The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a serine protease that is over-expressed in prostate carcinoma and represents a molecular target for selectively releasing an anticancer agent from a prodrug formulation. We have recently investigated a macromolecular prodrug strategy for improved cancer chemotherapy based on 2 features: (i) rapid and selective binding of thiol-reactive prodrugs to the cysteine-34 position of endogenous albumin after intravenous administration, and (ii) enzymatic release of the albuminbound drug at the tumor site (Mansour et al., Cancer Res 2003, 63, 4062-4066). In this work, we describe an albumin-binding prodrug, EMC-Arg-Ser-Ser-Tyr-Tyr-Ser-Arg-DOXO [EMC: e-Maleimidocaproic acid; DOXO 5 doxorubicin; X 5 amino acid] that is cleaved by PSA. Because of the incorporation of 2 arginine residues, the prodrug exhibited excellent water-solubility and was rapidly and selectively bound to endogenous albumin. Incubation studies with PSA and tumor homogenates from PSA-positive tumors (LNCaP) demonstrated that the albumin-bound form of the prodrug was efficiently cleaved by PSA at the P 1 -P 0 1 scissile bond releasing the doxorubicin dipeptide H-Ser-Arg-DOXO, which was further degraded to doxorubicin as the final cleavage product. In cell culture experiments, the prodrug was 100-fold less active against LNCaP cells than the free drug. In contrast, in a mouse model of human prostate cancer using luciferase transduced LNCaP cells orthotopically implanted in SCID mice, the prodrug showed enhanced antitumor efficacy when compared to doxorubicin. Doxorubicin treatment at a dose of 2 3 4 mg/kg caused significant weight loss and mortality (225%), and did not result in a significant antitumor response at the end of the experiment. The prodrug at 3 3 12 mg/kg doxorubicin equivalents, however, was well tolerated and induced a significant reduction in tumor size of 62% (625%, **p 5 0.003) as well as a decrease of the metastatic burden in the lungs as detected in luciferase assays (250%, SD 6 115%, *p 5 0.038). ' 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Key words: doxorubicin; macromolecular prodrug; human serum albumin; PSA; orthotopic animal model; LNCaP; luciferase; in vivo bioluminescence Hormone refractory prostate cancer responds unfavorably to chemotherapy. The best results to date are achieved with Taxotere. 1 To improve prostate cancer therapy, tumor-specific delivery of anticancer agents to the primary tumor and metastases is a goal worth pursuing.For selectively releasing anticancer agents, the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is especially attractive as a target protease because it is solely expressed in prostate tissue and prostate carcinoma in prostate cancer patients with high levels up to mg/g present in human prostate carcinoma. 2,3 PSA is a serine protease that belongs to the kallikrein gene family with chymotrypsin-like activity that is involved in the hydrolytic processing of semenogelins (cleavage of the semenal fluid proteins semenogelin I and II), which is required for liquefaction of seminal fluids. 2,3 Over...

Checkpoint inhibitor treatment has already become a common therapy of various cancer types. Still there is a growing need for well-characterized preclinical mouse models, as clinical data indicate that patients only partially respond to this regiment. We examined the efficacy of anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapy on 4T1, B16.F10, Clone M-3, CT26wt, LL/2, MC38-CEA and RENCA syngeneic tumor models. The outcome demonstrates a large variation in the response to the immune checkpoint therapy among the analyzed tumor models. Poorly immunogenic models like the LL/2 tumor did not respond to any given therapy, whereas highly immunogenic tumor models like CT26wt or MC38-CEA tumors were inhibited by all tested immunotherapies. The CT26wt tumor model was further characterized in a re-challenge experiment. Growth retardation was observed in CT26wt-tumor bearing mice treated with anti-PD-L1 antibody. A fraction of mice responded with a complete regression of the tumor. These mice were repeatedly challenged subcutaneously with a high number of fresh CT26wt tumor cells. No re-growth of CT26 tumors was observed, whereas challenging with fresh 4T1 tumor cells resulted in a rapid 4T1 growth in these mice, demonstrating a specific immune protection against CT26wt tumors. In addition all syngeneic tumor models were analyzed for the distribution of immune cells such as Treg cells, M1/M2 macrophages and M/PMN-MDSCs in tumor tissue based on multi-color flow-cytometric analysis. These data may help to select a suitable model for testing new drug candidates and define a sensitive combination therapy to support the anti-tumor immune defense in addition to checkpoint inhibitor treatment. Citation Format: Peter Jantscheff, Cynthia Schaefer-Obodozie, Sandra Moor, Holger Weber. Anti-PD-1, Anti-PD-L1 and Anti-CTLA-4 checkpoint inhibitor treatment leads to different responses in syngeneic tumor models. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2016 Apr 16-20; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(14 Suppl):Abstract nr 3216.

