Purpose: The availability of a variety of immune response modifiers creates an opportunity for improved efficacy of immunotherapy, but it also leads to uncertainty in how to combine agents and how to assess those combinations. We sought to assess the effect of the addition of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) to vaccination with a melanoma vaccine.

Experimental Design: Ninety-seven patients with resected melanoma (stage II-IV) were enrolled, stratified by stage, and randomized to receive a cellular melanoma vaccine with or without GM-CSF. The primary endpoint was delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) response to melanoma cells. Antibody responses, peripheral leukocyte counts, and survival were also examined.

Results: The GM-CSF arm showed enhanced antibody responses with an increase in IgM titer against the TA90 antigen and increased TA90 immune complexes. This arm also had diminished antimelanoma cell delayed-type hypersensitivity response. Peripheral blood leukocyte profiles showed increases in eosinophils and basophils with decreased monocytes in the GM-CSF arm. These immune changes were accompanied by an increase in early melanoma deaths and a trend toward worse survival with GM-CSF.

Conclusion: These data suggest that GM-CSF is not helpful as an immune adjuvant in this dose and schedule and raise concern that it may be harmful. Based on the discordant findings of an immune endpoint and clinical outcome, the use of such surrogate endpoints in selecting treatments for further evaluation must be done with a great deal of caution. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(22):702935)

Translational Relevance

The trial provides randomized data in an active immunotherapy with a relatively large sample size for a cancer vaccine trial. The data show changes in immune response and leukocyte milieu induced by the addition of GM-CSF to a previous standard vaccine regimen. More importantly, the report shows that whereas the immune results were relatively consistent with expectations, the clinical outcomes clearly were not. Although antibody titers improved with GM-CSF, cellular responses were diminished, accompanied by a strong trend toward worse survival. This suggests that GM-CSF should not be used in a similar fashion in the future and that using a surrogate immunologic endpoint to select the most promising immunotherapy is potentially hazardous.

The arrival of numerous immunomodulatory agents for use in clinical trials has renewed hope that the dramatic and durable regressions seen occasionally with immunotherapy might be experienced by a larger number of patients. The list of these new tools includes cytokines, Toll-like receptor agonists, antiregulatory agents such as anti-CTLA4 antibodies, and changes to the immunologic milieu through modifications of the host such as lymphodepletion. Due to redundant systems of control and regulation in the immune system, combinations of stimuli or modulators will likely be required to deliver consistent clinical benefit. However, rational strategies for designing and evaluating such combinations are not yet mature.

During the time that Canvaxin, an allogeneic whole-cell melanoma vaccine, was undergoing phase III trial evaluation, additional research was conducted in an attempt to enhance immune responses. Several trials evaluated the effect of the addition of various immune modulators and adjuvants on immune endpoints. Here, we report the results of a randomized, open-label trial of the standard vaccine protocol with or without the addition of granulocyte/macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF). These randomized data contribute to our understanding of the clinical and immunologic effect of GM-CSF on active immunotherapy.

GM-CSF is a leukocyte growth factor approved for use in leukopenic cancer patients and has been incorporated into numerous tumor vaccines. Its use is supported by a significant body of preclinical studies (1,4). In addition, GM-CSF has been used as a single agent in the adjuvant setting in melanoma and showed improved outcomes relative to historical controls (5). However, despite its common inclusion as a vaccine component, randomized trials examining the effect of GM-CSF on the immunologic and clinical effects of vaccines in cancer patients are sparse.

Study design

The study was a randomized, open-label assessment of a whole-cell, allogeneic vaccine (Canvaxin; CancerVax) with or without GM-CSF (Leukine; Immunex). BCG was given with the first two vaccine doses in both study arms. Dosing of BCG, GM-CSF, and vaccine was determined after a previously reported pilot trial was completed (6). The final dosages were (a) vaccine: 25 106 cells per dose, (b) GM-CSF: 200 g/m2/d starting on the day of vaccine administration and daily thereafter for a total of 5 days during the first 4 months, and (c) BCG: 3 106 colony-forming units intradermally with the first vaccination and 1.5 106 colony-forming units with the second vaccination if purified protein derivative (PPD) skin test negative. (PPD-positive subjects received half those amounts.)

