prevents mammary carcinogenesis in HER-2/neu transgenic mice. J. Exp. Med. 194, 1195–1205 (2001). Shows that rat Erbb2 -transgenic mice vaccinated with a combination of ERBB2 antigen, allogeneic MHC molecules and IL-12 show complete and sustained prevention of mammary carcinogenesis and that the protective mechanisms are based on IFNγ and antibodies.
De Giovanni, C. et al. Immunoprevention of HER-2/neu transgenic mammary carcinoma through an interleukin 12-engineered allogeneic cell vaccine. Cancer Res. 64, 4001–4009 (2004).
Quaglino, E. et al. Concordant morphologic and gene expression data show that a vaccine halts HER-2/neu preneoplastic lesions. J. Clin. Invest 113, 709–717 (2004).
Cappello, P. et al. LAG-3 enables DNA vaccination to persistently prevent mammary carcinogenesis in HER-2/neu transgenic BALB/c mice. Cancer Res. 63, 2518–2525 (2003).
Ye, X., McCarrick, J., Jewett, L. & Knowles, B. B. Timely immunization subverts the development of peripheral nonresponsiveness and suppresses tumor development in simian virus 40 tumor antigen-transgenic mice. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 91, 3916–3920 (1994).
Spadaro, M. et al. Immunological inhibition of carcinogenesis. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 53, 204–216 (2004).
Astolfi, A. et al. Gene expression analysis of immune-mediated arrest of tumorigenesis in a transgenic mouse model of HER-2/neu-positive basal-like mammary carcinoma. Am. J. Pathol. 166, 1205–1216 (2005).
Croci, S. et al. Immunological prevention of a multigene cancer syndrome. Cancer Res. 64, 8428–8434 (2004).
Vogt, A. et al. Immunoprevention of basal cell carcinomas with recombinant hedgehog-interacting protein. J. Exp. Med. 199, 753–761 (2004).
Willimsky, G. & Blankenstein, T. Sporadic immunogenic tumors avoid destruction by inducing T cell tolerance. Nature 437, 141–146 (2005).
Fabian, C. J. & Kimler, B. F. Selective estrogen-receptor modulators for primary prevention of breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 1644–1655 (2005).
Cuzick, J. Aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer prevention. J. Clin. Oncol. 23, 1636–1643 (2005).
Antia, R., Ganusov, V. V. & Ahmed, R. The role of models in understanding CD8+ T-cell memory. Nature Rev. Immunol. 5, 101–111 (2005).
Reilly, R. T. et al. The collaboration of both humoral and cellular HER-2/neu-targeted immune responses is required for the complete eradication of HER-2/neu-expressing tumors. Cancer Res. 61, 880–883 (2001).
Ercolini, A. M. et al. Recruitment of latent pools of high-avidity CD8+ T cells to the antitumor immune response. J. Exp. Med. 201, 1591–1602 (2005). Shows that ERBB2-expanded CD4+ CD25+ T reg cells are a significant barrier for the vaccine-mediated activation of high-avidity, ERBB2-specific CD8+ T cells. The fact that the immune response to ERBB2 vaccine is dampened by T reg cells offers the prospect of increasing the effects of vaccination by using treatments that are aimed at inhibiting T reg cells.
Quaglino, E. et al. Electroporated DNA vaccine clears away multifocal mammary carcinomas in Her-2/neu transgenic mice. Cancer Res. 64, 2858–2864 (2004).
Lustgarten, J., Dominguez, A. L. & Cuadros, C. The CD8+ T cell repertoire against Her-2/neu antigens in neu transgenic mice is of low avidity with antitumor activity. Eur. J. Immunol. 34, 752–761 (2004). Because of tolerance, the CD8+ T-cell response in rat Erbb2 -transgenic mice is of low avidity. However, these low-avidity cells are able to carry out a significant anti-ERBB2 immune response.
Pannellini, T., Forni, G. & Musiani, P. Immunobiology of her-2/neu transgenic mice. Breast Dis. 20, 33–42 (2004).
