Eradication of metastases by tumoricidal macrophages: therapeutic implications

  • I. J. Fidler
Part of the Developments in Oncology book series (DION, volume 7)


Improved patient care and innovative surgical techniques have led to increasingly effective treatment of primary neoplasms. The principal cause of death from cancer, however, is the growth of metastases. The cure rate for metastasis has not improved as rapidly as that for primary neoplasms. There are several reasons for the failure to treat metastases by direct or adjuvant therapeutic modalities. First, at the time of surgery, metastases may be too small to be detected and already may be disseminated widely throughout the body. Second, even when metastases are discerned, the location of the metastases may limit the effective dose of therapeutic agents that can be delivered to their vicinity. Third, and most important, however, metastases are heterogeneous in their response to therapeutic agents, and metastases may emerge that are resistant to conventional therapy [1–7].


Muramyl Dipeptide Baby Hamster Kidney Cell Syngeneic Tumor Macrophage Content Murine Fibrosarcoma 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Fidler IJ, Gersten DM, Hart IR: The biology of cancer invasion and metastasis. Adv Cancer Res 28:149–250, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sugarbaker EV: Cancer metastasis: a product of tumor-host interactions. Curr Probl Cancer 7:3–59, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poste G, Fidler IJ: The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis. Nature 283:139–146, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fidler IJ: Tumor heterogeneity and the biology of cancer invasion and metastasis. Cancer Res 37:2481–2486, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fidler IJ, Cifone MA: Properties of metastatic and nonmetastatic cloned subpopulations of an ultraviolet light-induced murine fibrosarcoma of recent origin. Am J Pathol 97:633–648, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fidler IJ, Kripke ML: Metastasis results from preexisting variant cells within a malignant tumor. Science 197:893–895, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fidler IJ, Kripke ML: Biological variability within murine neoplasms. Antibiot Chemother 28: 123–129, 1980.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hart IR, Fidler IJ: The implications of tumor heterogeneity for studies on the biology and therapy of cancer metastasis. Biochem Biophys Acta 651:37–50, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brennan MJ, Donegan WL, Appleby DE: The variability of estrogen receptors in metastatic breast cancer. Am J Surg 137:260–262, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baylin SB, Weisburger WR, Eggleston JC, Mendelsohn G, Beaven MA, Abeloff MD, Ettinger DS: Variable content of histamine, L-dopa decarboxylase and calcitonin in small-cell carcinoma of the lung. Biologic and clinical implications. N Engl J Med 299:105–110, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barranco SC, Haenelt BR, Gee EL: Differential sensitivities of five rat hepatoma cell lines to anticancer drugs. Cancer Res 38:656–660, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hakansson L, Trope C: On the presence within tumors of clones that differ in sensitivity to cytostatic drugs. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand [A] 82:35–40, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heppner GH, Dexter DL, DeNucci T, Miller FR, Calabresi P: Heterogeneity in drug sensitivity among tumor cell subpopulations of a single mammary tumor. Cancer Res 38:3758–3763, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lotan R: Different susceptibilities of human melanoma and breast carcinoma cell lines to retinoic acid-induced growth inhibition. Cancer Res 39:1014–1019, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trope, C: Different susceptibilities of tumor cell subpopulations to cytotoxic agents. In: Design of models for testing cancer therapeutic agents, Fidler IJ, White RJ (eds). New York: Van Nostrand, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trope C, Hakansson L, Dencker H: Heterogeneity of human adenocarcinomas of the colon and the stomach as regards sensitivity to cytostatic drugs. Neoplasma (Bratislava) 22:423–430, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trope C, Aspegren K, Kullander S, Astedt B: Heterogeneous response of disseminated human ovarian cancers to cytostasis in vitro. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 58:543–546, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baylin SB: Clonal selection and heterogeneity of human solid neoplasms. In: Design of models for testing cancer therapeutic agents, Fidler IJ, White RJ (eds). New York: Van Nostrand, 1982.