scholarly journals Castration-mediated IL-8 Promotes Myeloid Infiltration and Prostate Cancer Progression

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zoila A. Lopez-Bujanda ◽  
Michael C. Haffner ◽  
Matthew G. Chaimowitz ◽  
Nivedita Chowdhury ◽  
Nicholas J. Venturini ◽  
...  

SummaryImmunotherapy is a treatment for many types of cancer, primarily due to deep and durable clinical responses mediated by immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)1, 2. Prostate cancer is a notable exception in that it is generally unresponsive to ICB. The standard treatment for advanced prostate cancer is androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), a form of castration (CTX). ADT is initially effective, but over time patients eventually develop castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Here, we focused on defining tumor-cell intrinsic factors that contribute to prostate cancer progression and resistance to immunotherapy. We analyzed cancer cells isolated from castration-sensitive and castration-resistant prostate tumors, and discovered that castration resulted in significant secretion of Interleukin-8 (IL-8) and it’s likely murine homolog Cxcl15. These chemokines drove subsequent intra-tumoral infiltration with polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells (PMN-MDSCs), promoting tumor progression. PMN-MDSC infiltration was abrogated when IL-8 was deleted from prostate cancer epithelial cells using CRISPR/Cas9, or when PMN-MDSC migration was blocked with antibodies against the IL-8 receptor CXCR2. Blocking PMN-MDSC infiltration in combination with anti-CTLA-4 delayed the onset of castration resistance and increased the density of polyfunctional CD8 T cells in tumors. Taken together, our findings establish castration-mediated IL-8 secretion and subsequent PMN-MDSC infiltration as a key suppressive mechanism in the progression of prostate cancer. Targeting of the IL-8/CXCR2 axis around the time of ADT, in combination with ICB, represents a novel therapeutic approach to delay prostate cancer progression to advanced disease.


2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 2342-2355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Thomas ◽  
Francois Lamoureux ◽  
Claire Crafter ◽  
Barry R. Davies ◽  
Eliana Beraldi ◽  
...  




2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (24) ◽  
pp. 7349-7357
Author(s):  
Xuanrong Chen ◽  
Yi Shao ◽  
Wanqing Wei ◽  
Haishan Shen ◽  
Yang Li ◽  
...  


Oncotarget ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (38) ◽  
pp. 61955-61969 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingbo Qiao ◽  
Magdalena M. Grabowska ◽  
Ingrid S. Forestier-Roman ◽  
Janni Mirosevich ◽  
Thomas C. Case ◽  
...  






2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 222-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen A. Autio ◽  
Phillip Wong ◽  
Angel Rabinowitz ◽  
Jianda Yuan ◽  
Lauryn Michelle Slavin ◽  
...  

222 Background: MDSC contribute to an immune suppressive environment and have been implicated in cancer progression. Measurement (identification and enumeration) is challenged by the lack of analytically valid assays limiting data interpretation between groups. This impacts our understanding of rationale immune targets and design of clinical trials. We employed a novel biomarker based assay in whole blood to enumerate MDSC from patients with metastatic castration sensitive (CSPC) and castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Methods: Whole blood was collected in Cyto-Chex (Streck) tubes. A published computational algorithm-based approach (developed by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and commercialized by Serametrix) was employed to determine the %MDSC-monocytic and coefficient of variance (CV=ratio of SD and geometric mean fluorescence intensity) to assess HLA-DR spread on CD14+CD11b cells. Samples were performed in duplicate. Clinical variables including clinical state, past and current treatment, metastatic sites, PSA, and standard prognostic markers were collected. Results: 36 pts with metastatic prostate cancer (29 CRPC; 7 CSPC) were included. Median (SD) %MDSC in 29 CRPC pts was 21.15 (5.33) and median (SD) CV was1.29 (0.25); 7 CSPC demonstrated a median (SD) %MDSC 19.15 (4.86) and median (SD) CV 1.22 (0.25). MDSC did not differ between chemotherapy exposed (n=13) and chemotherapy naive (n=16) CRPC (23.3 vs 19.5, p=ns). MDSC were not significantly higher in those with visceral mets, though a trend existed (20.3 vs 24.0, p=0.076). PSA did not appear to correlate with MDSC or CV. Conclusions: Understanding the distribution and characterization of MDSC in various clinical states in prostate cancer is relevant to the development of immune targets in this disease. MDSC were quantifiable in both CSPC and CRPC. There was a trend for higher MDSC values in patients with visceral metastases, which historically are associated with worse prognoses. Presence of MDSC in metastatic CSPC and CRPC has important therapeutic and trial implications. Further discovery in larger cohorts and earlier disease states is underway.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document