Rovero, S. et al. DNA vaccination against rat her-2/Neu p185 more effectively inhibits carcinogenesis than transplantable carcinomas in transgenic BALB/c mice. J. Immunol. 165, 5133–5142 (2000).
Nagata, Y. et al. Peptides derived from a wild-type murine proto-oncogene c-erbB-2/HER2/neu can induce CTL and tumor suppression in syngeneic hosts. J. Immunol. 159, 1336–1343 (1997).
Park, J. M. et al. Early role of CD4+ Th1 cells and antibodies in HER-2 adenovirus vaccine protection against autochthonous mammary carcinomas. J. Immunol. 174, 4228–4236 (2005).
Sakai, Y. et al. Vaccination by genetically modified dendritic cells expressing a truncated neu oncogene prevents development of breast cancer in transgenic mice. Cancer Res. 64, 8022–8028 (2004).
Katsumata, M. et al. Prevention of breast tumour development in vivo by downregulation of the p185neu receptor. Nature Med. 1, 644–648 (1995).
Nanni, P. et al. Immunoprevention of mammary carcinoma in HER-2/neu transgenic mice is IFN-γ and B cell dependent. J. Immunol. 173, 2288–2296 (2004).
Rodolfo, M. et al. IgG2a induced by interleukin (IL) 12-producing tumor cell vaccines but not IgG1 induced by IL-4 vaccine is associated with the eradication of experimental metastases. Cancer Res. 58, 5812–5817 (1998).
Peng, G. et al. Toll-like receptor 8-mediated reversal of CD4+ regulatory T cell function. Science 309, 1380–1384 (2005).
Shevach, E. M. Fatal attraction: tumors beckon regulatory T cells. Nature Med. 10, 900–901 (2004).
Sakaguchi, S. Naturally arising Foxp3-expressing CD25+CD4+ regulatory T cells in immunological tolerance to self and non-self. Nature Immunol. 6, 345–352 (2005).
Hanson, H. L. et al. Eradication of established tumors by CD8+ T cell adoptive immunotherapy. Immunity. 13, 265–276 (2000).
Mechanisms of Tumor Escape From The Immune Response (ed. Ochoa, A.) (Taylor & Francis, 2003).
Singh, S. et al. Stroma is critical for preventing or permitting immunological destruction of antigenic cancer cells. J. Exp. Med. 175, 139–146 (1992).
Petersson, M. et al. Constitutive IL-10 production accounts for the high NK sensitivity, low MHC class I expression, and poor transporter associated with antigen processing (TAP)-1/2 function in the prototype NK target YAC-1. J. Immunol. 161, 2099–2105 (1998).
Serafini, P. et al. Derangement of immune responses by myeloid suppressor cells. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 53, 64–72 (2004).
Vogelstein, B. & Kinzler, K. W. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nature Med. 10, 789–799 (2004).
Dunn, G. P., Old, L. J. & Schreiber, R. D. The immunobiology of cancer immunosurveillance and immunoediting. Immunity 21, 137–148 (2004).
Huppa, J. B. & Davis, M. M. T-cell–antigen recognition and the immunological synapse. Nature Rev. Immunol. 3, 973–983 (2003).
Garrido, F. & Algarra, I. MHC antigens and tumor escape from immune surveillance. Adv. Cancer Res. 83, 117–158 (2001).
Algarra, I. et al. The selection of tumor variants with altered expression of classical and nonclassical MHC class I molecules: implications for tumor immune escape. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 53, 904–910 (2004). References 63 and 64 show that the loss of MHC-I expression by cancer cells is a frequent and important mechanism by which they avoid T-cell recognition.
Giorda, E. et al. The antigen processing machinery of class I human leukocyte antigens: linked patterns of gene expression in neoplastic cells. Cancer Res. 63, 4119–4127 (2003).