Syngeneic tumor models used for discovery of immune therapeutics should have several features such as a long study duration, responsiveness to checkpoint inhibitors, high immune cell infiltration and a high homogeneity in tumor growth. Moreover, models should consider the ethical rules (3R reduce, refine, replace). At present, the standard implantation method for syngeneic tumor models is subcutaneous tumor cell inoculation. We have developed an alternative implantation method for syngeneic tumor models: inoculation into the mammary fat pad. Both implantation sides are heterotopic related to the original tumor entity except for syngeneic breast tumor cells. In addition, both tumor inoculation methods can easily be applied and monitored by calipering reducing the costs. We compared the two implantation methods with models MC38-CEA, Ct26wt, Hepa1-6, RENCA, LL-2, AB12, CloneM3, B16.F10, 4T1 and EMT-6 tumor cells in respect to growth characteristics and immune response. Intra-mammary tumor growth showed more homogeneity with higher final tumor volumes compared to the subcutaneous tumor growth. Moreover, in all tested syngeneic models, tumor ulceration was prevented by almost 100% when injecting the tumor cells into the mammary fat pad. In contrast, animals of the subcutaneous tumors were mainly euthanized due to tumor ulceration. Both findings favor the mammary fat pad injection with regard to the 3R rules by strongly reducing tumor ulceration (refinement) and animal number due to a more homogenous growth (reduction). In addition, the immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment was tested and found comparable between the intra-mammary and subcutaneous models. The presence of immune cell populations was investigated in the Ct26wt colon tumor model time-dependently by flow cytometry using a 17 marker-staining panel . The number of isolated cells per gram tumor mass was more than doubled in the intra-mammary tumors. In conclusion, tumor models of the heterotopic intra-mammary implantation side are found to be superior compared to the traditional subcutaneous tumor models: a higher tumor homogeneity with no tumor ulceration, combined with a high number of immune cells and connective stroma tissue, making the mammary fat pad implantation of syngeneic tumor cells the implantation side of choice. Citation Format: Cynthia Obodozie, Susanne Ruf, Gojko Bijelic, Sandra Moor, Bianca Giesen, Ulrike Leisegang, Sebastian Dempe, Holger Weber. Mammary fat pad injections: An alternative implantation method for syngeneic tumor models [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2019 Oct 26-30; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2019;18(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A012. doi:10.1158/1535-7163.TARG-19-A012

No abstract

Checkpoint inhibitor treatment has become a common therapy of various cancer types. Still, there is a need for well-characterized preclinical mouse models, as clinical data indicates that patients only partially respond to immune modulatory regiments. When compared to the classical subcutaneous or subQperior࣪ (implantation into the mammary fat pad) syngeneic mouse models, orthotopic models are considered more predictive, since implantation of tumor cells into the organ of origin allows organotypical interaction between tumor cells and the surrounding stroma, including immune cells. Up until now, our standard procedure for an orthotopic Hepa1-6 liver model is the injection of Hepa1-6 cells into the spleen with the subsequent migration of the injected Hepa1 6 cells into the liver for five minutes via Vena lienalis. A major drawback of this method for a syngeneic model in immune-competent mice is the following resection of the spleen, a prominent secondary lymphoid organ. Therefore, we tested two other implantation methods: the direct injection of Hepa1-6 cells into a liver lobe using Matrigel࣪ and the injection of Hepa1-6 cells into the portal vein. In contrast to the standard procedure, both new test methods have in common an excessive bleeding potential which must be prevented. As the Hepa1-6 cells are transduced with luciferase, their growth can be monitored in vivo by bioluminescence imaging and the growth characteristics will be compared. In addition to the growth, the composition of the immune populations will be analyzed staining with the all-in-one flow cytometry panel which permits the differentiation of the main immune cell populations in the tumor, such as T cells (CD4+, CD8+, Treg), B and NK cells, macrophages (M1/M2), MDSCs (granulocytic and monocytic), and dendritic cells. The data will help to select the most suitable method for testing new drug candidates in an orthotopic liver tumor environment. Citation Format: Cynthia Obodozie, Sandra Moor, Gojko Bijelic, Muriel Malaisé, Philipp Metzger, Holger Weber. Comparison and consequences of different implantation techniques on the orthotopic growth of syngeneic Hepa1-6 liver cancer cells [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 1621.