The vaccine was administered intradermally in eight injections distributed to sites adjacent to axillary and inguinal nodal basins. GM-CSF was given intradermally adjacent to the vaccination sites.

The primary aim was to determine whether the addition of GM-CSF to Canvaxin/BCG could enhance delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH) responses. Secondary endpoints included antibody responses, adverse events, and PPD DTH tests. Clinical outcomes and WBCs were also examined.

Our institutional review board approved the protocol, and all subjects provided informed consent.

Patient eligibility

Subjects enrolled in the studies were at least age 18 years and had a diagnosis of stage II to IV melanoma. Normal laboratory parameters were required, and immunocompromised patients were excluded. All subjects were without evidence of disease at the time of enrollment by physical examination, chest X-ray (stage II), computed tomography scan of the chest/abdomen/pelvis (stage III/IV), whole-body positron emission tomography (stage III/IV), and brain magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography (stage III/IV).

Preparation and administration of Canvaxin vaccine

Canvaxin was an irradiated allogeneic whole-cell vaccine composed of cells from three melanoma cell lines (7). Its preparation has been described previously (8). Briefly, melanoma cell lines were grown, harvested, washed, and pooled (8.3 106 cells per line, 25 106 total cells). The cells were irradiated with 150 Gy and cryopreserved until administration.

The first two doses of Canvaxin were admixed with the induction doses of BCG. Canvaxin was given every 2 weeks 5 and then monthly 4 to complete 6 months of immunization.

A 50 dose reduction was employed for GM-CSF if patients experienced an absolute granulocyte count of >20,000/mm3. GM-CSF was held at the next dose if granulocyte counts increased >50,000/mm3. Toxicity was recorded using the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria.

Assessment of immunologic response

DTH testing

Immunologic monitoring consisted of DTH skin tests and serum antibody measurements. DTH was done immediately before initiation of treatment and at the time of each vaccine dose. One tenth of the therapeutic dose of vaccine cells was used for DTH testing. Induration was determined at 48 h and read as the mean of the widest diameter of induration and the perpendicular diameter thereof. Control DTH response to nonmelanoma antigens was monitored by administering a PPD skin test to PPD-negative patients at monthly intervals until the patient became PPD positive or the seventh treatment. Blood samples were collected at baseline, at weeks 2, 4, 6, and 8, and at months 3, 4, 5, and 6 just before receiving vaccine for antibody and immune complex measurement.

Anti-TA90 IgG and IgM titers

Serum samples were analyzed prospectively for IgG and IgM antibodies to TA90 glycoprotein antigen. TA90 was purified from urine of a melanoma and ELISAs were done according to standard procedures reported elsewhere (9,11). Briefly, TA90 was adsorbed to 96-well ELISA plates at 120 ng/well, and serum sample dilutions were added. Subsequently, the bound immunoglobulins were reacted with the alkaline phosphataseconjugated F(ab) fragment of goat anti-human IgG or IgM (Sigma). Absorbance at 405 nm was assessed, and the antibody titer was defined as the reciprocal of the highest dilution resulting in an absorbance of 0.05 at 405 nm after subtracting the absorbance values of the controls.

TA90 immune complex assay

Serum was assayed for TA90 immune complex as described previously (9). Briefly, patient serum was incubated on ELISA microtiter plates coated with murine monoclonal antibody to TA90. After washing, plates were incubated with goat anti-human IgG. An absorbance of 0.41 was the upper limit of normal. Interassay variability has been measured previously at <15 (9).

Statistical analysis

With a sample size of 96, the study had 80 power to detect a 30 difference in DTH response. Comparison of group mean values for laboratory correlates was done by t test or Fishers exact test. For comparison of immune response parameters, log transformation was used to normalize distributions. Comparisons between groups during the vaccination period were done using mixed procedure (SAS 9.1.3) for longitudinal analysis. Specific time points were compared using t test. However, these latter evaluations are considered exploratory only due to multiple comparisons. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. All statistical analyses were two-tailed.

