Bispecific antibodies (bsAb) are considered as promising tools for the elimination of disseminated tumour cells in a minimal residual disease situation. The bsAb-mediated recruitment of an immune effector cell in close vicinity of a tumour cell is thought to induce an antitumoural immune response. However, classical bispecific molecules activate only a single class of immune effector cell that may not yield optimal immune responses. We therefore constructed an intact bispecific antibody, BiUII (anti-CD3 × anti-EpCAM), that not only recognizes tumour cells and T lymphocytes with its two binding arms, but also binds and activates Fcγ-receptor positive accessory cells through its Fc-region. We have demonstrated recently that activated accessory cells contribute to the bsAb-induced antitumoural activity. We now analyse this stimulation in more detail and demonstrate here the BiUll-induced upregulation of activation markers like CD83 and CD95 on accessory cells and the induction of neopterin and biopterin synthesis. Experiments with pure cell subpopulations revealed binding of BiUll to CD64+ accessory cells and CD16+ NK cells, but not to CD32+ B lymphocytes. We provide further evidence for the importance of the Fc-region in that this bispecific molecule stimulates Fcγ-R-positive accessory cells to eliminate tumour cells in vitro by direct phagocytosis. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign

No abstract

Objectives: We aimed to examine the efficacy of two psycho-oncological interventions in anxiety, depression, and self-perceived as well as physiological stress in inpatients with gynaecological cancer. Methods: Forty-five women were included in the trial. Thirty-five were categorized as being at high risk of anxiety and depression, and were randomized to either a single psycho-oncological therapy session or a single-session relaxation intervention. Results: A significant decrease in anxiety [mean (t₀) = 12, mean (t₁) = 7.47, p = 0.001] and depression [mean (t₀) = 9.71, mean (t₁) = 6.35, p < 0.001] was observed in the psycho-oncological intervention group. In the relaxation group, anxiety also significantly decreased [mean (t₀) = 11.67, mean (t₁) = 8.22, p = 0.003], whereas depression did not. A comparative analysis of both interventions showed a trend in favour of psycho-oncological therapy for the treatment of depression (F = 3.3, p = 0.078). However, self-reported stress (p = 0.031) and different objective stress parameters only significantly decreased in the relaxation group. Conclusions: Psycho-oncological interventions should represent an essential part of interdisciplinary care for gynaecological cancer patients. Both types of intervention may reduce anxiety. However, the single psycho-oncological therapy session might be slightly more effective in treating depression, whereas the single-session relaxation intervention seems to have a stronger effect on physiological stress parameters.

No abstract