Potency analysis of cellular therapies: the emerging role of molecular assays

Potency testing is an important part of the evaluation of cellular therapy products. Potency assays are quantitative measures of a product-specific biological activity that is linked to a relevant biological property and, ideally, a product's in vivo mechanism of action. Both in vivo and in vitro assays can be used for potency testing. Since there is often a limited period of time between the completion of production and the release from the laboratory for administration to the patient, in vitro assays such are flow cytometry, ELISA, and cytotoxicity are typically used. Better potency assays are needed to assess the complex and multiple functions of cellular therapy products, some of which are not well understood. Gene expression profiling using microarray technology has been widely and effectively used to assess changes of cells in response to stimuli and to classify cancers. Preliminary studies have shown that the expression of noncoding microRNA which play an important role in cellular development, differentiation, metabolism and signal transduction can distinguish different types of stem cells and leukocytes. Both gene and microRNA expression profiling have the potential to be important tools for testing the potency of cellular therapies. Potency testing, the complexities associated with potency testing of cellular therapies, and the potential role of gene and microRNA expression microarrays in potency testing of cellular therapies is discussed

The immunologic constant of rejection classification refines the prognostic value of conventional prognostic signatures in breast cancer

BACKGROUND: The immunologic constant of rejection (ICR) is a broad phenomenon of Th-1 immunity-mediated, tissue-specific destruction. METHODS: We tested the prognostic value of a 20-gene ICR expression signature in 8766 early breast cancers. RESULTS: Thirty-three percent of tumours were ICR1, 29% ICR2, 23% ICR3, and 15% ICR4. In univariate analysis, ICR4 was associated with a 36% reduction in risk of metastatic relapse when compared with ICR1-3 (p = 2.30E-03). In multivariate analysis including notably the three major prognostic signatures (Recurrence score, 70-gene signature, ROR-P), ICR was the strongest predictive variable (p = 9.80E-04). ICR showed no prognostic value in the HR+/HER2-subtype, but prognostic value in the HER2+ and TN subtypes. Furthermore, in each molecular subtype and among the tumours defined as high risk by the three prognostic signatures, ICR4 patients had a 41-75% reduction in risk of relapse as compared with ICR1-3 patients. ICR added significant prognostic information to that provided by the clinico-genomic models in the overall population and in each molecular subtype. ICR4 was independently associated with achievement of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 2.97E-04). CONCLUSION: ICR signature adds prognostic information to that of current proliferation-based signatures, with which it could be integrated to improve patients' stratification and guide adjuvant treatment