Patient population

Ninety-seven patients were enrolled. Three were screen failures and did not receive vaccine. Demographic characteristics of the 94 patients eligible for analysis were similarly distributed between the two treatment arms (Table 1).

Table 1.

Demographics of population

GM-CSFNo GM-CSF
Gender 
Male 31 (67) 29 (60) 
Female 15 (33) 19 (40) 
Age (y) 
<60 29 (63) 32 (67) 
>60 17 (37) 16 (33) 
American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 
II 9 (20) 10 (21) 
Median Breslow thickness (mm) 3.25 4.25 
III 26 (57) 28 (58) 
Nodal 24 28 
Intransit 
Mean no. lymph node positive 2.25 
IV 11 (24) 10 (21) 
M1A 
M1B 
M1A+B 
Prior treatment* (all stages) 
Radiation 
Chemotherapy 
Biotherapy 
Immunotherapy 
Other 
GM-CSFNo GM-CSF
Gender 
Male 31 (67) 29 (60) 
Female 15 (33) 19 (40) 
Age (y) 
<60 29 (63) 32 (67) 
>60 17 (37) 16 (33) 
American Joint Committee on Cancer stage 
II 9 (20) 10 (21) 
Median Breslow thickness (mm) 3.25 4.25 
III 26 (57) 28 (58) 
Nodal 24 28 
Intransit 
Mean no. lymph node positive 2.25 
IV 11 (24) 10 (21) 
M1A 
M1B 
M1A+B 
Prior treatment* (all stages) 
Radiation 
Chemotherapy 
Biotherapy 
Immunotherapy 
Other 

*Some patients underwent more than one treatment modality.

DTH response to Canvaxin immunotherapeutic

There was no significant difference in mean induration to baseline DTH testing with the vaccine (GM-CSF 4.2 4.8 mm versus no GM-CSF 5.7 7.7 mm; P = 0.25; Fig. 1). However, there was a trend toward increased DTH in the non-GM-CSF arm by week 4, which persisted and became significant at 16 weeks (GM-CSF 7.1 4.3 mm versus no GM-CSF 12.8 12.3 mm; P = 0.01, t test). By longitudinal analysis, DTH values after initiating vaccination were significantly greater in the non-GM-CSF arm (overall mean 8.4 versus 10.9 mm; P = 0.006; Table 2). There was no significant difference in maximal DTH response.

Fig. 1.

DTH testing. Mean diameter of induration of each treatment group at baseline and during vaccination. *, P < 0.05, exploratory t test for each time point.

Fig. 1.

DTH testing. Mean diameter of induration of each treatment group at baseline and during vaccination. *, P < 0.05, exploratory t test for each time point.

Close modal
Table 2.

