γδ T cell dichotomy with opposing cytotoxic and wound healing functions in human solid tumors.

γδ T cells are important tissue-resident, innate T cells that are critical for tissue homeostasis. γδ cells are associated with positive prognosis in most tumors; however, little is known about their heterogeneity in human cancers. Here, we phenotyped innate and adaptive cells in human colorectal (CRC) and endometrial cancer. We found striking differences in γδ subsets and function in tumors compared to normal tissue, and in the γδ subsets present in tumor types. In CRC, an amphiregulin (AREG)-producing subset emerges, while endometrial cancer is infiltrated by cytotoxic cells. In humanized CRC models, tumors induced this AREG phenotype in Vδ1 cells after adoptive transfer. To exploit the beneficial roles of γδ cells for cell therapy, we developed an expansion method that enhanced cytotoxic function and boosted metabolic flexibility, while eliminating AREG production, achieving greater tumor infiltration and tumor clearance. This method has broad applications in cellular therapy as an 'off-the-shelf' treatment option.

Hyper-CVAD plus ponatinib versus hyper-CVAD plus dasatinib as frontline therapy for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of hyperfractionated cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (HCVAD) plus ponatinib has not been compared with that of HCVAD plus dasatinib in patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: The authors analyzed 110 patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ ALL who were enrolled in 2 consecutive, prospective, phase 2 clinical trials of frontline HCVAD with either dasatinib (63 patients) or ponatinib (47 patients). Propensity score analysis with 1:1 matching with the nearest neighbor matching method and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis based on the propensity scores were performed to assess response rates, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS) between the cohorts. RESULTS: Propensity score matching identified 41 patients in each cohort. With propensity score matching, the 3-year EFS rates for patients treated with HCVAD plus ponatinib and HCVAD plus dasatinib were 69% and 46%, respectively (P =.04), and the 3-year OS rates were 83% and 56%, respectively (P =.03). IPTW analysis using prematching cohorts demonstrated that patients treated with HCVAD plus ponatinib had significantly higher rates of minimal residual disease negativity by flow cytometry on day 21, complete cytogenetic response at complete response, major molecular response at complete response and at 3 months, and complete molecular response at 3 months. IPTW confirmed that treatment with HCVAD plus ponatinib was associated with longer EFS (P =.003) and OS (P =.001) compared with treatment with HCVAD plus dasatinib. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcome of patients treated with HCVAD plus ponatinib appears to be superior to that of patients treated with HCVAD plus dasatinib among individuals with Ph+ ALL. Cancer 2016;122:3650-6. © 2016 American Cancer Society.