Value of large scale expansion of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in a compartmentalised gas-permeable bag: interests for adoptive immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) has emerged as an effective treatment for patients with metastatic melanoma. However, there are several logistical and safety concerns associated with large-scale ex vivo expansion of tumour-specific T lymphocytes for widespread availability of ACT for cancer patients. To address these problems we developed a specific compartmentalised bag allowing efficient expansion of tumour-specific T lymphocytes in an easy handling, closed system. METHODS: Starting from lymph nodes from eight melanoma patients, we performed a side-by-side comparison of Tumour-Infiltrating Lymphocytes (TIL) produced after expansion in the compartmentalised bag versus TIL produced using the standard process in plates. Proliferation yield, viability, phenotype and IFNγ secretion were comparatively studied. RESULTS: We found no differences in proliferation yield and cell viability between both TIL production systems. Moreover, each of the cell products complied with our defined release criteria before being administered to the patient. The phenotype analysis indicated that the compartmentalised bag favours the expansion of CD8+ cells. Finally, we found that TIL stimulated in bags were enriched in reactive CD8+ T cells when co-cultured with the autologous melanoma cell line. CONCLUSIONS: The stimulation of TIL with feeder cells in the specifically designed compartmentalised bag can advantageously replace the conventional protocol using plates. In particular, the higher expansion rate of reactive CD8+ T cells could have a significant impact for ACT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".