Immune parameters

Pre-vaccinationDuring vaccination
GM-CSFNo GM-CSFP                  *GM-CSFNo GM-CSFP                  *
DTH to vaccine 4.2 5.7 0.25 8.4 10.9 0.006 
IgM 350 337 0.88 583 464 0.086 
IgG (adsorbed) 477 388 0.33 526 496 0.72 
IgG (nonadsorbed) 471 506 0.73 1,188 866 0.059 
Immune complex 0.33 0.25 0.26 1.05 0.71 0.01 
WBC 5.7 6.2 0.26 6.9 6.3 0.23 
Hemoglobin 14.0 14.0 0.88 14.0 14.2 0.23 
Platelets 238 236 0.87 237 239 0.18 
Absolute neutrophil 3.5 3.8 0.29 4.5 4.0 0.19 
Absolute lymphocyte 1.59 1.54 0.69 1.61 1.56 0.65 
Absolute monocyte 0.39 0.44 0.28 0.37 0.47 0.008 
Absolute eosinophil 0.161 0.149 0.69 0.267 0.152 0.014 
Absolute basophil 0.046 0.038 0.46 0.047 0.034 0.13 
Pre-vaccinationDuring vaccination
GM-CSFNo GM-CSFP                  *GM-CSFNo GM-CSFP                  *
DTH to vaccine 4.2 5.7 0.25 8.4 10.9 0.006 
IgM 350 337 0.88 583 464 0.086 
IgG (adsorbed) 477 388 0.33 526 496 0.72 
IgG (nonadsorbed) 471 506 0.73 1,188 866 0.059 
Immune complex 0.33 0.25 0.26 1.05 0.71 0.01 
WBC 5.7 6.2 0.26 6.9 6.3 0.23 
Hemoglobin 14.0 14.0 0.88 14.0 14.2 0.23 
Platelets 238 236 0.87 237 239 0.18 
Absolute neutrophil 3.5 3.8 0.29 4.5 4.0 0.19 
Absolute lymphocyte 1.59 1.54 0.69 1.61 1.56 0.65 
Absolute monocyte 0.39 0.44 0.28 0.37 0.47 0.008 
Absolute eosinophil 0.161 0.149 0.69 0.267 0.152 0.014 
Absolute basophil 0.046 0.038 0.46 0.047 0.034 0.13 

*P values are by t test for pretreatment and by longitudinal analysis during treatment.

PPD response

Mean PPD induration showed a trend toward a disproportionate increase in at week 4 in the non-GM-CSF arm (GM-CSF 6.3 8.0 mm versus no GM-CSF 11.4 8.0; P = 0.03, t test). Because subjects were no longer PPD tested after becoming positive, there are few data points after week 4. By longitudinal and log-rank analyses, the increase in PPD response was not statistically significant.

Anti-TA90 antibody response

Three antibody titers were measured: anti-TA90 IgM, anti-TA90 IgG, and an adsorbed anti-TA90 IgG. The last was done due to possible retention of bovine serum albumin in the vaccine preparation. Adsorption of serum had a significant effect on IgG values but not in IgM. Both IgG assays are presented due to differences between groups seen in the nonadsorbed samples, although these responses are likely due to vaccine-specific but not tumor-specific antigens.

There were no significant differences in any antibody titer at baseline. The GM-CSF arm showed increased IgG responses in the nonadsorbed assay (significant at 8, 12, and 20 weeks). By the longitudinal analysis of log-transformed values, this difference was a strong trend (P = 0.059; Fig. 2A). There were no differences in the adsorbed assay values (Fig. 2B). During treatment, IgM titers were generally higher in the GM-CSF arm (Fig. 2C). Both maximal IgM (GM-CSF 803 623 versus no GM-CSF 565 549; P = 0.015) and mean values at 8 weeks (GM-CSF 662 588 versus no GM-CSF 415 509; P = 0.047) were higher with GM-CSF. Using longitudinal analysis of the log-transformed values, comparison of all on-treatment IgM values showed a trend toward increase in the GM-CSF arm (P = 0.086).

Fig. 2.

Antibody response measures. A, mean titer of anti-TA90 IgG. B, mean titer of anti-TA90 IgG in the absence of adsorption with bovine serum albumin. C, mean titer of anti-TA90 IgM. D, mean measure (absorbance) of TA90-IgG immune complex. *, P < 0.05; **, P = 0.06, t test at each time point.

Fig. 2.

Antibody response measures. A, mean titer of anti-TA90 IgG. B, mean titer of anti-TA90 IgG in the absence of adsorption with bovine serum albumin. C, mean titer of anti-TA90 IgM. D, mean measure (absorbance) of TA90-IgG immune complex. *, P < 0.05; **, P = 0.06, t test at each time point.

Close modal

The TA90 immune complex assay showed the most marked difference between groups with a rapid and significant increase in TA90 immune complex levels by week 4, which persisted throughout the study period (overall mean GM-CSF 1.1 versus no GM-CSF 0.71; Fig. 2D). Longitudinal analysis showed the on-treatment comparison to be significant (P = 0.01).

Peripheral leukocyte counts

WBC counts and differentials were measured before each vaccine administration after the acute increase following GM-CSF dosing had abated. Hemoglobin and platelet counts were similar between groups throughout (data not shown). Total WBC and profiles were similar at baseline (P > 0.05 for all baseline values; Fig. 3). There was an increase in total WBC in the GM-CSF arm at weeks 2 and 8 and an increase in the non-GM-CSF arm at week 16 (P = 0.04) but no significant difference by longitudinal analysis (P = 0.23). There was an increase in mean absolute neutrophil count in the GM-CSF arm, which was most marked at week 2 (GM-CSF 4.8 versus no GM-CSF 3.1) but was not statistically significant (P = 0.19). Mean absolute lymphocyte counts were similar between arms (P = 0.59). The GM-CSF arm also had lower monocyte and higher eosinophil counts than the non-GM-CSF arm (P = 0.008 and 0.014, respectively). Basophil counts trended higher in the GM-CSF arm (P = 0.13).

Fig. 3.

Mean peripheral blood counts of each treatment arm at the indicated time points. *, P < 0.05; **, P = 0.06, t test at each time point.

Fig. 3.

Mean peripheral blood counts of each treatment arm at the indicated time points. *, P < 0.05; **, P = 0.06, t test at each time point.

Close modal

Adverse event profile

Adverse event profiles were similar between the two arms, although grade 1 or 2 fatigue and injection site reaction/pain were more common in the GM-CSF arm (Supplementary Table).

Survival

The study was not powered to definitively assess survival differences, but examination of these data revealed a surprising result. There was an excess of early recurrences and deaths in the GM-CSF arm resulting in a significantly decreased survival in that group when the results were analyzed at 2 years (P = 0.002). With longer follow-up, the curves have become closer and only a trend remains (P = 0.097; Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Kaplan-Meier plot of overall survival of the GM-CSF (black) and non-GM-CSF (gray) arms. Log-rank test showed a significant difference when examined at 2 y, but with additional follow-up, this difference is now a trend (P = 0.097).

Fig. 4.

Kaplan-Meier plot of overall survival of the GM-CSF (black) and non-GM-CSF (gray) arms. Log-rank test showed a significant difference when examined at 2 y, but with additional follow-up, this difference is now a trend (P = 0.097).

Close modal

GM-CSF has been explored as an adjuvant to numerous vaccines. Strategies include coadministration of recombinant GM-CSF and transfection of vaccine or bystander cells for in vivo cytokine production and are supported by preclinical studies showing improved immunogenicity and plausible biological mechanisms of antitumor activity (1,4).

Our data show effects of the cytokine on the immunologic milieu of the host including increased eosinophils and basophils and decreased monocytes in the peripheral blood. These changes were accompanied by enhanced humoral and diminished cellular responses, and both IgM and IgG seem to have been affected. These immune endpoints were accompanied by a troubling trend toward reduced survival in the GM-CSF arm. All of these findings are in keeping with the limited randomized clinical trial data preceding this report.

Randomized trials of GM-CSF have been conducted in noncancer vaccines, such as hepatitis B vaccination (12, 13). Consistent with our data, these studies showed enhanced humoral responses with the addition of GM-CSF.

In contrast to the infectious disease results, there are few published randomized studies of GM-CSF in cancer immunotherapy. Nonrandomized GM-CSF data have appeared promising in comparisons with historical controls (5), but this comparison has been questioned due to large potential confounders between the compared populations. Small trials have been reported but have not shown consistent immune or significant clinical effects (14,16). Hamid et al. performed a randomized, three-arm trial of peptide vaccination. Two arms received a sustained-release formulation of interleukin-12 and a third arm received soluble interleukin-12 and GM-CSF (17). They showed significantly increased cellular immune responses by DTH and ELISPOT in the arms not receiving GM-CSF. Interestingly, the risk of relapse was greatest in the GM-CSF arm as well, although not by a statistically significant amount. These immune and clinical differences were attributed to the interleukin-12 formulation rather than GM-CSF because there were no preclinical data supporting an adverse effect of GM-CSF.

Accrual to one large cooperative group randomized trial using GM-CSF and peptide vaccination has been completed, but final clinical results have not been reported.

Over the last several years, data have emerged to suggest potential mechanisms for an adverse effect of GM-CSF on tumor immunity. GM-CSF receptors are present in vascular endothelial cells, suggesting the possibility of facilitated tumor growth (18,20). Another potential mechanism is induction and activation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells. In mice, these cells are fairly well characterized as CD11b+GR1+. In humans, several candidate marker profiles have been identified including LineageHLA-DR, and CD11b+CD14CD15+ cells (21, 22). Such cells may produce immunosuppressive factors including transforming growth factor- and lead to activation of regulatory T cells. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells also appear to have a role in inducing vascular endothelial growth factor secretion, and this role depends at least in part on the presence of GM-CSF (23). Increases in myeloid-derived suppressor cells have been linked to diminished antimelanoma T-cell responses. The frequency of circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells correlates directly with stage in solid tumors and increases in the setting of GM-CSF treatment (24, 25). Together, these findings suggest a mechanism connecting GM-CSF with diminished DTH response and early recurrence.

GM-CSF dose appears to be critical in determining the immunologic effect. Several trials using lower doses of GM-CSF (<80 g/d) have shown improvements in immune T-lymphocyte responses (26,29), whereas higher dose trials have shown either no effect or a decreased response (29,33). As reviewed by Parmiani et al., the threshold for an adverse effect appears to be 100 g/d (29). Above this dose, myeloid-derived suppressor cells may be recruited in substantial numbers. Our trial, which was designed well before this potential adverse effect was known, used a dose well above the threshold, at 400 g/d (mean bovine serum albumin 1.97 m2). Route of administration and dose interval are also important in determining the area under the curve for GM-CSF plasma concentration, which can be variable even with consistent dosing (34). If future trials use GM-CSF, this important dose-response relationship needs to be taken into account.

Immunotherapy trials in the adjuvant setting have generally relied on surrogate immunologic endpoints including antibody titers, DTH skin testing, and in vitro cellular response assays. The antibody and DTH responses used here have been in use for many years and enjoy a high level of correlation to clinical outcomes (11, 35). Numerous phase II trials have shown not only an effect of vaccination on immune measures but also a correlation of immune response to survival. Such clinical correlation is relatively uncommon for surrogate endpoints, many of which have either mixed or no correlation with survival. However, despite this prior record, in this trial, a positive effect on one surrogate endpoint was accompanied by an increase in early recurrence and a concerning survival trend. This raises general questions about the interpretation of immunologic data and their use in directing development of immunotherapies. The current trial also suggests the utility of a functional cellular response assay, DTH, as an endpoint. Although this endpoint may be considered outdated, it is both in vivo and functional and has a well-established track record in experienced hands. Not only has DTH been correlated with survival, but also changes in DTH have now been correlated with changes in survival. This is the first report of a randomized trial showing such a linkage of immunologic and clinical endpoints with the addition of an immunomodulator. Alternative surrogate immune endpoints are certainly reasonable and necessary, but interpretation of such measures should be done cautiously.

D.L. Morton, ownership interest, CancerVax Corporation.

1
Dranoff
G
,
Jaffee
E
,
Lazenby
A
, et al
. 
Vaccination with irradiated tumor cells engineered to secrete murine granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor stimulates potent, specific, and long-lasting anti-tumor immunity
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1998
;
90
:
3539
43
.
2
Mach
N
,
Gillessen
S
,
Wilson
SB
, et al
. 
Differences in dendritic cells stimulated in vivo by tumors engineered to secrete granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor or Flt3-ligand
.
Cancer Res
2000
;
60
:
3239
46
.
3
Gillessen
S
,
Naumov
YN
,
Nieuwenhuis
EE
, et al
. 
CD1d-restricted T cells regulate dendritic cell function and antitumor immunity in a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-dependent fashion
.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
2003
;
100
:
8874
9
.
4
Fischer
HG
,
Frosch
S
,
Reske
K
, et al
. 
Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor activates macrophages derived from bone marrow cultures to synthesis of MHC class II molecules and to augmented antigen presentation function
.
J Immunol
1988
;
141
:
3882
8
.
5
Spitler
LE
,
Grossbard
ML
,
Ernstoff
MS
, et al
. 
Adjuvant therapy of stage III and IV malignant melanoma using granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
.
J Clin Oncol
2000
;
18
:
1614
21
.
6
Hsueh
E
,
Essner
R
,
Foshag
L
, et al
. 
Active specific immunotherapy of melanoma with a polyvalent vaccine and recombinant human GM-CSF: an immunogenicity study
.
Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol
2003
;
22
:
176
.
7
Morton
D
,
Barth
A
. 
Vaccine therapy for malignant melanoma
.
CA Cancer J Clin
1996
;
46
:
225
44
.
8
Morton
D
,
Foshag
L
,
Hoon
D
, et al
. 
Prolongation of survival in metastatic melanoma after active specific immunotherapy with a new polyvalent melanoma vaccine
.
Ann Surg
1992
;
216
:
463
482
.
9
Gupta
R
,
Morton
D
. 
Monoclonal antibody-based ELISA to detect glycoprotein tumor-associated-antigen-specific immune complexes in cancer
.
J Clin Lab Anal
1992
;
6
:
329
336
.
10
Euhus
DM
,
Gupta
RK
,
Morton
DL
. 
Induction of antibodies to a tumor-associated antigen by immunization with a whole melanoma cell vaccine
.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
1989
;
29
:
247
54
.
11
Hsueh
E
,
Gupta
R
,
Qi
K
, et al
. 
Correlation of specific immune responses with survival in melanoma patients with distant metastases receiving polyvalent melanoma cell vaccine
.
J Clin Oncol
1998
;
16
:
2913
20
.
12
Yagci
M
,
Acar
K
,
Sucak
GT
, et al
. 
Hepatitis B virus vaccine in lymphoproliferative disorders: a prospective randomized study evaluating the efficacy of granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor as a vaccine adjuvant
.
Eur J Haematol
2007
;
79
:
292
6
.
13
Anandh
U
,
Bastani
B
,
Ballal
S
. 
Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor as an adjuvant to hepatitis B vaccination in maintenance hemodialysis patients
.
Am J Nephrol
2000
;
20
:
53
6
.
14
Celis
E
. 
Overlapping human leukocyte antigen class I/II binding peptide vaccine for the treatment of patients with stage IV melanoma: evidence of systemic immune dysfunction
.
Cancer
2007
;
110
:
203
14
.
15
Marshall
JL
,
Gulley
JL
,
Arlen
PM
, et al
. 
Phase I study of sequential vaccinations with fowlpox-CEA(6D)-TRICOM alone and sequentially with vaccinia-CEA(6D)-TRICOM, with and without granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor, in patients with carcinoembryonic antigen-expressing carcinomas
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
720
31
.
16
Slingluff
CL,
 Jr.
,
Petroni
GR
,
Yamshchikov
GV
, et al
. 
Clinical and immunologic results of a randomized phase II trial of vaccination using four melanoma peptides either administered in granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in adjuvant or pulsed on dendritic cells
.
J Clin Oncol
2003
;
21
:
4016
26
.
17
Hamid
O
,
Solomon
JC
,
Scotland
R
, et al
. 
Alum with interleukin-12 augments immunity to a melanoma peptide vaccine: correlation with time to relapse in patients with resected high-risk disease
.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
;
13
:
215
22
.
18
Mattei
S
,
Colombo
MP
,
Melani
C
, et al
. 
Expression of cytokine/growth factors and their receptors in human melanoma and melanocytes
.
Int J Cancer
1994
;
56
:
853
7
.
19
Gasson
JC
. 
Molecular physiology of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
.
Blood
1991
;
77
:
1131
45
.
20
Baldwin
GC
,
Golde
DW
,
Widhopf
GF
, et al
. 
Identification and characterization of a low-affinity granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor on primary and cultured human melanoma cells
.
Blood
1991
;
78
:
609
15
.
21
Serafini
P
,
De Santo
C
,
Marigo
I
, et al
. 
Derangement of immune responses by myeloid suppressor cells
.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
2004
;
53
:
64
72
.
22
Kusmartsev
S
,
Gabrilovich
DI
. 
Role of immature myeloid cells in mechanisms of immune evasion in cancer
.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
2006
;
55
:
237
45
.
23
Larrivee
B
,
Pollet
I
,
Karsan
A
. 
Activation of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 in bone marrow leads to accumulation of myeloid cells: role of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor
.
J Immunol
2005
;
175
:
3015
24
.
24
Diaz-Montero
CM
,
Salem
ML
,
Nishimura
MI
, et al
. 
Increased circulating myeloid-derived suppressor cells correlate with clinical cancer stage, metastatic tumor burden, and doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy
.
Cancer Immunol Immunother
2009
;
58
:
49
59
.
25
Serafini
P
,
Carbley
R
,
Noonan
KA
, et al
. 
High-dose granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-producing vaccines impair the immune response through the recruitment of myeloid suppressor cells
.
Cancer Res
2004
;
64
:
6337
43
.
26
Jager
E
,
Ringhoffer
M
,
Dienes
HP
, et al
. 
Granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor enhances immune responses to melanoma-associated peptides in vivo
.
Int J Cancer
1996
;
67
:
54
62
.
27
Scheibenbogen
C
,
Schmittel
A
,
Keilholz
U
, et al
. 
Phase 2 trial of vaccination with tyrosinase peptides and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor in patients with metastatic melanoma
.
J Immunother
2000
;
23
:
275
81
.
28
Ullenhag
GJ
,
Frodin
JE
,
Mosolits
S
, et al
. 
Immunization of colorectal carcinoma patients with a recombinant canarypox virus expressing the tumor antigen Ep-CAM/KSA (ALVAC-KSA) and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor induced a tumor-specific cellular immune response
.
Clin Cancer Res
2003
;
9
:
2447
56
.
29
Parmiani
G
,
Castelli
C
,
Pilla
L
, et al
. 
Opposite immune functions of GM-CSF administered as vaccine adjuvant in cancer patients
.
Ann Oncol
2007
;
18
:
226
32
.
30
Dillman
R
,
Weimann
M
,
Nayak
S
, et al
. 
Interferon-gamma or granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor administered as adjuvants with a vaccine of irradiated autologous tumor cells from short-term cell line cultures: a randomized phase 2 trial of the Cancer Biotherapy Research Group
.
J Immunother
2003
;
26
:
367
73
.
31
Weber
J
,
Sondak
VK
,
Scotland
R
, et al
. 
Granulocyte-macrophage-colony-stimulating factor added to a multipeptide vaccine for resected stage II melanoma
.
Cancer
2003
;
97
:
186
200
.
32
Simmons
SJ
,
Tjoa
BA
,
Rogers
M
, et al
. 
GM-CSF as a systemic adjuvant in a phase II prostate cancer vaccine trial
.
Prostate
1999
;
39
:
291
7
.
33
Belli
F
,
Testori
A
,
Rivoltini
L
, et al
. 
Vaccination of metastatic melanoma patients with autologous tumor-derived heat shock protein gp96-peptide complexes: clinical and immunologic findings
.
J Clin Oncol
2002
;
20
:
4169
80
.
34
Hewitt
RG
,
Morse
GD
,
Lawrence
WD
, et al
. 
Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor and zidovudine in patients with AIDS and severe AIDS-related complex
.
Antimicrob Agents Chemother
1993
;
37
:
512
22
.
35
Hsueh
E
,
Essner
R
,
Foshag
L
, et al
. 
Prolonged survival after complete resection of disseminated melanoma and active immunotherapy with a therapeutic cancer vaccine
.
J Clin Oncol
2002
;
20
:
4549
54
.

Competing Interests

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Supplementary data