Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Immunology
  • Other Publications
    • American Association of Immunologists
    • ImmunoHorizons
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
The Journal of Immunology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Next in The JI
    • Archive
    • Brief Reviews
    • Pillars of Immunology
    • Translating Immunology
    • Most Read
    • Top Downloads
    • Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • COVID-19/SARS/MERS Articles
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • For Authors
    • Journal Policies
    • Influence Statement
    • For Advertisers
  • Editors
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Journal Policies
  • Subscribe
    • Journal Subscriptions
    • Email Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
    • ImmunoCasts
  • More
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • ImmunoCasts
    • AAI Disclaimer
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on Twitter
  • Follow The Journal of Immunology on RSS

From Cancer Immune Surveillance to Cancer Immunoediting: Birth of Modern Immuno-Oncology

Wolf H. Fridman
J Immunol August 1, 2018, 201 (3) 825-826; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1800827
Wolf H. Fridman
Université Paris Descartes, 75006 Paris, France; INSERM UMR_S1138, Centre de Recherche des Cordeliers, 75006 Paris, France; Sorbonne Université, 75006 Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

We were at the dawn of the millennium. Cancer science was dominated by genomic studies that established that the disease results from modifications of genes in somatic cells by mutations, amplifications, or deletions, allowing limitless replication of the transformed cells. Identification of mutations in driver oncogenes or tumor-suppressor genes, and of the signaling pathways they dominate, had strongly impacted cancer management as they guided the development of targeted chemotherapies aimed to selectively interfere with cancer cell–specific biology. The role of tumor-induced angiogenesis was beginning to unravel, but the impact of patients’ immunity in controlling cancer growth and spread was largely ignored. Indeed, in a classical review published in 2000, D. Hanahan and R.A. Weinberg (1) highlighted six hallmarks of cancer but did not mention interactions of tumor cells with the host immune system.

At that time, cancer immunology was not seriously considered, and when it was, it had a rather bad reputation. However, cancer immunologists had provided insights all along the 20th century both through clinical observations and experimental data. On clinical grounds, W.B. Coley (2) had observed, as early as in 1891, that a patient with sarcoma presenting a strong postsurgery erysipelas infection due to Streptococcus pyogenes experienced a complete regression of his cancer. Coley hypothesized that the antitumor effect was due to the patient’s immune reaction and started to treat patients with live, and then killed, bacteria. It was quite toxic, but bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine is still being used as an adjuvant therapy for superficial bladder cancer. Moreover, the higher incidence of cancers in immunodepressed individuals could have been considered as evidence for immune control of cancers. However, because the malignancies were virally induced in the vast majority of cases, it was considered as proving, as was already known, that the immune system recognizes infectious pathogens and not tumor cells. The therapeutic successes of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in the treatment of hematological malignancies did not support that patients were able to recognize their own tumors because cells from a healthy individual, and not from the patient, were injected. That there was a possible immune reaction of patients against their malignant cells was, however, supported by reports, for example, in leukemia (3), or by the identification of melanoma-associated Ag, recognized by a patient’s T lymphocytes (4). Numerous mouse models have also shown that tumors could be specifically rejected and that they induced a memory immune response, but most models that used transplanted tumors and rejection were attributed to transplantation immunity rather than to tumor immunity. Nevertheless, a theory known as “cancer immune surveillance” was independently elaborated in the 1950s by M.F. Burnet (5) and L. Thomas (6). It proposed that the immune system could eliminate nascent tumor cells because the latter possess new Ags and provoke an immune reaction with regression of the tumor and no clinical hint of its existence. Again, opponents to the immune surveillance theory underlined the fact that it would be impossible to demonstrate that something that does not exist could have existed.

In a seminal study, the R.D. Schreiber’s group (7) succeeded in 2001 in establishing the foundations of modern immuno-oncology. First, they showed that chemically induced sarcoma grew better, and more rapidly, in immunoincompetent mice than in wild type animals because the former either lack lymphocytes, owing to the loss of the RAG gene or their inability to respond to IFN-γ because of the loss of the IFN-γ receptor gene, or STAT-1. Second, they demonstrated immune surveillance by showing that all mice with a RAG2 or double RAG2−/− STAT1−/− knockout spontaneously developed tumors. These tumors were not induced by viruses but resemble some of the major malignancies of humans, such as breast, lung, or colon. The authors then introduced a new concept of cancer immunoediting by the host immune system. They showed that 40% of chemically induced tumors from immunoincompetent mice were rejected when transplanted into immunocompetent hosts, whereas no rejection occurred when transplants were performed with tumors coming from syngeneic immunocompetent mice. This experiment clearly demonstrated that immunoediting had occurred in immunocompetent animals, even if they had been incapable of rejecting their own tumor, allowing their escape from immune control. Finally, the authors showed that tumor rejection was due to T cell–mediated immune responses, which were dependent on both CD4 and CD8 T cells. Tumor rejection was followed by immunological memory, and rejection of IFN-γ–insensitive tumors could be restored by transfection of MHC class I and TAP 1 genes.

This rather short manuscript thus contains all the demonstrations that establish immuno-oncology as a major partner of cancer biology and cancer therapy. It led to the elaboration by R.D. Schreiber and colleagues (8) of a novel theory for tumor immunity known as the “three E’s theory.” The theory proposed three steps: 1) elimination of tumors at an early stage (previously known as the immune surveillance hypothesis), 2) equilibrium when the immune system controls the tumor, and 3) escape when tumor cells are fully immunoedited and grow without immune control. The three E’s is still the theory accepted worldwide as the template to understand interactions of cancer cells with the host immune system. The theory also prompted clinical teams to demonstrate the generally favorable impact of intratumoral T cells on patient outcomes (9), providing strong prognostic markers and paving the way for the exploding field of immunotherapies (10). This groundbreaking work contributed to our understanding that mutations in cancer genomes impact immune responses (11), further linking genetics to immunity. It is therefore not exaggerated to state that the paper by Schreiber and colleagues (7) is the founding work of modern immuno-oncology, inspiring a whole generation of scientists and clinicians to conduct the therapeutic revolution (12) that we are witnessing in the field of cancer.

Disclosures

The author has no financial conflicts of interest.

  • Copyright © 2018 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Hanahan, D.,
    2. R. A. Weinberg
    . 2000. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100: 57–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Coley, W. B.
    1891. II. Contribution to the knowledge of sarcoma. Ann. Surg. 14: 199–220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Fridman, W. H.,
    2. F. M. Kourilsky
    . 1969. Stimulation of lymphocytes by autologous leukaemic cells in acute leukaemia. Nature 224: 277–279.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. van der Bruggen, P.,
    2. C. Traversari,
    3. P. Chomez,
    4. C. Lurquin,
    5. E. De Plaen,
    6. B. Van den Eynde,
    7. A. Knuth,
    8. T. Boon
    . 1991. A gene encoding an antigen recognized by cytolytic T lymphocytes on a human melanoma. Science 254: 1643–1647.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Burnet, M.
    1957. Cancer; a biological approach. I. The processes of control. Br. Med. J. 1: 779–786.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Thomas, L.
    1959. Discussion. In Cellular and Humoral Aspects of the Hypersensitive States. H. S. Lawrence, ed. Hoeber-Harper, New York, p. 529–532.
  7. ↵
    1. Shankaran, V.,
    2. H. Ikeda,
    3. A. T. Bruce,
    4. J. M. White,
    5. P. E. Swanson,
    6. L. J. Old,
    7. R. D. Schreiber
    . 2001. IFNγ and lymphocytes prevent primary tumour development and shape tumour immunogenicity. Nature 410: 1107–1111.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Dunn, G. P.,
    2. L. J. Old,
    3. R. D. Schreiber
    . 2004. The three Es of cancer immunoediting. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 22: 329–360.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Fridman, W. H.,
    2. F. Pagès,
    3. C. Sautès-Fridman,
    4. J. Galon
    . 2012. The immune contexture in human tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat. Rev. Cancer 12: 298–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Sharma, P.,
    2. J. P. Allison
    . 2015. The future of immune checkpoint therapy. Science 348: 56–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Schumacher, T. N.,
    2. R. D. Schreiber
    . 2015. Neoantigens in cancer immunotherapy. Science 348: 69–74.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Kelly, P. N.
    2018. The cancer immunotherapy revolution. Science 359: 1344–1345.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Immunology: 201 (3)
The Journal of Immunology
Vol. 201, Issue 3
1 Aug 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Immunology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
From Cancer Immune Surveillance to Cancer Immunoediting: Birth of Modern Immuno-Oncology
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Immunology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Immunology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
From Cancer Immune Surveillance to Cancer Immunoediting: Birth of Modern Immuno-Oncology
Wolf H. Fridman
The Journal of Immunology August 1, 2018, 201 (3) 825-826; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1800827

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
From Cancer Immune Surveillance to Cancer Immunoediting: Birth of Modern Immuno-Oncology
Wolf H. Fridman
The Journal of Immunology August 1, 2018, 201 (3) 825-826; DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1800827
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Conceiving the Inconceivable: The Function of Aire in Immune Tolerance to Peripheral Tissue-Restricted Antigens in the Thymus
  • Glial Cells as Regulators of Neuroimmune Interactions in the Central Nervous System
  • The Colon as a Major Site of Immunoregulation by CD4+ T Cell Subsets in the Steady State
Show more PILLARS OF IMMUNOLOGY

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Next in The JI
  • Archive
  • Brief Reviews
  • Pillars of Immunology
  • Translating Immunology

For Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Instructions for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Journal Policies
  • Editors

General Information

  • Advertisers
  • Subscribers
  • Rights and Permissions
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Public Access
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds
  • ImmunoCasts
  • Twitter

Copyright © 2021 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.

Print ISSN 0022-1767        Online ISSN 1550-6606