PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Peter M Carlson
AU  - Manasi Mohan
AU  - Matthew Rodriguez
AU  - Vladimir Subbotin
AU  - Claire X Sun
AU  - Ravi B Patel
AU  - Jen Birstler
AU  - Jacquelyn A Hank
AU  - Alexander L Rakhmilevich
AU  - Zachary S Morris
AU  - Amy K Erbe
AU  - Paul M Sondel
TI  - Depth of tumor implantation affects response to in situ vaccination in a syngeneic murine melanoma model
AID  - 10.1136/jitc-2020-002107
DP  - 2021 Apr 01
TA  - Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
PG  - e002107
VI  - 9
IP  - 4
4099  - http://jitc.bmj.com/content/9/4/e002107.short
4100  - http://jitc.bmj.com/content/9/4/e002107.full
SO  - J Immunother Cancer2021 Apr 01; 9
AB  - An important component of research using animal models is ensuring rigor and reproducibility. This study was prompted after two experimenters performing virtually identical studies obtained different results when syngeneic B78 murine melanoma cells were implanted into the skin overlying the flank and treated with an in situ vaccine (ISV) immunotherapy. Although both experimenters thought they were using identical technique, we determined that one was implanting the tumors intradermally (ID) and the other was implanting them subcutaneously (SC). Though the baseline in vivo immunogenicity of tumors can depend on depth of their implantation, the response to immunotherapy as a function of tumor depth, particularly in immunologically ‘cold’ tumors, has not been well studied. The goal of this study was to evaluate the difference in growth kinetics and response to immunotherapy between identically sized melanoma tumors following ID versus SC implantation. We injected C57BL/6 mice with syngeneic B78 melanoma cells either ID or SC in the flank. When tumors reached 190–230 mm3, they were grouped into a ‘wave’ and treated with our previously published ISV regimen (12 Gy local external beam radiation and intratumoral hu14.18-IL2 immunocytokine). Physical examination demonstrated that ID-implanted tumors were mobile on palpation, while SC-implanted tumors became fixed to the underlying fascia. Histologic examination identified a critical fascial layer, the panniculus carnosus, which separated ID and SC tumors. SC tumors reached the target tumor volume significantly faster compared with ID tumors. Most ID tumors exhibited either partial or complete response to this immunotherapy, whereas most SC tumors did not. Further, the ‘mobile’ or ‘fixed’ phenotype of tumors predicted response to therapy, regardless of intended implantation depth. These findings were then extended to additional immunotherapy regimens in four separate tumor models. These data indicate that the physical ‘fixed’ versus ‘mobile’ characterization of the tumors may be one simple method of ensuring homogeneity among implanted tumors prior to initiation of treatment. Overall, this short report demonstrates that small differences in depth of tumor implantation can translate to differences in response to immunotherapy, and proposes a simple physical examination technique to ensure consistent tumor depth when conducting implantable tumor immunotherapy experiments.Data are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, PMS.