Concise review: Humanized models of tumor immunology in the 21st century: Convergence of cancer research and tissue engineering

Despite positive testing in animal studies, more than 80% of novel drug candidates fail to proof their efficacy when tested in humans. This is primarily due to the use of preclinical models that are not able to recapitulate the physiological or pathological processes in humans. Hence, one of the key challenges in the field of translational medicine is to “make the model organism mouse more human.” To get answers to questions that would be prognostic of outcomes in human medicine, the mouse's genome can be altered in order to create a more permissive host that allows the engraftment of human cell systems. It has been shown in the past that these strategies can improve our understanding of tumor immunology. However, the translational benefits of these platforms have still to be proven. In the 21st century, several research groups and consortia around the world take up the challenge to improve our understanding of how to humanize the animal's genetic code, its cells and, based on tissue engineering principles, its extracellular microenvironment, its tissues, or entire organs with the ultimate goal to foster the translation of new therapeutic strategies from bench to bedside. This article provides an overview of the state of the art of humanized models of tumor immunology and highlights future developments in the field such as the application of tissue engineering and regenerative medicine strategies to further enhance humanized murine model systems.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.