Lymphocyte Sensitization in Advanced Malignant Disease: A Study of Serum Lymphocyte Depressive Factor

Abstract

Summary.-Patients with advanced malignant disease show an apparent lesser degree of lymphocyte sensitization to cancer antigen when tested under standard conditions than do early cases. In the serum of cancer patients there is a lymphocyte response depressing factor whose titre rises as the neoplasm becomes more extensive. The low lymphocyte response shown by advanced cancers is not, however, directly referable to this rise in depressive factor, but to removal by the tumour mass of specifically sensitized lymphocytes so that amongst the standard number of cells under routine test an adequate number does not remain to give a full response. Increasing the number of cells under test restores the result to the level found in moderately sized cancers. The " absorptive capacity " of large tumours for circulating sensitized lymphocytes is greater than can be provided by natural immunization produced by the tumour. Active immunization with a tumour antigen can be expected therefore to increase lymphocyte -associated defence against cancer.

Immune Response to a Syngeneic Rat Tumour: Development of Regional Node Lymphocyte Anergy

“…Serum factors may be responsible for the development of local lymphocyte anergy, acting on tumour Sjogren et al, 1972) or on lymphocytes (Currie and Basham, 1972;Field and Caspary, 1972). Such factors must include some local component, presumably tumour antigen (Alexander, 1970) or antigen-antibody complexes (Baldwin, Price and Robins, 1972 , 1972) to account for the early local occurrence of anergy.…”

Cellular Immunity to Encephalitogenic Factor in Man as Measured by the Macrophage Migration Inhibition Test: The Effects of Serum

“…The frequency of sensitivity to EF in the present study was similar in all 3 clinical stages of cancer, and it is thus not possible to discriminate between patients with small primary tumours and extensive metastatic disease by the MMI test. However, Field and Caspary (1972) found a lower degree of lymphocyte sensitivity to CaBP in patients with advanced malignant disease, using a standard number of lymphocytes in the MEM test. This effect was abolished by increasing the number of lymphocytes under test 5-or 10-fold.…”

“…Further investigations have shown the two proteins to be very similar chemically (Carnegie, Caspary and Field, 1973;Dickinson, Caspary and Field, 1973) and to be immunologically cross-reactive (Coates and Carnegie, 1975;McDermott, Caspary and Dickinson, 1974). An alternative explanation to account for the appearance of EF sensitivity in both malignant and non-malignant disease was proposed by Mitchell (1973) (Caspary and Field, 1971;Goldstone, Kerr and Irvine, 1973;Pritchard et al, 1973); moreover, the claim has been made that the MEM test can discrminate between patients with early and advanced cancer (Field and Caspary, 1972). However, results with the macrophage migration inhibition (MMI) test are not so encouraging, with only about 70% of cancer patients tested showing a response to EF (Shelton, Potter and Carr, 1975;Singer et al, 1975;Light, Preece and Waldron, 1975 Moftp1ha,q migration inhibition test.-Twenty ml of venous blood was collected from each individual under study and 10 ml placed into a lithium heparin sample tube (Searle Diagnostics, Wycombe, England) and 10 ml into a plain glass tube.…”

Cell electrophoresis for diagnostic purposes. I. Diagnostic value of the electrophoretic mobility test (EMT) for the detection of gynaecological malignancies

“…It is also possible that with growing numbers of malignant cells (growing tumour mass) an increased number of sensitized mononuclear cells are bound to the tumour itself, thus reducing their number in the periphery and their availability for testing (sponge phenomenon, Field & Caspary, 1972 (Table III), suggest poor reproducibility of the EMT procedure in general. The system has at least three weaknesses: (1) the ihdicator particles (2) the so-called "antigens" (3) the handling of the cytopherometer.…”