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fidler IJ, Kripke ML: Tumor cell antigenicity, host immunity and cancer metastasis. Cancer Immunol Immunother 7:201–205, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kerbel RS: Implications of immunological heterogeneity of tumours. Nature 280:358–360, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Killion JJ, Kollmorgen GM: Isolation of immunogenic tumor cells by cell-affinity chromatography. Nature 259:674–676, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prehn RT: Analysis of antigenic heterogeneity within individual 3-methylcholanthrene-induced mouse sarcomas. J Natl Cancer Inst 45:1039–1045, 1970.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heppner GH: The challenge of tumor heterogeneity. In: Commentaries on research in breast disease, Bulbrook RD, Taylor DJ (eds). New York: Alan R. Liss. 1979.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olsson L, Ebbesen P: Natural polyclonality of spontaneous AKR leukemia and its consequence for so-called specific immunotherapy. JNCI 62:623–627, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Day AJ: The macrophage system, lipid metabolism and atherosclerosis. J Atherosclerosis Res 4:117–131, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    MacDonald RA, MacSween RNM, Pechet GS: Iron metabolism by reticuloendothelial cells in vitro. Physical and chemical conditions, lipotrope deficiency, and acute inflammation. Lab Inves 21: 236–241, 1969.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tompkins EH: Reaction of the reticuloendothelial cells to subcutaneous injections of cholesterol. Arch Pathol 42:299–302, 1946.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hibbs JB, Jr, Lambert LH, Jr, Remington JS: Control of carcinogenesis: a possible role for the activated macrophage. Science 177:998–1000, 1972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mackaness GB: The influence of immunologically committed lymphoid cells on macrophage activity in vivo. J Exp Med 129:973–982, 1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Granger GA, Weiser RS: Homograft target cells: specific destruction in vitro by contact interaction with immune macrophages. Science 145:1427–1429, 1964.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Churchill WH, Jr, Piessens WF, Sulis CA, David JR: Macrophages activated as suspension cultures with lymphocyte mediators devoid of antigen become cytotoxic for tumor cells. J Immunol 115: 781–790, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Evans R, Alexander P: Role of macrophages in tumor immunity. I. Cooperation between macrophages and lymphoid cells in syngeneic tumor immunity. Immunology 23:615–620, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hibbs JB, Jr: Discrimination between neoplastic and non-neoplastic cells in vitro by activated macrophages. J Natl Cancer Inst 53:1487–1492, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kaplan AM, Morahan PS, Regelson W: Induction of macrophage-mediated tumor-cell cytotoxicity by pyran copolymer. J Natl Cancer Inst 52:1919–1927, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fidler IJ: Activation in vitro of mouse macrophages by syngeneic, allogeneic, or xenogeneic lymphocyte supernatants. J Natl Cancer Inst 55:1159–1163, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fidler IJ: Recognition and destruction of target cells by tumoricidal macrophages. Isr J Med 14:177–191, 1978.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lederer E: Synthetic immunostimulants derived from the bacteriol cell wall. J Med Chem 23:819–825, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chedid L, Carelli L, Audibert F: Recent developments concerning muramyl dipeptide, a synthetic immunoregulating molecule. J Reticuloendothel Soc 26:631–641, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matter A: The effects of muramyl dipeptide (MDP) in cell-mediated immunity. A comparison between in vitro and in vivo systems. Cancer Immunol Immunother 6:201–210, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parant M, Parant F, Chedid L, Yapo A, Petit JF, Lederer E: Fate of the synthetic immunoadjuvant, muramyl dipeptide (14C-labelled) in the mouse. Int J Immunopharmacol 1:35–41, 1979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    David JR: Macrophage activation by lymphocyte mediators. Fed Proc 34:1730–1736, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fidler IJ, Darnell JH, Budmen MB: Tumoricidal properties of mouse macrophages activated with mediators from rat lymphocytes stimulated with concanavalin A. Cancer Res 36:3608–3615, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fidler IJ, Raz A: The induction of tumoricidal capacities in mouse and rat macrophages by lymphokines. In: Lymphokine reports, Pick E (ed). New York: Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Poste G, Kirsh R, Fogler W, Fidler IJ: Activation of tumoricidal properties in mouse macrophages by lymphokines encapsulated in liposomes. Cancer Res 39:881–892, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sone S, Poste G, Fidler IJ: Rat alveolar macrophages are