Analysis of Physical and Biological Delivery Systems for DNA Cancer Vaccines and Their Translation to Clinical Development

Overview

Journal Clin Exp Vaccine Res

Date 2024 May 16

PMID 38752006

Authors

Christopher Oelkrug

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

DNA cancer vaccines as an approach in tumor immunotherapy are still being investigated in preclinical and clinical settings. Nevertheless, only a small number of clinical studies have been published so far and are still active. The investigated vaccines show a relatively stable expression in transfected cells and may be favorable for developing an immunologic memory in patients. Therefore, DNA vaccines could be suitable as a prophylactic or therapeutic approach against cancer. Due to the low efficiency of these vaccines, the administration technique plays an important role in the vaccine design and its efficacy. These DNA cancer vaccine delivery systems include physical, biological, and non-biological techniques. Although the pre-clinical studies show promising results in the application of the different delivery systems, further studies in clinical trials have not yet been successfully proven.

References

Weide B, Garbe C, Rammensee H, Pascolo S . Plasmid DNA- and messenger RNA-based anti-cancer vaccination. Immunol Lett. 2007; 115(1):33-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.imlet.2007.09.012. View

Brave A, Hallengard D, Gudmundsdotter L, Stout R, Walters R, Wahren B . Late administration of plasmid DNA by intradermal electroporation efficiently boosts DNA-primed T and B cell responses to carcinoembryonic antigen. Vaccine. 2009; 27(28):3692-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.04.013. View

Bridle B, Boudreau J, Lichty B, Brunelliere J, Stephenson K, Koshy S . Vesicular stomatitis virus as a novel cancer vaccine vector to prime antitumor immunity amenable to rapid boosting with adenovirus. Mol Ther. 2009; 17(10):1814-21. PMC: 2835010. DOI: 10.1038/mt.2009.154. View

Liu J, Fu M, Wang M, Wan D, Wei Y, Wei X . Cancer vaccines as promising immuno-therapeutics: platforms and current progress. J Hematol Oncol. 2022; 15(1):28. PMC: 8931585. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-022-01247-x. View

Bolhassani A, Safaiyan S, Rafati S . Improvement of different vaccine delivery systems for cancer therapy. Mol Cancer. 2011; 10:3. PMC: 3024302. DOI: 10.1186/1476-4598-10-3. View

Kanitakis J . Anatomy, histology and immunohistochemistry of normal human skin. Eur J Dermatol. 2002; 12(4):390-9; quiz 400-1. View

Tezel A, Paliwal S, Shen Z, Mitragotri S . Low-frequency ultrasound as a transcutaneous immunization adjuvant. Vaccine. 2005; 23(29):3800-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.02.027. View

Conry R, Khazaeli M, Saleh M, Allen K, Barlow D, Moore S . Phase I trial of a recombinant vaccinia virus encoding carcinoembryonic antigen in metastatic adenocarcinoma: comparison of intradermal versus subcutaneous administration. Clin Cancer Res. 1999; 5(9):2330-7. View

Hoos A, Parmiani G, Hege K, Sznol M, Loibner H, Eggermont A . A clinical development paradigm for cancer vaccines and related biologics. J Immunother. 2007; 30(1):1-15. DOI: 10.1097/01.cji.0000211341.88835.ae. View

10.

Best S, Peng S, Juang C, Hung C, Hannaman D, Saunders J . Administration of HPV DNA vaccine via electroporation elicits the strongest CD8+ T cell immune responses compared to intramuscular injection and intradermal gene gun delivery. Vaccine. 2009; 27(40):5450-9. PMC: 2745985. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.07.005. View

11.

Stevenson F . DNA vaccines against cancer: from genes to therapy. Ann Oncol. 2000; 10(12):1413-8. DOI: 10.1023/a:1008395012716. View

12.

Conry R, Curiel D, Strong T, Moore S, Allen K, Barlow D . Safety and immunogenicity of a DNA vaccine encoding carcinoembryonic antigen and hepatitis B surface antigen in colorectal carcinoma patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2002; 8(9):2782-7. View

13.

Trimble C, Lin C, Hung C, Pai S, Juang J, He L . Comparison of the CD8+ T cell responses and antitumor effects generated by DNA vaccine administered through gene gun, biojector, and syringe. Vaccine. 2003; 21(25-26):4036-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0264-410x(03)00275-5. View

14.

Roos A, Eriksson F, Walters D, Pisa P, King A . Optimization of skin electroporation in mice to increase tolerability of DNA vaccine delivery to patients. Mol Ther. 2009; 17(9):1637-42. PMC: 2835273. DOI: 10.1038/mt.2009.120. View

15.

Patil S, Rhodes D, Burgess D . DNA-based therapeutics and DNA delivery systems: a comprehensive review. AAPS J. 2005; 7(1):E61-77. PMC: 2751499. DOI: 10.1208/aapsj070109. View

16.

Vergati M, Intrivici C, Huen N, Schlom J, Tsang K . Strategies for cancer vaccine development. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2010; 2010. PMC: 2914453. DOI: 10.1155/2010/596432. View

17.

Dayball K, Millar J, Miller M, Wan Y, Bramson J . Electroporation enables plasmid vaccines to elicit CD8+ T cell responses in the absence of CD4+ T cells. J Immunol. 2003; 171(7):3379-84. DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.171.7.3379. View

18.

Un K, Kawakami S, Suzuki R, Maruyama K, Yamashita F, Hashida M . Suppression of melanoma growth and metastasis by DNA vaccination using an ultrasound-responsive and mannose-modified gene carrier. Mol Pharm. 2011; 8(2):543-54. DOI: 10.1021/mp100369n. View

19.

Tagawa S, Lee P, Snively J, Boswell W, Ounpraseuth S, Lee S . Phase I study of intranodal delivery of a plasmid DNA vaccine for patients with Stage IV melanoma. Cancer. 2003; 98(1):144-54. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11462. View

20.

Ginsberg B, Gallardo H, Rasalan T, Adamow M, Mu Z, Tandon S . Immunologic response to xenogeneic gp100 DNA in melanoma patients: comparison of particle-mediated epidermal delivery with intramuscular injection. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16(15):4057-65. PMC: 4241567. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1093. View