Marincola, F. M., Jaffee, E. M., Hicklin, D. J. & Ferrone, S. Escape of human solid tumors from T-cell recognition: molecular mechanisms and functional significance. Adv. Immunol. 74, 181–273 (2000).
Finn, O. J. Premalignant lesions as targets for cancer vaccines. J. Exp. Med. 198, 1623–1626 (2003). An inspiring paper on the importance of finding new target antigens expressed by pre-malignant lesions.
Curcio, C. et al. Nonredundant roles of antibody, cytokines, and perforin in the eradication of established Her-2/neu carcinomas. J. Clin. Invest 111, 1161–1170 (2003). This paper shows that rejection of established rat ERBB2+ tumours does not rest on a single, dominant immune mechanism, but on a coordinated response involving CD4+and CD8+ T cells, antibodies, Fc receptors, CD1d-restricted NK T cells, macrophages, neutrophils, perforin and IFNγ.
Forni, G., Lollini, P. L., Musiani, P. & Colombo, M. P. Immunoprevention of cancer: is the time ripe? Cancer Res. 60, 2571–2575 (2000).
Nanni, P. et al. p185(neu) protein is required for tumor and anchorage-independent growth, not for cell proliferation of transgenic mammary carcinoma. Int. J. Cancer 87, 186–194 (2000).
Moody, S. E. et al. Conditional activation of Neu in the mammary epithelium of transgenic mice results in reversible pulmonary metastasis. Cancer Cell 2, 451–461 (2002).
Lollini, P. L. & Forni, G. Cancer immunoprevention: tracking down persistent tumor antigens. Trends Immunol. 24, 62–66 (2003).
Disis, M. L. et al. Generation of T-cell immunity to the HER-2/neu protein after active immunization with HER-2/neu peptide-based vaccines. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 2624–2632 (2002).
Choudhury, A. et al. Small interfering RNA (siRNA) inhibits the expression of the Her2/neu gene, upregulates HLA class I and induces apoptosis of Her2/neu positive tumor cell lines. Int. J. Cancer 108, 71–77 (2004). This paper shows an inverse relationship between ERBB2 and HLA class I molecule expression.
Lollini, P. L. et al. Down regulation of major histocompatibility complex class I expression in mammary carcinoma of HER-2/neu transgenic mice. Int. J. Cancer 77, 937–941 (1998).
Ritvo, P. et al. Vaccines in the public eye. Nature Med. 11, S20–S24 (2005).
Okamoto, T. et al. Anti-tyrosinase-related protein-2 immune response in vitiligo patients and melanoma patients receiving active-specific immunotherapy. J. Invest Dermatol. 111, 1034–1039 (1998).
Saha, A. et al. CpG oligonucleotides enhance the tumor antigen-specific immune response of an anti-idiotype antibody-based vaccine strategy in CEA transgenic mice. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 1–13 (2005).
Novel Vaccination Strategies (ed. Kaufmann, S. H. E.) (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2004).
Guevara-Patino, J. A., Turk, M. J., Wolchok, J. D. & Houghton, A. N. Immunity to cancer through immune recognition of altered self: studies with melanoma. Adv. Cancer Res. 90, 157–177 (2003).
Morgan, D. J. et al. Activation of low avidity CTL specific for a self epitope results in tumor rejection but not autoimmunity. J. Immunol. 160, 643–651 (1998).
Lo Iacono M. et al. A limited autoimmunity to p185neu elicited by DNA and allogeneic cell vaccine hampers the progression of preneoplastic lesions in HER-2/NEU transgenic mice. Int. J. Immunopathol. Pharmacol. 18, 351–363 (2005).
Jones, F. E. & Stern, D. F. Expression of dominant-negative ErbB2 in the mammary gland of transgenic mice reveals a role in lobuloalveolar development and lactation. Oncogene 18, 3481–3490 (1999).
Pupa, S. M. et al. Inhibition of mammary carcinoma development in HER-2/neu transgenic mice through induction of autoimmunity by xenogeneic DNA vaccination. Cancer Res. 65, 1071–1078 (2005).
Jonsen, A. R., Durfy, S. J., Burke, W. & Motulsky, A. G. The advent of the 'unpatients'. Nature Med. 2, 622–624 (1996).
Feldmann, M. & Steinman, L. Design of effective immunotherapy for human autoimmunity. Nature 435, 612–619 (2005).
Bibby, M. C. Orthotopic models of cancer for preclinical drug evaluation: advantages and disadvantages. Eur. J. Cancer 40, 852–857 (2004).
Kamb, A. What's wrong with our cancer models? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 161–165 (2005).
Cavallo, F., Curcio, C. & Forni, G. Immunotherapy and immunoprevention of cancer: where do we stand? Expert Opin. Biol. Ther. 5, 717–726 (2005).
Lollini, P. L. et al. New target antigens for cancer immunoprevention. Curr. Cancer Drug Targets 5, 221–228 (2005).
Yarden, Y. & Sliwkowski, M. X. Untangling the ErbB signalling network. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 127–137 (2001).
Bleeker, W. K. et al. Dual mode of action of a human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody for cancer therapy. J. Immunol. 173, 4699–4707 (2004).
Pollak, M. N. Insulin-like growth factors and neoplasia. Novartis Found. Symp. 262, 84–98 (2004).
Fedele, M. J., Lang, C. H. & Farrell, P. A. Immunization against IGF-I prevents increases in protein synthesis in diabetic rats after resistance exercise. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 280, E877–E885 (2001).
Kodama, K. et al. Insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1)-derived peptide protects against diabetes in NOD mice. Autoimmunity 37, 481–487 (2004).
Rafii, S. Vaccination against tumor neovascularization: promise and reality. Cancer Cell 2, 429–431 (2002).
Massaia, M. et al. Idiotype vaccination in human myeloma: generation of tumor-specific immune responses after high-dose chemotherapy. Blood 94, 673–683 (1999).
Timmerman, J. M. et al. Idiotype-pulsed dendritic cell vaccination for B-cell lymphoma: clinical and immune responses in 35 patients. Blood 99, 1517–1526 (2002).
Timmerman, J. M. & Levy, R. Correspondence 2: cancer vaccines: pessimism in check. Nature Med. 10, 1279 (2004).
Reilly, R. T. et al. HER-2/neu is a tumor rejection target in tolerized HER-2/neu transgenic mice. Cancer Res. 60, 3569–3576 (2000).
Amici, A., Venanzi, F. M. & Concetti, A. Genetic immunization against neu/erbB2 transgenic breast cancer. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 47, 183–190 (1998).
Tegerstedt, K. et al. A single vaccination with polyomavirus VP1/VP2Her2 virus-like particles prevents outgrowth of HER-2/neu-expressing tumors. Cancer Res. 65, 5953–5957 (2005).
Curiel, T. J. et al. Specific recruitment of regulatory T cells in ovarian carcinoma fosters immune privilege and predicts reduced survival. Nature Med. 10, 942–949 (2004).
Melani, C., Chiodoni, C., Forni, G. & Colombo, M. P. Myeloid cell expansion elicited by the progression of spontaneous mammary carcinomas in c-erbB-2 transgenic BALB/c mice suppresses immune reactivity. Blood 102, 2138–2145 (2003).
Sutmuller, R. P. et al. Synergism of cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 blockade and depletion of CD25+ regulatory T cells in antitumor therapy reveals alternative pathways for suppression of autoreactive cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses. J. Exp. Med. 194, 823–832 (2001).
Iinuma, T. et al. Prevention of gastrointestinal tumors based on adenomatous polyposis coli gene mutation by dendritic cell vaccine. J. Clin. Invest 113, 1307–1317 (2004).
Greiner, J. W., Zeytin, H., Anver, M. R. & Schlom, J. Vaccine-based therapy directed against carcinoembryonic antigen demonstrates antitumor activity on spontaneous intestinal tumors in the absence of autoimmunity. Cancer Res. 62, 6944–6951 (2002).
Zeytin, H. E. et al. Combination of a poxvirus-based vaccine with a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (celecoxib) elicits antitumor immunity and long-term survival in CEA.Tg/MIN mice. Cancer Res. 64, 3668–3678 (2004).
Steitz, J. et al. Evaluation of genetic melanoma vaccines in cdk4-mutant mice provides evidence for immunological tolerance against authochthonous melanomas in the skin. Int. J. Cancer 118, 373–380 (2006).
Degl'Innocenti, E. et al. Peripheral T cell tolerance occurs early during spontaneous prostate cancer development and can be rescued by dendritic cell immunization. Eur. J. Immunol. 35, 66–75 (2005).
Xia, J. et al. Prevention of spontaneous breast carcinoma by prophylactic vaccination with dendritic/tumor fusion cells. J. Immunol. 170, 1980–1986 (2003).
Esserman, L. J. et al. Vaccination with the extracellular domain of p185neu prevents mammary tumor development in neu transgenic mice. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 47, 337–342 (1999).
Dakappagari, N. K. et al. Prevention of mammary tumors with a chimeric HER-2 B-cell epitope peptide vaccine. Cancer Res. 60, 3782–3789 (2000).
Manjili, M. H. et al. HSP110-HER2/neu chaperone complex vaccine induces protective immunity against spontaneous mammary tumors in HER-2/neu transgenic mice. J. Immunol. 171, 4054–4061 (2003).
Cefai, D. et al. Targeting HER-2/neu for active-specific immunotherapy in a mouse model of spontaneous breast cancer. Int. J. Cancer 83, 393–400 (1999).
Wang, X., Wang, J. P., Maughan, M. F. & Lachman, L. B. Alphavirus replicon particles containing the gene for HER2/neu inhibit breast cancer growth and tumorigenesis. Breast Cancer Res. 7, R145–R155 (2005).
Stevanovic, S. Identification of tumour-associated T-cell epitopes for vaccine development. Nature Rev. Cancer 2, 514–520 (2002).
Qin, Z. et al. B cells inhibit induction of T cell-dependent tumor immunity. Nature Med. 4, 627–630 (1998).
Research of the authors is supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research; Italian Ministries for the Universities and Health; University of Turin; University of Bologna; Compagnia di San Paolo and Fondazione Carlo Demegri, Turin; and the Nordic Centre of Excellence for the Development of Anti-Tumour Vaccine Concepts (NCEV), Stockholm.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
National Cancer Institute
American Cancer Society Who is at Risk
ClinicalTrials.Gov Database of the National Cancer Institute
European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Protocols Database
BALB-neuT web page on the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Models
- Primary cancer prevention
Prevention of tumour onset through the elimination of carcinogenic risk factors. Secondary cancer prevention is the prevention of tumour progression and growth to symptomatic size by means of early diagnosis, whereas tertiary cancer prevention is the prevention of metastatic development.
- Immunization-tumour challenge experiments
Healthy experimental animals are first vaccinated against a tumour and then receive a transplant (challenge) of tumorigenic cells. The induced immunity is measured by the proportion of animals that remain tumour-free and/or by the increase in tumour latency time in comparison to mock-vaccinated controls.
- Orthotopic challenge
Transplanting a tumour that originated in one animal into the same organ or tissue in another animal.
- Regulatory T cells
A subpopulation of CD4+ T cells that constitutively express the α-chain of the interleukin-2 receptor (CD25+) and the transcription factor encoded by FOXP3. These cells suppress the immune response to self antigens.
- Therapeutic vaccines
Therapeutic vaccines are given to patients to cure an existing disease, whereas prophylactic vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent a foreseeable disease.
- Cytotoxic T lymphocytes
A subpopulation of CD8+ T cells that kill host cells expressing antigenic peptides associated with autologous major histoconpatability complex class I glycoproteins.
- Microbial CpG sequences
Unmethylated cytosine–guanine sequences of microbial DNA are a hallmark of bacterial infection and stimulate the mammalian immune system through Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9), which is expressed by dendritic cells and macrophages. CpG sequences function as adjuvants of vaccines.
Vaccine components that non-specifically increase the immune response against antigens. Adjuvants are called the immunologists dirty little secret because the fact that all vaccines would be ineffective without adjuvants is something that few non-immunologists are aware of.
- Natural killer cells
Population of lymphoid cells that release cytokines and kill host cells that do not express MHC-I glycoproteins.
- Immune memory
The immune memory is an antigen-specific and long-lived feature of adaptative immunity. When an antigen is encountered more than once, immune memory means that the immune response to this antigen is speedier and more effective.
Avidity is the sum total of the strength of the binding of two molecules or cells to one another at multiple sites. For instance, the overall strength of binding between a T cell and an antigen-presenting cell.
- Central tolerance
The lack of self-responsiveness that occurs as lymphocytes develop. It is associated with the deletion of autoreactive clones. For T cells, this occurs in the thymus.
- Adoptive transfer
A form of passive immunization in which previously sensitized immunological agents (cells or serum) are transferred to non-immune recipients. When transfer of cells is used as a therapy for the treatment of neoplasms, it is called adoptive immunotherapy.
- Delayed-type hypersensitivity
Hypersensitivity (increased reaction by the body to a foreign substance such as an antigen or allergen) that does not appear until 24–48 hours after the body is exposed to the foreign substance.
- Caretaker genes
Tumour-suppressor genes that control genome repair and stability.
- Complement-mediated lysis
Killing (lysis) of a target cell owing to complement activation at the cell surface.
- Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity
Killing of antibody-coated target cells by cells with Fc receptors that recognize the constant region of the bound antibody.
- Class I MHC glycoproteins
Polymorphic glyocoproteins encoded by genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) that are expressed by the nucleated cells of the body. They present peptides that are derived from intracellular proteins to CD8+ T lymphocytes.
A condition that is characterized by depigmented areas of skin due to the lack of melanocytes. Anti-melanoma vaccines can induce autoimmune vitiligo.
- Flu-like syndrome
A collection of symptoms caused by cytokines such as IFNγ and TNFα that are released after vaccinations or other biological treatments of cancer. The symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue and musculoskeletal pain.
Generic name of aluminium-based (aluminium hydroxide or aluminium phosphate) gels that are used to adsorb vaccines. Alum is a weak, non-toxic adjuvant, and one of the few that are approved worldwide for use in human vaccines.
- Freund's adjuvant
A powerful adjuvant consisting of water in a mineral oil emulsion containing killed mycobacteria. Incomplete Freunds adjuvant omits mycobacteria and is also used in human cancer vaccines, whereas the complete formulation is not used in humans because of unacceptable toxicity.
The use of an electric pulse to make cell membranes temporarily more permeable to molecules such as DNA. DNA electroporation is currently being tested in clinical trials.
- Basal nevous syndrome
The basal (cell) nevous syndrome is an inherited group of multiple defects involving the skin, nervous system, eyes, endocrine glands and bones. The condition causes an unusual facial appearance and a predisposition to skin cancers.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lollini, PL., Cavallo, F., Nanni, P. et al. Vaccines for tumour prevention. Nat Rev Cancer 6, 204–216 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1815
This article is cited by
Nanotechnology-Based Nucleic Acid Vaccines for Treatment of Ovarian Cancer
Pharmaceutical Research (2023)
Immunotheranostic microbubbles (iMBs) - a modular platform for dendritic cell vaccine delivery applied to breast cancer immunotherapy
Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research (2022)
Biomimetic cell-derived nanocarriers in cancer research
Journal of Nanobiotechnology (2022)
Immunotherapy in AML: a brief review on emerging strategies
Clinical and Translational Oncology (2021)
Immune targeting of autocrine IGF2 hampers rhabdomyosarcoma growth and metastasis
BMC Cancer (2019)