susceptible to free and liposomeencapsulated lymphokines. J Immunol 124:2197–2202, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sone S, Fidler IJ: In vitro activation of tumoricidal properties in rat alveolar macrophages by synthetic muramyl dipeptide encapsulated in liposomes. Cell Immunol 57:42–50, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hart IR, Fidler IJ: The colLection, purificaton and characterization of canine peripheral blood monocytes. J Reticuloendothel Soc 26:121–133, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kripke ML, Gruys E, Fidler IJ: Metastatic heterogeneity of cells from an ultraviolet lightinduced murine fibrosarcoma of recent origin. Cancer Res 38:2962–2967, 1978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Fider IJ, Roblin RO, Poste G: In vitro tumoricidal activity of macrophages against virustransformed lines with temperature-dependent transformed phenotypic characteristics. Cell Immunol38: 131–146, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sadler TE, Jones PDE, Castro JE: The effects of altered phagocytic activity on growth of primary and metastatic tumour. In: The macrophage and cancer, James K, McBride B, Stuart A (eds). Edinburgh: Econoprint, 1977, pp 155–163.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jones PDE, Castro JE: Immunological mechanisms in metastatic spread and the antimetastatic effects of C. parvum. Br J Cancer 35:519, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Mantovani A, Giavazzi R, Polentarutti N, Spreafico F, Gavattini S: Divergent effects of macrophage toxins on growth of primary tumors and lung metastases in mice. Int J Cancer 25:617, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fidler IJ: Inhibition of pulmonary metastasis by intravenous injection of specifically activated macrophages. Cancer Res 34:1074–1078, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Liotta LA, Gattozzi C, Kleinerman J, Saidel G: Reduction of tumor cell entry into vessels by BCG-activated macrophages. Br J Cancer 36:639–641, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fidler IJ, Fogler WE, Connor J: The rationale for the treatment of established experimental micrometastases with the injection of tumoricidal macrophages. In: Immunobiology and immunotherapy of cancer, Terry WD, Yamamura Y (eds). New York: Elsevier, 1979, pp 361–375.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Den Otter W, Dullens Hub FJ, Van Lovern H, Pels E: Anti-tumor effects of macrophages injected into animals: a review. In: The macrophage and cancer, James K, McBride B, Stuart A (eds). Edinburgh: Econoprint, 1977, pp 119–141.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mantovani A: Effects on in vitro tumor growth of murine macrophages isolated from sarcoma lines differing in immunogenicity and metastasizing capacity. Int J Cancer 22:741–747, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Russell SW, Mcintosh AT: Macrophages isolated from regressing Moloney sarcomas are more cytotoxic than those recovered from progressing sarcomas. Nature 268:69–71, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Evans R: Tumor macrophages in host immunity to malignancies. In: The macrophage in neoplasia, Fink MA (ed). New York: Academic Press, 1976, pp 27–42.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Eccles SA: Macrophages and cancer. In: Immunological aspects of cancer, Castro JE (ed). Lancaster, England: MTP Press, 1978, pp 123–154.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Eccles SA, Alexander P: Macrophage content of tumors in relationship to metastatic spread. Nature 250:667–669, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Talmadge JE, Key M, Fidler IJ: Macrophage content of metastatic and nonmetastatic rodent neoplasms. J Immunol 126:2245–2248. 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Evans R, Lawler EM: Macrophage content and immunogenicity of C57BL/6J and BALB/cByJ methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas. Int J Cancer 26:831–835, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kerbel RS, Twiddy RR: Host cell analysis of a rapidly metastasizing mouse tumor and derived low metastatic variant lines. In: Contemporary topics in immunology, Witz IP, Hanna MG, Jr (eds). New York: Plenum Press, 1980, pp 239–254.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Blarney RW, Crosby DL, Baker JM: Reticuloendothelial activity during the growth of rat sarcomas. Cancer Res 29:335–337, 1969.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Old LJ, Clarke DA, Benacerraf B, Goldsmith M: The reticuloendothelial system and the neoplastic process. Science 88:264–280, 1960.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Rhodes J: Altered expression of human monocyte Fc receptors in malignant disease. Nature 265:253–255, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rhodes J: Resistance of tumor cells to macrophages. Cancer Immunol Immunother 7:211–215, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bernstein ID, Zbar B, Rapp HJ: Impaired inflammatory response in tumor-bearing guinea pigs. J Natl Cancer Inst 49:1641–1647, 1972.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Eccles SA, Alexander P: Sequestration of macrophages in growing tumors and its effect on the immunological capacity of the host. Br J Cancer 30:42–49, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Meltzer MS, Stevenson MM: Macrophage function in tumor-bearing mice: tumoricidal and chemotactic response of macrophages activated by infection with Mycobacterium bovis, strain BCG. J Immunol 118:2176–2181, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Meltzer MS, Stevenson MM: Macrophage function in tumor-bearing mice: dissociation of phagocytic and chemotactic responsiveness. Cell Immunol 35:99–111, 1978.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Normann SJ, Sorkin E: Cell-specific defect in monocyte function during tumor growth. J Natl Cancer Inst 57:135–140, 1976.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Snyderman R, Pike MC, Blaylock BL, Weinstein P: Effect of neoplasms on inflammation: depression of macrophage accumulation after tumor implantation. J Immunol 116:585–589, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sone S, Fidler IJ: Activation of rat alveolar macrophages to the tumoricidal state in the presence of progressively growing pulmonary metastases. Cancer Res 41:2401–2406, 1981.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kripke ML, Budmen HB, Fidler IJ: Production of specific macrophageactivating factor by lymphocytes from tumor-bearing mice. Cell Immunol 30:341–352, 1977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Papermaster BW, Holtermann OA, Rosner D, Klein E, Dao T, Djerassi I: Regressions produced in breast cancer lesions by a lymphokine fraction from a human lymphoid cell line. Res Commun Chem Pathol Pharmacol 8:413–428, 1974.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Salvin SB, Youngner JS, Nishio J, Neta R: Tumor suppression by a lymphokine released into the circulation of mice with delayed hypersensitivity. J Natl Cancer Inst 55:1233–1236, 1975.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Poste G, Kirsh R: Rapid decay of tumoricidal activity and loss of responsiveness to lym-phokines in inflammatory macrophage. Cancer Res 39:2582–2590, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Allison AC: Model of action of immunological adjuvants. J Reticuloendothel Soc 26:619–630, 1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Sone S, Fidler IJ: Synergistic activation by lymphokines and muramyl dipeptide of tumoricidal properties in rat alveolar macrophages. J Immunol 125:2454–2460, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Poste G, Papahadjopoulos D: Lipid vesicles as a carrier for introducing materials into culture cells: influence of vesicle lipid composition on mechanism(s) of vesicle incorporation into cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73:1603–1607, 1976.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kimelberg HK, Mayhew EG: Properties and biological effects of liposomes and their uses in pharmacology and toxicology. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol 9:25–44, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Allison AC, Gregoriadis G: Liposomes as immunological adjuvants. Nature 252:252–254, 1974.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Fidler IJ, Raz A, Fogler WE, Kirsh R, Bugelski P, Poste G: The design of liposomes to improve delivery of macrophage-augmenting agents to alveolar macrophages. Cancer Res 40:4460–4466, 1980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Fidler IJ: Therapy of spontaneous metastases by intravenous injection of liposomes containing lymphokines. Science 208:1469–1471, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Fidler IJ, Sone S, Fogler WE, Barnes ZL: Eradication of spontaneous metastases and activation of alveolar macrophages by intravenous injection of liposomes containing muramyl dipeptide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 78:1680–1684, 1981.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Hart IR, Fogler WE, Poste G, Fidler IJ: Toxicity studies of liposome-encapsulated immunomodulators administered intravenously into dogs and mice. Cancer Immunol Immunother 10:157–166, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Griswold DP, Jr: Consideration of the subcutaneously implanted B16 melanoma as a screening model for potential anticancer agents. Cancer Chemother Rep 3:315–323, 1972.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Schabel FM, Jr, Griswold DR, Jr, Corbett TH, Lloyd HH: Quantitative evaluation of anticancer agent activity in experimental animals. Pharmacol Ther [A] 1:411–435, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague/Boston/London 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. J. Fidler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations